How important is pictures for average guy?

[ShySoul]

59 minutes ago, yogacat said:

I like that they're kind of similar to ties or pocket squares. A little unexpected pop of personality in a typically mundane item. White athletic socks are spicy too!

Have a coworker who is always wearing socks with odd things on them. Has a dresser of ties as well. If he wasn't married with a daughter, I'd introduce you. 😉

Personally, I'm a funny t-shirt guy. Got to make people laugh. Much better way to see their smile then telling them to smile more.

[rainbowsandroses]

10 minutes ago, yogacat said:

Not too heavy.

I think this^ is key.  It's gotta be subtle, just a whiff!  When they get close. 

I don't even spray directly on my body, I spray into the air and walk into it! 

I find colognes and perfumes smell differently on different people, something about pheromones? 

SS, I bet you'd change your tune if you got a whiff of "Angel" lol.  Just teasing. 😛 

[yogacat]

12 minutes ago, ShySoul said:

Have a coworker who is always wearing socks with odd things on them. Has a dresser of ties as well. If he wasn't married with a daughter, I'd introduce you. 😉

Personally, I'm a funny t-shirt guy. Got to make people laugh. Much better way to see their smile then telling them to smile more.

I don't particularly care for ties on guys, more like on special events. I actually love casual clothing for the most part, t-shirts are one of my favs.

I just find it interesting when men have some kind of design or quote or some thing that interests them, something that's unique to them. Like funny tshirts 👕 😊

[ShySoul]

2 hours ago, rainbowsandroses said:

I think this^ is key.  It's gotta be subtle, just a whiff!  When they get close. 

SS, I bet you'd change your tune if you got a whiff of "Angel" lol.  Just teasing. 😛 

Subtle goes a long way. I'd say the same with makeup. Really, you girls don't need any of that stuff. But if you enjoy it, just a tad works well. Don't make a guy feels like he's drowning in a sea of scent.

I feel like it was something with Angel in it I did like. Darn, my memory can't remember 15 years ago. But I bet if I smelled it again it would come back to me. 😍

Ok RAR, you're on. Let me get whiff of "Angel" and see if it leave mes helpless and stupefied. Though I will need a live model for full affect. It's only.... checking Google.... roughly five hours between us. Need a vacation? 😉

[ShySoul]

2 hours ago, yogacat said:

I don't particularly care for ties on guys, more like on special events. I actually love casual clothing for the most part, t-shirts are one of my favs.

I just find it interesting when men have some kind of design or quote or some thing that interests them, something that's unique to them. Like funny tshirts 👕 😊

Oh thank god. Ties are the one thing I don't like. Why anyone wants to feel choked by their outfit I don't understand. 

I like unique as well. Show me something that makes you stand out, give me a sense of your own individual tastes. Or in my case, eclectic geekdom.

Here's a sample. The periodic "table" complete with adorable little girl hiding under it and mini jokes for every element. 

[yogacat]

5 hours ago, rainbowsandroses said:

I think this^ is key.  It's gotta be subtle, just a whiff!  When they get close. 

I don't even spray directly on my body, I spray into the air and walk into it! 

I find colognes and perfumes smell differently on different people, something about pheromones? 

Def subtle... I like a little touch behind my ears when they get in close or when you hug them they smell it...

Pheromones and the fragrance mixed with natural sweat. Yes! My hair holds fragrance for a day or so, the base of the neck and such. Yep, can't smell it on myself. City glam is my go to scent, they discontinued it so I have to look hard online. Men always loved it. But, I like the way it smells on me...  

[rainbowsandroses]

@yogacatyour last post reminded me of a fragrance I used to wear that had men falling over themselves 😆, women complimented me too!

It was Bob Mackie Eau de Toilette for Women.

I honestly thought it had been discontinued, I used to purchase at Nordstrom's.  But now I think they just stopped distributing there. 

Anyway I just googled it and they sell it on line!  So I may start switching it up! 

Speaking of pheromones, my girlfriend tried it and it smelled completely differently on her!  

The cologne SHE uses smells differently on me!  And not as pleasant as it smells on her.

I dunno I just find that whole pheromones thing so interesting! 

