Short term - Looks or personality?

[Zippy]

If you were to have a short term relationship with somebody which would you prefer them to have, great looks or great personality? I define short term as up to 2 years because thats nothing in a lifetime.

I specifically say short term because if I say long term it will sway to heavily towards personality. But in a short term relationship I think looks alone can keep the interest burning.

I'll represent team shallow by saying looks. :cool:

VOTE NOW

[Patrick]

Nice SIG [Smithy Backlash Continues x]

And Looks.

[Niall]

*Agrees with Zippy; looks out window to see if pigs are flying* :tongue:

[MTVN]

I dunno 2 years is quite a long time, I'd say up to about 6 months it's mainly looks, after that personality starts becoming more important

[MeMyselfAndI]

definately Looks

[Jords]

Personality, 2 years is a long time imo to be with somebody you didnt connect with/thought was a bitch.

[Shaun]

I don't think I could be with someone for 2 years purely based on their looks. I think looks only really factor into the equation, alone, based on a one-night-stand.

[Zippy]

You could have 2 years of great sex on looks alone

this isn't "the one" we're talking about.

[GypsyGoth]

2 years seems long term to me.

But how ugly is the person if we picked personality?

And how awful is the personality if we picked the opposite?

[Jords]

Dont care if were not on about 'the one', Id want the person to be likable if I was in any relationship with them, be it a week or 2 years, thats me and I got grounds.

If youre just after great sex youd go on the pull at weekends, if thats what you want why restrict to just the 1 person (and nope not interested in cheating just because shes not the 'one') :L

[Jords]

Oh and btw whos saying just because somebodys good-looking means theyre good in bed? ;)


I could go out with somebody I found an average 5/10 if they had a great personality.

[Jordan.]

Looks. You can grow accustom to someones personality but you're not going to not find someone a munter just because you've known them a while.

[Billy]

looks definitely.

[Zippy]

2 years seems long term to me.

well if you met the right one you would envisage spending the rest of your life with them. So 2 years is nothing compared to that.

when you look back at life a 2 year period will seem like nothing. I'd say its the optimum time for a relationship and then you it really gets tested.

[joeysteele]

Personality, looks can be very deceiving.

[King Gizzard]

Thougt short term meant just a one off night

2 years is long term in my books :S

[Beastie]

For short term.. looks. Like a fling in the bushes type thing. I wouldn't ever call that a "relationship".

[Beastie]

Friends with benefits ;)

[Zippy]

Friends with benefits ;)

housing benefits?

[Lee.]

Personality, without a doubt. Althoug nice eyes would be a factor too :)

[Z]

Personality

[Kerry]

Personality 100%

Sex is nothing if you can't bond. May aswell sort yourself out

[Zippy]

May aswell sort yourself out

:evilgrin:

rabbit rabbit

[Ninastar]

You could have 2 years of great sex on looks alone

this isn't "the one" we're talking about.

this convinced me

I would choose looks /shallowbitch

[CharlieO]

Both, Id never go out with someone ugly nor would I go out with someone with a personality that wasn't up to scratch.

[Niamh.]

I don't think I could be with someone for 2 years purely based on their looks. I think looks only really factor into the equation, alone, based on a one-night-stand.

I agree with this ^ 2 years is a hell of a long time to spend with someone you don't get on with that well, infact 2 weeks could feel like forever if you didn't click with someone

[Benjamin]

Personality. For that amount of time, 2 years, I would need to be able to connect with them on some level, looks alone are nothing more than a one night thing usually.