| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 1314.1 | | DELNI::STHILAIRE | show me how the sun shines | Tue Oct 27 1992 16:10 | 26 |
| Skip, I am sorry that the blind woman that you dated felt the way she
did and that your relationship ended so tragically. I'm sure it was
very painful for you.
However, when it comes to a romantic SO relationship, for me there is
nothing to be had in having a relationship with someone who, for
whatever reason, I don't find attractive. I would prefer to be alone
than to force myself to try to have a relationship with someone that I
don't find attractive, in both personality and appearance.
What I see in our exchange is:
Me: Saying, I think both a good/compatible personality and
physical attractiveness are necessary for an SO
relationship
You: Saying, All you care about is looks, and that's terrible
Skip, please understand. Looks is not all I care about. I think it is
one of the ingredients needed for me to fall in love with someone, but
it isn't the only one. I also care about personality, beliefs,
interests in common, etc.
Lorna
|
| 1314.2 | | JUPITR::KAGNO | Mom to the Wrecking Crew | Tue Oct 27 1992 16:46 | 11 |
| I have been following this and each time I read Lorna's replies she
adds the suffix "to me" after the word attractive. I can't help but
agree with her. I have dated many guys my girlfriends would consider
unattractive but *I* found them attractive. One person's dream can
also be another person's nightmare.
What bothers me are the people who need to have an SO that the whole
world thinks is gorgeous in an effort to feed their own shallow egos.
-Roberta
|
| 1314.3 | | XCUSME::HOGGE | I am the King of Nothing | Tue Oct 27 1992 17:02 | 89 |
| No, what I'm saying is that 'looks' shouldn't be in the list of
requirments. Looks, shouldn't matter, for a sucessful relationship,
shouldn't have anything to do with it. But unfortunatly, society
has placed so much importance on 'looks' that most people can't help
but put a priority on it. You're included in that. Very VERY few
people see all the media hipe about how only 'good looks' can result
from using things, or are required to use an item.
Television, newspapers, and more. Politiicians care about their looks,
staring role actors are always pretty/handsome (when was the last time you
saw an ugly hero/heroine?)
Hell it evens effects certain jobs anymore, ever see an
overweight/unattractive waiter/waitress/bartender at the Bahama Beach
Club? I havn't, and further, I see more and more law suits showing up
in the papers where people who fill 'public' oriented jobs are losing
those same jobs, not because they lack in qualifications for the job,
but because they don't 'fit' the public image the company wants to
project.
WHY? Because as someone said in mail, people are stupid. To the point
that they are showing what I call 'ignorant hypocrisy'. You keep
saying that looks aren't all that matters in forming a relationship,
but you keep listing them as one of the things needed for a good
relationship... sorry but you're counterdicting yourself every time
you say it. It's great it's not the only thing you require in a
relationship, but you said yourself
>it isn't a primary requist
>I can't have a sexual/emotional(might be the wrong word there)
relationship with someone who is unattractive to me.
Thats a mixed message... if it isn't a primary request, it shouldn't be
stated as a necessity for a successful relationship. Yet, you keep
repeating it as something you have to have in order to have a
successful relationship.
No one has said you should 'force yourself' to seek out any kind of
relationship with any kind of person. I've simply stated that it's
sad that society has reached the point in time where looks seem to
be so important that they make us pass up the qualities that create us
as an individual. Ugly people (and I count myself in there) have as
much to contribute to a successful relationship has 'attractive' people
do. The thing is, instead of being able to let them offer it, you
hit that word 'attractiveness' and suddenly they drop the the list of
'relationship' to the list of 'friendship'. So unless you define
attractivness to mean 'the being as a whole' instead of 'some with good
looks' then the best you'll get from me for anyone with these types of
requirements for a succesful relationship is a ironic smile and a shake
of my head. For no other reason then, you've closed yourself off to
a large percentage of the population, who for the lack of 'bumps n'
curves, teeth n hair' could be everything you ever wanted in a male
companion. That doesn't just mean you as an individual nor does it
mean just males or females... that means society over all as a whole
including all of us. And to be honest, I feel very sorry for society
because these are the things we find important in order to have a
relationship. When I first started to realize this, I started to
fight against it. I find it offensive, that after several million
years of evolution the human race is STILL filled with this type
of thinking. It's SCARY because, you'd think that we'd have learned
by now, that our outward apparence is NOT what we are, it's nothing
more then the shell we are shoved in at birth, and we don't always get
the physcial appearance that our personality should reflect.
Beleive me, physical attraction isn't all it's cracked up to be, but
then, from the things you said about your past relationships, I'm sure
you realize that. It was the physcial thing that brought you to them,
but it was the rest of it, the personality, the PERSON that drove you
or them away.
Like I said, no one said you should force yourself to fall in love with
someone unattractive. But maybe, being aware of the fact that you/we
as a society have been tending to put too much stock into
'attractiveness' and not enough stock into the rest of the qualities,
maybe just maybe you won't be so quick to think that the 'fat guy with
the bald head and missing one tooth' in the corner is 'unattractive'
maybe you might just go up and give him as much a chance to prove
himself as you would the guy with the big shoulders and Adonis face.
I guess what it all boils down to is that it just doesn't seem right
for people to dismiss possibilites based (regardless on how they place
it as a pre-requist) on 'looks' when it comes to potential
relationships. There is more then just looks to the make up of a
person and of all the thing that make us who we are, our physical
appearence is one of the things we have the LEAST amount of control
over. So how come we're putting so much importance on it?
Skip
|
| 1314.4 | | XCUSME::HOGGE | I am the King of Nothing | Tue Oct 27 1992 17:14 | 29 |
| re.2
But, how do you define attractive 'to you' and would you give someone
who's appearnce was NOT attractive to you a chance to become attractive
via their content instead of their appearence?
Surely their is someone else out there who understand why I find the
whole thing 'sad'. Why I think it's a point worth discussing, and
can see what I'm getting at about our society and how it influences
us as individuals to the point where we are starting to BELIEVE in the
hipe?
Doesn't it bother you to realize that if the shell isn't attractive,
the soul doesn't matter regardless how 'right' it is for you?
There's an old legend or myth or maybe even a religious belief about
how we are actually created as one soul that is split in half when we
are born on Earth, and that we have to spend our life trying to find
the other half of our soul, going through reincarnation until we
finally do, then we can move on to heaven. Considering the number of
unattractive people in the world, and considering the metaphor such
thinking represents... doesn't it bother anyone that the 'other half
of their soul' or 'soul mate' or 'perfect match' or 'Mr./Ms. Right'
could be wondering around in a body that you'll never take the time
to get to know because you don't find it physcially attractive?
Skip
|
| 1314.5 | | HEFTY::CHARBONND | Vote for me. I inhaled! | Wed Oct 28 1992 03:36 | 13 |
| re.3 You say 'looks shouldn't matter.' Why not. They clearly *do*
matter for a great many people, yet you insist on making a moral
issue about something that is merely natural to most people. I get
the sense that you're trying to imply, 'since physical attraction
doesn't matter to me, I'm morally superior to the rest of you.'
