Superficial Love: Examining My Feelings

[Math Is Hard]

I meet a man at a party. He is drop-dead gorgeous and I have a very pleasant time chatting with him. I am head-over-heels in love with the guy. He asks me out on a date, and, of course, I go. After a few more dates, however, I discover he is really very self-absorbed and shallow. I decide that I must have loved him only superficially.

Trying my luck again, I meet a guy on the internet. He is wonderfully smart and funny, and after talking with him for some time we seem to be in agreement on many of our common values and interests. He seems to be the perfect person for me. I am, again, head-over-heels in love. However, when I finally meet him, I find him to be physically repulsive. I decide that I must have loved him only superficially.

Am I correct in both cases?

 

[franznietzsche]

Given that i still refuse to believe in love: yes.

Even if i did, i would still say yes though, so i guess that's not really relevant.

 

[Math Is Hard]

so can we break romantic attraction into two components? attraction to the physical person and attraction to the personality of the person? I think what I'd like to know and understand is -

is one of these more valuable than the other? And to what degree?

How much can we overlook (our perceived) physical shortcomings in a person we are compatible with, as opposed to what we could overlook in (our perceived) shortcomings of the personality in a person we are physically attracted to?

 

[Danger]

I made the same mistake a bunch of times (I mean my mistake, not that you're mistaken). Having never actually been in love, I mistook the combination of loving someone as a friend and being physically attracted to be romantic. It turned out not to be. I still love all of those women, and I'd jump anyone (or group) of them given half a chance, but I'm not and never was in love with them.

 

[Math Is Hard]

It seems to me you only have two choices with a lover. You can close your eyes and pretend they're beautiful, or you can close your ears and pretend they're interesting.

Of course, this whole topic is about being superficial and perhaps that's what best describes me.

 

[franznietzsche]

so can we break romantic attraction into two components? attraction to the physical person and attraction to the personality of the person? I think what I'd like to know and understand is -

is one of these more valuable than the other? And to what degree?

How much can we overlook (our perceived) physical shortcomings in a person we are compatible with, as opposed to what we could overlook in (our perceived) shortcomings of the personality in a person we are physically attracted to?

As far as I'm concerned, without both its a waste of time. If the person is only attractive, but uninteresting, its just sex. if they're interesting but unattractive, they're just friends. Combinations seem to be rare.

It seems to me you only have two choices with a lover. You can close your eyes and pretend they're beautiful, or you can close your ears and pretend they're interesting.

Yeah, basically.

This is the dilemma me and motai are always complaining about.

 

[Danger]

It seems to me you only have two choices with a lover. You can close your eyes and pretend they're beautiful, or you can close your ears and pretend they're interesting.

Not necessarily. It took me a long time to find the ex-from-hell. She was beautiful, very sharp, great sense of humour. It was only her decision to remain with her husband that messed it up. When she left him, she never came near me until she was in another relationship because she was afraid that I wouldn't take her back, and wanted to be covered already. Despite her being Welsh, I would have scooped her back in a flash.
On the other hand, you must occassionally say 'what the hell' and go for a 2-bagger. It depends upon which particular hormones have the upper hand at the time.

 

[brewnog]

A 2-bagger?


I've got a lot to learn from you, Uncle Danger.

 

[Math Is Hard]

You guys are being awfully nice to indulge one of my rare cynical moods.

I think I am just feeling dissapointed for a friend of mine. He met this woman on the internet and they had this online courtship that went on for months and months. He was sure that he had found real love because they weren't basing their feelings for each other on physical attraction.

He flew out to Florida to meet her and was planning on staying a week. He was back in two days.

Despite her being Welsh, I would have scooped her back in a flash.

What's the problem with Welsh gals?

 

[brewnog]

What's the problem with Welsh gals?

She was alright until she met Danger.

 

[JasonRox]

It seems to me you only have two choices with a lover. You can close your eyes and pretend they're beautiful, or you can close your ears and pretend they're interesting.

Of course, this whole topic is about being superficial and perhaps that's what best describes me.

That is not always the case.

My girlfriend is interesting and beautiful, so I'm not covering my ears or eyes.

I think those who seek love online have bigger issues to face than whether or not the other is attractive. Me and my girlfriend avoid talking on MSN because it's not entirely YOU. For this reason alone, I don't find it surprising that the friend of Math_Is_Hard came back a little early. Let me just say, LOL is over used and makes everyone online sound/look humorous.

 

[hypatia]

I believe in love. And when you really fall in love, it won't matter what they look like. Love goes much deeper then that. I believe in lust also, and there's a big difference between the two.
I once lusted after someones personality. I adored the way they thought, spoke,manors ect. But I never fell in love with him.

