Are beautiful people less lucky in love?

Ghost Buster

A slow realisation I have had over the years is that the majority of friends and acquaintances with failed marriages, a string of heart breaking relationships, bringing up kids alone, this sorta thing are all good looking, the type who wouldnt have to work at getting a partner. Conversely most of the happy relationships, my own included, that I know of are amongst ordinary people, the type who, whilst not quite scaring children in public certainly arent gonna grace the covers of VIP or Hello any time soon.
Why might this be.
Do The Plain Folk value what they have?
Do The Beautiful people get it too easy?
Does a Beautiful Persons success rate simply raise the odds of then having more failures.
What?

And yes this is a bit of a generalisation with exceptions either way.

Talib Fiasco

Quality over quantity everyday but when you can have both why settle down and "be happy"?

Dayum

I'm gorgeous and I've been with my gorgeous partner for nearly 10 years.

Couldn't be happier.

PizzamanIRL

Yes because they more than likely go through a lot more relationships for the wrong reason.

If you're ugly, your partner is with you for a reason and must love you.

NewYork1979

I think so.

I think good looking people have a habit of the Grass is Greener syndrome because they are used to a lot of attention and so they can mess up good relationships. They can develop a habit of liking having their ego stroked.

The increased attention also leads to more flings/partners and thus more failures I guess.

Awkward Badger

Might have something to do with getting into the habit of going through a lot of different partners when younger. So when they settle down and a relationship gets into a bit of difficulty, jumping ship and finding something better is an actual option and possibly easier decision to make.

Whereas those who don't have as many partners are not in the habit of having options and changing relationships so they may be more inclined to work on relationships.

Ghost Buster

Awkward Badger wrote: »

Might have something to do with getting into the habit of going through a lot of different partners when younger. So when they settle down and a relationship gets into a bit of difficulty, jumping ship and finding something better is an actual option and possibly easier decision to make.

Whereas those who don't have as many partners are not in the habit of having options and changing relationships so they may be more inclined to work on relationships.

I agree. But with this comes misery. My mother in law who modelled in her day and her partner (Step father in law i suppose) who was an utter ladies man in his day both have estranged children, estranged partners/former spouses, and this is forever throwing up dramas and discord. Thank got Im not a babe!!!

fleet_admiral

My last girlfriend........she died from exhaustion

NewYork1979

I agree too that there is more heartbreak in the end..

yizorselves

I think we are. We are constantly attracting other beautiful people and our beautiful partners the same.

Its hard when there's a constant flow of beauty coming at both of you. Ugly people are so lucky

shrewd

I think personality speaks louder in relationship.

i've seen some extremely beautiful women that love their average looking partner to death.

I've also seen some extremely handsome men as well, that are very faithful to their partner. some, which are my firends, believe they've seen it all, some believe no one else can surpass their partner.

i think it depends on the character of the person

whirlpool

Ugly people are afraid to leave each other, in case nobody else will have them.

Sure aren't they lucky ANYONE wanted them?!

toastedpickles

There has to be more to life than just being really really good looking :P

Birneybau

Yes, we are.

Weep for us.

Karl Stein

Jennifer* and Jonathan Hart would say you're wrong.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AbZaiQWe03U

*She's goygeous

IamtheWalrus

toastedpickles wrote: »

There has to be more to life than just being really really good looking :P

Are you a 2?

yizorselves

Its probably not love we're unlucky in. More like like or lust...

Love is wanting to be with someone and you cant properly put it into words why. They have an effect on you and its just the way life is.

Its all chemicals innit

anncoates

Karl Stein wrote: »

Jennifer* and Jonathan Hart would say you're wrong.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AbZaiQWe03U

*She's goygeous

Now there was a ugly fcuker (Max).

Karl Stein

anncoates wrote: »

Now there was a ugly fcuker (Max).

And a commie sympathiser too..

A good sod he was imho.

Macavity.

All the studies suggest the opposite. Better looking people are happier in general.

Wibbs

Good looking people simply have more options in the dating pool, a "higher market value" as it were, so having more options usually means more likelihood of straying and as Awkward Badger notes this usually means more partners when young, so they get more used to novelty. Plainer people have fewer options and are also more likely IME to value personality. Personality has also got "market value" but obvious good looks can overpower it.

I would say if I was to be very reductive that people have a reproductive market value, but it can vary through life and can go up or down depending on different factors. EG the studious man in school who gets good results, a great degree and starts earning money, power and social respect gains value. In school he's not one of the "cool kids", but as an adult he's more attractive. It can go down to, so the "hot babe" at 18 loses market value as she ages and by the time she's 40 that value is significantly less. If she's not hitched at 35 she might drop her "standards" and go for a plainer man. He's a safer bet. If a hot guy and a hot woman get hitched at 25, by the time they're both 45, his value is going to be higher than hers(so long as he doesn't bloat up) and then you can have the midlife crisis where he leaves her for a younger model.

