Conference turris::womannotes-v2

    
    Oh yeah!
    
    I will not embarrass myself by saying how much it turns me on, but I
    can guarantee that a man who has no sense of humor and no intelligence
    stands little chance of keeping my attention... unless he's a great...
    
    I won't use the word, you get the point. The answer is yes.
    
    A man who CAN talk to me for hours usually doesn't get a chance to! 
    :-)

    Yes, in my opinion.  Also, add "sensitivity."  Frequently a man I
    wouldn't *look* at a second time has become *very* attractive sexually
    after exhibiting these qualities.
    
    PS - I personally would not pick Woody Allen, but I can understand why
    someone else would.

    
    	Intelligence is sexy, but only when coupled with awareness.  I
    	don't find eggheads who recite physics equations at the drop of
    	a hat sexy, however someone who's knowledgeable and articulate
    	and *interesting* when it comes to sharing their knowledge, as
    	Woody Allen is, is.
    
    	Make sense?
    
    	Carla
    

    well, Doctah,
    
      First, I have never managed to be attracted to someone I find
    physically unappealing.  Others in the world might find the object of
    my attraction slightly less gaggous than a maggot; but if I find him
    sexy, I think he's physically appealing.  It's a nit, but it had to be
    said.
    
      Now on to your question.  Yes, intelligence is greatly appealing. 
    But it's also like looks in that your mileage may vary dependent upon
    how it manifests itself and the taste of the audience.
    
      Woody Allen is not to my taste and neither is Patrick Swayze; but
    both are excellent examples of men with mass appeal.
    
      Ann

    I think the right combination of intelligence and humor can overcome
    less than gorgeous looks and make a man seem sexy.  I've never been
    sexually attracted to a stupid man, and the men I have been most
    attracted to have been the men who could make me laugh the most.
     (Of course, everybody doesn't laugh at the same things.)
    
    In my opinion Woody Allen is sexy, while Sylvester Stallone is not.
     (Stallone may be smart in real life, but he always plays stupid
    sounding men in movies.)  On the other hand, Tom Cruise is sexy
    and I have no idea if he's funny, while John Candy, who is funny,
    repulses me!  But, Billy Crystal who is average looking, very funny
    and reasonably intelligent, is quite sexy I think.
    
    There's no set rule but it's usually to one's advantage to be
    intelligent and witty.  :-)
    
    Lorna
    

    Absolutely.
    
    Barb

    Yes, intelligence is definitely sexy. Infact I would not find a man
    who was quite good looking attractive if I could not relate to him -
    and that means both intelligence and a sense of humor. I like someone
    I can talk to.
    
    Bonnie
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    pc

    
    	Bonnie, what does that little "pc" at the bottom of your note
    	stand for?  =8-)
    
    	Carla
    

    Intelligence, but more than that, creativity - humor, as well.  
    Brilliance in any form captures me completely.  I have dated many
    several tall, skinny, geeky-looking men - and not even noticed.
    
    I can look past looks, but not thoughts.
    
    -Jody
    
    

       Intelligence and a sense of humor can make a man very sexy,
       provided that he's not so taken with himself that he winds
       up being...well, taken with himself.
    
       Marilyn Monroe once said that Albert Einstein was the sexiest
       man she ever met.  Next time you see a photo of Einstein, notice
       his eyes (very sexy).  His intelligence and wit shine through
       his eyes.
    
       

	 Intelligence....it's more than that.  I find many men that
	 are very intelligent, but they bore me.  Then there are
	 others that can captivate me.  I think it's the way the share
	 their intelligence.  I quite often find men to be very
	 attractive when I can talk with them...not just listen (ie,
	 they are talking above me, or about something I have no idea
	 about, or am not interested in).

	 I can think of a few men here in notes that I have found
	 fascinating......and when I've met them I was still
	 facsinated and very much attracted.  And others that I've
	 found to be very intelligent but without that captivation,
	 and I've never been attracted to these men.

	 In find very rarely, especially thru notes, that intelligence
	 plays a major part in attraction....and in how sexy I think a
	 man is.  Even in college, the intelligence/captivation
	 combination played a major role in my attraction.


	 kath

    Humor and intellegence make up a lot of what I like in a man. They
    are not enough alone but are more heavily weighted than looks.

    Of course, all of us have special things that attract us. I have a
    real weakness for techno-geeks. I certainly can't explain it on any
    rational level but guys that really know their way around
    technically, well, lets just say I find them attractive. :*) Looks
    like I work for the right company.

    A sense of Humor is an absolute requirement. Too many things happen
    in life that must be laughed at or you go crazy. It keeps you from
    taking life too seriously.

    Carla's observation aside (there are times when it's valid, ever had
    someone make you feel so good you just started laughing afterwards?)
    I want someone I can cuddle with and talk to after sex. heck, I
    don't smoke so we have to talk! ;*) liesl
    

    Is intelligence sexy?  I think for me if intelligence is not there,
    then I can't continue in a relationship with that man...

    Whether it is sexy or not...  I don't think so...  I think the
    personality to me is what is sexy, and intelligence is just a fraction
    of that personality...

    One thing I have noticed is very, very common among women but not
    so common among men (at least, not the ones I have talked to), is
    that "sexy" or "attractive" really does not have that much to do
    with looks.  There may be some physical attributes that are "absolute"
    turn-ons or turn-offs, but these are really very few.  
    