 

[Soilwork]

Please don't take this the wrong way, but I think that love is a term that's being used pretty loosely here.
You are mistaking love for plain attraction.
Attraction is the stage where the person has potential to be the 'one' so to speak.
You can be attracted to someones personality or their looks at the beginning, but in the end you have to get to know them before you can decide if you love them.
The chances of finding someone who has a great personality and who is gorgeous are very low...but possible I guess.
There will always be a compromise.
I would probably say that the personality is the stronger of the two categories.
I say this because the physical appearance of the person is always the category that you compromise.
I mean there is a limit to this compromise. Obviously if the person has the looks of a baboon's arse then it's not going to work...unless you're a baboon ;)
Everyone substitutes the word "like" with the word "love".
As lame as it sounds, love is the strongest emotion we have.
When you are seriously in love it can severly debilitate you (if you break up) or it can make you feel like you're living on cloud nine.
It's the only emotion that has such an effect on your physical health.
Anyways those few muddled, repeated points are as good as it gets with me since my writing skills are pretty piss poor. :)
Later

 

[Clausius2]

I meet a man at a party. He is drop-dead gorgeous and I have a very pleasant time chatting with him. I am head-over-heels in love with the guy. He asks me out on a date, and, of course, I go. After a few more dates, however, I discover he is really very self-absorbed and shallow. I decide that I must have loved him only superficially.

Trying my luck again, I meet a guy on the internet. He is wonderfully smart and funny, and after talking with him for some time we seem to be in agreement on many of our common values and interests. He seems to be the perfect person for me. I am, again, head-over-heels in love. However, when I finally meet him, I find him to be physically repulsive. I decide that I must have loved him only superficially.

Am I correct in both cases?

I never thought woman could be in love only superficially (except some schoolgirls). I thought we were the only stupids who sometimes are in love only superficially. This gives me hopeness. Thanks.

PD: do not leave your forces in finding someone superficially good and deeply interesting:


I am one of them.

 

[The_Professional]

I think I am just feeling dissapointed for a friend of mine. He met this woman on the internet and they had this online courtship that went on for months and months. He was sure that he had found real love because they weren't basing their feelings for each other on physical attraction.

He flew out to Florida to meet her and was planning on staying a week. He was back in two days.

That's similar to what happened to my friend. In courtship/dating, physical attraction is important at least initially, before something gets off the ground one needs to be attracted to another and vise versa at some physical level.. I find most women say it isn't but it is and this just proves that.

Why didn't he send her a picture?

 

[saltydog]

I meet a man at a party. He is drop-dead gorgeous and I have a very pleasant time chatting with him. I am head-over-heels in love with the guy. He asks me out on a date, and, of course, I go. After a few more dates, however, I discover he is really very self-absorbed and shallow. I decide that I must have loved him only superficially.

Trying my luck again, I meet a guy on the internet. He is wonderfully smart and funny, and after talking with him for some time we seem to be in agreement on many of our common values and interests. He seems to be the perfect person for me. I am, again, head-over-heels in love. However, when I finally meet him, I find him to be physically repulsive. I decide that I must have loved him only superficially.

Am I correct in both cases?

You found him repulsive not because he looked ugly but rather you subconsciously determined his appearance would affect his survival and reproducibility potential. Same dif for the other one.

Stacy Keech said it nicely although he was talking about elephants: "she purposefully pursues him and wins for her prize, his dominant genes for her offspring".

Now I realize this is cold biological fact but that's how it is and is responsible for giving us the chance to experience life.

I say hail to the female for making the wisest choice.

 

[Danger]

when you really fall in love, it won't matter what they look like. I believe in lust also

I think I love you...

Jeez... go to sleep for a couple of hours and return to chaos! It's going to take me all morning to catch up, and I'm supposed to be getting ready for work.

2-bagger?

That's when she's so ugly that you have to put a bag over your own head in case hers falls off.

What's the problem with Welsh gals?

Flashback to a previous thread (PF Singles scene). Nogger and I were on the subject of the Welsh for a while.

She was alright until she met Danger.

No, she was born Welsh.

You guys are being awfully nice to indulge one of my rare cynical moods.

Naw... there's a time to be serious, and a time to be me. This is one of those instances when I can do both.

I would probably say that the personality is the stronger of the two categories.
I say this because the physical appearance of the person is always the category that you compromise.

I've found that if you care enough about someone, they start to look better to you. (Or maybe that's just my steadfast refusal to accept reality...)

 

[motai]

This is the dilemma me and motai are always complaining about.

Yeah.. the concept of love has been perplexing me for quite some time, elusive bugger it is.