FWIW, I reject that notion.
Physical attraction is a _component_ of romantic attraction to
most people. Just how important that component is can range from
zero to a hundred percent. Some people confuse the component for
the whole, and some few seem happy with physical attractiveness
alone. What other people find attractive is not subject to your
moral approval or disapproval.
|
| 1314.6 | *MY* take on this | CESARE::ELIAG | Inquiring mind wants to know | Wed Oct 28 1992 07:03 | 57 |
| Skip,
I've always been a RO in this file (actually not very active writer
even in others ;) ..) but this string really prompts me to reply.
I guess that I can understand what you say about looks as a priority in
establishing relationship with people and I can almost completely agree
with that. What instead bothers me is the fact that *I* read in your
words a kind of statement like "love is <such> therefore you shouldn't
take <that> in consideration like you are instead doing".
How can you say so? I mean, to me there are a full set of
characteristics a person must have in order for me to find her/him
attractive (and I mean generally speaking attractive, non necessarily
in a romantic way). Those characteristics go from look to personality
and viceversa (NO priorities implied here). How can you come in and
pretend to sort out *MY* list and tell me what should be first and
what last?
Unless of course I come over to you and say something like "Skip I'm
awfully sorry because of my romantic life can you help me out in
understanding why is it so?". But given that I can live with my
past/present stories (with the good and the bad in them, I mean) and I
don't really see a problem there, well I don't really think you should
feel bothered by it.
Moreover, I read in Lorna's writings something like "I liked Mr. X even
he not necessarily was everyone's else cup of tea". To me she wrote
quite often something like "*I* need to feel somebody attractive" she
never wrote something like "Being attractive means X and Y. Only in
that case I can be interested in somebody".
How can you define the borderline between look and personality? To me
there is just such a strict relation between the two things that I've
often found that a specific detail is just triggering me with a certain
person and meaning nothing with another one.
On top of that, I read the word "attractive". Well It might just be
because of my lack of good English, but to me attractive means that 'it
attracts' not necessarily 'beautiful' or 'shaped in such and such
a way'. The fat and bold and toothless guy you mentioned may still be
attractive because he has wonderful eyes or an incredible smile (maybe
even without a tooth ;) ...) or <put whatever you want here>, so what?
But I guess that what came out of your replies is somehow maybe more
polarized than what you meant. I'm not trying to put words in your
mouth but I still feel that what you're basically saying is that look
shouldn't stop anybody from getting to know anybody else. If this
happens it may end up in such a way that what in the beginning was
little attractive may become just the contrary. If that is what you're
saying, then I fully agree with you.
Ciao,
graziella
PS: I hope any of the above sounded too harsh. If so I apologize (hate to add
that my command of English is not good enough for this kind of subject)
|
| 1314.7 | I love to look | RTOIC::ACROY | HOBOsapiens | Wed Oct 28 1992 07:51 | 29 |
| re. last two
...I couldn't say it better than you two. And for me there's another
factor: there's only complete personalities - and looks are part of
that. *One* example is: Why is somebody fat? (I'm not talking about any
illnesses here). Is it because he/she is maybe totally un-disciplined,
not interested in a healthy life? Not interested in sports? I think
that the way people look is always a reflection of their attitudes
towards life too. Why should I, as somebody who's intersted in arts or
design, like somebody who has no feeling for aestehtics, who doesn't
care about clothes or similar? That would be ignoring my own interests
and feelings.
I think it's silly to say that looks shouldn't have anything to do with
the success of a relationship. It depends on the people. There's people
who are very visual types and there's others who have no feeling for
visual aesthetics. The range - from very important to un-important.
We#re not talking about the *quality* of people here - we're talking
about *attraction*, which includes *sexual* attraction and sexual
attraction has to do with looks, with the sound of a voice, with smells
and other senses. That's not my idea, that's a proven fact, whether you
like it or not.
All this doesn't mean that tastes can't vary, they can, fortunately.
Otherwise *all* the guys would chase *my* girlfriend...wouldn't that be
terrible..:-)?
sascha, from across the ocean
|
| 1314.8 | | DELNI::STHILAIRE | show me how the sun shines | Wed Oct 28 1992 08:42 | 51 |
| re .5, thanks, Dana, you said it well. I agree.
re .7, I agree with you, also, and with much of what .6 had to say.
Skip, as Dana said, I think the fact that many, if not most people, are
swayed by looks as an indicator of who they find attractive, to be just
the way things are, a fact of life, that even though it may not always
be fair, has to be aknowledged and dealt with. *I* have had to deal
with it as well, Skip, and I've been told that I'm a reasonably
attractive looking person. But, I'm short - 5'1" - and some men just
are not attracted to short women - nothing I can do about it. Also,
I'm flat-chested and some men only like women with big boobs. I've had
to deal with it all my life. It's the way it is. Some men aren't
attracted to blue-eyed blondes, and I am one. That's the way it goes.
Fortunately, it does seem that almost everyone is able to appeal to
*somebody* regardless of their looks, and that's nice to know.
It is true that the closer that someone gets to looking the cover
material for GQ or Cosmo, the more people are likely to find them
attractive. But, most of us don't look like magazine cover material,
so we just do the best we can with what we've got. That's life.
That's the way I see it. If you find that sad, then so be it. It
tends to make me shrug my shoulders and think, "Well, I may not be Kim
Basinger, but at least I'm a normal looking, reasonably attractive
looking human being."
And, you have no idea what *I* might find attractive about a man's
looks. It isn't just the face, or the body. It can be the smile, the
light in someone's eyes when they look at me, the way they choose to
dress, or wear their hair. There is a photo of Keith Richards in the
most recent Rolling Stones magazine that I just got in the mail
yesterday. Now there's an example of a man, that I've heard people
laugh and joke about his looks, but, I have always and still do
consider him to be an attractive man. I like his hair, I like his
jewelry, I like the way he dresses, I like the expressions he gets on
his face. He's not pretty, but he's so interesting looking that I find
him attractive.
And, as far as fat, bald men go - well, I'd date Van Morrison in a
minute! :-) But, that's only because he's my favorite musical genius
and living legend, and, in his case, I honestly don't care how he
looks. But, he's an exception to the rule, and I would never compare
Van Morrison to mere mortals. :-)
On the other hand, I'm sorry that you've never had a chance to find out
that *sometimes* - just sometimes - physical attraction *is* all it's
cracked up to be. It may not last forever, but while it does, it can
be damn good.
Lorna
|
| 1314.9 | | KERNEL::COFFEYJ | Ultrix+SCO Unix/ODT supporter..... | Wed Oct 28 1992 09:00 | 34 |
|
This is odd - I think I agree with both sides on this.
I don't feel it's fair on myself or that I'm likely to meet the kind of people
I would want to meet if I limit my interest in people to only those with a
traditionally pretty face and a traditionally good body.