    Far more important are the personality/intellectual/spirit-related
    qualities of a man.  If he "has it" in those areas, he gets better
    looking the longer you know him -- and a perfectly ordinary-looking guy
    begins to resemble a Greek god in attractiveness.  It also works in
    reverse, where Adonis transforms into Quasimodo as soon as he opens
    his mouth.  
    
    Woody Allen?  Not me.  Pathetic-ness is close to an absolute turn-off
    for me, and that's an essential part of his humor.  John Candy, on the
    other hand, might possibly "get cuter" as time went on... No accounting
    for tastes I guess ;)
    
    Beth

    I once had a boyfriend who was a genious. He tried to break life
    into mathmatical equasions. He was emotionally 10 years old but
    BOY, was he smart.
    
    I'll take a reasonably intellegent man with common sence over a
    Woody Allen type any day. 
    
    Kate
    

    --You know the father on Roseanne? I like him. Good family man,
    reasonable intellegence. Yea, even sexy.
    
    Kate 
    

    Yes,  Intelligence and humor are a good combination.
    
    	Also, did you ever notice the more you know someone and
    the better you like them, the better looking they get?
    
    	And if they can sing, it never matter what they look like.  
    Joe Jackson, in my opinion is a fairly ugly person.  Yet, when
    he sings, he looks much better.

    re: the longer you know someone...the better looking they get...
    
    From "Sex Lies and Videotape" (really sizzling psychodrama movie)
    
    "Women will marry men they love, and slowly become attracted to them. 
    Men marry women they're attracted to, and slowly fall in love..."
    
    sounded fascinating and maybe fairly true...
    
    -Jody
    

It's true, it is.

Lots of women have written that they find an intelligent man "attractive" - I 
find intelligence inherently sexy.  the way some women can look at a man and
say "He's a jerk but he sure is sexy" because of his looks, I'll say the same
thing because of his intelligence.

My first crush on a tv/movie star, while all my friends were in love with
tom Cruise or whoever the latest bohunk was, was on Tom Baker (Doctor
Who #4, for the uneducated.)  My second was on Woody Allen, and since I
have had crushes on Einstein, Asimov and a professor at RPI who shall 
remain nameless and was one of the most intelligent/knowledgable professors
I ever had.

The fetish goes so far as to affect my attraction to a person's *looks*.
As in, someone who looks intelligent, even if he has an IQ of 81, will turn
me on.  I have always found glasses attractive because, in my youth, 
wearing glasses was a sign of intelligence (which was not considered
complimentary.)  Even among physically gorgeous people, if they don't
look intelligent, they don't turn me on.  Tom Cruise has always turned
me on because he looks bright.  Sean Penn turns me off because he looks
stupid.  (I have no idea about the relative intelligence of either.)

Now we are getting weird...don't laugh...(why do expose my soul to the
world like this, anyway?)...seeing someone's test scores or grades can
turn me on to them even if I never noticed them before!

Good conversation leaves me in the same state of excitement/bliss as good
sex.  seriously.

D!

    It's funny, you know...A gentleman friend of mine finds that the few
    days a month he doesn't wear his contact lenses (giving his eyes a
    rest) - the days when he's wearing his hornrim glasses - are the days
    when the most women smile at him....
    
    I really think there's something to be said for the intelligent look...
    
    -Jody
    
    

    Is intelligence sexy?  You bet!  Some notes back Einstein was
    mentioned.  Very sexy guy, great eyes.  How about Robert Graves, the
    writer?  From reading his books I know he was astonishingly intelligent
    and knowledgable, I gather from various biographies he was also "quite
    the one with the ladies..."  (He wrote "The White Goddess" and the 
    Claudius novels, among others.)  
    
    Face it, (she said pigishly), brains usually get better with time,
    looks fade.  I want a man to talk with, who is capable of understanding
    life the universe and everything, can teach, can learn, can participate
    in the examined life. 
    
    IMO, the operant definition for sexy intelligence is brains with the
    ability to express them verbally.   This is a certain kind of
    intelligence.  Inarticulate genius need not apply.
    
       --Margaret

I have to agree with everyone else. Every man that I remember being attracted to 
    (and even though I'm married and not looking, I always analyze my 
    attractions)  has a combination of genuine intelligence and humor.

The men that I have had serious relationships with became sexy only   
    after hours of conversation.  With the exception of my husband, none of 
    them are considered classically handsome or sexy.  (I tend toward
    the too skinny, near-sighted introverts with extra large noses).

I also agree with D!  -- a good conversation is as stimulating as good sex.




Barbi

    A male friend once remarked that women are lucky because they are
    allowed to love ugly men as long as they are "cool" enough (i.e.
    those who do impressive things and/or are fun to be with).  His point was
    that an average or better-than-average looking man looses the respect
    of his peers and family if he falls in love with a less-than-average
    looking woman, no matter how much he loves her.    
    
    Whether or not the "privelege" to love ugly men is worth all the
    pressure on women to look pretty (for the so-called less fortunate
    sex), it does explain why some men are so picky about physical beauty. 

     I think that perhaps there is a dichotomy of what women find to be
    sexy. Maybe even within the same women. It seems that sometimes women
    are attracted purely by physical traits; other times, they are
    attracted by intellect or emotional traits.
    