I have quite a problem with superficiality mixed in with love... because then it is not love it seems. I constantly see tv sitcoms (particularly the vain couples who argue amongst themsevles a lot) and say to myself, "This isn't love," then why must they portray it as such? Personally, I would be much more satisfied in a relationship where I can relate/talk to the other person rather than it being purely physical. It is a lot more satisfying in my opinion if I have the ability to talk to the person at any time for any reason on any topic. Then again, since I have never been in a relationship before (yeah that's right I know nothing) I am basing my opinions only on my own introspective questioning, theory, nothing more. Given my fallacious logic recently, it wouldn't be suprising if what I say is probably wrong at some point.

I have never been in a situation like Math Is Hard is, where the person is very attractive personality-wise and not physically. Knowing me (and not wanting to be left out myself) I still would love the person, as I myself would not want to be rejected purely based on physical appearances. I still would classify mental love as being higher than physical love, but that is just my conjecture. I probably still have much to learn.

I agree with hypatia's definition of love, and I would like to expand on it. I would probably best describe it as a deep mutual understanding, to the point where the other person knows exactly what is going on even when no words are spoken, and complete understanding at half-a-word.

Math Is Hard, I don't believe you are superficial. You obviously have enough foresight to ponder questions like these and to find meaning where the normally superficial wouldn't bother. I see the super-superficial ones all the time, finding boyfriends/girlfriends, breaking up, and starting all over again without knowing exactly what happened the last time, or how to improve on it.

And franznietzsche, at least have some hope in the existence of love. Losing hope will often signify mentally that there is no hope at all, and then love will not exist to you. I almost lost it once myself, and even now I am clinging onto it somehow. I do know that if I lose hope, then so will everything else.

But for right now, just finding someone around here that I can talk to without resorting to smalltalk is a difficult thing in itself, very very rare.

 

[Moonbear]

You guys are being awfully nice to indulge one of my rare cynical moods.

I think I am just feeling dissapointed for a friend of mine. He met this woman on the internet and they had this online courtship that went on for months and months. He was sure that he had found real love because they weren't basing their feelings for each other on physical attraction.

He flew out to Florida to meet her and was planning on staying a week. He was back in two days.

This is one of the problems I have with the idea of online dating. It's easy to "fall in love" with your image of the person, not with who the person really is. I had a similar experience. I had met a guy and gone on one date with him while I was home visiting family, and then continued to communicate by emails and an occasional phone call, and eventually he decided to take a trip out here to visit me. It was the same thing, he was going to spend a few days, and we agreed it was better he left early after the first day together. Well, there were other issues, but they came out a lot faster when I could talk face to face and sense when he wasn't being completely truthful, which I can't detect by email or over the phone as easily. But, then, it really isn't "love" at that stage, so if you want to call it superficial love, you could, but I think it's just lust or attraction. I know what love feels like, and I don't think you can communicate effectively enough online to get to that level of a relationship.

 

[Astronuc]

I know what love feels like, and I don't think you can communicate effectively enough online to get to that level of a relationship.

It is possible, but only if both parties are honest. Dishonesty precludes Love.

 

[russ_watters]

Am I correct in both cases?

No, the physical is what is superficial, by definition. Its just that physical attraction gets a bad rap. Physical attraction is important and its not superficial to admit it/act on it. So long as you don't get too absorbed by it...

 

[chroot]

If you haven't had the time to know the person pretty well (mentally, emotionally, and physically) then you cannot, by my definition, be "in love" yet anyway. Love takes time -- perhaps, a lot of time -- to develop.

- Warren

 

[SOS2008]

You can be attracted to someones personality or their looks at the beginning, but in the end you have to get to know them before you can decide if you love them.

Well said.

There will always be a compromise.

One should always know their "must haves" and "have nots"--top 5 to 10 of each (i.e., how a person squeezes the toothpaste will become less significant).

I would probably say that the personality is the stronger of the two categories.

Maybe more the physical for men? And maybe because women know what their league is. In other words, all the men compete for the women who are "10" even if they are a "5" or less themself. Women are more realistic--When we look in the mirror we don't flex, we freak.

Anyways those few muddled, repeated points are as good as it gets with me since my writing skills are pretty piss poor. :)

Because of you're well written post, I was left with hardly anything to say.

 

[Smurf]

I think those who seek love online have bigger issues to face than whether or not the other is attractive. Me and my girlfriend avoid talking on MSN because it's not entirely YOU.

Hehehe, Me and my girlfriend always have the most interesting discussions on MSN, if only because when we're together we can't keep our hands off each other.

