Conference turris::womannotes-v2

    Oh, oh, oh.  Liesl, how did you do it, "<CLICK>".  Maybe because
    its 11PM on a Saturday night, but you just made my brain hurt, 
    you woke me up so hard.  I have the same thought, but on the other
    side of the mirror.  
    
    I didn't realize this was hard to do!
    
    When is it "ok", in a non-exploitative way, to indicate interest 
    in a sexy woman?
    
    DougO

    .0
    <"...Well, there are some men that I do want to be sexy for.  Is
    that a crime?
    
    Absolutely not.  What do you think men who buy colognes, wear scanty
    swim trunks at the beach, and worry about going bald is all about?
    
    >"...I most heartily agree that the emphasis placed on this is out
    of hand but we were made to be attracted to members of the opposite
    sex, survival of the species relies upon that attraction.
    
    Survival of the species isn't a moot point at this present time
    given our over population problem world wide.  But advertising isn't
    concerned about "turning someone on" to make sure the species survives.
     They are for turning you on to buying their products.  And
    unfortunately, many people think that they will find the same kind
    of sexual attention that is being depicted in the ad by buying that
    product.
    
    <"I sometimes feel that rather than arguing against the corruption
    of that attraction that the very fact it exists is being looked
    on as badness.
    
    What I object to in too many ads is the *obvious and blatant*
    objectifying of the woman as *a body* not as a whole person.  In
    other words, when one sees a torso from breast to thigh, without
    the remainder of the body, what is being said?   
    
    For me, I read this: *Woman* is a side of meat.  She can be sectioned
    off, cut off from the whole, as on cuts off parts of an animal being
    prepared for market.
    
    *What is being implied?*  *What is the ad really saying?*  *How
    relevant is the sexual innuendo to the product?*  *How is fe/male
    being shown--body, body sections, [especially for men: waist to thigh
    top, women: breast to thigh top]?*  
    
    I am presently taking a Sociology course titled "Culture: Media
    and Art" and most of our readings have been an eye-opener to me
    about how the advertising and TV world views women in particular,
    and people in general.  And it is scary!
    
    .1
    
    [a little sexist humor, here] DougO: just smile, honey, just smile!
    
    M 
    

    in re DougO, I'd have to agree with Marilyn :-).
    
    Bonnie

    
    	Let's see, .4's being written...
    
    	I'll go off on the idea of using "sexy" in advertizing, to
    attract a customer into buying the product. You're faced with the
    dilemma of wanting to attract the guy you're interested in, without
    incurring flak from the masses of other men around. You realize
    that "sexy" is really a fairly broad appeal factor; there's certainly
    no inherant "filtering" or "selection" aspect to it with regards
    to men's responses. How's the saying go on that cartoon where the
    little boy and girl are revealing themselves to each other for the
    first time (or whatever...)?
    
    	Perhaps "sexy" is not the best approach, to initially attract
    a *specific* man. Some men actually arent stupid, and you really
    can get their attention by much more subtle means, than "advertizing
    your availability" via "sexy" dress/appearance. Which is really
    what I think you're asking, in terms of it being "OK". Sure, it's
    an "OK" approach, it's "OK" to do, but it's probably not the best
    way that there is.
    
    	Personally, I like the "implicate affirmation" approach. If someone
    likes me, in that "special" way, I like to be "told" so. Makes me
    feel good, gee, now that I can remember, *every* time it's happened!
    And with that little bit of confidence thus gained, I know exactly
    what to do when I see "sexy", ideally sometime _after_ "I know". As
    an initial attraction, I cannot_just_assume that "it's intended
    for me" and I fail in the "Well, what kind of sign do you need then, 
    STUPID!?!" vein.
    
    	Joe Jas
                                    

    re.0  My take on when it's OK to look 'sexy' would be 'whenever
    you like'
    
    re.1  Ditto. 
    
    This being said, I find 'sexy' as portrayed in advertising to be
    one-dimensional.  Sure there are gents in the ads that are eye-catching
    but if that's all they've got they certainly wouldn't hold my interest
    past the first encounter.
    
    I cannot understand why people would be uncomfortable when others find
    them attractive.  Speaking for myself, I'm tickled to death!  However,
    if the _only_ way people reacted to me appeared to be based on the
    physical, I would feel compelled to make a few adjustments for my
    sanity's sake.
    