I also wouldn't want to sleep with someone who I found physically/sexually
unattractive.
A relationship hopefully doesn't always start with a leaping into bed or with
that in mind. Normally there's some time of some length, be it longer or
shorter, to get to know someone a bit - to find out what feelings they as a
whole person bring out in you.
If the effect that person has on you is that you find them sexually attractive
(I guess my definition of that is that you'd like to have sex with them) then
I guess it's not unreasonable to ask that that feeling is present before you
do sleep with them?
Surely having sex with someone you instinctively don't want to have sex with is
rather like raping yourself and using their body to do it with?
Personally I've found that I've ended up incredibly physically attracted to
all the people I've been involved with mainly because it stemmed from the
relationship I had with them on a non-physical level. There have been
people who I haven't been as keen on the first persona they put over to
people they don't know too well and correspondingly found them unattractive
when they were interested in me, then as I've got to know them better I've
found them more and more attractive and ended up in what were very nice
relationships with someone who initially couldn't've attracted me if I'd
tried and eventually I craved physical closeness with.
|
| 1314.10 | | XCUSME::HOGGE | I am the King of Nothing | Wed Oct 28 1992 10:36 | 120 |
| I think some of you are not reading everything I'm saying...
First, I don't consider myself morally above anyone in here... never
have never will. I lead my own life style and it's not for me to
say if your's is better or worse then mine. I am saying that it's sad
that physcial characteristics like a wart on the nose can mean so much
to a relationship that people won't give others a chance to 'be someone
special' in that relationship. Don't think i'm not aware of physcial
beauty, because I am, crips I'd be a sad artist if I couldn't
appreciate a well turned leg or figure. But as an artist there is
beauty in EVERYTHING including the things you find 'unattractive' it's
just a matter of seeing it. However, the society today save for a few
individuals are taught from the start that 'physcial attractiveness is
the primary gift of god' so to speak. Or don't any of you watch TV and
wonder about how physcial characteristics are portrayed in certian
characters? Why are heavy people jovial or comedy relief? Why is it
that only slender n' slinky models where Navy perfume? Why is it the
guy who gives that girl flowers is always a cousin of Adonis?
2nd some of you are getting 'physcial attractiveness' mixed up with the
attractiveness that manifests when you get to know someone's
personality and allow it to 'show you' what they look like.
3rd, I WILL agree that when you look at someone you can judge certain
characteristics about them from their appearance. And can make some
assessments from it, like if they enjoy bike riding/exercise/sports.
BUT, to way the results of a reltionship soley on appearnces is also
wrong unless your ONLY interest is to find someone to participate in
sports with you. What I'm saying is when you.. no WE as a society
evaluate people... let put too much stock in 'physical attractiveness'
as a means to determine if the person is worth knowing.
When was the last time you walked into a bar, or a night club, or a
comedy club, and sat down next to the ugliest guy in the place, and
started a conversation... just for the sake of getting to know him?
And after that, when did you go out in front of the world and let him
dance with you? Just to have a good time. Things like that bother
me and yeah, I guess I feel that morally society as a whole has screwed
up in their evaluations of people.
You read more and more in the paper where people are fired from jobs
because they don't fit the company image of physical attractiveness.
You see more and more where politicians are elected to office because
they are physcially more attractive and personable then the person they
are running against (caught that on an interview on T.V... Man in the
street: "Who are you going to vote for?" Woman: "Clinton" MITS: "Care
to explain why?" Woman: "Well, Bush is old and getting kind of (don't
remember adjective use my own) frompy looking, and Perot has big ears."
You see on TV and at movies (video's) where UGLY means 'BAD GUY' over
weight means 'Comedy' and anyone with intelligence must be GOOD
LOOKING. It's pretty much standard casting formula and only on very
rare occasions do they break these molds that they've 'type cast' the
world into.
And I still say it SCARES me, but my son, and the rest of the world.
Don't get me wrong here either, I'm not proposing 'censorship' on the
media, I'm saying that WE as a society should stop hiping the perfect
body so much and try and find ways to start saying that there's more
to people then that 'physical attractiveness' because if we don't,
then the step to follow is going to MEETING those standards for
everyone. Hell we already are, at least those who feel a need for it,
everything from seeking the dentist who will give us a perfect smile,
to the plastic surgeon who can give us the perfect 'physical apparence'
Lyphosuction, tummy tucks, butt tucks, leg sculptureing, platic add
ons, artifical removels. Is it me or is the world getting crazy with
all this? They found that silicon breast implants something that was
originally designed for women who have a breast removal for cancer or
other reasons, is dangerous. Suddenly I see women who are knock dead
gorgeous going in to have implants removed from BOTH breast???? Because
they need bigger ones? Because society has reached a point where we
demand the perfect breast of women??????? Good grief!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
If WE didn't 'worship' the perfect body so much, and considered other
things as a primary concern, would it have mattered so much to these
women to go to that sort of trouble? I dunno, I still think we've all
got it messed up somehow. I hear you all talking, and in some ways
you're agreeing with me in different respects or perceiving something
I say one way and trying to argue it. But in some respects, I think
I'm the only one who 'gets it' and the rest of you don't like to admit
that you care too much about how someone looks on your arm to take the
trouble to find out if they are compatable. I hear single women
complain a lot about how 'there are no good men out there' but when I
watch them in bars, they'd rather be with the stud that fits their idea
of physcial attractiveness instead of the guy with the qualities they
need to have a long term relationship. But what amazes me even more,
is I can listen to the same type of complaints from my 'buds'. There
just aren't any 'worthy' females out there.
There ARE worthy females and males out there, just quit being so
narrowed minded to attribute physical attractiveness as the first thing
that makes you decide if you're going to talk to them or not.
Well, enough preaching. I've been accused of trying to make one person
live up to my morals and trying to set myself up as 'morally superior'
to everyone else. I didn't start this conversation to be accused of
such, I started it to point out the problems people are having with
things that bother them, like "Why can't I find a food 'long term'
relationship?" Well a real good possiblity is you automatically
elminate a good 75% of the population without even thinking about it.
Simply because they don't 'look good' to you, and ONLY because they
don't 'look good'... sorry there's something definatly WRONG with that.
ONe other thing, there was a comment about not sleeping with someone
becasue they weren't physically/sexually attractive to the person.
physical attration and sexual attraction can and sometimes are two
different things. It doesn't happen often but there ARE other people
in the world who see things the same way as I do. ANd even understand
what I'm saying about 'WE' as a society tend to put too much stock in
physical attraction and not enough into the person inside the 'shell'.
THanks for your time, I know I've gotten some things out this to
think about. I hope the rest of you have too. I know you don't
necessarily agree with my views and if I've given the impression that
I consider myself 'superior' to anyone because you don't, that was
never my intention. I just see the world with different 'eyes' is all
I don't consider my outlooks better then anyone elses... just
different.
Skip
|
| 1314.11 | | XCUSME::HOGGE | I am the King of Nothing | Wed Oct 28 1992 10:44 | 10 |
| Umm in re-reading the previous entry I see a LOT of typos, and
grammatic errors, a case of my brain running faster then my fingers.
