What is shallowness?

[Frink]

Hi all,

After a bit of a hiatus from frequenting the TMF I've come up with a few questions to pose to the community. This is the first. Stay tuned for more. 😀

The first is simple: What is shallowness? And what is a "shallow" thing to say or do? I've seen that term used on this forum (and in other places) often, but I don't think it's necessarily applicable.

For instance....is it any more shallow for someone to select (or discriminate against) their potential relationship partner(s) based on looks than on ticklishness? How about hair or eye color?

I guess I'll weigh in first by saying. I don't think any of us are truly immune to "shallowness." I think we just pick and choose what we feel are valid and not valid "judgement" critera--based on our own experiences--and classify things accordingly. I suppose some things are more clear (i.e., universally agreeable) than others, though.

What does everyone else think?

 

[Neutron]

My Opinion?

Who gives a shit? People worship me, I know it, that's all that matters to me.

🙂

Tron

 

[maverick83]

When someone selects partners based on looks, they are called "shallow" and generally made to feel bad about it. This makes no sense to me. They can't help it. If you aren't attracted to someone, it doesn't matter what the reason is. The fact remains: You are not attracted to them. Shallowness, as I see it, is an adjective we applied to personality so that we could make people feel bad about the preferences they have no control over.

 

[evilqueen]

When someone selects partners based on looks, they are called "shallow" and generally made to feel bad about it.

Everyone selects partners based on looks. That's not the shallow part. It's when the selection is based solely on looks that the judgement is, rightfully, for shallowness.

WB, Frink. Scroll back through GenDis to read another Simpsons thread started by JoBelle that listed all the lines Bart wrote on the blackboard in the opening credits. Excellent!😀

 

[Dave2112]

I think that the term "shallow" gets overused a bit. You can be shallow to the point of overlooking serious character flaws in favor of physical appearance...that's not good. But starting an attraction toward someone because they look nice isn't shallow. It's nature. Beauty doesn't make you dumb or bitchy, handsomeness doesn't make you a user or a playboy or an idiot.

I find it often to be the jilted party who uses the term as a "lashback" mechanism at times. I know I've done it in my younger years.

Oh, and Tron? As far as worship goes...some cultures worship gods, some worship lizards, so I wouldn't put too much stock in the whole concept of worship. It's all a matter of perspective.

🙂

 

[maverick83]

Um, Evilqueen......

Using the same logic, I can claim that no one bases selection solely on looks.

 

[evilqueen]

Really? I guess we haven't met the same folks. 🙂

 

[JoBelle]

Agreed that one's PREFERENCES don't make them shallow.

That being said, though.....I strongly believe to DEVALUE someone who doesn't fit your particular prefernces IS what makes one shallow.

The people who chap my bum are the ones who think that just because you like, for example, a short & thick Hispanic goddess, that a tall thin African beauty is somehow beneath them. That leads to the idea that insult or criticism are acceptable forms of adult behavior. And frankly, that's just not so, because just down the street is some poor fool pining over that lean beauty nearly heart broken because she doesn't know he's alive!! 😉

And yep, to base a decision about someone based only on looks....Well, you have a rude awakening should disease or a disfiguring accident occur. But, then again...it probably wouldn't matter to that kind of person anyway. *shrug*

Joby

And Thanks for the mention there EQ! 😉

 

[Cyrano]

Shallow? I never really thought about that before. The only woman I've ever slept with didn't speak English or French, the only two languages I can speak, et je ne parle pas Français très bien. Funny thing is, she spoke Italian, my heritage yet I couldn't speak it. However, I don't think I'm shallow, just human. It was last year, I was 18 years old and it was my first time. Sure, we couldn't communicate very well, I sang some Italian lyrics from Volare to her. That and our names are about all we could relay. She knew she wouldn't see me again, just like I knew I wouldn't see her again. I think many things should be taken into account. I completely agree with Jobelle, that someone who devalues someone because they aren't what you're looking for is shallow, but lust doesn't make one shallow.

To tell you the truth, it wasn't all lust for me, call me corney but her sparkling eyes melted my heart. Her nose kind of crinkled when she laughed, her laugh, momma mia, her laughter was like music, her smile...to die for. I loved her for sentimental reasons, reasons someone else might find silly, find shallow even, but that afternoon meant a lot to me. Then again, one could say since we couldn't speak it was based soley on looks. However; I find plenty of women attractive, I don't want to sleep with them the same afternoon I meet them though, with Evelina it was much different than lust.