      Ann

           <<< MOSAIC::$2$DJA6:[NOTES$LIBRARY]WOMANNOTES-V2.NOTE;1 >>>
================================================================================
Note 556.4                      when is sexy OK?                          4 of 5
SA1794::CHARBONND "I'm the NRA"                       0 lines  24-APR-1989 06:50
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    re .0 There's nothing wrong with being sexy. What's crazy
    is the idea that if you wear outfit X, perfume Y and
    hairdo Z, that's it!
    
    While sex itself can be improved with technique, sexiness
    is mostly in the head.

      This weekend the Colo Spgs GT had an interesting article on this
      subject. The title "Raunchy ads becomming a part of the
      mainstream".

      Some quotes as to why from the article:

      "sex has always been the suggestion, but now the mode is a kinky
      style of domination, power and aggressive seduction inseperable
      from the current business climate of vicious buyouts and
      unfriendly taleovers" Mark Crispin Miller a Johns Hopkins media analyst

      "Now, it's a harder sell because it has to be. You have to jolt,
      shock, break through - or you're dead"  Miller

      (these ads are) "a whole upsurge of male-dominant sexism, directly
      influenced by the spreading porno industry" Norma Ramos of Women
      Against Pornography

      (the ads) "symptomise increased restraint and monogamy...after all
      watching an ad is the safest sex of all" Judith Langer of Langer
      Associates

      Great, and this is the era I become single in again. Flower power
      and free love certainly had their problems but it seemed a much
      friendlier era. liesl

I think I agree with .5 re: the "subtle" approach.

My experience is that when I was interested, I could look at the man in a
way that communicated my interest.  On thinking obout it, that look consisted
of a longer-than-usual look, with my eyes were open more than and with a
tinge of a smile.  This followed by a real smile usually did the job (notice
all the past tense?  Marriage does that to me....).

Anyway, I reserve 'sexy' for private times.  Times and places where this is
only one man present to worry about.  That doesn't mean I don't like to look
good when we go out, but the style is definitely different.  Sexy = Special.

Mannerism and body language can get the message across in a more direct, and
individual [i.e. to a specific person] way than sexy clothes.  I also
think it's more exciting.  Makes my spine tingle just thinking about it!

My .02 worth,

Sue P.

    I agree with .9, there are appropriate places to be "sexy" but one
    of those places is not work.  We women have worked too long to be
    taken seriously and to be valued at work without sex entering into
    that arena.  Dressing sexily at work tends to distract us from our
    purpose here, to work to our best level.
    
    As an aside, I am a lesbian who is out at work (and everywhere else)
    and it is really great not to have to deal with "that man-woman
    thing" and there is real communication going on on a people level
    rather than 'personal' situation stuff.
    
    I also believe that there are times and places to be sexy to those
    you are interested in.
    
    Hope this helps your dilemma.
    Sue
    
    
    

      Before everyone gets the wrong impression here - I'm a jeans and
      tennies kinda gal - as those who know will attest. I do not come
      to work in slinky dresses or high heels. I went through the dress
      up false eyelashes stage for a couple of years and dropped it like
      a rock, I like to know if I got caught in a downpour that my face
      won't wash off. What you see is what I got (but not necessarily
      what you will get ;*)).

      I'm looking at this more in the abstract of someone just
      re-entering the "dating" scene and not quite knowing how to act.
      I work side-by-side with men all day long and have little problem
      acting as an equal. I can face down a man in a business meeting as
      easily as another man can. I'm as good as they are at work.

      Then we turn to the social scene. My husband trained me well. I
      know the "look" that means I'm not good enough such that even the
      hint of it in a social situation can crush me. I'm fine with men
      as friends and colleagues, it's trying to make that transition to
      men as lovers that I can't seem to handle. I can be competent,
      it's sexy I'm afraid of. liesl

    
    Oh....
    
    Didn't get the gist of this until you entered this last reply.
    
    FWIT...I can't handle multiple personalities. I am "me" no matter
    where I am. If that is sexy...that's who I am...if that is bitchy...
    that's who I am. 
    
    I *think* [for me anyway] that the issue is not whether I am
    sexy...but whether I am *receptive* to having someone *respond*
    at any point in time to it. [Gee, that was clear, wasn't it?]
    
    Try again, Mel....
    
    I cannot draw a line between work/social as far as who I am. I *do*
    and *can* draw one that defines acceptable behavior in each of these
    cases. It is *not* ok for someone to [seriously....I mean....]
    proposition me over the board room table. [in my book, jokes among
    friends are ok...] It is *not* ok for me to actively solicite such
    offers either. It is ok for all parties involved to be themselves;
    if sexy, or non-sexy is part of that...so what?
    