If anything seems confusing, ask about it and I'll try to clarify what
I was saying.
Sorry!
Skip
|
| 1314.12 | | DELNI::STHILAIRE | show me how the sun shines | Wed Oct 28 1992 11:26 | 39 |
| Skip, in an attempt to further explain how I see this, for me whether I
find someone attractive enough is not an intellectual decision. I
don't look at someone and say, "No, this person is not who I see
walking on my arm, or as my husband." For me, it's more of a gut
reaction that no amount of intellectualizing can really ever change. I
don't care what anybody else thinks about a person's looks when that
person walks into a room with me. All I care about is how I feel about
the person, especially when it comes time to get physical. There have
been certain people who, although they didn't immediately appeal to me
on the basis of looks, I later found attractive. However, there is a
limit to that. There are certain types of looks that regardless of how
much I might like the individual's personality, I am never going to
want to have a relationship with that person, simply because I dislike
their appearance so much. There are some looks I just can't get
beyond, and it isn't an intellectual decision. To be honest, it's pure
physical reflex. In other words, I would barf my guts out at the
thought of making love to some people, just based on their looks. As I
said before it would be like trying to force myself to eat vomit. Why
bother, if I can possibly eat lobster, or a piece of broiled haddock?
And, if the women's movement has taught me anything it's that I should
never feel compelled to have sex with anyone that I don't want to have
sex with. So, I don't think it's fair of you to attempt to pass moral
judgement on me just because I don't want to force myself to try to
have sex with men I think are creepy looking.
You say that it would be a better world if I, and everyone, were
oblivious to looks, but that just isn't the case. I do want my dates
to be attractive, and I don't think I should have to be made to feel
immoral because I don't want to force myself to have sex with men with
whom the very thought would make me nauseous. Surely, if we have the
freedom of choice in anything in our lives, it should be the freedom to
choose who we want to have sex with and why.
So, if looks don't matter at all to you, fine. That certainly broadens
the pickings for you. Go for it. I'm happy with my own way of seeing
things.
Lorna
|
| 1314.13 | it's just a fashion anyway... | KERNEL::COFFEYJ | Ultrix+SCO Unix/ODT supporter..... | Wed Oct 28 1992 12:02 | 7 |
| A passing thought on cover girls I tend to think of the looks of cover girls
not to be superior to others just judged to be by the marketing people
most likely to appeal to and be found attractive by the largest number of
people in the target audience..
Jo
|
| 1314.14 | | FORTY2::BOYES | My karma ran over my dogma. | Wed Oct 28 1992 12:24 | 7 |
| I can't see how anyone heterosexual or homosexual can claim that physical
attractiveness does not influence who they find attractive, given that there's
a huge section of the population that they would really rather not want to
go to bed with.
+Mark+
|
| 1314.15 | | XCUSME::HOGGE | I am the King of Nothing | Wed Oct 28 1992 12:32 | 103 |
| I say once again,
I AM NOT PASSING MORAL JUDGEMENT ON YOU!
Sheesh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Got it?
Now I also said a couple times that I don't work the same way you do,
I AM aware that the world doesn't work the way I think it should with
'looks' being ignored. But don't you agree, that maybe JUST MAYBE
the world WOULD really be a little better off if we COULD all put
this consistent hammering of 'GOOD LOOKS' aside and start realizing
the other quailities people have?
Several professional physichiatrists and psychologist have written
books based on the subject of looks in relationships and have stated
that the BEST realtionships for women tend to be with men that are not
6 ft, 180 lbs, blue eyed blond haired tight butted, wide shouldered,
well sculptured slightly bronzed glimming smiled sexually alluring
great in bed studs. Or reasonable/close approximations there of.
IN fact, for the most part, the thing that really perplexes me with
all of it is that the 'uglier' a person is (generally speaking mind
you) the more sincerity, trust, willingness to 'relate', sensitivity,
emotional strength they tend to have. THis is in relationships where
in the women are lovely bits of fluff and the men are 'vomit causes'.
And further more its' proven that our conceptualization of 'Good Looks'
is directly effected by media hype.
Thus the change in what was considered by society as a whole to be
good looking 'Mae West' (she's a good example, slightly overweight
and all) was a sex goddess once upon a time, but now it's someone else.
Make ups styles from the 40's would only be considered 'gross' by women
today. And the make ups styles were effected by the make up used in
silent movies (a dark eye liner and shadowing was used on the eyes to
bring them out because the lights and such used for these movies and
the type of picture develpment techniques used back then had a tendency
to 'wash out' the eyes. Since no one could actually talk, it was
necessary to WATCH facial expressions and the eyes rolling, fluttering,
winking, looking up down or to the side, were essential to the
'action') influenced the make up women wore. Today if you wore make
up comperable with the styles from the silent movie era, you'd be
laughed at.
NOW do you see what I'm trying to say?
Hell I KNOW the world doesn't work that way... We ALL know it doesn't
but a lot of it is simply because we don't know better.
Our 'appreciation' of beauty is NOT a natural reaction. We are TAUGHT
what beauty is. That's why people from different countries don't
understand why various forms of 'beauty' in one country are so
unappeling to us. A real good example would be all the make up the
traditional Japaness woman would wear for a formal function, the white
face eye liner, lipstick, and black wig are considered tradtional but
also beautiful by the men there, who find the rouge, lipstick eyeshadow
and such that American women wear repulsive and even ugly at a formal
function (I have first hand experience with this when I worked laison
with the JMSDF and USN in Misawa Japan).
So I guess what I'm REALLY getting at is that if we were taught
differently, to consider beauty as somthing that ISN'T related to the
skin, maybe we'd ALL be a bit better off. However, so long as people
get getting devensive about personal values, instead of trying to
figure out a way to change them. Welll society has STILL got a long
way to go when it comes to social development, relationships,
attractiveness, and the rest of the items you look at when you consider
life with someone.
Dat.... Dat's what *I* think. Again, I DON'T feel morally superior to
you or any one individual. What *I* feel is sorry for the way our
society has developed, to the point where we teach ourselves that
beauty is all... without you're nothing.
Something I do think is that I've been able to some extent, look
through the hype call IT ugly and understand that if we can teach
our kids something different then we've learned, then the world CAN
change. And that includes the consepts of how important 'looks' are in
a relationship.
You say it's natural, I say it's learned behavior and as with all forms
of learned behavior, a little hard work and effort can 'un-learn' it.
Don't ask me to tell you HOW to do that, I'm not a psychologist or
psychiatrist and havn't the faintest notion of HOW to go about doing
it. Maybe it starts but taking a look at someone and instead of saying
to yourself 'He'd make me vomit' finding something that IS attractive
about him. A friend of mine is a womanizer, I mean this guy LOVES
woman... his view on it is simply 'there's only ugly parts on a woman,
but they ALL have something beautiful too. So you concentrate on
that.' (This from a general conversation one afternoon with several
other guys about the woman we were dating, one of the guys made a
comment about the 'Dog' he was dating and that was his comment).