     Part of why I asked this question was to try to understand occurrences
    within my own life. I had pretty much decided that intellect was
    essentially meaningless as a source of sexual excitement, and that
    physical attributes were all that one needed. I came to this conclusion
    over a period of time, during which it was obvious that women were
    hardly taking any possible intellect I might have into account. I was
    being casually dismissed on the basis of physical attributes, or more
    accurately the lack of certain attributes. That I would routinely do
    the _exact same thing_ to women was not the least bit lost on me.
    
     Could it be that women are attracted to physical attributes when
    looking for a "lover for a night," but look for a more balanced
    specimen when looking for a "lover for a lifetime?" Curious.
    
     The Doctah

    The "physical" attributes I look for in a man are: curve of the
    mouth, set of the jaw, stance, set of the head, type of gaze.
    I've (mentally) cast out perfectly *wonderful* looking men from
    my realm of the possible because of failures in the above areas.
    Those who are left are those I feel show promise in the intersection
    of intelligence, humor, and integrity.  *That* is what I'm looking
    for.
    
    							Ann B.

    Mark,
    
    My guess is that it is a question of age. I'll bet that your rejection
    on the basis of looks, despite your brains was when you were in
    your late teens and early twenties?
    
    I think that as we get older, and meet more people we realize the
    relative importance of looks in a good relationship.
    
    Bonnie

    I would like to think what Bonnie said is true, but I have heard
    otherwise. Rejection based on looks alone is certainly not a function
    of chronological age. I think the dater has to mature and find peace
    in themselves and in their self image before they can accept a persons
    who's appearance may be less than "ideal".
    
    Unfortunately, no matter what the age, some people never get to
    that point. They may very well enjoy a persons company but feel
    that they could not be "seen" in a social situation with that person.
    I think this is due to a lack of confidence on their part. After
    all, their friends might think, they couldn't do any better. Assuming
    the friends are in the small minded population. 

    Basically I can't relate to the crowd that has to see and be seen.
    The marketers of the country understand them all to well and play
    upon their insecurities, emphasizing the importance of looks and youth.

    Gail

    re .24
    
    Yes, I think this is true.
    
    If someone lined up 5 men in front of me and said, "Which men are
    sexy?" it would be easy for me to tell.  I
    would probably point to the ones with the nice bodies, nice hair,
    bluest eyes, etc.  Then I would stare at them for a while,
    say "ooo, baby" a few times under my breath, and they'd be gone.
    But if someone said, "Which men do you think you'd like to spend some
    time with?" I would probably look for signs of someone who would
    be fun to be with.  I don't know, maybe a warm smile, a friendly look
    in his eyes, a relaxed and confident stance...this is just the
    physical stuff, though.  If I was going to have any kind of 
    relationship with him, I would need to talk to him.  That's when
    his intelligence might strike me and I find myself more attracted
    to him and to the prospect of spending time with someone interesting.
    
    So, yeah, for me there are two kinds of attraction: attraction from
    a distance (which for me is almost completely physical), and attraction
    on a more personal level (which for me *might* be partly physical, but
    it is *always* emotional and intellectual).
            

    
    	It's the combination of intelligence and humor that's
    sexy.
    
    	Either one separately doesn't usually work.
    
    (for me anyway)

    Re .23, I think if women tend to love "ugly" men more often than
    men love "ugly" women, it's only because they don't have any choice.
     There aren't enough attractive men to go around anyway, so some
    women get stuck with "ugly" ones.  I'm not saying that good looks
    are the only criteria, but given a choice I'd certainly rather have
    a relationship with a good looking, intelligent, interesting,
    sensitive, witty man, than a homely, intelligent, interesting,
    sensitive, witty man.
    
    Re Mark, I think that if some women have rejected you on looks it
    only reflects their individual taste in men.  Very few of us are
    so goodlooking that the entire population of the opposite
    sex would find us attractive, based entirely on looks.  For example,
    in your case, it might be said that you are cute, but short.  Well,
    some women are only attracted to men over 6 ft., so they might reject
    you on your appearance.  Other women don't give a damn how tall a man
    is, so they might think you were very attractive.  Very few of us
    possess such classic beauty that we can please everybody.
    
    Re .27, Gail, when I reject somebody based on their appearance it
    has nothing to do with what other people would think if they saw
    us together.  It usually means that the thought of being physically
    intimate with the person turns my stomach.
    
    Lorna
     

>It usually means that the thought of being physically
>    intimate with the person turns my stomach.
 
    What a nice thought. :-)
    
    The Doctah                 

	 REL .27 (Gail)
	 

>    Basically I can't relate to the crowd that has to see and be seen.
>    The marketers of the country understand them all to well and play
>    upon their insecurities, emphasizing the importance of looks and youth.


	 nit........to 'see and be seen' is not always because of
	 insecurity.  Some people just enjoy looking good and feeling
	 young.  In fact, many of these people are VERY secure....


	 If you rely on 'looking good' to make you 'feel good',
	 yes....the 'feeling good' has to come from within, not
	 without.......

	 But insecurity doesn't always deal into this every well.

	 kath

    There is a wide range of looks that fall between attractive and
    homely. Why do people have to think you've "settled" if you're not
    seen with Mr/Ms Attractive. Before you reach homely (sick to your
    stomach) people,there are plenty in between. 
    
    As for security & looks etc. I don't agree with you Kath. The "see
    & be seen" people that I think of are ruled by the crowd and by what
    the advertisers sell them as "needs". 