Just the thoughts of a foolish youth. I'll learn more about it later in life I'm sure.

 

[JoBelle]

Cyrano

WhatEVER you do in your life...do this one thing for me. Don't lose that romantic wimsy! It's intoxicating and delightful!

Joby 🙂

 

[Frink]

slippery slope....

To me there seems to be a very fine line between saying what is one's "preference" and what one feels is "beneath them."

I think if you asked most people the overwhelming majority would say--and for the most part believe--no one is "beneath them." Still, few would (or do or should) "settle" for less than their preferences. I also think few would say that they base their decisions <i>solely</i> on these preferences either. I believe most would say (quite legitimately) that those preferencese are just a primary screening filter. It's possible to get through it, but it's just unlikely. (After all, they're just going for what turns them on right?)

When those preferences are, say, "intelligence" or "an outgoing personality" or race/ethnicity, few question their legitimacy. When they are say, "a full head of hair" or "a slim, hourglass figure" or "tall height," shallowness begins to be hinted or insinuated by many. Some things are time-varying, others are not. Virtually all are subjective--to varying degrees.

If I say I prefer any one of these (6) things and use that to screen out virtually all others. Am I being justly selective and honest because "I know what I like/prefer" or am I being shallow because I'm ruling out so many others who are, by default, not up to my standards?

 

[Haltickling]

To like or not to like...

... is a matter of our instincts. We can't control whom we like or not, and most times we're not even aware of the reasons for it.

We can only control whom we respect, whom we can tolerate, and the reasons for this can be processed rationally (although instinct still plays an important role).

Liking a woman for her looks is nothing shallow at all, it's how nature made us men. If we really were attracted by 'inner values', the Playboy magazine would be full of X-ray photos... 🙄

 

[SmileyTkls]

To add my $.02 ($.03 CAN), I think it's not a problem with someone having preferences or guidelines for whom they feel attraction; it's when they throw it into someone's face, and tell them that they aren't attractive because they're fat, short, too tall, too skinny, ugly, etc. We all have ideals we'd like to have in a mate/partner, but you don't have to maliciously and without compassion run down someone for not meeting them. I'd much rather be turned down with "I appreciate you interest, but no thanks," than with "Get lost fatso!" Now, I shall be out spreading love and consciousness elsewhere... LOL.

Smiley

 

[Ayla ny]

hi frink! good to see you, ya snoot! 😉 hope life's been being good to you.

my own definition of shallow: when a ‘disproportionate’ amount of importance is placed on a single aspect of the many, many things that make up a whole person.

we all have things that are important to us when choosing a friend or a lover. so long as these things are balanced... I don’t see a problem.

 

[JoBelle]

my own definition of shallow: when a ‘disproportionate’ amount of importance is placed on a single aspect of the many, many things that make up a whole person.

AYLA!! How nicely you stated that! Another lovely use of words. (Enjoy your stories by the way.)

And Frink...to answer that question. Nope, nothing at ALL wrong with screening out folks via your preferences. I think we do it without even thinking most of the time. AND not just with lovers, but friends as well. I, myself, personally prefer older, taller, ticklish men. 😛 *hehe* You asked what we thought was a definition of shallow, and I stated that *IF* one used that screening process to devalue someone that I thought it would be a definition. I'm not saying that most people do it. I honestly don't think as a general rule that people are that insincere. Do you?

and Hal..lol You make me laugh! Sure, survival of the species is based on attractions. But, not that many people are having moral concerns (What is shallow?) when flipping to the centerfold, now are they?? 😉

Joby

 

[Frink]

Great responses!

Ayla, I really liked your definition; it was very concise too. The word "disproportionate" is the only word difficult to clarify there, since our different preferences make things inherently, well, disproportionate. lol

Joby, you made some interesting pints as well.

Now riddle me this TMFers.... lol
<i>Is this all about semantics?</i>

I give you the following 5 example statements:

1) I prefer shorter (wo)men to tall (wo)men.
2) Shorter (wo)men seem better to me than tall (wo)men.
3) I don't like tall (wo)men as much as I like shorter (wo)men.
4) (For me) Tall (wo)men aren't as good as short (wo)men.
5) (To me) Tall (wo)men are worse than short (wo)men.