Maybe that's the key maybe not. Maybe it's all just one more grandious
scheme like the stuff that happened in the 60's th
|
| 1314.16 | | PSYLO::WILSON | | Wed Oct 28 1992 12:43 | 10 |
| I once read that in the Middle Ages people who were unattractive were
thought to be evil inside as well. ("The face is the mirror of the
soul.")
Are we Westerners are still stuck with a leftover hybrid of this
myth, and is it wreaking mischief in our relationships?
The older I get, I'm beginning to think so. I have been attracted to
various women who were not good for me at all. I'm learning to broaden
my defintion of "attractive," believe me.
|
| 1314.17 | | HYDRA::HEATHER | And the heart says danger.. | Wed Oct 28 1992 13:09 | 13 |
| For what it's worth, I hear you Skip, and I understand. I agree
it would be nice if things weren't the way they are. We have all
been conditioned to put more of an emphasis on physical beauty
than I feel is healthy. I don't fit many people's idea of what's
attractive, and have been ridiculed for my looks, as well as passed
over as somehow "unworthy" of getting to know, based solely on an
outside appearance.
...ah, would that it were different......what a very interesting
place this might be then.
bright blessings,
-HA
|
| 1314.18 | | DELNI::STHILAIRE | show me how the sun shines | Wed Oct 28 1992 13:41 | 22 |
| re .15, Skip, I think there's a big difference between wanting one's
SO's to look like Mel Gibson or Kim Basinger, that is, drop dead
gorgeous, and wanting to be able to feel physically attracted to our
partner's. For example, if my idea of an attractive date is someone
like Dustin Hoffman, or Keith Richards, but I would consider John Candy
or Danny DeVito to be barf material, I don't think that means that I
think looks are the most important thing in the world. I think it
would simply illustrate my personal taste in men. I think we all have
certain preferences for certain physical types, whether we try to
overcome it out of necessity, or idealism, or not.
I agree that looks have been over emphasized in our society. I think
it is wrong that people are sometimes judged on the basis of looks for
political positions or jobs. However, when it comes to personal love
relationships, I see nothing wrong with people taking looks into
account. I don't wish people wouldn't. I don't even especially think
the world would be a better place if people didn't. This is not to say
that I think looks are everything. I think you have me confused with
someone who does.
Lorna
|
| 1314.19 | | MCIS5::WOOLNER | Your dinner is in the supermarket | Wed Oct 28 1992 13:55 | 18 |
| .18> I agree that looks have been over emphasized in our society. I think
> it is wrong that people are sometimes judged on the basis of looks for
> political positions or jobs. However, when it comes to personal love
> relationships, I see nothing wrong with people taking looks into
> account. I don't wish people wouldn't. I don't even especially think
> the world would be a better place if people didn't.
Bingo! I think there's something instinctual about attraction, and I
don't wanna mess with Mother Nature.
> but I would consider John Candy or Danny DeVito to be barf material
I can dig it! But you know what, in (I think it was) "The Great
Outdoors", there was a funny, tender scene between John Candy's character
& his character's wife (sort of an unexpected afternoon-delight kind of
scene) and I found myself reassessing his attractiveness quotient!
Leslie
|
| 1314.20 | | XCUSME::HOGGE | I am the King of Nothing | Wed Oct 28 1992 15:49 | 19 |
| RE .16 & .17... THanks someone DOES see what I'm trying to get at.
I've written a reply twice to .18 with some explainations aimed at
a couple of comments in .19 but this dumb system keeps kicking me out
before I can get it entered, so I'll write it up and put it in later
(tomorrow)...
Lorna, you've said a few things that still bug me however, I want to
mention that I think one thing that's being confused here is the
definition of 'phsycial actractivenss' and 'physcial attraction' which
are two different terms all together. I'll explain what I mean in
my next reply.
Right now, I'm just too tired to work on it... time to take a nap (I
wish!)
Skip
|
| 1314.21 | | REGENT::BROOMHEAD | Don't panic -- yet. | Wed Oct 28 1992 16:15 | 13 |
| One thing that has not been brought out in the nature of the physical
attributes that `one' finds attract-ive. If I say I'm drawn to men
with the following physical attributes, am I really talking about a
man's outside?
eyes - intelligent, direct, twinkling
mouth - firm
chin - ditto
hair - clean, well-groomed
posture - not droopy
nails - clean, not chewed
Ann B.
|
| 1314.22 | | XCUSME::HOGGE | I am the King of Nothing | Wed Oct 28 1992 16:47 | 30 |
| Well, part of that is 'hygiend' and that would be an entirely different
subject. Although hygiene does attribute to physcial appearences, it's
one of the physcial aspects that we all can have control over. Posture
is in MOST cases the same way, however, in those cases where it's a
deformity, I don't think it should matter.
The 'firm' I can't comment on because in reality I never could figure
out what a person meant by 'firm mouth' or 'firm chin'.. hard lips and
clenched teeth?
For the most part you've described 'personality traits' rather then
actual physical 'looks' and theres a difference between the two. I
never met a person yet who's eyes REALLY twinkled, the expriesion seems
to me to actually regard certain facial expressions that suggest mirth,
a sense of humour, or perhaps a mischieveious personality. They are
'characteristics' and although they CAN and often DO effect 'personal
attractiveness' I think they fall into a catagory that more along the
lines of 'clues to a personality' such as expressed earlier about a
person being 'heavy' being interpeted to mean they don't enjoy physcial
sports. I mean phsycially we all have visual characteristics that can
project clues to our inner personalities, grease under finger nails can
suggest a love of cars or mechancial inclinations. Taped fingers could
suggest someone who enjooys working with stained glass (I KNOW about
this one, someday I'll wear gloves but then I don't have the 'control'
I need.)
See what I mean?
Skip
|
| 1314.23 | | CSLALL::LSUNDELL | Hold on to the nights... | Wed Oct 28 1992 19:37 | 9 |
| I understand what Skip's saying...and for what it's worth...I've been
out with the drop dead hunks as described so wonderfully by Skip in...
was it .14 hun? Most of them didn't have an IQ bigger than their shoe
size. Ah well....
;-))
Lynne
|
| 1314.24 | | DELNI::STHILAIRE | show me how the sun shines | Thu Oct 29 1992 10:18 | 7 |
| re .23, yes, but just because a person takes looks somewhat into
account, along with personality, doesn't mean that a person is only
interested in dating hunks. It only means that the person would like
to date people they find attractive, and I see nothing wrong with that.
Lorna
|
| 1314.25 | | DELNI::STHILAIRE | show me how the sun shines | Thu Oct 29 1992 10:20 | 12 |
| It seems to me that the minute a person says that they want to be able
to consider their SO attractive, Skip immediately leaps to the
conclusion that the person only wants to date hunks that could grace
the cover of GQ, and that just isn't the case. It only means that the
person would like to date someone reasonably appealing, instead of
someone whose appearance repels them. Skip doesn't appear to be able
to see any middle ground betweeing a woman wanting to date hunks, and
being willing to date extremely homely men, and there *is* a middle
ground, and, in fact, most people fall into that middle ground.