    Gail

>     Could it be that women are attracted to physical attributes when
>    looking for a "lover for a night," but look for a more balanced
>    specimen when looking for a "lover for a lifetime?" Curious.
 
Not *this* woman.  I have had...er...no, I won't tell you how many one 
night stands I have had, but I will say that *one* of them was because he
looked like Billy Idol and was a true rebel and I found that exciting.
Every single other one has been because he was intelligent, or at least
looked or acted it.  (but then, as I said, I am a fetishist in this area.)

In permanent relationships, I want a man who is intelligent *and* a man
I am not afraid to look at 'the morning after', and all sorts of other
balanced qualities.  I'm picker for looks when I think I will have to see
the man on a daily basis for an indefinite period of time.

This discussion is making me feel weirder and more 'beyond normal' than I
did before.  If that was possible.

Hmmm...does falling for a guy because he *looks* intelligent fall into the
categories of attracted to looks or attracted to intelligence? :-)

Sometimes I wonder what produced this fetish. I think it is because the first,
oh, 5 or 6 major boyfriends I had I met over the computer, and didn't even
see their face until I was already half in love with their minds.

Why does it seem like people consider it somehow "better" to be attracted 
more to intelligence than to beauty than the other way around.  Aren't both
equally an inherent part of the person, and one facet of their wholeness?
Isn't judging someone on *any* one quality, including intelligence, 
objectification? (And aren't all one night stands basically objectification
since you certainly can't appreciate the whole person in that short time?)

And incidentally, Doctah, I think you are being hard on yourself.   You 
have continually said in this note and others than no woman finds you sexy.
You're wrong.

D!

>You 
>have continually said in this note and others than no woman finds you sexy. 
    
    Well, that's not entirely true. I would hope that my wife finds me
    sexy. :-)
    
    I'd better stop now, you have me blushing. :-) :-)
    
    The Doctah

D!, too share some of  your more 'extreme' statements about attraction to
intelligence (or the simulation thereof). But I went to MIT...

No one has said intelligence is a turn-off, or a non-issue. How strange. And
all the replies from women have had to do with men (but that could be the way
the base note was phrased, or a reflection of the current mood).

Lorna mentioned she hadn't ever been attracted to anyone dumb (or was it
stupid?). I have, though I wouldn't have thought of either of those two
adjectives. Just people with below-normal IQ (and we all know how meaningful a
test can be).

Which seems to contrast with my first paragraph, but it doesn't really. I just
get excited by _lots_ of things.
	Mez

>You 
>have continually said in this note and others than no woman finds you sexy. 
>You're wrong.

	 I'm glad you said that D!, and not I.  I was think the same
	 thing since this topic started and I've never even MET
	 Doctah......(But I do have the Soapbox video) :-)

	 kath

>	 I'm glad you said that D!, and not I.
    
     All right- that's enough on THAT theme. :-)/2 This is not what I was
    trying to get out of this and besides, I don't like it when my face
    gets hot like this. :-)
    
     On the general subject (he said, breathing in a sigh of relief) I too
    wonder why all of the replies look at intelligence favorably. Is it
    more socially acceptable to be attracted to a mind than a face/body?
    Would that explain the apparent conformity? Or is everyone really
    interested in intelligence?
    
     I personally find that I can be attracted to a woman's mind as well as
    her body. And a great body with no mind does nothing for me (well,
    after a while, anyway.) An average looking person can be beautiful if
    s/he has a great personality and reasonable intelligence. I wouldn't
    say that out and out intelligence is really sexually stimulating, but
    it is intellectually stimulating (which is often a good substitute).
    Both have their places.
    
     The Doctah

>    wonder why all of the replies look at intelligence favorably. Is it
>    more socially acceptable to be attracted to a mind than a face/body?
>    Would that explain the apparent conformity? Or is everyone really
>    interested in intelligence?
 
Well, remember that all (or at least the vast majority) of the women 
responding to your question (and the people in this file in general) are
intelligent.  There is  certain amount of verbal ability necessary to
enjoy this form of communication. I doubt many (how do I put this 
delicately) less a verbally/academically inclined people would be here 
to begin with.  In fact, I'd bet the IQ bell curve here is a good 30
points shifted from "average".  So it isn't surprising that the people
in the file would put a premium on intelligence.
 
>	I wouldn't
>    say that out and out intelligence is really sexually stimulating

*sigh*  Few men do.  Few women do.  (Mez and I are the only ones?)  Think
about this tho...while intelligence may not be sexually stimulating in
the short term - haven't you found that intelligent women make much better
sexual partners in general?  (I mean, even ignoring personal companionship
and such, just looking at it sexually.)  People who are intelligent tend
to be more inventive and creative in bed, which is (to me anyway) intensely
sexually stimulating.

D!

    Re Mez, in regard to being attracted/not being attracted to stupid
    men, it occurs to me that since you went to MIT, and I only have
    a high school diploma, maybe we have different ideas of what stupid
    is! :-)  Maybe since you're so intelligent, a man wouldn't have
    to be as stupid for you to consider him stupid as he would for me
    to consider him stupid.  Maybe the guys I consider stupid, are *really*
    stupid!  Since you're an MIT engineer and I'm a secretary, I bet
    I've been approached by a lot more stupid men than you have! :-)
    
    On the other hand, maybe you are more secure in your own intelligence
    because of your education and your profession, and feel it could
    be no reflection on yourself even if you did date a stupid man.
     On the other hand, I might be afraid that if I dated a stupid man,
    that the general populous might just consider us a stupid couple,
    and I couldn't stand that.  
    
