Originally Posted by Ustwo

I can't say how it works for women, or other men, but only myself. For me the physical appearance of my partner does enhance the sexual experience. Not necessarily HER sexual experience, as if I am highly attracted to the female I may well be a bit quicker the first time than I'd like to be for her sake. If the physical appearance didn't matter to me, then I'd have casual sex with anyone and thats not the case, if anything I'm more picky than average. Not because its a conscious decision, but a visceral one. I've often thought how much more fun casual sex would be if my standards on appearance were lower, but unfortunately I can't control those. This is also unrelated to my own personal attractiveness. Physically I put myself on that big 'average' boat, most of what makes me attractive to females is in the relationship category, and we are talking casual sex. We're I single I could marry a woman far more attractive than one who would want me for a single night of sex.

I'm also not sure what you mean by Especially for people who are popularly deemed to be unattractive. . Do you mean that those who are considered unattractive are perceived as having a much better experience with an 'attractive' partner over someone their 'level'?



This implies their was a time when attractiveness as compared to others wasn't important, and I can't think of such a time in historic times. Cleopatra was known for her beauty, (even though their has been an effort to change that) and Helen's face launched a thousand ships.

Even what is attractive has only changed slightly from age to age, at least in the western world. I know Ruben's work is often used to show how somehow 'thin' wasn't always in, but I think thats a misinterpretation of his work. Ruben's painted all body types of all extremes, from grossly fat to extremely muscular, it was the variety of the human form that he liked to paint.

But take a look at the idealized greek, roman, and renaissance sculpture. The women are all thin and attractive by todays standards unless you consider the emaciated Paris model to be a 'standard'. I think the bar only moves slightly up or down on whats attractive in any generation.

As for the concept of the 'pity fuck' well undoubtedly there are those that do it and even think they are somehow being kind. Such is not my personality so understanding the motivations is hard. My personal stance is there is no such thing as a pity fuck, just some guys want an excuse for their actions.

As for the second part of that, the eagerness in bed, thats part of a long standing belief, which may or may not be a myth that the less attractive you are the more attentive you are to your partner. You will often hear how men with big dicks are bad in bed because they just assume its all they need. Its that same type of thinking. I can't say if its true or not, but I could see how it might be for some.



Again, its not modern society. Its humanity thats like this, for all time. Shallowness isn't increasing, we have always been shallow, looking for traits which are external as well as internal. Perhaps the main difference is now you can be exposed to beautiful people far easier than the past. Whereas 100 years ago, the most beautiful woman in your village was your bench mark, now you have the most beautiful women by the 1000's naked on the internet as your benchmark. Humanity hasn't changed, but the village is a hell of a lot bigger, even if its virtual.

Originally Posted by UsTwo

I'm also not sure what you mean by Especially for people who are popularly deemed to be unattractive. . Do you mean that those who are considered unattractive are perceived as having a much better experience with an 'attractive' partner over someone their 'level'?