Love looks for "looks" in relationships

This is like you went for shopping to buy any products and the products you want is available at road side in good condition but it is not packed properly or package damaged or unpacked, so you are not going to buy it and then you go to big branded shop or shopping mall and bought it directly without giving any second thought and if so, then thought about the quality. We look at the package thinking that if the pack is good then the inside stuff will also be good.

So, its the human nature that they first look at the package not the product and then later on thought about the inner product. But there is some people also who think about the quality not about the brand or package. If you have one friend who is not look beautiful or good looking but after spending some time with him/her you will develop some feelings that connect you to with him/her no matter how he/she is looking. You would started feel good with him/her.

For the most part, yes. As an ugly looking person, I can count my love affairs with just one hand. The good news is that love is overrated, you don't need someone else to be happy. Find a hobby, read a book, play a video game, go make money online. Just laugh at life, because it usually sucks. One time I lost weight, I looked great, yet the happy people you see on The Biggest Loser didn't happen for me. See? Nothing ever changes. You go from fat to lean, and you still have a ton of other problems. Maybe you don't have a six pack, maybe you have hair loss, maybe your body is too hairy.

By the way, how do you know those couples are happy? How do you know he doesn't beat her or she's not cheating on him or they have credit card debt? Just because a couple looks happy doesn't mean they are. Just focus on yourself, that's the only person you can count on. The biggest mistake is being needy, needy people suffer the most, they will have sex with anything they can get and then hate themselves for it. They crave companionship and end up suffering fools. It isn't worth it, you're better off hiring a prostitute or watching porn than sleeping with someone you find disgusting because that's the best you can get.

If you're that desperate for love, get a dog. Dogs don't care what you look like, and I read dog owners are usually happier than non-dog owners. Let’s say you are given a choice of 2 apples: One is smoothly red and beautiful; perfectly round with no blemishes. The other is a blotchy red and has a bruise on it. Which apple will you choose? If you’re like most people you will choose the apple on the left even though they will both taste the same.

Humans are biologically driven to choose the “good looking” option. When it comes to food it’s because we know the good-looking one has a better chance to not be spoiled on the inside. When we choose the good-looking person it’s because subconsciously we believe their genes are superior and we would have a better chance of creating healthy offspring that will go on to continue our genetic line. Most men don’t particularly care about a woman’s social status, income or degree, even if they appreciate her ability to support herself and her personal trait of being “smart” or whatever you want to call it. It’s not that men are “intimidated” by these things - although there certainly are misogynists or tradcucks who feel negatively toward them - but I don’t think most men do. Rather, as these assets tend to be very important for women in regards to men, it’s understandable why women would project that these things must be very important for men with regards to women - but they’re not. Now, so why then would high status, high income, degree-holding women in particular have a tougher time finding the right partner or dating?

Women prefer to date up, or at least across. This means that as a woman’s income, social status and education increase, the pool of men she would prefer to date decreases as she equals or surpasses them in those things. But unfortunately there are two problems: 1) Good looking, rich, high status, degree-holding, and preferably dominant men are only a tiny fraction of the total number of men, which in itself restricts her dating pool, and 2) The opposite is true for those men - as they gain more of those things, their dating pool increases, which leads us to point.

The tiny fraction of men these women (group A) are after - good looking, rich, high status, degree-holding, preferably dominant men - are the same men that most other women (group B) would be after. So group A is competing against the rest of womanhood in group B using largely irrelevant assets, and may naturally lose out in the assets that actually matter: sex appeal first and personality close but second. At a very distant third place is her income, status and degree - I want to say ‘no man’, but I will settle for ‘hardly any man’ is going to change his mind because of those things if he already likes or dislikes the first two factors.

The kind of men these women are after can have most any woman they would like. So the pretty, sexy, feminine, pleasant, perhaps younger woman against the one who may be less so in all regards? it’s no contest. Let me take you on a reality trip for the USA: If you are looking for a fit woman, 30% are not overweight. If you are looking for a unmarried one then at 50%. If you are looking for a bright one then at 50%. If you are looking in your age bracket at 30%. If you are looking for a given Ppersonality match at 30%. If you are looking for a sane one then go with 25%. Now don’t let the math intimidate you, but what you have to figure out is called cumulative yield by multiplying all the numbers above together: Cumulative Yield = 0.3 x 0.5 x 0.5 x 0.3 x 0.3 x 0.25 = 0.0017 or 0.17% Your population for super good women is only 0.17%

Now hoping you have some brains left, since you have no chance of meeting your princess on this planet by random events, looking around, hanging out at bars, or thinking one will fall from the sky. It’s just not probable based on cumulative yield. Any algorithm for online dating services is just that, to make you feel good that you are finding your perfect match…duh, stupid humans. Most mating moves along this way: Physical Attraction. Chemical (brain) romance. Just in bed more chemical romance. Love starts. More jump in bed. Married. Kids. Romance slows down.

Deviation of personalities commences. Lawyers are called in (50% divorce rate in USA) This is the bottom line: You can’t “find” a good girl (it’s random hunting) You have to adjust to what you do find (appease) You have to prop yourself up to be a good catch (not be a loser) You have to fish a lot and sample the population. You have to move on when you hit a dud (girl) Keep in mind, the probability is 0.17% you will ever find a perfect girl. Get your ass out there and consider you're just fishing and using the catch and release method to decide if you want to invest the time with a given one. Cheers!