    In any case, it may be sexist, but I have to know a man is at least
    as intelligent as me, and preferably more intelligent or I can't
    get interested no matter how cute he is.
    
    Re D!, where did you say that guy who looks like Billy Idol is now?
    :-)
    
    Lorna
    

>Well, remember that all (or at least the vast majority) of the women 
>responding to your question (and the people in this file in general) are
>intelligent.
    
     I'm sure that does have something to do with the results.
    
>Think
>about this tho...while intelligence may not be sexually stimulating in
>the short term - haven't you found that intelligent women make much better
>sexual partners in general? 
    
     Actually, statistical validity of the sample size notwithstanding, I
    don't have any way to make the comparison. :-) 
    
>                  -< We could all exchange SAT scores, too! >-
    
     How gauche! Only extremely conceited individuals would even consider
    such a thing. :-) 
    
    The Doctah

    I was once on a date with a man who happened to have a ph.d. in
    chemistry.  Halfway thru dinner I made the comment, "Just imagine.
     You have a ph.d. in chemistry and I didn't even take it in high
    school."  He replied, "So what.  Men don't care about that stuff."
    I thought it was funny.
    
    Re D!, while men have to be intelligent for me to be attracted to
    them, I'm not sure that a person's intelligence really has that
    much to do with how well they actually perform in bed.  For example,
    people can be inventive in different ways.  A person who might not
    be able to figure out how to design a circuit board, might very
    well be able to figure out how to please a partner during sex.
    
    Lorna
    

RE:  .-1

My last girlfriend used to design ciruit boards in bed.

What a turnoff!!!

john

>My last girlfriend used to design ciruit boards in bed.
>
>What a turnoff!!!
    
     I guess it depends on whether she used surface mount or through hole
    devices, compliant pin connectors, and active components or not. :-)
    
     What about interposers? :-)
    
     the Doctah

    It's so true, the better you get to know someone the more
    attractive or ugly they get, depending on their personality!
    
    I've know gorgeous guys at a first glance but after talking with
    them I don't find them attractive anymore.  Then I meet someone 
    average, like their company and then start finding them very attractive.
    
    Debbi
    
    RE: -.43, John, you might not want to tell to many people that, it's not 	
    	    good for your reputation   8^)

    Doctah;
    
    yes, intelligence is sexy.  The best prelude to ___ is a nice dinner
    at a quiet restaurant with good conversation.  A vigorous discussion
    of say, Eastern Europes political developments and how they'll affect
    NATO, and I'm ready to drag the man home.  I live with my fiance.
    He is never so sexy as when he's intelligently discussing a subject
    that he his interested in.  
    
    Also, when he first asked me out with a group of people, I wasn't
    attracted to his body.  However, after talking with him that evening, I
    was.  
    
    In addition,  I have found that most intelligent men are good in bed
    while the one stupid man that I knew was PATHETIC. 
    

>    In addition,  I have found that most intelligent men are good in bed
>    while the one stupid man that I knew was PATHETIC. 

 Sounds like you are a quick learner. :-)

 I was wondering, with all of the positive response we have hear, is it possible
that some (women, due to the wording of .0) are intimidated about admitting
they like 'em dumb? I had previously heard some women who actually preferred
their men "big and dumb," because they were only using them for sex. They had
all the intellectual stimiulation they needed; they simply wanted well built
specimens that weren't demanding of them to go to bed with. Then see ya later
in the morning. 

 I guess I'm finding the results to be rather unexpected, and I'm wondering if
people are reluctant to say that intelligence is not a criterion or that it
is a handicap.

 The Doctah

>they like 'em dumb? I had previously heard some women who actually preferred
>their men "big and dumb," because they were only using them for sex. 

Well, Julie Brown does...

"I like 'em big and *stupid*,
I like 'em big and *real* dumb"...

(Of course, she can say that "because she's a b l o..oh whatever...)  :-)

D!

    Perhaps, we are all looking at the word "dumb" incorrectly.  To me,
    "dumb" means "stupid, relative to me".  To prove your point, I would
    not, for instance, have enjoyed dating Albert Einstein.  I like my
    fiance because he and I are on about the same level of intelligence. 
    We both have thoughts to contribute to each other.  I couldn't see
    Albert listening to much that I have to say, since my IQ is not 60
    points above normal.  
    For me to enjoy a man who's intelligence was far lower than mine, I
    think I would be looking for an ego trip.  I would want that man to
    make me feel intelligent, by his relative unintelligence.  Personally,
    I feel more intelligent by being intellectually challenged.
    

    I'm not actually sure if I've ever been to bed with a man who would
    be considered stupid (below average intellect).  I don't think so.
     The men I have had sex with range from what would probably be
    considered average intelligence, a little bit above average (the
    majority), to extremely intelligent.  I would have to say that all
    three groups included men who were great in bed, average in bed,
    and lousy in bed (at least in my opinion).  (Of course, many factors
    can influence whether one person considers another person to be
    "good in bed."  How much did I like the person, how much did I really
    want to be doing it, what was my mood etc.  One person's "good in
    bed", might be another person "dead...you know what.")  But, reviewing
    my own experience I can't say that I would automatically say that
    the most intelligent men are the best in bed.  I might say that
    men who are fun loving, have a slight wild streak, slightly above
    average intelligence, and who really love women, and love sex, tend
    to be good in bed.  (Then, of course, we could have different
    interpretations of what's fun loving and what's wild, etc....)
    