    I am sort of [ahh....] flashy? {Bonnie, just control yourself...}
    
    [Let's put it this way...they ran a checklist in one of those women's
    magazines this month on testing for achieving that "understated"
    look....if you got a score of 14...you had to go back and try again.
    Well, I got to 14 before I made it from finger-tips to elbows!
    H*ll, I make it to 14 coming out of the shower! My hair alone is
    worth at least 20! sheesh...]
    
    I make no apologies for it....but *noone* misunderstands the difference
    between when I am *at work* and when I am *off work*. My signals
    are obvious and impossible to mis-read.
    
    I prefer this approach to trying to emit different signals with
    different groups at different times....I can't keep track....[grin]
    
    Melinda
    

    re: .12
    
    � My signals are obvious and impossible to mis-read.
    
    Well, you may not reflect it in your mode of dress, but your
    words certainly demonstrate a certain skill at understatement,
    Mel. . .
    
    Steve

    
    The corporate video libraries (probably have another name but
    I know there is one in MKO) have an excellent video tape called
    "Still Killing Us Softly" which deals with the portrayal of women
    in advertising. We've shown it several times at various functions
    on the Northboro site (everything from lunchtime videos to staff
    meetings) and it has had rave reviews.  Its really eye opening and
    I highly recommend it.
    
    

    Yes, "Still Killing Us Softly" *is* an eye-opener -- highly recommend
    it!

    I had my dose of sexy last night.  I was invited to participate
    in a multimedia "art" exhibit at MIT, which a friend of mine was
    putting together for a course on conceptualization and imagery or
    something.  There were 2 other people involved in the exhibit. 
    I was the hostess.  It was my job to stand out in the hall and attract
    people (and we got over 70 in two hours - and this is in a normal,
    small classroom in a normal MIT building, so it was mostly passersby).
    What caught their eye?  Me, standing in the hall in a clingy, black,
    floorlength, sleeveless, backless gown and 5" black patent leather
    heels, holding programs and bright orange wristbands.  Also, the
    bizarre synthesized music emanating from the room.
    
    The title of the show (installation was actually the term he used)?
    
    Ooaow....Images of Chaos and Satisfaction.

    -Jody
    

    It sounds wonderful Jody_:-)  Wish I had been there to see it.
    
    mary

>    What caught their eye?  Me, standing in the hall in a clingy, black,
>    floorlength, sleeveless, backless gown and 5" black patent leather
>    heels,

I can't wait for the Womannotes Swimsuit Issue.

M.

    I have yet to see this actual ad, but I did read about it in the
    Boston Globe.  Seems that there is a particular cigarette ad which
    tells men one way to catch a woman at the beach is by going into the
    water and dragging her out, therefore "saving" her from drowning,
    even though she was neither drowning nor wanted to be saved.  He
    is to ignore her screams for him to let go, and even if she kicks
    and fights back, he is to ignore her.
      
    He
    will be a "hero" then.  The writer was stating that in this ad,
    violence and refusal to listen to the woman's pleas for stopping
    fall on deaf ears.  The old "you say no but you really mean yes"
    bit.
    
    Remember Sarge on "Hill Street Blues" who always ended his morning
    reviews by telling them to be careful out there.  Well, I think
    we had better *always* be careful out there; that mess in Central
    Park was not a fluke; I think the times and the climate is getting
    more scary, and like it or not, we simply cannot ignore what is
    being done to us and against us in the name of advertising.
    
    There are too many addled pated sexual misfits out there who think
    that advertising literally means that "what you see is what you
    can get".  Coupled with the rise in soft porn on commercial TV,
    we can expect it to get worse, not better, unless we become vocal,
    write letters, threaten to boycott TV programs and products which
    denigrate us.  
    
    Advertising lives through the pocketbook; the companies they represent
    live through their advertising.  
    
    I, for one, am sick and tired of it and I am damn well am not going
    to take it anymore.  I write letters, [yes, it *does* take time--but
    as the ad says, "I'm worth it."] refuse to watch TV programs that
    offend and I tell their sponsors that I am advocating my friends
    to follow suit.  
    
    M  
    
      
    
    

Re .19:

Good for you! I am also "sick and tired of it" and have started writing
letters of the sort you describe. 

