I refer to the collective body of guys that my friend Caryn has dated/hooked up with as "the toolbox." This designation arose, not because she loiters outside True Value stalking the soft touches of handymen, but rather because every guy she's ever been into has been, in my opinion, a gigantic tool. I don't mean "tool" in the generically douchey sense. Rather, I refer to a specific constellation of traits that I think is best described by the term: "someone who tries too hard, a poser, someone who does things just to impress people, the asshat who goes to a rock show because they heard one of the songs on the radio or MTV" (Thanks urbandictionary.com!). I would add to this list that tools tend to take themselves way too seriously, are really impressed with themselves, and are also deeply compelled to remind you just how impressive they are.
Normally, I think its okay, or even good to be impressed with yourself, provided that you have something to be impressed about. This is not the case with Caryn's gaggle of goons. Most of them have been decent-looking, but nothing to call up Tyra Banks about in case she ever decides to run an America's Next Top Model for dudes. In terms of intelligence, they've ranged from dumb-as-dirt to moderately-not-retarded. However the "valedictorian" of the bunch is such a condescending ass that it counteracts any points he may have won by being able to form successive complete sentences and churn out excel models like it's his job, (which, shocker, it is). For these reasons, he has earned himself the title of Wrench, the king of the toolbox.
Caryn and I have been friends for about eight years now, so you'd think I'd have gathered some insight into why she consistently aches for the kinds of guys who would audition for (and be rejected from) reality TV shows, but I still can't figure out what the hell she sees in these losers. I guess such is the amorphous nature of attraction. She likes guys whose necks are thicker than the average computer help desk employee's waist, and I like guys who like Ayn Rand and play the guitar. Different strokes for different folks.
Here at Dartmouth, we tend to place the prize on sense of humor, which was the attribute most frequently named as one of the top three qualities that people look for in a prospective sexual and/or romantic partner in this week's survey. Facial attractiveness and intelligence weren't far behind, and a substantial percentage of respondents also indicated the importance of kindheartedness, physique and confidence. Wealth, creativity, ambition and popularity/peer approval were all selected by less than 10 percent of respondents as a top-three attribute.
A general theme among the commentary was that most people see personality traits such as sense of humor or intelligence as the most important things, but only once a minimum threshold of attractiveness is reached. According to one male commentator, "First attractions are always physical, the other stuff comes afterwards. If anyone tells you differently they're lying. You usually don't find out the great personality of an ugly girl because you might not approach her."
Many commentators suggested additional important qualities that were not listed as choices on the survey such as honesty, loyalty and style. Also, many pointed out that what they look for in a sexual partner is not necessarily the same as what's important for a romantic relationship. As one male respondent says, "The qualities I look for in a sexual partner are a lot different from the qualities I look for in a girlfriend. If I'm just looking to get laid, then personality attributes usually take a back seat to general bangability -- if I'm interested in a relationship, it's the other way around." The survey commentary by and large corroborated his sentiments. One female commentator reminds us that, "Facebook doesn't have a 'whatever I can get' option for no reason."
I actually find this bit kind of interesting, in light of the general state of sexual relationships at Dartmouth. Dartmouth, and perhaps college in general, is the natural habitat of the f*ckbuddy.
Many single students tend to hook up fairly consistently with the same person while denying they have any actual feelings for them, and then moving on a few weeks later (which appears to be the average shelf life of such a "relationship"). Given the frequency of these types of arrangements, I wonder how that affects what each partner is looking for on the bangability vs. personality scale. Presumably you sometimes converse with the person you're hooking up with, if only during seduction attempts or post-coital whisperings, and therefore might be slightly more interested in their personalities than if you're looking for a one-night stand.
Either way, the general consensus appears to be that attractiveness stems from many different attributes that all influence each other. As one male commentator puts it, "To say physical beauty or intelligence or a sense of humor is most important would be erroneous. It is instead a combination of physical, emotional and personality attributes that make for an appealing partner, not one attribute prevailing at the expense of another."