    Lorna
    

    Lorna,
    
    I must agree with you.  I left out info before.  The unintelligent man
    that I knew was also a macho type (which probably affected the fact
    that he acted as though he were all by himself.)   In addition, the
    best man I've known may be that way because of many things, including
    intelligence.  But also including , (oh no, it's the L word), Love.
    
    Rachael
    

Lorna, I really loved your reply. I'm quite certain at least one man I dated
had below-average IQ. I think that might qualify for 'dumb' on your scale, but
then again you might just strike me as smart (whereas I dated this guy in high
school, where academic-smarts are pretty clear, which is what IQ seems to
mean).

He was very nice, and quite fun on a date. He wasn't any more into macho than
most blue-collar folks (I come from a decidedly blue-collar end of town, if not
town itself), and probably more open-minded than most (willing to date an
eccentric). I doubt I could have had a long-term relationship with him, but the
summer was fun.

But, his grade-report wasn't what turned me on :-). Whereas, every time Joe
comes home with his performance review, I get all flushed :-) :-).
	Mez

>    For me to enjoy a man who's intelligence was far lower than mine, I
>    think I would be looking for an ego trip.  I would want that man to
>    make me feel intelligent, by his relative unintelligence.  Personally,
>    I feel more intelligent by being intellectually challenged.

 Hmmm. Things brings up so many points, I don't know which one to tackle first.
:-)

 It would seem that (if I am interpreting this paragraph correctly) you are
approaching this from a context of a long term relationship. This is perfectly
valid, of course, but I do not believe that something which triggers a sexual
reaction must occur in the context of a long term relationship. (Long term
arbitrarily meaning 1 week or more here). I often find a sexual reaction 
occurring when no relationship even exists; eg, you see a person walking in the
mall and you think "Wow- (s)he's sexy." 

 And I believe that the same sort of reaction can occur without visual stimulus.
You call the operator and your libido is piqued by the sounds of the operator's
voice. Intelligence has the potential for this as well; you read a book by
someone and you think "I bet it would be great to be intimate with the author."

 I wonder if short and long term sources of erotic stimulation can be coupled
to various human behaviors. For example, is it reasonable to posit that people
who are interested in long term relationships tend to be more susceptible to
long term erotic stimulation ("I can't find someone sexy until I know them 
really well") whereas people who enjoy an occasional "pick-up" are more (or
perhaps equally) susceptible to short term stimulation (S/He looks so 'rad.'")?

 It seems that the author of .50 is concerned mainly with long term behaviors
and stimuli. I am interested in all manners of behavior and stimuli as they 
apply to the people who care to respond. So to the above paragraph, I found 
myself thinking "But what if she doesn't WANT to feel intelligent at that 
particular time? What if she just wants to have fun?"

 I would imagine that some women who like stupid men do so for a chance to have
the upper hand, intellectually, and presumably from a standpoint of control.
However, I would dare not to further generalize. Perhaps there are other,
equally important and prevalent reasons.

 The Doctah (not Ruth) :-)

    Doctah:
    
    Boy have you got me pegged!  You're right.  I have focused mostly on
    long-term relationships.  Although, I have had one or two instances of
    short-term relationships (short-term being 24 hours to 1 week). 
    Perhaps I'm weird, but, again, I liked those guys because of how they
    talked.  It also happens that they both had, (at least in my memory),
    Chippendale dancer-type looks.  But I have met alot of men with great
    looks and I don't think anything would have happened if these guys
    hadn't been great conversationalists.  Then again, I'm a little weird.
    My idea of a great time is perhaps a bit tamer than most.  Also, I
    always had this little rule.  I never went to bed with anyone whom I
    knew I would never marry.  (my way of sort-of following my religous
    upbringing)

    Following in the spirit of D! (.49):
    
    So does Pat Benetar.
    
    	"I need a lover who won't drive me crazy. . .
    	 Someone who knows the meaning of 
    	 'Hey - hit the highway'."
    
    Steve

    Pat Bentar?  Didn't John Cougar Mellencamp record that song?
    
    -- Mike

    After all the talk in the "designed for" note it's occured to me
    that women may be predesposed to look for intelligence. An
    intelligent man of the same physical strength as a "dumb" man would
    have a higher survival potential. He might be better able to feed
    and clothe his family to help them survive and therefore be more
    "attractive" to a possible mate. The women who chose these men are
    the ones who's children survived and the preference continued. TADA,
    nice theory? liesl

    p.s. Carla once sent me the words to a song that went something like
    this:

    Intelligent men just make demands
    So give me a moron with talented hands

    In answer to the base question:  to me, stupidity is a turn-off, so I'd
    have to say that intelligence is sexy.  It's not enough (Woody Allen
    doesn't do it for me), but it's a start!  
    
    To drag out my Logic:  it is necessary but not sufficient.  :-)
    
    .58:  The song you quote is from the same Julie Brown song D! quoted
    ("I Like 'Em Big and Stupid")  She also has a song for the flip side,
    which is "Cause I'm a Blonde".
    
