People talk about a 1-10 scale. In reality, it's a binary.
The only salient question is whether or not you’d have sex with them. Anything beyond that is superfluous
Dumb. There's plenty of women I'd sex with who I don't even find "hot."
Then you’re only fooling yourself. If you’d have sex with someone, what else is there to consider? If you’re fawning over “hot” girls while settling for much less, then all you’re doing is really falling for the script of who society tells you is sexy/desirable.
It's not "society" telling me that. It's my dick. Which would rather "settle" than get nothing, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't prefer something even better!
This is an unfathomably sad way to live. Cut yourself loose from social expectations about what you should be chasing (i.e., conventionally attractive girls) and learn to be happy with the one you're with. Beauty is only skin deep.
And I've had sex with women who have been upfront in telling me they don't find me "hot," but "attractive." So I know this is true for them too. Probably moreso actually, as they seem to find a wider range of men attractive than men do women. How else do you explain them fawning over the likes of Robert Pattinson and Chris Hemsworth alike?
Straight women find a wider array of men attractive because there are more socially acceptable ways for men to be desired (i.e., intelligence, money, looks, etc.) than for women to be desired (only looks!)
On your first point: I have been monogamous with one woman for the better part of a year. I find her "hot" and don't think I'm influenced one way or another by "society" in that, at least not in any conscious way. I just do. And I'm plenty happy with her, and agree that beauty is only skin deep. I don't see what the hell is so "unfathomably sad" about this. It can be true that I am lucky enough to be in love with a woman I find very attractive AND that in the past or in hypothetical situations, I can see how I would "settle" for women I find less attractive than super "hot" supermodels or something.
That doesn't mean I see them as lesser women or lesser human beings. It just means that I draw a distinction between "hotness" as a concept and, quite frankly, "f--kable." It may be crude and animalistic, but I think you can find a woman sufficiently attractive to want to have sex with without thinking she's in the same company as the "hottest" women. She may well far surpass them in other qualities! But the "skin deep" parts are nonetheless there and can't totally be ignored. Honestly this is all starting to feel like semantics to me, a debate about what "hot" means exactly. I don't see it as a synonym for "attractive" or "f--kable." I see it as another concept entirely. Again, your mileage may vary.
As for your second point, I totally agree! I probably would be a virgin if not for my sense of humor and intelligence, and don't think I don't know it! I'm just saying I think that makes it even more true that for women, and perhaps even some gay men, the stereotypical "hot guy" is not necessarily their most desirable guy. And thank god for it!
Poll