 

[rainbowsandroses]

4 minutes ago, rainbowsandroses said:

@yogacatyour last post reminded me of a fragrance I used to wear that had men falling over themselves 😆, women complimented me too!

It was Bob Mackie Eau de Toilette for Women.

I honestly thought it had been discontinued, I used to purchase at Nordstrom's.  But now I think they just stopped distributing there. 

Anyway I just googled it and they sell it on line!  So I may start switching it up! 

Speaking of pheromones, my girlfriend tried it and it smelled completely differently on her!  

The cologne SHE uses smells differently on me!  And not as pleasant as it smells on her.

I dunno I just find that whole pheromones thing so interesting! 

 

I also wonder if our pheromones can change over time?

I mean it's possible the Bob Mackie fragrance may not even smell the same on me as it did in the past!

[Batya33]

9 hours ago, yogacat said:

Def subtle... I like a little touch behind my ears when they get in close or when you hug them they smell it...

Pheromones and the fragrance mixed with natural sweat. Yes! My hair holds fragrance for a day or so, the base of the neck and such. Yep, can't smell it on myself. City glam is my go to scent, they discontinued it so I have to look hard online. Men always loved it. But, I like the way it smells on me...  

Relatedly -maybe -on the pheromones part -the day I took my only positive pregnancy test in my life three hours later we left to meet my partner's friends for the first time and their 9 month old baby.  I wasn't telling anyone I was pregnant.  His friend let me hold the adorable baby. Put him in my lap and he came right to me and literally mouthed me on my bare arm -would likely have bitten me if he had teeth (not sure if he had any lol) -it was so adorable.  The mom -now a good friend -said -wow -he's never done that before ! And I smiled to myself thinking -yup -he knows I'm pregnant and can sense the mommy pheromones if there is such a thing!

[Sam1986]

On 8/15/2024 at 11:09 PM, ShySoul said:

So what if you only get one match in weeks? If that one match is a good match, then it worked out well.

For most men, those matches are not good.
Average men usually have the worst of both worlds here, in that they get low quantity and low quality.
There is a huge difference in dating apps though.
Currently I am getting a decent amount of dates on Hinge (can go a month without dates, then suddenly have 2-3 first dates in one week), whereas apps like happn and tinder are complete trash that show the problem of having both low quantity and low quality.

I get perhaps 5-10 likes during my sign-up boosted phase (on happn/tinder), all from "bottom feeders" (physically very unattractive women, overweight etc.), before it drops to 1 like every two weeks after that (also from the "bottom feeders").
I obviously don't match with these, so the amount of dates I'm getting out of that is close to nil.
On bumble I got close to no likes at all, so that was even more of a waste of time.

The problem is that men outnumber women on these apps to begin with, which causes a feedback effect where a slight imbalance in sexes causes men to swipe more liberally, whereas women get more picky.
As men then swipe more liberally, women become even more picky, which causes men to swipe even more liberally (in the hope of getting any attention at all), and at that point the imbalance gets so severe that its usually just the top men that get any attention at all.
This has been a known problem for years now, which is why most men (who are not in the top category) should just try their luck though other avenues instead.

[ShySoul]

5 hours ago, Sam1986 said:

This has been a known problem for years now, which is why most men (who are not in the top category) should just try their luck though other avenues instead.

I agree. Dating apps have a list of reasons why they won't be beneficial for a lot or even most men and women. There are so many ways to meet people, and ways that will be a lot less frustrating, time consuming, and stressful. Dating apps aren't about finding a long term partner, they about keeping people engaged with the app, actually lowering your chances in a number of ways.

Obviously it can work for some. But a broken clock is right twice a day. It shouldn't be the only, or even primary thing people rely on.

5 hours ago, Sam1986 said:

I get perhaps 5-10 likes during my sign-up boosted phase (on happn/tinder), all from "bottom feeders" (physically very unattractive women, overweight etc.), before it drops to 1 like every two weeks after that (also from the "bottom feeders").

