That's simply not true. People will always have their preferences and this will naturally exclude all kinds of types of people.



Those criteria aren't fake nor really exchangeable at all. They are what they are because of who I am.



Yeah, but falling in love isn't as random as you seem to think. I could very much like someone in a wheelchair for sure, but I could never fall in love with such a person knowing what the implications would be. That has nothing to do with neither the wheelchair nor my attitude or mind. It's just how I would feel about it, which would naturally prevent me from falling in love with such a person.



Contrary to what you seem to suggest here, it has nothing to do with common sense overruling feelings effectively excluding people either, it's simply based on feelings as much as falling in love itself is.

By the way, excluding people is part of my sexuality anyway, as I am heterosexual, not bi-sexual.

you can in no way tell me that you can hate someone and convince yourself to love him just because you want it. nor the other way round.
thats nonesense

cheers

I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying there's a huge natural bias towards certain kinds of people and although falling in love itself certainly can't be influenced, there will always be loads of people that wouldn't fit my taste.

I'm simply convinced I wouldn't fall in love with such people.

When it comes to hating people that's a whole different story. I can't hate people that I do not know, hence why I said that it's certainly possible for me to become very good friends with someone in a wheelchair or even with the Down syndrome. In that case I really don't care, but falling in love is friendship on a whole different level. Of course there will be a huge bias towards certain people, that's just natural.

It has nothing to do with ethics, discrimination and all that. It just has to do with natural preferences.

( Not falling in love with someone isn't mutually exclusive with hating them either by the way. )

Evolution made us only fall in love with people that look healthy, because that means that they have good genes (the children will be healthy) and he/she will be able to take care of the children. A person in a wheelchair just does not look healthy, so he/she won't look sexy to us.

So Phemox is right and my answer to Spike's question is no.

yeah, im with spike phemox and lukas


at the end of the day, I realize it sucks. but on the same token, if "love of personality" is all that counts why dont straight guys date there best friends and why isnt everyone bisexual? Or why do we generally think its gross to date someone too young or too old? Sexual attractiveness and desire, and still being able to continue on your life with fairly small interference is something that should count at least a decent part when picking out a mate.

It's not about being rude too them, but it's about not letting bad luck mess up two lives instead of just one.

My day job is working with disabled people including people in wheelchairs. Most of those people are in relationships and most of them met their partners after they became disabled.
from what I can tell the same factors that influence relationships with abled people influence relationships with disabled people. If a person is clean, neat and friendly a wheelchair does not seem to matter.
In fact most people in wheelchairs seem to do better with relationships than most computer nerds that I know

@Lukas the evolutionary pressures for relationships are about forming stable partnerships not about hunting or breeding. in all monogamous relationships the evolutionary imperative is to find the personality that will form the strongest union. in essence a weaker partner who is reliable is of greater value than a handsome strong partner who is unreliable.

yes, but if there are those two choices in front of you what would make you think that there isnt a beautiful/handsome strong partner who is also reliable. This "one perfect match" stuff is all pure BS. There is always someone better, and in this case, I'm sure there is just as good of a match with someone who you can relate to on a better level even ability-wise.

How many of those have partners that aren't in a wheelchair? Also.. it's of course great for them that they are able to get into relationships.



No surprise there, as that's of course because you're then focusing on a very specific group of people. Lots of which aren't exactly very socially skilled. :P



That's not quite true. Evolution doesn't care about monogamous relationships at all. Society does. I'm sure the breeding part is still a vital part of how people select their partners.

It's why, regardless of what people think, someone's appearance still matters a whole lot these days in monogamous relationships. I'm sure someone who looks very healthy is preferable over someone who's incredibly funny but looks like a tramp. It's exactly opposite of what you're saying here:



That doesn't have to be true at all. I think more often than not, people won't consciously choose for the most "reliable" persons at all. There are lots of very adventurous personalities out there. It's probably because from the perspective of evolution we were meant to be polygamous.....



Well said. The very same thing is what would naturally prevent me from going for a relationship with someone in a wheelchair. I doubt I could really fall in love with someone with such a disability, nor could it be a 'perfect match' by definition when it comes to my preferences.

"This "one perfect match" stuff is all pure BS"
I agree

"How many of those have partners that aren't in a wheelchair"
Almost all. It is rare to see two wheelchair bound people in a relationship unless they live in a group home situation. What seems to be important is the mental situation of the person in the wheelchair. People tend to form relationships with people of their own mental level, not necessarily of their own physical level.

"Evolution doesn't care about monogamous relationships at all. Society does."
You are right. Relationships are counter evolutionary. Individual evolutionary patterns dictate survival of the fittest. Relationships developed to counter this. These relationships allowed the development of large groups. the evolutionary process of large groups is now more significant than basic evolution. But society does not care about monogamous relationships if you mean culture. The current culture is actually quite anti monogamous relationships. Monogamous relationships developed in large dynamic groups to counter the evolutionary needs of the large dynamic group.

"I'm sure someone who looks very healthy is preferable over someone who's incredibly funny but looks like a tramp. It's exactly opposite of what you're saying here:"
Actually it is what I said. I said the person in the wheelchair must still be clean and not look like a tramp.

". I think more often than not, people won't consciously choose for the most "reliable" persons at all."
I agree... and just as people do not necessarily choose the most reliable person they also do not choose the most physically able person. And so they are open to relationships with people in wheelchairs.


" I doubt I could really fall in love with someone with such a disability, nor could it be a 'perfect match' by definition when it comes to my preferences."
Well I disagree with you So if you are working in an office and there are a number of reasonably attractive woman one of which is a perfect physical specimen and one of which is in a wheelchair you will become most attracted to the one that matches your personality needs regardless of the physical. Physical attraction is only a minor part of a relationship. you may choose to pursue the physically attractive woman because of cultural pressure but the relationship would be of lesser value. remember that physical attraction is more of a cultural dynamic than a biological one.

I don't think you can say this. I'm sure both objectively seen must have an equally important factor in forming relationships. A very low mental level and a very distinct difference in physical level clearly will make a relationship very much unlikely to begin with.

Perhaps it has to do with age and my own personal perspective here, but I definitely do not agree.



It was an example of how one would be naturally prevented from liking or falling in love with someone because of their appearance. Being or looking like a tramp is to some extent very comparable to why people wouldn't choose and definitely wouldn't prefer anyone with a physical disability.



You've sort of stretched my opinion into it being a general thing though. I never claimed no one could fall in love with someone in a wheelchair. I just said I wouldn't. I still think people their preferences will always shine through in with which person they fall in love with. I will admit we're dealing with a lot of very different personalities, but people will always have their preferences. Many of those aren't even conscious, but to think our more serious conscious preferences can be easily disabled by love is just silly.



It's commercialized, sure, but it's certainly still a very obvious biologic dynamic as well !!!

It's human psychology and has everything to do with the workings of social behavior as well. I'm not talking about commercial or cultural ideology here.

People will choose the better looking persons first, some might not dare, but they surely would want to.

Whether ultimately the relationship by definition has a better chance of success, can not be said. After all, that would be a rather monogamous perspective on a case where someone would easily be a lot more successful in relationships when it comes to polygamous relationships!!

In other words, you think of such relationships as having less value, but you can't really say that.

Ultimately regardless of personality differences, someone who's looking very good, even without a compatible personality, will have a hugely increased chance of getting into relationships in the first place. Same goes for someone without a disability.