In a recent issue of New Woman there was an article called Loving the Body
You Live In, which described how to be a "sensuous woman" as opposed to an
"ornamental woman." The gist of it was that if you're sensuous, your
sensuality is defined from within, by you, whereas if you're ornamental,
you care only about how *others* perceive you - mostly, how you look. The
sensuous woman is a "subject," the ornamental an "object"; the sensuous
woman is a whole person, the ornamental a collection of body parts; the
sensuous woman "knows and meets her own needs for pleasure," the ornamental
woman exists for the visual pleasure of others. 

Sounds good, right? But - wait a minute. The message of the article was
clearly that women should be sensuous rather than ornamental; yet the
message that was screamed out loud and clear on every page of the magazine,
in the features and the ads, was that women are indeed "objects" existing
for others' pleasure; they should do their damndest to be as ornamental as
possible - wear makeup; dye your hair; soften your skin; don't get fat;
don't get old; look and dress [sic] like the models, who in their scant
attire and male-defined provocative poses, might have stepped directly from
the pages of Playboy and Penthouse (and probably did). 

My letter began, "What hypocrites you are!" and went on from there... 

Keep at it!

Dorian.

    And, of course, the article didn't mention that there are other
    types of women - women can be "ornamental" or "sensuous", but they
    can also be "pensive" and "intellectual" and "humorous" and all
    those other qualities that don't require sexiness....
    
    I agree they are one-sided, and the hypocrisy of their calling it
    "New Woman", implying that the "new woman" will hold to the same
    fashion-driven gossip-ridden values as the old woman (only in a
    glossier magazine, right?)....
    
    Give me Lear's any day.
    
    -Jody
    

    And a magazine entitled...."New Woman"   makes me stop and wonder what
    exactly was wrong with the 'old' version...
    
    BTW, does "New Woman" magazine (in the spirit of women being sensual
    and pleasing themselves....) address the issue of how wonderful it
    feels to stop shaving one's legs and armpits?  Not particularly an
    ornamental practice...in this culture...
    
    Laura
    

Re .22:

I looked in the May issue of New Woman I have here to see what messages I 
might find about hairy legs and armpits, but before I came across any, I 
saw the following ad, of which all I can say is, *please* tell me it's a 
joke:

On a page of ads titled "Beauty Briefing," next to a photo of a female
person of perhaps 15 or 16, head and torso shown, nude, but with her arms
crossed at the wrists and her hands (partially) covering her breasts: 

"BARE ESSENTIALS

No doubt about it, beautiful breasts are in fashion! For a firmer, tighter 
bosom, try Clarins Bust Firming Gel. The concentrated mix of toning 
ingredients (including ginseng and witch hazel) smoothes and enhances the 
bust's natural contours. Price: $38.50."

Beneath this, in large italics, is the caption,

"When the urge to get pretty hits, give your look a breath of freshness 
with the current beauty musts."

And there's more: on the opposite page, an ad for more Clarins products,
that begins, "Have you 'gone soft' in all the wrong places?..."        
    
I rest my case...

Dorian.                                                        

    "New Woman" used to be quite good...now I know why I haven't bought
    an issue in while!
    
    
    ARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGH
    Judi
    

    I didn't want to derail one of the better WN Lite topics (650.*) so I'm
    moving my response to John Heffernan's 650.22 over here to the topic
    that seems to me to fit it better.  Sortof.
    
    re 650.22, John-
    
    >   Also, it's interesting how many strate women posted notes
    >   about which women they found sexy but how few strate men posted
    >   notes about which men they thought was sexy.  Conditioning?]
        
    I found it interesting to see how few men responded in the topic about
    which WOMEN they found sexy.  Most of the first 20 responses in that
    string are from women.  With your tie-in, my speculations follow:
    
    1- perhaps men aren't comfortable discussing what they find "sexy" in
       public forums.
    2- perhaps men here are sensitive/cautious enough to be hesitant to
       discuss sexy in *this* forum; see topic 109 for conciousness-
       raising about unfairness and objectification in the 80s.
    
    Seems to me that carrying an awareness of the objectification problem
    means I have constantly got to double-check my reactions to the
    concept "sexy".  I can't simply respond any more; I must examine my
    response covertly to see if I'm responding as the person I want to be
    (aware, and responsive to the person) or as the person our mass-media
    influenced culture has programmed to treat women as objects...and if
    the latter, then I mentally beat myself up and suppress my response.
    If I have the strength.
    