Perhaps part of the issue is that you, and a good number of people, feel the need to assign rank to others? Maybe the person is unattractive in your eyes, but to someone else could be gorgeous? Isn't it being superficial to dismiss someone and call them a "bottom feeder" for something as subjective as physical appearance? I've known women who were supposedly attractive outwardly, who I didn't feel a thing for or even disliked because of the person they were. On the other hand, I've loved women who were overweight or not the classic "10" because I loved the person inside, and that in turn caused them to be beautiful to me on the outside.

I get that the nature of these apps encourage people to look on the outside first. But there's also in individual responsibility to realize what is important is the person on the inside. 

There shouldn't be tiers or rankings for people period. Each person deserves to be valued for the unique individual they are.

[Sam1986]

13 hours ago, ShySoul said:

Perhaps part of the issue is that you, and a good number of people, feel the need to assign rank to others? Maybe the person is unattractive in your eyes, but to someone else could be gorgeous? Isn't it being superficial to dismiss someone and call them a "bottom feeder" for something as subjective as physical appearance? I've known women who were supposedly attractive outwardly, who I didn't feel a thing for or even disliked because of the person they were. On the other hand, I've loved women who were overweight or not the classic "10" because I loved the person inside, and that in turn caused them to be beautiful to me on the outside.

This is just how the real world and we humans works, my friend.

Physical appearances matters a lot, not only for humans but for most species on earth, as it acts as a proxy for gene quality and overall health. There is nothing wrong with being attracted to physical appearences, even if it only gets your foot through the door.

Noone is saying that physical appearances are the only thing that matter (so there is no need to imply that I said that), but it gets the foot through the door. In fact I'd argue that this notion that we should look past physical appearances is harmful in itself, because we are denying our nature to look for these markers. I for one, if being honest, would not be able to stay with a person that I am physically unattracted to or even repulsed by. What is attractive or unattractive is of course flexible (and matters a great deal on what you can "get" in the dating market itself), but flexible does not mean unimportant, nor does it mean that it can be ignored by a conscious effort.

I for one take moderately good care of myself by going to the gym 2-3 times a week, trying to stay somewhat slim and being somewhat conscious about my appearances. Thus I expect that someone brings a somewhat similar level of effort to the table. When someone is grossly overweight, and obviously do not make an effort to mitigate their "bad hand" in physical appearances (perhaps also being a single mom, or being unemployed with no education to speak of), I label these as "bottom feeders" because they obviously bring nothing to the table for me from what I can tell.

[Batya33]

1 hour ago, Sam1986 said:

This is just how the real world and we humans works, my friend.

Physical appearances matters a lot, not only for humans but for most species on earth, as it acts as a proxy for gene quality and overall health. There is nothing wrong with being attracted to physical appearences, even if it only gets your foot through the door.

Noone is saying that physical appearances are the only thing that matter (so there is no need to imply that I said that), but it gets the foot through the door. In fact I'd argue that this notion that we should look past physical appearances is harmful in itself, because we are denying our nature to look for these markers. I for one, if being honest, would not be able to stay with a person that I am physically unattracted to or even repulsed by. What is attractive or unattractive is of course flexible (and matters a great deal on what you can "get" in the dating market itself), but flexible does not mean unimportant, nor does it mean that it can be ignored by a conscious effort.

I for one take moderately good care of myself by going to the gym 2-3 times a week, trying to stay somewhat slim and being somewhat conscious about my appearances. Thus I expect that someone brings a somewhat similar level of effort to the table. When someone is grossly overweight, and obviously do not make an effort to mitigate their "bad hand" in physical appearances (perhaps also being a single mom, or being unemployed with no education to speak of), I label these as "bottom feeders" because they obviously bring nothing to the table for me from what I can tell.

For me looks were important and I felt strong chemistry with many men who were not objectively good looking.  I preferred men who were shorter than average -and married one.  I did like the whole arm candy thing a lot as a teen and young 20s - my high school boyfriend was like a male model and in my early 20s I did value that my long term boyfriend was devastatingly handsome. Looking back I feel foolish for valuing that but it wasn't really that connected to chemistry- more to ego I guess? Also looks back then as a teen/young 20s were prized by my peers so perhaps I was that foolish person wanting to impress my peers.  When I was on dating sites I did not pursue contact with men I found repulsive looking or who had looks that reflected values that were not compatible with mine.  

