Category: Q & A

As Amy Quispe states, the answer is basically buried in the question, though I'll go a bit deeper:

• Ugly, by definition, is not tied to a particular body shape or size
• Cute, by definition, is also not tied to a particular body shape or size
• Predictive level of health status and issues, however, do come closer to mapping to a specific range of body sizes – too skinny is seen as unhealthy, as is too fat

I think that, casting direct issues of anorexia, obesity, predisposition to diabetes and the like aside, what it comes down to is this: attractiveness is based primarily on what you DO with what you've GOT.

For example, I go to Japan fairly regularly… And I'm always reminded not only of how much generally larger American women are in the strictest sense, but also in how much cuter the average fat Japanese girl is, compared to her American counterpart. This isn't a case of "Yellow Fever", but rather an observation that women in Japan, regardless of their body type, seem to have a much broader and better understanding of how to make their particular legs/hair/physique work in combination with the fashion, makeup, and beauty regimen they can afford. I hate to be this blunt and overgeneralize at the same time, but it seems to me that a lot of the time, if an American woman feels she can't be one of the most beautiful women in the room, that she tends to scoff at the very idea of striving to be beautiful – turning her defensiveness and anxiety about her looks into a more "respectable" pseudofeminist political statement.

This is definitely not something women do on their own – a lot of the western fashion/beauty industry caters to a very small subset of females… If the latest dresses aren't flattering on you, you'll quickly find that the much better stuff from last year's collections have all but disappeared. This doesn't seem as prevalent a force in non-Western countries. In Japan especially, every single fashion fad that every was, lives on today and probably will continue to exist far into the future.

In short, whether you are skinny or fat, or anywhere in between, being cute (or ugly) is mostly up to you. If you want my advice, I'd suggest trying to find the cute that works for you, and the people who find that attractive… And spend a lot less time worrying about small-minded detractors in the world at large.

Is it better to be skinny and ugly or fat and cute?

The idea of pursuit makes me imagine men running around with flashing red and blue lights in their pants.

That said, in terms of cultivating multiple relationships with women, some of which are intentionally non-platonic, need not be harmful, rude, or otherwise "bad". In fact, by showing the disconnect between interest and possessiveness/constraint, such men often are seen as more desirable. The same is also true of women – and it's not a strictly heterosexual phenomenon, for that matter.

Whoever you are, whatever your preferences may be, by showing a matter-of-factness in your interest in another that does not single them out too soon, you're showing maturity and comfort in your own sexuality and romantic relationships generally. This is, for the most part, a good thing – though the number of people who do this in a self-aware manner, with an equally self-aware partner are few and far between.

As with all relationship matters, rather than looking at the situation you perceive and filling in the rest with assumptions, it's best to express your feelings, and genuinely listen to what your partner/prospect has to say – and hopefully, move forward together in a manner that promotes mutual enjoyment and communication.

How do girls feel about it when guys pursue more than one girl at a time?

I would submit that Shannon Larson's hypothesis is incorrect – Polyamory is not about creating a selection buffet for the physically attractive, but rather de-emphasizing specific traits as part of the attraction equation.

Put another way, if you don't need to permanently handcuff yourself to a single mate for life, or serially pursue theoretically-good single matches in turn over time, you are instead freed to selectively or massively experiment with/iterate across multiple coincident relationships based solely on the parts of such relationships that bring you joy… And then, ideally, "fill the gaps" as necessary with additional "fitting" relationships.

Polyamory is about "getting a wider spectrum of desires more consistently fulfilled than is statistically likely via monogamy", not "catching all the hottie-type Pokémon".

In the studies I've seen, and the polyamorous individuals I've interviewed, the inequalities of specific polyamorous couplings are far more centered around individuals' disparities of time, attention level and tactical/strategic intent for the relationship, rather than looks and money. Do more attractive but vain polyamorous people seem to have an easier time finding attractive compatible partners? Maaaaaaaybe!

Another point to remember: neither monogamous nor polyamorous relationships, by definition, presume eventual marriage (which seems to also be an undercurrent of the majority of answers here). It's much more likely, instead, that widespread societal polyamory would simply make romantic relations a more continuous/integrated part of the I LIKE YOU curve, rather than a jarring state change to an entirely different, if seemingly-parallel I LIKE-LIKE YOU graph.

Having said all that, the answer remains, of course, NO. Simply adding the ability to offset gender ratios with multiple partner relationships would not de facto guarantee proper equilibrium across the combination of gender, sexual identity, and sexual preference… And, in seriousness, it's never about the ratio, anyway. Every relationship that doesn't happen, doesn't happen for its own reasons.

Can gender ratio problems / frustrations be solved by widespread acceptance of polyamory?

Men prefer to make out with people they are romantically interested in, exclusively… Given that that tends to be a pretty limited subgroup of their acquaintances, this means it likely isn't a constant, on-demand phenomenon for most men, so make-outs tend to be appreciated on their own merits when they happen organically.

That said, men also tend to like sex, and are far less discriminatory about who they'd share that experience with.

Where the waters muddy a bit, is that men will also happily do just about anything to take the promise of sex to its sweatiest, most fall-asleep-before-you-get-yours conclusion possible, including making out with someone they may not otherwise have a romantic interest in.

In summary:

Men like to just make out sometimes, AND they will almost always make out if doing so leads to sex.

Do men like to make out or do they make out just to get sex?

Avoid pastrami.

What should I keep in mind when involving foods in sexual endeavors?