This market value also comes in with couples where one is notably better looking than the other. They're actually quite uncommon and various research has shown this. People overwhelmingly hook up with partners of similar background, education, intelligence and looks. The less good looking one has some non looks based extra market value that makes up the difference. The obvious cliche is the billionaire old guy with the young swimwear model.

anncoates

Karl Stein wrote: »

And a commie sympathiser too..

A good sod he was imho.

"He got called a "Red son of a bitch" by the head of Colombia pictures

Faux Socialist

Some of my best shags have been with ugly women and bbws. A lot of the time, good looking women can be shallow and lacking in emotions which aren't great attributes for the bedroom.

Geomy

I've seen this a lot year's ago.
A guy who wasn't the brightest spark or blessed with good looks get off with the best looking woman in the Club, because all the other guys thought they weren't good enough.

folamh

Geomy wrote: »

A guy who wasn't the brightest spark or blessed with good looks get off with the best looking woman in the Club, because all the other guys thought they weren't good enough.

Neil from the Inbetweeners.

Reindeer

Wibbs wrote: »

Good looking people simply have more options in the dating pool, a "higher market value" as it were, so having more options usually means more likelihood of straying and as Awkward Badger notes this usually means more partners when young, so they get more used to novelty. Plainer people have fewer options and are also more likely IME to value personality. Personality has also got "market value" but obvious good looks can overpower it.

I would say if I was to be very reductive that people have a reproductive market value, but it can vary through life and can go up or down depending on different factors. EG the studious man in school who gets good results, a great degree and starts earning money, power and social respect gains value. In school he's not one of the "cool kids", but as an adult he's more attractive. It can go down to, so the "hot babe" at 18 loses market value as she ages and by the time she's 40 that value is significantly less. If she's not hitched at 35 she might drop her "standards" and go for a plainer man. He's a safer bet. If a hot guy and a hot woman get hitched at 25, by the time they're both 45, his value is going to be higher than hers(so long as he doesn't bloat up) and then you can have the midlife crisis where he leaves her for a younger model.

This market value also comes in with couples where one is notably better looking than the other. They're actually quite uncommon and various research has shown this. People overwhelmingly hook up with partners of similar background, education, intelligence and looks. The less good looking one has some non looks based extra market value that makes up the difference. The obvious cliche is the billionaire old guy with the young swimwear model.

Isn't this you here?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=hKWmFWRVLlU#t=25

Shakespeare's Sister

Karl Stein wrote: »

Jennifer* and Jonathan Hart would say you're wrong.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AbZaiQWe03U

*She's goygeous

The actor who played Jonathan Hart was in a relationship with the late Natalie Wood. Now SHE... was goygeous.

As Joan Collins said: Being born beautiful is like being born rich and getting poorer as life goes on.

ancapailldorcha

Reindeer wrote: »

Isn't this you here?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=hKWmFWRVLlU#t=25

A 7 minute version of a Barney Stinson joke? Ok then.

folamh

Reindeer wrote: »

Isn't this you here?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=hKWmFWRVLlU#t=25

I was thinking more: http://theantifeminist.com/age-peak-female-sexual-attractiveness/

Reindeer

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

A 7 minute version of a Barney Stinson "joke"? Ok then.

Wibbs can likely argue there's merit to the "joke"...

Wibbs

Reindeer wrote: »

Isn't this you here?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=hKWmFWRVLlU#t=25

That's pretty funny IMH. I love some of the comments of the outraged. There's a good rebuttal to it too where a woman does the Pig/Money graph of men(also a left handed type. Coincidence, I think not...).

Tarzana

I think that good-looking people attract so much more of a volume of potential mates that it might be harder sometimes to pick a good one. More chaff to sift through, ya know?

It's substantially hard on us good-looking people. :pac:

Shakespeare's Sister

People only interested in sex with them, nothing further... would be a problem all right.
And there's the thing of assuming they're a bitch/asshole/not to be trusted.

Wibbs

Reindeer wrote: »

Wibbs can likely argue there's merit to the "joke"...

It's either funny or it's not. That's the only merit. I find it funny therefore it has merit for me. It may not have nerit for others, but I can live with that.

Geomy wrote:

I've seen this a lot year's ago. A guy who wasn't the brightest spark or blessed with good looks get off with the best looking woman in the Club, because all the other guys thought they weren't good enough.

Yep, his social confidence ups his market value. As does being seen with other women. Makes sense. Still the popular PUA guff suggest if you follow their process(for a fee) even a munter of a bloke can pull the hot babes. Nope. He might improve his chances, hit his best potential, but actual "out of his league" women will remain so.

Lou.m

Well this is the explanation I will use from now on!

But yes I do think really good looking guys (and girls) do tend to be single I thought it was choice ..i dunno...

I thought really good looking guys would want to play the field.

I dunno. Maybe there is something in it.

Lou.m

Wibbs wrote: »

It's either funny or it's not. That's the only merit. I find it funny therefore it has merit for me. It may not have nerit for others, but I can live with that.