    Favorite lines:
    Big & Stupid:  I met a guy.  He drives a truck.
    		   He can't tell time, but he sure can ... drive.
    		   I asked his name and he had to think
    		   ... could I have found the "missing link"?!
    
    Blonde:	   Because I'm blonde, I don't have to think.
    		   I talk like a baby and I never pay for drinks!
    		   Don't have to worry about gettin' a man,
    		   if I keep this blonde and I keep these tan!
    
    Julie Brown (now on MTV):  GODDESS IN TRAINING album; also has
    "Homecoming Queen's Got a Gun" and "Earth Girls are Easy" on it.
    She co-wrote and starred in the "Earth Girls are Easy" movie.

    BTW, before anyone gets mad at me (moi?), I entered the Big&Stupid and
    Blonde lyrics to show that Julie Brown acknowledges that stupidity and
    objectifying can happen to both sexes.
    
    Just wanted to get this disclaimer in!  :-)
    Pam
    

    re: .57 (Mike)
    
    � Didn't John Cougar Mellencamp record that song?
    
    I honestly don't know - any JCM fans here?  I do know that Benetar
    did it on one of her early albums.  I think it was on the same one
    as "Hit Me With Your Best Shot", during her "let's see whatcha got
    there, big boy" period.  
    
    Steve

    Well, Steve, I'm not a big fan, but being from Indiana, I did hear a
    lot of his music on the radio in the early days of his career, and I
    could have sworn that this was one of his early hits (it might have
    just been a local Indiana hit, though.)  I dunno, maybe I am confused
    (which is not unusual for me.)

    -- Mike

 John Cougar Mellencamp wrote the song. Pat Benatar also performs it.

The Doctah

"Sexy"?  I don't know if I would have attached that word to it, but
I know that I am far more attracted to Veronica Hamel than I am to
Connie Selleca, despite the fact that they have similar looks.  The difference
to me is that Veronica seems stronger and more intelligent, in part because
of the roles they have played.

          Carol

    ~/~
    
    Are people in this file aware of the statistical concept of "a biased
    sample"? I submit that women who like read electronic notes and are
    comfortable expressing themselves in an electronic medium may be more
    attracted to "intelligence" than an "unbiased" sample.
    
    	'Yer all nerds - do you hear me?! - NERDS! :-)
    
    	-- Charles (a bona-fide dyed-in-the-wool card-carrying nerd)

    Nerdy?  Tell me about it.  I just realized I've *never* had a
    short-term relationship.
    
    I thought I was doing pretty good to realize that *all* my lovers
    have been active science fiction fans -- quintessential nerds.
    
    							Ann B.

>    Nerdy?  Tell me about it.  I just realized I've *never* had a
>    short-term relationship.

	Ann,

	You think you got it bad - I don't think that I have ever
	had a relationship with anyone with a "great bod" as we
	used to say.

	As for what is "sexy" - (haven't we done this before?) I
	have been involved with dumb men (I mean really dumb - the
	kind that have their names and telephone numbers written 
	on the inside of their shirt collars) and with MIT nerds.

	BUT to answer the question - intelligence, wit and charm
	equal sexy to me (in that order).

	A man has to have the inteligence to laugh at my jokes and
	the wit to get me to laugh at his.

	Is three months a short-term relationship????

	_peggy


		(-)
		 |
			But then I don't do long-term
			relationships either - over 5 years.

    in re .66 and .67
    
    well, short term could mean a 'one night stand' but in general
    I'd say that any relatioship where you were together for at
    least three months and parted because you both realized that
    you weren't right for each other, isn't quite what is meant
    by a short term relationship.
    
    Bonnie

    On New Year's Day, I saw a copy of the book "American Fool:  The Roots
    and Improbable Rise of John Cougar Mellencamp", by Martin Torgoff, on
    sale for $2.98.  Not being one to pass up such a bargain, or an
    opportunity to beat a rathole to death, here is the scoop on the song
    "I need a Lover", as summarized from pages 86-106 of the book.

    After John and his first manager, Tony DeVries (who had engineered
    David Bowie's rise to stardom), parted company, he found a new manager,
    Billy Gaff, who then managed Rod Stewart.  John was not having any
    success at the time.  He went to his home in Bloomington, Indiana, and
    decided to try spending some time songwriting.  According to the book,
    "He got inspiration for one good song from his old buddy, Jay
    Nicholson, who had fallen on hard times with drugs and alcohol since
    his days as Seymour High's heartthrob."  Jay was feeling suicidal, and
    told John, "'Man, I need to find some chick I can be with who won't bug
    the s*** out of me.'"  Reminded of the Stones lyric, "I need a lover
    who'll make me happy...", he wrote down the chorus that begins, "I need
    a lover that won't drive me crazy."

    Torgoff writes, "Of course, as the band went about working out the
    number, roughing up different versions, it never occurred to any of
    them that John had written a song that would come to epitomize the
    sexual ambiance of the 1970s."

    John and the band tried out the song at a Chicago nightclub, and
    performed it again at the Whiskey A Go-Go in Los Angeles.  In
    attendance that night were Jerry Jaffee from Polygram Records, and Mike
    Chapman, a record producer.  Jaffee later recalled, "He opened with 'I
    need a Lover,' and I said to myself, 'Hit song!'  I looked over at Mike
    Chapman, who was taking notes furiously..."