 

[Zantra]

Not necessarily. It took me a long time to find the ex-from-hell. She was beautiful, very sharp, great sense of humour. It was only her decision to remain with her husband that messed it up. When she left him, she never came near me until she was in another relationship because she was afraid that I wouldn't take her back, and wanted to be covered already. Despite her being Welsh, I would have scooped her back in a flash.
On the other hand, you must occassionally say 'what the hell' and go for a 2-bagger. It depends upon which particular hormones have the upper hand at the time.

Wrong on so many levels I lost count...

I think your first clue that she was bad for you might have been that she was cheating on someone else(her HUSBAND??) to be with you. If you make the mistake of getting into something like that, don't expect that you're any different than the next man- after all you ARE the "next man".. hehe. Women like that are just looking for a diversion. Eventually she'll look to divert from you..

Call me old fashioned but there's something to be said for morals.. especially when we're talking about "the one"

 

[Danger]

Wrong on so many levels I lost count...

Wrong for you perhaps... not for me. I absolutely am not going to go into any details about it, but you don't know anything about the situation and are therefore in no position to judge. We're friends. 'Ex-from-hell' is actually a sort of pet name. She thinks that it's as amusing as I do. It was the best 6 1/2 years of my life, and neither one of us regrets it.
You might not be aware, as well, that we don't get all weird about relationships the way you seem to in the States. We go out with each other's wives or girlfriends all the time. If I had a party or concert or something to go to and didn't have a date, I could call up one of my friends and say 'hey, man... got to borrow the wife tonight if she's free.' If she didn't have other plans, she'd go. It almost never goes beyond maybe drinks/dancing and a good-night kiss, but nobody cares if it does. Everyone is secure in their own lives. After all, if you don't trust someone to return to you, why are you with her in the first place?

 

[The_Professional]

Maybe more the physical for men? And maybe because women know what their league is. In other words, all the men compete for the women who are "10" even if they are a "5" or less themself. Women are more realistic--When we look in the mirror we don't flex, we freak.

I think men are more honest to admit that physical attraction is important. And if a woman is honest she'd say that it's also important for her to be attracted physically to a guy along with personality, etc... But as far as men wanting the 10, that's a generalized statement. Beauty is subjective to each one, I don't find J-Lo to be attractive or beautiful, whereas my friend does.

 

[Smurf]

I don't like skinny girls, to me J-lo looks like an ugly stick bug. I like my women with a bit of meat on them, no every guy does though. I guess it's just me since I need a bit of a grip because I got such a long way to slide in and out. Like I said, not every guy does.

 

[Danger]

I don't like skinny girls, to me J-lo looks like an ugly stick bug.

J-Lo...? Skinny...? C'mon, dude; if the Titanic had had an ass like that, the iceberg would have lost.

 

[Smurf]

You just made me laugh out loud I'll be using that one.

 

[Danger]

You just made me laugh out loud I'll be using that one.

Thank you. <bows gracefully> My life is complete.

 

[BobG]

This is one of the problems I have with the idea of online dating. It's easy to "fall in love" with your image of the person, not with who the person really is. I had a similar experience. I had met a guy and gone on one date with him while I was home visiting family, and then continued to communicate by emails and an occasional phone call, and eventually he decided to take a trip out here to visit me. It was the same thing, he was going to spend a few days, and we agreed it was better he left early after the first day together. Well, there were other issues, but they came out a lot faster when I could talk face to face and sense when he wasn't being completely truthful, which I can't detect by email or over the phone as easily. But, then, it really isn't "love" at that stage, so if you want to call it superficial love, you could, but I think it's just lust or attraction. I know what love feels like, and I don't think you can communicate effectively enough online to get to that level of a relationship.

I think Moonbear hit on the key issue, except it applies as much to that initial 'crush' in person as it does on-line. If you only know so much about someone, it's natural to fill in the missing blanks based on your own background and experiences. When it turns out the missing blanks don't match what you expected, there's a tendency to feel like you've been lied to. Of course, the problem is identifying who lied to you.

 

[Evo]

Perhaps it was more of a "crush" than love? I'd have to say that I've had many crushes, but only been in love twice. Real love makes you physically ill if it doesn't go right.

I think with the first guy, you just lost your feelings for him as you learned more about his personality. In the second scenario, had you seen pictures of him before meeting?

I've never been disappointed in meeting someone in person that I've met "online". They always turned out to be exactly the same in person as far as personality goes. I think if you are observant enough, you can tell if someone isn't being "natural", they're bound to have slip ups.

It's always a bit strange meeting the "real" person after seeing only images, but I had video conferenced with the people I met first. I saw their facial expressions, body language and gestures, so it wasn't so different meeting them for real.

I know a lot of people that have met their "significant others" online.

 

[Danger]

I know a lot of people that have met their "significant others" online.

 

[franznietzsche]

I know a lot of people that have met their "significant others" online.

Must...resist urge...bash engineering majors...