Lorna
|
| 1314.26 | | REGENT::BROOMHEAD | Don't panic -- yet. | Thu Oct 29 1992 10:27 | 25 |
| I understood what Skip meant before he wrote it. What *I* am saying
is that many people are inarticulate about what they find attractive,
and can't explain that it isn't the lithe and shapely nose� but the
way it twitches just before the owner laughs. People are observant,
and they do "see" personality, but they generally think of it as
appearance, and describe it accordingly.
Now, I have a friend. A dear, intelligent, funny friend, good-looking
even. Yes, he has all those physical attributes I described. But
somehow, I don't find him attractive. In one way, it's sad, because we
would have made a dynamite couple, like the Durants. In another way,
it's good, because he would say the same thing about me: "A dear,
intelligent, funny, good-looking friend, whom I don't find attractive."
I blame pheromones.
What the heck. I'm going to blame pheromones for all the "attractive"
judgments made about people who you had to meet before deciding they
were attractive, and for those equivalent "unattractive" judgments too.
(One inarticulable explanation is just as good as another.)
Ann B.
� No, really, this is a quote -- but from the most awful piece of
fiction I've ever read.
|
| 1314.27 | | BROKE::BNELSON | Angel of Music! Hide no longer! | Thu Oct 29 1992 11:07 | 66 |
|
Skip,
> Basically the discussion dealves into physical/sexual attraction
> vs. 'other attributes' and which one makes the better relationship.
I haven't had time to read every reply in great detail, but I've
more or less followed this line of thought. I apologize in advance if
I duplicate other folks thoughts.
One of the issues at hand Skip is you've used the word "should".
Generally, when you do this in this type of context you are either
trying to tell people how they should live, or passing judgement on
them. This will never fly. Perhaps you meant something else, and if
so it would be better to couch your thoughts differently.
You say that looks don't matter to you in terms of how attractive a
person is to you. I applaud you for this. Lorna has stated something
slightly different, and I applaud her. The point is, each of us has
our own agenda, and each is perfectly valid. That's the beautiful part
of life, making our choices and taking our own paths. There is much to
be learned from the differences between us, and for that reason (and
others) I celebrate those differences. Rather than rail because other
don't share your views, think about those other views and see if you
can learn from it. I find that almost no matter how disparate
someone's views are from mine, there is usually *something* I can
learn. Even if it's simply that I don't ever want to agree with them.
;-)
As long as I am at peace with my choices, and happy with how I live
my life, that's what's most important to me. I cannot say that looks
don't enter into at all into how attractive someone is to me, because
they do. It's a fairly small part, relatively speaking, but it's
there. However, even if I'm "wrong" and you're "right", it's still my
choice and I'm allowed to make it.
Conversely, some women find me attractive; others do not. If
someone doesn't I don't rant and rave and call them a bad person, I
simply realize they are looking for something different. This need not
be a personal attack on me. I'm secure enough to let this flow on by.
What's most important is that *I'm* happy with how I look.
Attractive is a subjective term. I often find women attractive
that my friends do not; And the reverse is true too. I've often felt
that I see things differently than most people. But then I've never
minded being different. At any rate, your statement above is difficult
to comment on objectively because "attractive" is subjective and
"better" is subjective.
In the long run, I don't think there's any question (for me) that
personality is most important to the successful running of a
relationship. Which is why personality plays such a big part in my
mind, because personalities are so much harder to change than looks.
But do I want to separate the two? No way.
Brian
|
| 1314.28 | | ELESYS::JASNIEWSKI | Why not ask why? | Thu Oct 29 1992 11:24 | 52 |
|
I think that there's some goodness in each kind.
I mean, there's this biological bonding mechanism we have, which
probably at its root takes physical attributes into account. Like when
you *see* someone of the opposite sex and...you somehow feel - at an
almost "metaphysical" level - an uncanny attraction to them. I believe
this "pull" you feel is actually a "biological bonding" to them as
someone who would be an ideal being to, er, "make a baby with".
That's just Nature at work within us; we all have this biological
bonding mechanism to some degree because Nature wants babys. Of
course, *of course* it's going to be responsive to attributes that are
solely in the physical domain because it so often starts with an
observation; you "see" them and then react or respond.
Skip talked about an interesting situation; what if you're blind?
What if you cant see; you have no means of observing physical aspects
of someone at all. Well, nature still wants to make babys, so the
mechanism of attraction might simply swap its initial context of
operation from an observable "physical appearance" to...
Maybe how someone *sounds* - the sound of his or her voice! Maybe to
how someone smells - "the smell when she's around just..."! Perhaps it
chooses to operate in the intellectual context instead - the way she or
he thinks...all they know and wonder about! Maybe it also can work
in the context of observed emotions; "I dont know what he looks like,
but the heart this man has! Ooooooh!"
Maybe the truth is that *all* the contexts that a biological bonding
mechanism might work within are just as valid as an attraction based
solely in any one way! Maybe - since most of us here are not blind - it's
not so much a matter of one kind "vs" another; it's a matter of getting
a balance between all the ways that one's inate nature might be
attracted to another person of the opposite sex - as we grow and
mature. A teenage boy's "pubescent" level of what he finds attractive
in a woman might just be perfectly appropriate for that time of life.
It's so hard not to judge someone else at whatever point they're at
in this growth and maturity. Even in saying that someone who's with
the drop dead hunk that's brainlesss and heartless "hasnt got any
balance". Or saying someone is "as bad off" because they're with someone
that's barf-ugly and smells bad - yet they just happen to have the
most beautiful sounding voice that person's ever heard!
Basically, whatever attractiveness works for someone - different
contexts in any proportion - is no less valid than what works for
someone else. It's only different - and because it's not like what
*your* take on it is - they're wierd - and you can argue with them about
it here.
Joe
|
| 1314.29 | | XCUSME::HOGGE | I am the King of Nothing | Thu Oct 29 1992 11:25 | 167 |
| As promised, Brain, and Ann and couple of other folks, I realize it seems
I'm personally attacking Lorna, here where I'm at, I don't 'Feel' it's
to cause her a problem, or anything personal, she set up a line of
words on a screen and I reacted to them. My real feelings aside from
the discussion and debate, is that if I ever meet her face to face,
I hope 1) she don't slap me silly. and 2) we can be friends with
different points of view on some things. It really isn't anything
personal on her, it's the line of thought, and I don't want anyone
to think I'm trying to 'Twist' the way they view the world to my way
of looking at it. I WOULD like people to be more aware of how they
view the world. And more then anything else, that's the basis of the
discussion, I keep pointing out things, and I keep making the statment
that I do not consider my morals 'above anyone elses' just different.
