How hot does a woman have to be for it to be worth being monogamous with her?

How hot does a woman have to be for it to be worth being monogamous?

  • As long as she looks ok, I'm on it

    Votes: 2 6.9%
  • I'd settle for a cute girl next door

    Votes: 7 24.1%
  • She'd have to be pretty hot

    Votes: 7 24.1%
  • She has to be supermodel quality

    Votes: 3 10.3%
  • She has to represent perfection in female form

    Votes: 2 6.9%
  • The finest bitch couldn't make me make monogamous promises

    Votes: 5 17.2%
  • I'm a stern moralist - no sex before marriage

    Votes: 1 3.4%
  • I'm gay, who cares what those crazy breeders think

    Votes: 2 6.9%

  • Total voters
    29
Quote from Picaso:

I'd say most people get this wrong.

The key thing is that the attraction has to be <i>mutual</i>. If it is, it's likely to stay that way for many years (within reason, I'm not saying the emotion is always going to be like in the first few dates).

The problem most guys have is that <i>they</i> are not attractive (enough) and somehow think that their money, supposed success or assumed intelligence makes up for that, which, of course, if the woman is looking for a provider, father, catch or best friend it will <i>to initiate</i> the relationship. However, women also like sexually (as in purely physical) attractive men and unless you do well in that department (I'm not implying anyone here doesn't), they will lose interest <i>in you</i>, which eventually leads men to look elsewhere, somehow fooling themselves into thinking it is their partner the one that is not "hot" enough.
Indeed. While relationships require work, attraction shouldn't. If you have to keep paddling just to remain in place, then you're in the wrong place.
 
Quote from killthesunshine:

what is love?

people can learn to love each other, can't they?

do you believe in "love at first sight"?
I think you can tell very early on if you are either interested in a woman or if you are going to be. Without that "element x," which differs from one person to the next, there is no going forward unless you are just biding time at her expense. I think there are relatively few exceptions to this rule. That's not to say that this attraction is sufficient to sustain a relationship. But it is an essential component of a happy and fulfilling one. That's my story, and I'm sticking to it.
 
Quote from killthesunshine:

what is love?

people can learn to love each other, can't they?

do you believe in "love at first sight"?

It's misspelled. It's LUST as first sight!! :D
 
Quote from Gabfly1:

That may work for you. But without trust and loyalty, you might as well just play the field. In any event, I don't think the kind of relationship you describe can actually exist between people who really love each other, certainly not in the fullness of time. And if they don't really love each other, then why the pretense?

The fullness of time, indeed. Who can measure something which is so relative?
I don't disagree with you for the most part. I just think it's a mistake to try and pigeonhole everyone into the same model of what has come to be generally accepted. People are different and what works for one will be abject failure for another. We can probably agree that one is damn lucky to find a partner with whom you share similar desires, hopes, and dreams. And still luckier yet to have that relationship stand the test of time.
That said, a nice ass will overcome many obstacles to a lasting relationship.:p
 
Quote from CaptainObvious:

...I just think it's a mistake to try and pigeonhole everyone into the same model of what has come to be generally accepted. People are different and what works for one will be abject failure for another...
Perhaps I'm just guessing, but I think "open" relationships are more prone to eventual breakdown and failure than "closed" ones.

Quote from CaptainObvious:

...That said, a nice ass will overcome many obstacles to a lasting relationship.:p
Stated differently, you're saying all's well that ends well.
 
Quote from Gabfly1:

Interestingly, Shôgun's Toranaga never sought out the best looking women. He found his choices to be more loyal, attentive and grateful.

Note "choices", plural ;)
 
Statistically, what is usually associated with the thought of monogamous relationship (i.e. MARRIAGE) ends over 50% in divorce.

Though I bet they almost all started with the idea of being monogamous....
 
Quote from Picaso:

I'd say most people get this wrong.

The key thing is that the attraction has to be <i>mutual</i>. If it is, it's likely to stay that way for many years (within reason, I'm not saying the emotion is always going to be like in the first few dates).

