Is this a red flag?

[FunFunFunFun]

I made the mistake of asking my new boyfriend "What are the three top things you look for in a woman?" He thought about it and replied: "Intelligence, sense of humour, and looks".

The last one unnerves me. Does this mean he's shallow? Would it be a deal-breaker for you?

Those are my top 3, more or less. Personally I see it as positive that he put intelligence and humour in his top 3. I've encountered men who find intelligence quite intimidating so I'd far rather be with someone who puts it first and foremost.

I think it depends a bit on whether someone means "looks" as in "I want a someone who looks like a model so that other people will be jealous" or "looks" as in "sexual attraction is important to me". If someone wants a trophy they can sod off, if they want someone they're attracted to, that seems entirely reasonable to me.

I'd never describe this as a red flag. If that makes me shallow, so be it.

Eight months?!

Why are you seeing a counsellor?

No. All men would say looks if they are being honest.

Why would you want a partner you aren't attracted to? The essence of a marriage is an exclusive sexual relationship. That is what distinguishes it from your friends. Why would you only ever want to have sex with one person for the rest of your life - if in your eyes - they weren't a looker?

"All men would say looks if they are being honest."

I don't see how anyone can presume to speak for all men, or all women for that matter. And as an argument it's not a valid one, since it can't be disproved. If any man said "actually, I'm not that bothered about looks" you would just turn round and say "you're not being honest" and if a man says "looks are important" you can see "See, I told you".

I'm female. It's very important to me that I find someone attractive. If I don't find them physically attractive I don't see the point in anything other than friendship, as I won't want to have sex with them.

And as an argument it's not a valid one, since it can't be disproved.

I don't think I've ever read such a load of gibberish as the previous post and this was the highlight.

Gravity doesn't exist on earth because it can't be disproved? It's not a valid argument. WTF?

reminds self not to engage in a battle of wits with the unarmed-

Some people by "looks" can mean "healthy lifestyle etc". For some people that's important. I think anyone who tries to follow healthy lifestyle can be considered good looking.

Like a pp I think that looks are subjective anyway.
I think my dh is gorgeous, my 2 favourite things about his looks are his nostrils and earlobes I can't wait until he goes grey so 'good looking' might not mean what you would naturally assume.

I also really agree that someone trying to help you work through your feelings in a professional capacity really shouldn't be making statements of fact about someone they have never met.
If he was shallow, he would have left you after your weight gain wouldn't he?!

I think he sounds fine. Very few people discount looks!

SelfLoathing it's interesting that you chose gravity as an example in that context given that Newton and Einstein gave it such different definitions.

I cannot test your hypothesis that "All men would say looks if they are being honest". If I ask them if looks are important and they say "yes", you'll take it as proof positive. And if I ask them and they say "no", you'll take it as proof of your hypothesis (Look, see, I told you they're lying"). I need a statement that can be tested, not one in which every available piece of evidence can be twisted to fit.

If you're still confused, I suggest you investigate falsifiability, which whilst not entirely unproblematic is nonetheless useful.