Yep, his social confidence ups his market value. As does being seen with other women. Makes sense. Still the popular PUA guff suggest if you follow their process(for a fee) even a munter of a bloke can pull the hot babes. Nope. He might improve his chances, hit his best potential, but actual "out of his league" women will remain so.

Well no.

He knows how to 'help out' women in a conversation. He can make them feel at ease and will make a huge effort with people in general. It is not value stuff.

It is just he is good with people and can bring people out of themselves and make them feel good. A lot of people liking you is feeling good and good about themselves around you.

Wibbs

Wibbs wrote: »

Good looking people simply have more options in the dating pool, a "higher market value" as it were, so having more options usually means more likelihood of straying and as Awkward Badger notes this usually means more partners when young, so they get more used to novelty. Plainer people have fewer options and are also more likely IME to value personality. Personality has also got "market value" but obvious good looks can overpower it.

I would say if I was to be very reductive that people have a reproductive market value, but it can vary through life and can go up or down depending on different factors. EG the studious man in school who gets good results, a great degree and starts earning money, power and social respect gains value. In school he's not one of the "cool kids", but as an adult he's more attractive. It can go down to, so the "hot babe" at 18 loses market value as she ages and by the time she's 40 that value is significantly less. If she's not hitched at 35 she might drop her "standards" and go for a plainer man. He's a safer bet. If a hot guy and a hot woman get hitched at 25, by the time they're both 45, his value is going to be higher than hers(so long as he doesn't bloat up) and then you can have the midlife crisis where he leaves her for a younger model.

This market value also comes in with couples where one is notably better looking than the other. They're actually quite uncommon and various research has shown this. People overwhelmingly hook up with partners of similar background, education, intelligence and looks. The less good looking one has some non looks based extra market value that makes up the difference. The obvious cliche is the billionaire old guy with the young swimwear model.

I read this entire thing in Dwights voice.

http://www.sloshspot.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/05-Dwight-Schrute-on-Romance.jpg

Reindeer

Magaggie wrote: »

People only interested in sex with them, nothing further... would be a problem all right...

You say that like it's a bad thing.

Reindeer

Wibbs wrote: »

That's pretty funny IMH. I love some of the comments of the outraged. There's a good rebuttal to it too where a woman does the Pig/Money graph of men(also a left handed type. Coincidence, I think not...).

We all know yer a tranny

BlatentCheek

Clearly good looking people may be more inclined to jump ship on a struggling relationship because they feel they won't have any trouble finding something else. Having the temptation of people coming on to them the whole time probably makes being faithful a little harder too.

It's like how divorce and separation rates go up and down with the property price.

Shakespeare's Sister

Reindeer wrote: »

You say that like it's a bad thing.

Can be if you'd like love/companionship in addition to sex!

Wibbs

Lou.m wrote: »

Well no.

He knows how to 'help out' women in a conversation. He can make them feel at ease and will make a huge effort with people in general. It is not value stuff.

It is just he is good with people and can bring people out of themselves and make them feel good. A lot of people liking you is feeling good and good about themselves around you.

That is value. Huge market value socially(and reproductively). It shows a man who is likely self confident, understands social etiquette and interaction so is socially mature AKA Charisma(well one form of it. Pricks can be Charismatic too) and the more people, men and women, who see that, the higher his social market value goes up. Compare that to a man who is bad with people, struggles in a social situation and hinders rather than helps the group dynamic. Unless he is extremely talented/rich, his social value is lower and his reproductive value will be lower too.

Candie wrote:

I read this entire thing in Dwights voice.

I was thinking more along the lines of this.

Reindeer

Magaggie wrote: »

Can be if you'd like love/companionship in addition to sex!

You'll eventually find love. I've found it at least three times. Doesn't mean you want to spend the rest of your life with the person, though...

Tarzana

Wibbs wrote: »

If a hot guy and a hot woman get hitched at 25, by the time they're both 45, his value is going to be higher than hers(so long as he doesn't bloat up) and then you can have the midlife crisis where he leaves her for a younger model.

His value might be higher but not necessarily. If he has money, yeah, but lookswise might not look so hot either. Men's success later in life isn't really down to looks but other factors and if he doesn't have those, he might not be in a great position. As has been said before by me and others, men often don't age as well as they'd like to think they do.

ancapailldorcha

Tarzana wrote: »

His value might be higher but not necessarily. If he has money, yeah, but lookswise might not look so hot either. Men's success later in life isn't really down to looks but other factors and if he doesn't have those, he might not be in a great position. As has been said before by me and others, men often don't age as well as they'd like to think they do.

Wibbs may be referring to procreation, ie a man can father a child until a much later age than a woman can carry one to term. I've known a fair few men who've started families in their mid-forties. It's probably not ideal in terms of energy but it's still doable. A woman in her mid-forties doesn't have this option, though I'm no gynecologist.