But I've spent several years trying to veiw things from other peoples
side of life, (partly because I like to write stories and poems) and
the statements I'm making are based on observations, and things that
I find personally kind of sad. If I raise my voice, point out that
I find it sad, or shocking, maybe someone else will take the time to
try and see it from my point of view, and we BOTH walk out a little
more aware of how we are looking at the world.
That's my view on my comments and if I'm wrong in it, then maybe I
should go ahead and shut up. But then I'd feel like I left something
incomplete. I don't like things left 'incomplete' so once I feel that
the subject has gone as far as it can... I'll probably write up some
sort of 'summery' on my views, apolgize for taking up everyone's time
on this, and 'get the heck out of Dodge!'
Lorna, before reading the below, keep in mind that I am ENJOYING the
conversation and debate... not getting frustrated or upset, I'm
learning things and overall, THAT says a lot more about what you are
saying and have said, then anything else I can offer to you. As long
as I'm learning something, then I don't feel the 'attack' is
unwarranted, UNLESS... I'm causing you to get angry or frustrated...
If that is the case, then let me apologize now, offer you my posterior
to kick, and my hand to shake. I DON'T want to cause anyone any grief
or anger over this. I WANT to learn something from it, and maybe in
the process teach something too.
Skip
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> re .15, Skip, I think there's a big difference between wanting one's
> SO's to look like Mel Gibson or Kim Basinger, that is, drop dead
> gorgeous, and wanting to be able to feel physically attracted to our
> partner's. For example, if my idea of an attractive date is someone
> like Dustin Hoffman, or Keith Richards, but I would consider John Candy
> or Danny DeVito to be barf material, I don't think that means that I
> think looks are the most important thing in the world. I think it
> would simply illustrate my personal taste in men. I think we all have
> certain preferences for certain physical types, whether we try to
> overcome it out of necessity, or idealism, or not.
Me thinks (he says as a light bulb flashes over his head) thou art confusing
physical attractiveness and physical attraction. Wherein attractiveness is
"Wow whatta great looking man/woman! I'd like to......" and attraction is
something else some call it 'chemistry, electricity, a spark, karma, and it
can somtimes transcend attractiveness "I don't know why I'm attracted to him/her
he's/she's big, dumb, and ugly but there's something about him/her that I'm
attracted to." Two completly different things.
>I don't think that means that I think looks are the most important thing in the
>world. I think it would simply illustrate my personal taste in men. I think
>we all have certain preferences for certain physical types, whether we try to
>overcome it out of necessity, or idealism, or not.
> I agree that looks have been over emphasized in our society. I think
> it is wrong that people are sometimes judged on the basis of looks for
> political positions or jobs. However, when it comes to personal love
> relationships, I see nothing wrong with people taking looks into
> account.
>this is not to say that I think looks are everything.
What I keep getting from these statements and some simular ones you've made
earlier is that you don't think looks are important unless the person doesn't
measure up to your ideals of physcial attraction, then suddenly they ARE,
simply because you catagorize the prospective male as being 'unworthy of
romantic envolvment and only good for a friend.' It's an oxymorum...
Either the looks aren't important at all, or they are important enough to
make you catagorize males into 'romantic possibility, or friendship only'
weither you're aware of it or not. Seems to me, that looks ARE important
to you because you make a life time decision about people as soon as you
meet them.
> I don't wish people wouldn't. I don't even especially think
> the world would be a better place if people didn't. This is not to say
> that I think looks are everything. I think you have me confused with
> someone who does.
Think about what you've said to me, and reconsider things a little, you're
right, we all seem to be attracted to certain physical characteristics,
but those characteristics change from one generation to the next, based
on current fashions for years Mae West was the ideal woman, now she'd be
considered 'Over weight' my comments on fashion and physcial looks
means just what I said, we LEARN our 'physical attractions' when you mean
those physcial characteristics that define 'beauty' such as hight, weight,
shape, hair style, makeup, build, etc.
As to this...
>I don't wish people wouldn't. I don't even especially think the world would
>be a better place if people didn't.
Stop and think about it though...
1) a lot of people would grow up without the insecurities they have now
because they wouldn't be subject to the ridicule they get when growing up.
2) there would be a lot less lonely people in the world because suddenly
theMore people would go out for a 'good time' at night because they wouldn't
have to be self counscieous about their appearence.
4) All the frustrations of looking for that 'perfect someone' would be
drastically reduced because it wouldn't matter if they met the 'looks
criteria' anymore.
5) I honestly think there'd even be less brutality in the world because
so many folks who walk around with a chip on their shoulder, woulnd't have
that chip anymore... it got there because they were sensitive to some
'deformity' that caused 'uglyness' and someone made a comment on it.
You honestly don't think it would make much of a difference?
I'd argue that point on and on because if nothing else, this arguement
would never have taken place.
Finally... Leslie made a comment about John Candy and his 'sexaul attractivness'
A girlfriend of mine made a simular comment about Danny DeVito in 'Other
Peoples Money' (Danny D. and John C. are BOTH prime examples of type casting
by the way... short ugly... give him comedy roles, Big Fat, make him funny.
BOTH have done work outside these stereo types, but not much of it was
recognized, even though they were BOTH excellent in those roles). In both
situations, these two actors became 'sexually attractive' because the writer
of these movies allowed the audience to look past the physical appearances
and see a bit of the 'inner being' of both characters. When it happened
they weren't quiet so 'repulsive' or 'barffy looking' if you will. Simply
because there was that insight... the audience however HAD to look inside
because they were wrapped into the story by then. BUT, if it had been a
case of choice or real life.... both would have been written off as ugly
and we'd have gone on about our business.
Okay, I've hounded you specifically Lorna, BUT mostly because your comment
was the last one I'd read bringing out these issues, I've seen and heard
a LOT of other folks out there making the same statements. 'Looks don't
really matter to me..... ME? Go out with him? UG! He's too ugly!"
Like I said before it SCARES me... and further, this insistence about
physically attractive characteristics appeal' being 'instinct' is a load
of B.S. this is NOT instinct, and to prove it all you have to do is
look at the various cultures in this world and what they perceieve as
beauty compared to what you personally perceive as beauty. WE LEARN
what we consider to be beautiful... from our peers, family, and the MEdia.
ANd I maintain that if we can learn it, we can with some effort, unlearn it.
We just need to take the time to get the soaps suds used to brain wash our
perceptions out of our heads. The problem is we start learning this at
birth and don't become mature enough to realize what it is, until it's so
ingrained that it's thought to be 'instinctive'.
Skip
|
| 1314.30 | | RTOIC::ACROY | HOBOsapiens | Thu Oct 29 1992 11:40 | 8 |
| Hey Skip...I wonder what you look like..:-))) (actually I know 'cause
I've seen a photo..:-)
But I can't help it...I always fall in love with the most beautiful woman
on the planet. The one I'm with is definitely the most beautiful one. I
didn't know when I met her first, but now I know!
sascha
|
| 1314.31 | My 2cents worth.......... | STREST::LSIGEL | When stars collide like you and I | Thu Oct 29 1992 11:46 | 9 |
| First Physcial attraction is very important to attract yourself to that
person, but once you get to know them, you have to click, on the
emotional and intellectual level as well or it just wont work out.