    Actually, I don't beat myself up.  I just try to discard the baggage
    (something like: "you idiot you know you don't know her and you're only
    oggling her body, how rewarding is that, whyncha go meet somebody
    real!)
    
    I *know* women aren't objects.  I just have to overcome more than 20 
    years of brainwashing from Madison Avenue that taught me incorrectly.
    The most important side effect of that programming is that my own
    emotional reactions to "sexy" are suspect.  In lots of ways, I have
    concluded that though life would be a lot more enjoyable without the
    baggage, I cannot even trust the *concept* of "sexy"...this society is
    too immature politically to handle it.
    
    On the other hand, we aren't making a whole hell of a lot of progress
    towards what I see as the desired level of such maturity, its
    generations away.  Um, life is too short to let my political concerns
    rob me of the enjoyment of "sexy" things.  (Life is too short for lots
    of everyday stupidities, so I try to pick the battles carefully.  With
    this one, unfortunately, it picked me, I can't ignore my mind OR my
    reactions.)
    
    Having sketched the conundrum, I'm too depressed to speculate on ways
    to cope with it.  But these are the reasons why *I* didn't respond to 
    the "sexy women" topic.
    
    DougO

    It's interesting.  I was speaking to a friend today about the "who
    are the sexiest men" topic.  I asked him who he thought was the
    sexiest man alive.  He said he didn't know.  I asked him to think
    about it.  He said he "can't" look at men that way.  Then he said
    maybe he could if he tried to look at it from a woman's point of
    view.  Interesting.
    
    I think sexy is sexy, man or woman.  I think you've hit on something
    interesting, though, about how people are "trained"? "conditioned"?
    to THINK about the way they THINK about things - and make sure they're
    seen as THINKING properly....for their role
    
    -Jody

    I have a hard time answering a question like "who is the sexiest
    man" because I just don't think of men in terms of being sexy.
    To me, a good deal of "sexy" is "sexual attraction", and I just
    don't have any sexual attraction for men. I can't even look at it
    in terms of "well, if I was a woman, who would I think is sexy".
    The closest I can come to is "who would I want to trade places
    with, if I could?"
    
    --- jerry

    From a note I just entered, not knowing about this string:
    
    >>(This is really strange -- I can name lots of guys who should be rated
    >>as "sexiest" but can't think of any women whom I'd really give that
    >>rating to.  Perhaps because its easier to rate things from a completely
    >>objective, and hence safe, standpoint?)
    
    I actually have no problem from empathizing what women see as "sexy" or
    "attractive" in other guys.  I've been Madision-Avenueized enough to
    know what is sexy in a "classical" sense.
    
    However, I do have a lot of problems now rating women who are "sexy."
    And that's not to say that I don't scope or admire other women's
    physiques in various settings.  Somehow, someway, I've rationalized
    that to be different than coming out and saying "Boy, I think {insert
    name here} is really sexy}."  Maybe because the word "sexy" is
    associated purely with carnal lust?  Guess this is an area where the
    "feminist Jim" and the other one are a bit at odds with each other.
    
    My definition of "sexy" is also very different from Madison Av.  For
    example, I found the character Kat in "Mystic Pizza" to be really cute. 
    But that's as much for her personality as anything else.

    This brings up another interesting point, which perhaps should have its
    own topic.  I had a similar schizophrenic split when seeing the flick
    "Dangerous Laisons."  Part of me knew what I was thinking was clearly
    wrong, but the other part couldn't help but wonder...
    
    Here was a portrayal of relationships that you *knew* were going to be
    mutually destructive to everyone involved.  Yet I got so entranced with
    what was going on that it made me wonder, "Wouldn't it be a lot of
    fun to set my sights on someone, anyone, and for the hell of it try and
    seduce them?"  This has nothing to do with sexy, but it has a lot to do
    with mind games and with *power*.  Some of the motives behind this type
    of seduction became clearer to me than ever before.
    
    Now, although I think this would be kinda neat to do, I most probably
    never would because you're playing with someone else's mind.  Which
    isn't too cool.  But on thinking about it, I still can't help but
    wonder at just how easy it would be to really seduce someone if you didn't
    care that you were going to wind up hurting them badly in the future. 
    This might be example of when being "sexy" wouldn't be ok.

    re:.29
    
    Your comment about "Kat" in MYSTIC PIZZA makes sense. I haven't
    seen the film, and don't know the character, but I understand the
    concept you're trying to get across. I felt the same way about the
    character of Jordan in REAL GENIUS. Even in some cases where I think
    a particular woman is adorable, I find myself more attracted by
    personality than by looks (a good example of this would be Holly
    Hunter).
    