I have an acquaintance I met 20 years ago at a networking event before I moved away and got married.  She's in her late 40s now.  She is not objectively attractive.  She is also overweight.  She met a man I believe through a dating site and they married and divorced in the span of a couple years, then she had a child on her own.  He was not particularly attractive looking. The ex not the kid lol. 

The last 6-8 months she seems to be seriously involved with a man and I am not sure how they met. He looks around her age, quite overweight/short not attractive looking.  Their photos are amazing -they are beaming and obviously in love/really into each other and I expect to hear -I hope- they are engaged over the next year.  Neither of them seems to be settling in the least.  I don't think she's dated anyone else seriously since her divorce -single mom and all and works full time/busy.  She's one example of a number of couples I know and know of - so obviously the photos were not a negative -know another couple right now just like that dating a couple years.

[Sam1986]

1 hour ago, Batya33 said:

For me looks were important and I felt strong chemistry with many men who were not objectively good looking.

There is nothing wrong with that, I can do so occasionally too, but that's an exception to the rule.

Looks matter.
Often less so over the years, but let's not kid ourselves into arguing the case that they're irrelevant and we should all just look on the inside of a person, and that anyone who feels attraction from looks is somehow "having an issue", as per how shysoul seemed to be arguing.
The real world doesnt work like according to such wishful thinking.

[Batya33]

7 minutes ago, Sam1986 said:

There is nothing wrong with that, I can do so occasionally too, but that's an exception to the rule.

Looks matter.
Often less so over the years, but let's not kid ourselves into arguing the case that they're irrelevant and we should all just look on the inside of a person, and that anyone who feels attraction from looks is somehow "having an issue", as per how shysoul seemed to be arguing.
The real world doesnt work like according to such wishful thinking.

We agree. Looks matter. The way they mattered to me had much more to do with chemistry than objective attractiveness.  I mean social media and societal motions of what looks attractive. To me that’s not really related to chemistry. I’m not sure why you’re quoting me when we agree. 

[ShySoul]

On 8/27/2024 at 1:39 AM, Sam1986 said:

In fact I'd argue that this notion that we should look past physical appearances is harmful in itself, because we are denying our nature to look for these markers. I for one, if being honest, would not be able to stay with a person that I am physically unattracted to or even repulsed by.

I have never looked at anyone and found them to be physically unattractive or repulsive. A person just looks how they look. On the other hand, I have found people to be repulsive just because they are terrible people who act selfishly and treat others poorly.

Likewise, I haven't found anyone attractive based on physical appearance since I was five. And I'm not denying my nature in any way. My nature isn't to care about appearance. It's to care about hearts and souls. And a person's heart and soul is who they really are. The body is just a shell that houses the real us.

There are people who don't care about appearance. There are soul sexual people. That's there nature.

Be who you are, but realize there are other ways. And for some, like me, physical appearance isn't important. It has nothing do to with what I can "get." It isn't flexible. And dating/relationships aren't a market. People are not commodities. People are people, unique individuals that are not products to buy, sell, and trade. We have more value then that. 

Oh, and I've ignored appearance both in myself and others. I haven't made a conscious effort. Didn't stop me from meeting someone who I can share love with, emotional and physical. All came from within, not based at all on the outside.

[yogacat]

On 8/27/2024 at 4:48 AM, Sam1986 said:

There is nothing wrong with that, I can do so occasionally too, but that's an exception to the rule.

Looks matter.
Often less so over the years, but let's not kid ourselves into arguing the case that they're irrelevant and we should all just look on the inside of a person, and that anyone who feels attraction from looks is somehow "having an issue", as per how shysoul seemed to be arguing.
The real world doesnt work like according to such wishful thinking.

I agree with you. But I will add that when you've been with someone for a long time and there is a foundation of love and respect, physical appearance often becomes less important. But it's not irrelevant and it's not wrong to feel attraction from looks. It's just part of human nature.

I mean, we're all going to get older and our looks will inevitably change. So it's a matter of not getting grossed out by flabby saggy stuff as your spouse ages. We're all going to get saggy. We're all going to get old. 