There has to be that spark between two poeple!!
As far as attraction everyone has different tastes in what they like,
some like blondes, others brunettes, some like tall some like small,
some like thin some like plump......beauty is in the eyes of the
beholder :')
|
| 1314.32 | | COMET::COSTA | Lefthander Racer | Thu Oct 29 1992 18:54 | 9 |
|
Maybe since we no longer have to copulate with the biggest, fastest,
strongest to propregate the species, the new criteria has become
copulation with the most attractive for social purposes. Maybe everyone
should try coupling with the most intelligent since we are becoming
such an electronic society.
TC
|
| 1314.33 | | FORTY2::BOYES | My karma ran over my dogma. | Fri Oct 30 1992 05:14 | 24 |
| Something I consider whenever I am in an emotionally dead state: perhaps
this 'instantaneous clicking' feeling should be suppressed! It seems to lead
to these disasterous relationships that are often chronicled here (although
I'm sure they are plenty of nice relationships too).
Sometimes I feel that these ludicrous emotions that we sanction by labelling
'love' (which have little to do with caring, consideration or anything thing that
receives the same label in the context of a friendship or relationship with a
memory of a family) are a bad thing. Unfortuately a bad thing that feels really
good.
Should one risk one's life by giving in to a feeling that defies logic?
One of my friends avoids getting involved in physical relationships with people
she really cares about to avoid this 'love' thing: she makes friends with the
people she likes being with, has sex with the people she finds physically
attracted to, and basically has a lot of fun planning her own life without being
swayed by the interests of a partner. I used to think she was missing out on
a lot by never falling in love, but really, is it worth it? Is it a good thing
that she has separated physical and intellectual attraction totally so as not
to confuse them?
+Mark+
|
| 1314.34 | | DELNI::STHILAIRE | show me how the sun shines | Fri Oct 30 1992 09:52 | 13 |
| re .33, whatever works for her. If she doesn't think she's missing
anything, and if she isn't hurting the people she's dealing with, then
I don't see a problem with it.
I've known men I was intellectually attracted to, or attracted to as
friends, and men I was only or mostly physically attracted to, but I've
always thought the best relationships were when it was a fairly even
mixture of both physical and intellectual attraction. When it's only
one or the other I always feel that something is missing. But, your
friend may not care.
Lorna
|
| 1314.35 | | DELNI::STHILAIRE | show me how the sun shines | Fri Oct 30 1992 09:59 | 28 |
| re .29, Skip, don't worry. If we ever meet I won't attempt to slap you
silly. I'm not prone to physical violence. :-)
I agree that there is a difference, for me, between someone being
conventionally good looking and someone being attractive. What I've
been saying all along is that I have to find my SO's attractive. I
have not been saying that my SO's have to be conventionally good
looking. But, it has seemed to *me* that you didn't pick up on that.
It has seemed to me that when I said that I had to find my SO's
attractive, you would turn around and accuse me of wanting my SO's to
be conventionally good looking, which is not the case. What I am
saying is that I need to find a man physically attractive, there has to
be chemistry between us, for me to fall in love. I am not saying that
he has to be conventionally good looking.
So, do you need to feel attracted to your SO's in order to fall in
love? Do you need to feel chemistry?
The difference between us may be that I consider looks to be a part of
what makes someone seem attractive to me, along with personality,
style, and whether I think the person is a decent, good person. It's
all part of the package.
It sounds to me, though, that you have been saying, that to you, looks
don't play any part at all in who you find attractive.
Lorna
|
| 1314.36 | | XCUSME::HOGGE | I am the King of Nothing | Fri Oct 30 1992 10:20 | 26 |
|
Bingo!
Conventional good looks don't 'figure in' with what I consider to be
attractive, and from what I've seen around me, it DOES play TOO much of
a part in a large precentage of people.... who then wonder why the
can't have a successful long term relationship with an SO.
I've gone a long time letting 'chemistry' work for me, and don't take
much stock in it anymore if, (as in my current relationship) it's there
that's great and adds a bit more spice to my feelings, but, when the
chemistry isn't there initially, I don't 'back away' or recatagorize
the potential of it developing later.
Now as for 'I'm not prone to physical violence' Suddenly I get the
feeling you're like a math teacher I used to have, he was never prone
to physical violence either, whenever I did someone did something wrong in
class he'd have them work out Pi to the last decimal. Well at least
for the rest of the day. Then check the numbers to be sure they were
correct.
;-)
Skip
|
| 1314.37 | experiences differ.... | DELNI::STHILAIRE | show me how the sun shines | Fri Oct 30 1992 11:04 | 9 |
| I can honestly say that I think that the relationships I have tried to
have with people for whom I didn't feel an initial chemistry, or
attraction, have resulted in more unpleasant experiences, overall, than
have the relationships where there was an initial feeling of chemistry
and attraction, therefore I continue to consider chemistry and
attraction to be essential in a couple relationship.
Lorna
|
| 1314.38 | What was the topic again???? | COMICS::SUMMERFIELD | Walk on sunny side other side wet | Sun Nov 01 1992 17:16 | 37 |
| A few years ago (well, about 4!) I was completely in love. The
chemistry was amazing!! It was a 2 year thing, and I would've
married him and had his children and all that (and believe me -
I *HATE* babies!!!!) and done just about anything for him!
I got out a photo of him a few weeks ago. What a wrinkle-bonce!!
(He was 10 years older than me) And I thought he looked
just like some bloke you might see down the pub. Nothing special.
But in my memory he is DAMN good looking!! I guess it must be
that something that can't be captured in a photo - the way someone
walks, the way they think..... Photos in mags don't do much for
me, (although "For Women" was good for a laugh!!!! ;o) ) - I'd
prefer to watch Mel Gibson on as big a screen as possible, thank
you very much!!! ;o)
A friend of mine, when asked what he thought of "that girl over
the room" would refuse to comment until she walked across the
room and/or spoke!
I think physical attraction does count - but it may be just
because that person has something you go crazy over! You
may not even know what that thing is until you meet them - or
get to know them better and realize they've got it.....! And
I think that a persons outer reflects their inner - but I'm
not talking physical attributes.... I'm talking about the way
they dress/wear their hair, talk etc etc
I guess I still carry a flame for the aforementioned wrinke-bonce,
but I've never found anyone who could match that chemistry! I
thought I did recently, but it was unrequited (sob sob) and
looking back maybe it was just cos they reminded me of Mr
Wrinke-bonce.....!!! Ho hum! One day..... Till then I'd
rather stay single...
:o)
Julia
|
| 1314.39 | | HDLITE::ZARLENGA | Michael Zarlenga, Alpha P/PEG | Sun Nov 08 1992 13:08 | 5 |
| re:.37
Yup.
If there's no spark, there's no fire.
|