    --- jerry

    I'm not necessarily good at "sexy."  However, I'm actually better at
    noticing attractive women than men.  I think it's because I've been
    better trained in "what makes a woman attractive."  There is a fairly
    standard model of the "attractive woman" promoted by the media but I
    don't think the corresponding male model has been standardized.  Or
    perhaps it's that what I find attractive in a man doesn't match the
    usual male models found in the media.

    re .32, Chelsea-
    
    > I think it's because I've been better trained in "what makes a woman 
    > attractive."  There is a fairly standard model of the "attractive woman" 
    > promoted by the media
    
    'better trained', I rue the fact.  Those clever bastards and their
    "standard model"...if I'm to happily enjoy serious relationships I need
    to find a hell of a lot more attractive than "standard model" T&A.
    
    > but I don't think the corresponding male model has been standardized. 
    > Or perhaps it's that what I find attractive in a man doesn't match the
    > usual male models found in the media.                          
    
    I'd hypothesize the first rather than the second, but you know your
    own mind better than I do.  Your second sentence brings me to this
    observation, though; if Madison Avenue had been actively promoting
    standard male sex objects throughout your lifetime, you might be as
    confused as I am about what you find attractive, because your mind
    would tell you one thing and your cultural instincts demand another.
    
    Sandy once told me that the objectification of women enhances a man's
    sexuality; I disagreed, vehemently, because the dichotomy enforced
    by the treatment of women as objects is anything but enhancing to
    anyone who is awake enough to notice it, and who fights the
    manipulation.  I won't recommend anything patronizing to you, but I'll
    reject the notion of a "standard model" attractive man as hard as I
    fight his counterpart.
    
    DougO

    
    re:.26
    though the tone is a tad serious, mr. olson pretty much speaks for me
    as to why i did not enter anything into the 'who do you find sexy'
    notes. also, it being *woman*notes i kind of assumed the intent of the 
    notes, 'lite' though they be, was to explore *women's* ideas of sexy
    since men's ideas of sexy are relatively easy for the casual observer
    to discern.
    

    I'm not   very  good  at  predicting  who  my  friends  will  find
    attractive.  The only one of my friends whose taste I can reliably
    predict is a gay man.

    Personally I  find the same thing attractive in men and women, and
    that's  twinkling  eyes.  It's  the  facial expression and not the
    underlying  shape  that  I respond to. But then, I don't own a TV,
    and see very few movies, so I don't know what I'm supposed to find
    attractive.

--David

.35> ...But then, I don't own a TV,
.35>    and see very few movies, so I don't know what I'm supposed to find
.35>    attractive...

    Yes!  I haven't lived in a place with a television since 1981.  I
    find that the longer I'm away from television, movies, glossy
    magazines with pictures of "beautiful" glamorous people, etc. the
    more attractive-looking people I see.  I also find myself more
    appreciative of my own body shape, and less likely to perceive
    "bad body parts." 

    Although it's bad science to assume so, I'm still assuming there's
    a causal relationship.  Or maybe I'm just growing up.  ;) 

    -- Linda

.35> ...But then, I don't own a TV,
.35>    and see very few movies, so I don't know what I'm supposed to find
.35>    attractive...
    
    Interesting: I haven't had a TV since 1980 and have been away from all
    of those commercials and influences that TV shows tend to have.  Maybe
    not being bombarded with that all the time gives you a better chance to
    decide for yourself what is attractive and what isn't.
    
    I wouldn't want to publish a paper on this in the psychology journals
    without doing a lot more research, however.

    re:.38 re:.35
    
    And maybe it doesn't. I watch a fair amount of tv and a lot of
    movies, and I have my own ideas of what's sexy or beautiful.
    Some of these ideas are common to other men, some aren't.
    
    --- jerry

.36>    Although it's bad science to assume so, I'm still assuming there's
.36>    a causal relationship...

.39>    And maybe it doesn't. I watch a fair amount of tv and a lot of
.39>    movies, and I have my own ideas of what's sexy or beautiful...

    Oh, well, another non-scientific theory bites the dust.
    Thanks for the counter-example, Jerry!

    -- Linda

    Semantic clarification:  There's "attractive" as in eye-catching, the
    visual aspect, and "attractive" as in appealing, the personal aspect. 
    I'm pretty good at the visual part.