Sure. If you're consistent in taking care of yourself, eat well and exercise, that can make a huge difference. Yes, your body will change and age, but it doesn't have to be "gross" or unattractive. With aging comes a different kind of beauty and attractiveness. That's what separates the relationships that stand the test of time from the ones that don't.

There's other things that get your motor running too, a certain scent for example, the way they present themselves, sense of humor, intelligence. Something that gets you going and tickles that particular nerve that's ultimately that fire that burns and sustains affection. None of this is to be underestimated and people shouldn't have to apologize for being attracted to these things, it's natural and healthy. So many different people, so many different things!
 

[Batya33]

54 minutes ago, ShySoul said:

physically unattractive or repulsive.

On dating sites there were photos that repulsed me and not just because of physical features -choice of clothing, choice of grooming, tattoos, photos with other women/cars/etc.  Or their physical features were what I knew I could never feel sexually attracted to -if it wasn't for dating purposes no I wouldn't focus on whether they looked attractive.  I found men who were very overweight and sloppy looking physically unattractive -for dating purposes. Same with long hair/lots of facial hair or piercings.  For dating purposes.  I think my reaction is fairly typical of people who go out to places to meet single people or look at dating sites - when I chose to do that I was evaluating potential attraction as well.  If I wasn't repulsed and found the person reasonably pleasant looking then I judged chemistry in person. 

I didn't judge chemistry or attraction based only on a photo with rare exception -there was one -one man whose photo -his face -so totally hot.  We dated two separate times and it ended both times for exactly the same reason -he wanted to have sex before I was ready and the second time we dated he said he was fine with waiting.  But, he wasn't.  Despite  being wildly attracted to him I walked away with no regrets as our values didn't match up. We did keep in touch on and off and are FB friends.  I even went to his engagement party years later!

I told the story on this forum of setting up a man who insisted looks didn't matter to him at all.  This was before online dating.  I set him up on a blind date with a lovely woman who was very obese.  After he met her he was upset with me for not telling him in advance she was very obese.  I was really confused given what he told me. He saw her once more as she invited him to a cultural event -she was disappointed and I thought he behaved unfairly.

[ShySoul]

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. There is no standard upon which to judge if someone is physically attractive. No one has ever been universally attractive and no one ever will. Some people will find you attractive. Some people won't. 

So if it's out of our hands, why care about it? 

Take care of your body for health reasons so you can stay alive. Other than that, it isn't important.

If you're determining who you are interested in by the outer portion, you'll most likely run into issues. How a person looks says nothing about who they are. And being "hot" certainly doesn't guarantee they are good at anything.

But if the attraction stems from within, you're more likely to have something real as you are focused on what ultimately makes it work. 

A pretty face or body fades. A beautiful heart and soul are eternal.

To borrow from one Martin Luther King, I don't want to love or be attracted by a person's skin. I base things off the content of a person's character.

 

[yogacat]

43 minutes ago, ShySoul said:

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. There is no standard upon which to judge if someone is physically attractive. No one has ever been universally attractive and no one ever will. Some people will find you attractive. Some people won't. 

So if it's out of our hands, why care about it? 

Take care of your body for health reasons so you can stay alive. Other than that, it isn't important.

If you're determining who you are interested in by the outer portion, you'll most likely run into issues. How a person looks says nothing about who they are. And being "hot" certainly doesn't guarantee they are good at anything.

But if the attraction stems from within, you're more likely to have something real as you are focused on what ultimately makes it work. 

A pretty face or body fades. A beautiful heart and soul are eternal.

To borrow from one Martin Luther King, I don't want to love or be attracted by a person's skin. I base things off the content of a person's character.

 

Wait. That's a sexy picture profile of one Miranda Lambert. Sorry, where was I?😉😜

I agree with the sentiments and ideas expressed here, but I wouldn't say that physical appearance is completely unimportant. While it is true that beauty is subjective and it should not be the sole basis for attraction or relationships, physical attraction is still a natural and common aspect of human interactions and relationships.

It's been a thing since the dawn of time, but it doesn't have to be the most important thing. Of course, character and inner beauty should be valued and prioritized over outer appearance, and beauty is subjective and constantly evolving, but to dismiss physical attraction entirely ignores a significant part of human nature.