The problem most guys have is that <i>they</i> are not attractive (enough) and somehow think that their money, supposed success or assumed intelligence makes up for that, which, of course, if the woman is looking for a provider, father, catch or best friend it will <i>to initiate</i> the relationship. However, women also like sexually (as in purely physical) attractive men and unless you do well in that department (I'm not implying anyone here doesn't), they will lose interest <i>in you</i>, which eventually leads men to look elsewhere, somehow fooling themselves into thinking it is their partner the one that is not "hot" enough.

I agree that if a woman doesn't have the hots for you right from the start, forget it. Even if you seduce her, she'll get bored. Whereas women who are interested in you strongly from the start, will stay interested. Even if you break up, and then go out with someone else, they'll still want to meet you again. So in that sense, 'love at first sight' (aka lust at first sight) works.

I would add the caveat that compatible personality is also necessary for long-term serious stuff. If someone is smoking hot but a pain in the arse, the most you can enjoy is some temporary pleasure, you can't have a happy relationship with them.

So the rule would be - never settle down with someone unless you both feel lust at first sight, and you have a harmonious personality match. In all other cases, keep things strictly no strings attached, enjoy the pleasure but don't let the emotions get involved. If you can't stay aloof in those situations, then better to just stay single and only have brief encounters, while you bide your time waiting for the right person.

At all costs, one must avoid getting into less than ideal relationships - you or her will get bored eventually, and either be unhappy or get cheated on; and while in a relationship, if you ever *do* meet someone suitable, you are hamstrung in pursuing them. It would suck to be in a boring relationship, and then miss out on an ideal partner because you were not single and fully free to pursue.

So, the ideal course seems to be live the life of a playboy, intending never to settle down - that way, you will only settle down if you meet someone sufficiently interesting that it actually looks better to settle down with them than to continue your roving life. Whereas if you live looking for a relationship, you will probably take the first 'reasonable' option that comes along, and that is unlikely to be good enough to last.

It's a bit like shopping - if you go out looking for a pair of shoes, you'll buy the first half-decent pair you see. Whereas if you just window shop with no intention of buying, you will only buy something that truly stands out.
 
Quote from MarketMasher:

Statistically, what is usually associated with the thought of monogamous relationship (i.e. MARRIAGE) ends over 50% in divorce.

Though I bet they almost all started with the idea of being monogamous....

The reason is that one or both people 'settle' for someone they are not that into. Or one or both are simply unsuited to monogamy. The result is one or both get bored after a while - maybe 10 years for some, 10 weeks for others.

In the anglo-saxon countries they cheat and divorce, most places elsewhere they cheat and stay together unhappily, in France they have a 'cinq a sept' agreement that they can both screw around but keep it discrete.

The way to avoid this is to refuse to settle, and if you are not monogamous, then either don't get married, or marry someone who is ok with your sleeping around from time to time.
 
Quote from CaptainObvious:

I think we're in a struggle to fight our very nature, which is to spread it around as much as we can. It's a primal urge we're up against. I don't care how hot, how kinky, how much she does it for you, in time, you'll want something different.
How many relaltionships end simply because a guy, or gal, wants a piece of strange? My guess would be plenty. You can still love your spouse, be happy in marriage and with your life in general, but still want that little something different every now and then. With time and age this primal urge becomes easier to surpress. Easier, not easy.
I would think we'd all be a lot happier in marriage if we practiced what you don't know won't hurt you, so don't go snooping around. You want something different every now and then, be smart about it, be adult about it, meaning none of this puppy love shit, and still take care of business at home...it's all good. Now go find a spouse that's on the same page and you'll be happy, or not. Like I said, sex is but one component of a happy marriage. The really difficult part is getting past all that 17th century Puritan bullshit we're engrained with.

Well you don't have to have a 'don't ask, don't tell' policy. You could just openly state it up front that you aren't capable of fidelity - would solve a lot of problems. And there are other options like finding bisexual women who enjoy threesomes with you and other random women. Hard to see that getting boring :D
 
Back
Top