uhhhhhhhhhh

>>17526572

you can use the fact that youre not attraged to him/her to make them unsure of their place in the relationship. then you mold them into the person you want them to be, or they give up. either way, you win.

You might become attracted to them by getting to them them better, just don't lie to them to get them into bed.

>>17526572
Uuuuh is just like you say. It's just dating you aren't getting married and you can give it a try and see what happens from there. Don't go with low expectations just go with normal ones. Stop judging and start enjoying and when you stop just say so


It's not wrong to date someone you are not that attracted to.
My bf asked me out and I was like "he's chubby and I'm not THAT attracted to that" but now I just can't seem to find other people attractive. His personality is like light to me and I love him. I even came to love his chubby cute face so I'd say give it a try

>>17526572
I don't understand? what on earth is immoral about that?

I'd more likely to ask if it's moral to date somone you are attracted to?

>>17526573
>>17526578
It's their genetics, their predisposition towards certain things (taste) and their appearance. So, yeah, the stuff is not going to change.

What's your opinion now?


>>17526585
I would probably marry an overweight person, because it's not who they are.

-

I should have been more specific.

>>17526586
Yeah, it's more honest to date someone who you find very attractive, purer and more simple. The implication when you're enthusiastically dating is that you are definitely attracted to the person, whether that's accurate or not.

>>17526618
but that honest enthusiasm seems born out of something ugly about the human condition, like you are giving in to being ruled by really base stuff, and that you value a person for things that shouldn't matter.

>>17526572

Why would you date him/her? Why are you even contemplating it?

>>17526672
Survival is not really a foolish or petty reason to be enthusiastic. You know mate selection is still important, right? Sex is a primitive, basic act that is necessary for our survival, like eating. There's a correlation between physical attractiveness, coolness and allure, and genetic "quality."

>>17526682
It might be something fun to do in a life that is mostly scary and uninteresting,

>>17526715

Sorry, I didn't expressed it right.

Why do you think you have a chance? Has she showed interest or something? How do you know her?

>>17526722
Oh, okay.

>why do you think you have a chance?
she expressed sexual interest in me, showed affection towards me, and asked me on a date

>how do you know her?
college

>>17526729

Ok, perfect. How is she? Describe her (I'm not perving, I have a point to make after this)

>>17526735
Pros:
cute, comfident, funny, nice, socially conscious

Cons:
awkwardly proportioned, relatively unstable, gets confused

File: 1468283230268.png (93KB, 300x269px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 300x269px

>>17526572

Its not really fair to the other person.

It would be really really shitty to be with this person for awhile, let them get all attached and love sick and then suddenly leave them and say "Yeah, sorry, just needed to see if I was attracted to you or not."

I'd say its okay to go ON a date with someone you aren't sure you're attracted to but to allow them to get attached to you while full well knowing you aren't that attached to them is a super selfish.

Your cynic is going to most likely be correct here. People who are telling you that chemistry doesn't matter have never been in a relationship that had chemistry and there's something wrong with them.

The problem is that if you do this and you run into someone you do have chemistry, you'll either ditch or you won't out of loyalty and then be bitter about it. It's a waste of time.

>>17526815
How is being responsible for someone's overattachment done? Is that like when a woman pretends to fully commit once she's afraid you're losing interest, promising you can get engaged or some bullshit? I don't fuck around with people like that, not anyone.

>>17526843
>How is being responsible for someone's overattachment done?

Not the person you're responding to, but the original lie is with the other person in that situation. They're pretending at some level that they have the normal, full feeling for the other person. Unless you're very explicit about it being a casual thing, there's some responsibility for the other person's feelings there.

If you tell her explicitly and she falls for you anyways, then I think it's not your fault. But you gotta be honest.

>>17526853
Right. I dread that. I keep trying to myself she looks better, or that I can't do better, just to avoid having a douchebag conversation like that.

You're probably right, though.

>>17526572
>Is it okay to date someone you're not sure you're attracted to?
Yes, of course. Why do you think dating exists in the first place?
You go out with them so you can figure out more about each other and how well you click together.

Just make sure not to mislead them. If you aren't sure about it, tell them that.

>>17526573
I really don't want to advise anyone to go kill themselves, but sometimes it's tempting.

>>17526715
sure, but that quality is hardly relevant in the modern world and is relic from life on the savanna. steven hawking is a much more valuable person then some chad.