If sexual intimacy is a priority for you, and while physical attraction may not be the top factor in a relationship, it can still have an impact on your sexual satisfaction. Just picture yourself encountering the most charming, affectionate, brilliant, and clever individual in existence, practically faultless except for a lack of physical appeal. What would you do?

In my perspective? If I have a strong emotional connection with someone and genuinely care about them, but I don't feel physically or sexually attracted to them, it falls under the category of being just friends. It is normal to desire physical attraction in a romantic relationship, especially if you intend to be intimate with them.

Naturally, the more I feel connected emotionally with someone the more physically attractive I will find them. True, beauty fades eventually, but physical chemistry matters and as long as it is not the only aspect of a relationship, it can coexist with other important factors.

[Batya33]

8 hours ago, ShySoul said:

So if it's out of our hands, why care about it? 

Because it is not out of our hands entirely.  And because I will not judge people for caring about physical features when it comes to romantic love and a sexual relationship and dating.  Of course it's in the eye of the beholder.  I found shorter men more attractive than taller men -especially than tall very skinny men.  For sure looks fade -I have wrinkles/age spots and I'm not interested in botox or surgery or whatever.  Husband has put on weight (I lost weight and was slim to begin with) - but the overall sense of chemistry and attraction for me also included physical features to a certain extent - not in the arm candy way -although yes it was for me like that at times in my teens/early 20s -lovely ego boost to be seen with a hottie.  

And yes if you are that focused on physical features that if the person ages you'd want a divorce or a break up of an LTR then you likely should reconsider that level of commitment.  But if I gained 100 pounds because I gave up on myself and didn't care anymore about my health or fitness and my husband had marital issues with that -he'd be right -because then it's not just about features but why.  By contrast some people cannot control their weight -they have to take steroids or other drugs that trigger weight gain and they can do their best but for sure they may put on extra weight from the meds which in practical ways is basically impossible to take off completely.  

I think it depends on level of focus on looks, why the focus etc and I respect that some people truly don't care at all. I think that's more the exception.  I knew a really hot looking guy who told me his first wife had an ugly face but he loved her so -but he kept his eyes closed during sex.  OK.  My goodness she must have known and how awful to be with someone who cannot look at you intimately because of  your physical features -he was doing her no favors IMO.  They divorced.

I dated a man a couple of times with a cleft palate I think it was.  Nice person.  I couldn't get past his physical features.  As a friend -for sure.  I am friends with people who look all sorts of ways, who have disabilities and illnesses including those  that affect their features. But I didn't feel attracted to his face and it likely was because of his disability.  I'd do him no favors by dating him and feeling repelled when it came to kissing, etc.

[ShySoul]

On 8/28/2024 at 7:40 PM, yogacat said:

Just picture yourself encountering the most charming, affectionate, brilliant, and clever individual in existence, practically faultless except for a lack of physical appeal. What would you do?

That's where I'm different. I can't separate it. If they are all those other things, a perfect match for me in ever other way, then the physical follows. I can't see how that situation even arises. I've never been interested in someone based off of looks, it's always been some deeper personality trait. When I'm looking at someone I love and say she is beautiful, it's the whole package I am talking about. I'm seeing a beautiful soul and an awesome that I am lucky enough to be around. 

Sexuality is also a very nuanced thing that has a wide variety for individual tastes. For some, probably most, physical appearance will play a role. But for others it doesn't. Pansexual or being attractived to a personality. Sapiosexual or being attracted to intelligence. Soul Sexual is a person who is not attracted to gender or looks but to the soul inside the object of their affection. Demisexual people can only feel attraction after forming emotional bonds with someone.

For some physical appearance is necessary. For others, it really isn't. We all experience love in our own way. All I'm saying is that you can't generalize or make a sweeping statement on the importance of physical attraction when for a good many people that important is slim to none. Trying to keep open to the feel range of human experiences.

And that was "you" in a general sense, not you specifically yogacat. You're pretty good about not generalizing.