Saying #5 sounds much worse than #1, but aren't these statements essentially equivalent? Still, #1 doesn't sound like it "devalues" anyone; #5 does sound that way, though. I guess it's hard to say a>b without implying b< a. Note that I purposely chose a relatively benign example (e.g, atyipcal height comments). Had I selected looks or weight or race, I think even this example would've started a controversy. lol

Does stating something in a positive, politically correct way make the sentiment any less shallow?

 

[qjakal]

Yes...

Yes...it does.

First you need to separate semantics from intent, which could be a thesis in itself. THEN, you need to remove "nuances" from the reader AND writers perception...at which time you will be left with a very vanilla, bland, and uninteresting comment that none of us will want to read anyway....

I say, do the best you can within your own personal choices, and try not to hurt anyones feelings if possible....which is NOT always the case, despite ones best efforts at times!

 

[JoBelle]

Semantics? Maybe.

IF I said...
1) I prefer taller men.

*OR*

2)Short men are nasty.

Ummm, which would illustrate my personality better? I say #1. Many people lose the interest of friends, associates, and lovers based on the delivery method rather than the message itself. I guess it depends on your willing ear, but I know that not many of the people I socialize with would choose to be around someone whose choice of language falls into category 2. It marries Q's rant...do your best and don't hurt other's along the way if you can consiously help it. It's much easier to be nice than it is to be otherwise. Intent versus sentiment...two totally different things.

As far as Ayla's...I took it to mean that if you used one criteria at the exclusionof all other. I mean....would you choose a ticklish murderer over a non-ticklish average Jane? *WAY EXTREME comparison, but for illustration's sake I used it.*


So, Frink, what do you think makes one shallow?


I dig chat about the meaning of things..lol

 

[Ayla ny]

JoBelle, I am so glad you liked my stories. thank you so much for saying so. (these kinds of arguments ARE so much fun!)

Frink, ‘disproportionate’ (again, my own take on this) would be placing so much importance on that single aspect that it blinds Mr. or Ms. Shallow to the whole person. this applies to the screening process as well as when that ideal is found. if it is found, and only one aspect is valued, one or the other is going to end up re-writing their little list to include a whole person who fits them.

Qjakal makes a good point. cruelty depends on intent and perception. mostly intent.

all of this only applies to people looking for more than a ‘surface friend’ or a ‘trophy mate’. some people are very happy in their shallow lives. good for them! (I really do mean that) 🙂 others need more. it’s all subjective.

ps does anyone else think that Hal just wanted his red feather back? 😉

yikes! I have to go to work!

 

[Cyrano]

Thank you JoBelle, although it's been a while since I've had romance in my life. Plenty of friends though, so life's still fun.

"Moonlight and love songs never out of date," Frank Sinatra

 

[Frink]

Tons of food for thought in this thread. 😀

Joby, I actually gave my response right after I asked the question...in the first post. But I'll clarify/restate it here.

I just think we're all shallow to varying degrees; it just depends on who's making the judgement. I call ticklishness my "preference," but I feel that word is somewhat of a euphemism. Someone not into tickling might say I was shallow for listing tickling among my important criteria for, say, choosing an s/o. To an extent, they'd be correct. Many women say men are more shallow b/c of their greater (and/or generally more overt) emphasis on sexual/physical things. To an extent they are correct, too. It all balances though, b/c women do things many men think are shallow, too. lol Aren't all of these things only "skin deep"--not to mention highly subjective--in the grand scheme of things?

Still, I think all of this "shallowness" is perfectly fine! 🙂 We all try to be "balanced" but we're not. (Hey, most folks try to be honest too, but we're not really...nearly impossible to be 100% honest IMHO.) lol I think the key is in the effort. We <i>try</i>. (Tips hat to qjackal. 🙂 ) Given that we have to balance things like "not being shallow," with "honesty" (with ourselves sometimes), with general kindness, etc, etc....tradeoffs have to be made.....imperfect solutions for an imperfect life in an imperfect world.

I expect some of my "preferences" to be called shallow by some. And, on that subjective basis, to some I might be called a shallow person. Still, I know there are preferences that these same people have that could just as easily fall into that category. Hence, I don't see the need to point the finger or judge. We're all human--and different. lol

Again, just my opinion...I just wanted to hear what the many opinions of the TMFers were.

😎

 

[JoBelle]

Tons of food for thought in this thread. 😀

We're all human--and different. lol

Ohhhhh..what you said!! 😉

Joby.