On 8/28/2024 at 7:40 PM, yogacat said:

Wait. That's a sexy picture profile of one Miranda Lambert. Sorry, where was I?😉😜

She distracts me as well. Between the talent and personality, I've been enthralled since 2003. Plus she's hot. I mean, she lights things up with Kerosene and there are literally flames in the background. 😉😍

[Batya33]

5 hours ago, ShySoul said:

Sexuality is also a very nuanced thing that has a wide variety for individual tastes. For some, probably most, physical appearance will play a role. But for others it doesn't. Pansexual or being attractived to a personality. Sapiosexual or being attracted to intelligence. Soul Sexual is a person who is not attracted to gender or looks but to the soul inside the object of their affection. Demisexual people can only feel attraction after forming emotional bonds with someone.

You're referring to a minority of people who express their sexuality in atypical ways AND label themselves in a particular way AND are stable within that label meaning not just trying on different labels for size/experimenting.  Most people who want a traditional marriage preceded by traditional dating want sexual intimacy to be part of it (whether we're talking two men/two women/man/woman. and most often with rare exception looks matter in who they are attracted to for purposes of a traditional romantic relationship leading to marriage/long term.  

I would think people who are atypical in how they define their sexuality and/or exploring would not care as much about photos because if they are on a typical dating site their search will be focused on someone who fits their atypical definition of sexuality.  

For sure within typical sexuality there are individual differences but quite often not enough to make a difference -whether one person focuses more on the visual physical attraction than the other likely wouldn't even be noticed because the common denominator is both feel looks matter.

Same with sexual fetishes -atypical.  I declined to be in contact around 3 times with a  reasonably handsome  looking guy -educated, so articulate in his profile who contacted me at least 3 times over the years because I'd forget the twist -at the end of his long profile he'd "mention" that he had a strong preference for wrestling during sex.  That it wasn't "required"but a strong preference.  I didn't want that sort of pressure in a relationship so each time I wrote back to him and said we were likely not a good match given his strong preference.  So for a man like him he might actually feel looks mattered a bit less than if his lady shared in his fetish or at least was up for it.

[yogacat]

11 hours ago, ShySoul said:

She distracts me as well. Between the talent and personality, I've been enthralled since 2003. Plus she's hot. I mean, she lights things up with Kerosene and there are literally flames in the background. 😉😍

I get all that. But, you don't know Miranda Lambert personally, so you're 100% making assumptions based on her physical attractiveness and talent.  So some of your "attraction" to her is based on her looks.  I'm not judging; I'm just putting things out there. 😁

11 hours ago, ShySoul said:

Sexuality is also a very nuanced thing that has a wide variety for individual tastes. For some, probably most, physical appearance will play a role. But for others it doesn't. Pansexual or being attractived to a personality. Sapiosexual or being attracted to intelligence. Soul Sexual is a person who is not attracted to gender or looks but to the soul inside the object of their affection. Demisexual people can only feel attraction after forming emotional bonds with someone.

I've often considered myself demi-sexual (or grey-sexual) as I don't feel an immediate physical attraction to people. It takes time and an emotional connection for me to become sexually attracted to someone. But, I can still look at someone and objectively recognize that they are physically attractive. It doesn't translate into immediate feelings but I can still be physically attracted to someone just by looking at them.

Albeit, I dislike labels so I don't use them to identify myself. This is just my personal experience. 

[ShySoul]

On 8/31/2024 at 10:27 AM, yogacat said:

But, I can still look at someone and objectively recognize that they are physically attractive.

In your eyes. In someone else's eyes they aren't. It's subjective, not objective. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. 

Honestly, I might be alone on this, but I really don't look at people and see physical attraction. 

On 8/31/2024 at 10:27 AM, yogacat said:

But, you don't know Miranda Lambert personally, so you're 100% making assumptions based on her physical attractiveness and talent.  So some of your "attraction" to her is based on her looks.  I'm not judging; I'm just putting things out there.

My "attraction" for her is more a running joke with a friend due to my superfandom. I became a fan after hearing the beauty and maturity in an original song on a singing competition and was based on the personality displayed in the interview segments. It grew off of all the things I've read and observed through her career - from starting a charity for the adoption of shelter pets, to supporting up and coming female artists, to taking ownership of her career. If I see beauty on the outside, it's a by product of things I admire from within.

To each their own, as long as it works for them. My point has always been that it's not necessary for all people, and to just embrace what is right for you.