    Chapman went backstage after the performance, and asked John Cougar if
    Suzy Quatro could do the song.  John agreed.

    John then went to England, where Gaff, his producer, tried to promote
    him.  While there, "I Need a Lover" was released on the British charts,
    where it made it to No. 17.  Better still, in Australia it made it all
    the way to No. 1.  Yet in the U.S. the song was still unknown.  After a
    brief stay in Australia, John decided to return to the U.S. for one
    last shot at stardom.

    He recorded a new LP, which was to include a new production of "I Need
    a Lover", but John thought the original was better and pushed for using
    that version.  Meanwhile, although Suzy Quatro did not end up recording
    the song herself, producer Mike Chapman still liked it so much that he
    was able to get a tape of the song so that it could be recorded by an
    unknown singer, Pat Benatar, for her first album.  The tape he got was
    not the original version, but rather the newer production that John had
    ended up discarding.  Her rendition is fairly faithful to that
    discarded version.

    Torgoff writes, "even though her version is considerably more tame, the
    lyrics of the song...seemed audacious--a neofeminist statement.  When
    released, her single received tremendous airplay, propelling her first
    album, _In_The_Heat_of_the_Night_, to sales of over eight hundred
    thousand."  While the John Cougar version only reached No. 20 on the
    charts, it "achieved a kind of album-oriented radio (AOR) cult status
    almost immediately.  Bill Hard of the _Friday_Morning_Quarterback_ tip
    sheet remembers picking the song out of the box as one that would
    travel far, despite the fact that it came out of left field."

    Torgoff adds, "People would now come up to him and ask, 'Hey John, how
    come you're doing Pat Benatar's song?'--to which John would laugh and
    say, 'Because I like it!"  In fact, "that year [1979], John made the
    first substantial sum of money in his career: royalties from Benatar's
    version of "I Need a Lover."

    -- Mike

    Well, I'm catching up on notes here, and I might just be that odd
    woman that the Doctah is looking for.
    
    I'll admit that intelligence is not top on my list, when it comes to
    sexy.  Humor and wit, would have to be first.  Charm and/or 
    physically attractive, second, sensitivity to emotions, next, and then 
    maybe intelligence.
    
    > Could it be that women are attracted to physical attributes when
    > looking for a "lover for a night," but look for a more balanced
    > specimen when looking for "lover for a lifetime?" Curious.
    
    Absolutely, in my case.  However, there is a big gap between
    intelligent and down right stupid.  Even in a one night stand, I
    wouldn't care to get up in the morning and discuss the solution to
    world peace, and then again, I don't want to sit across a breakfast
    table for even one day, from a man who's vocabulary is less than
    thirty words.
    
    > Think about this tho...while intelligence may not be sexually
    > stimulating in the short term - haven't you found that intelligent
    > women make much better sexual partners in general?  (I mean, even
    > ignoring personal companionship and such, just looking at it
    > sexually.) 
    
    > People who are intelligent tend to be more inventive
    > and creative in bed, which is (to me anyway) intensely sexually
    > stimulating.
    
    I couldn't apply this to my experience with men.  I've found that
    men who work with their hands, e.g. mechanics, construction workers,
    are far more exciting, and satisfying in bed, then those men who
    are, say, professionals.  *but* please don't assume that I think
    that mechanics, or construction workers are not intelligent, but
    I think that society in general, thinks that they are less intelligent
    than men who have 'desk jobs'.
    
    FWIW, The absolutely best lover I ever enjoyed, was perhaps one
    peg above idiot.  Much to my chagrin, I ended the relationship 
    very quickly :-)   as I said, breakfast was boring as all heck,
    and boring, is something I simply canNOT stand. :-)  However, the
    mere thought of the man, brings a smile to my face...
    
    and another FWIW, in the past year, I dated a man that was darned
    near genious, and he very subtly dumped me.  He's has never really
    told me why, but I've always felt that it was because my intelligence
    (or lack thereof) wasn't close enough to his.  Though my ego was/is
    a little bruised, I'm sure he did the right thing.   and no, he
    never 'knocked my socks off' but I miss his company very much.
    
    SandieD                                                              
    

I just found a Quigman's cartoon that could go under several WN topics,
but it somehow seems most appropriate in this one.

Man:	"Oh Daphne!  Instruct me on how to dismantle the electronically
	 controlled and video-monitored wrought iron gates of your
	 heart."

Woman:	"Die and be reincarnated into a man who turns me on."

    
    A very intelligent man who I find to be very sexy is Richard Feynman.
    On this snowy afternoon in New England I think I'll curl up with one of 
    his books.  
    
    CQ

    
    An interesting sidelite to these discussions...
    I just finished a course which required 'role play / consensus
    building' and rather than the usual 'what would you save if 
    stranded in alaska/on a desert/in the ocean/etc' ... we had
    to reach consensus in a rating of 9 things men/women look for
    in a mate.  After thinking about it, and remembering some of the
    conversations here, i gave high marks to sense of humor and
    intelligence...
    
    and the group did not reach such a consensus...
    
    and the survey (something from 1986) said
    
    top two things for men: sense of humor , warm and loving
    		for women:  warm and loving, sense of humor
    
    so guess both sexes are attracted by sense of humor.
    
    deb
    

    re .73, and speaking of a sense of humor, while reading singles
    ads, I've noticed that almost everybody in the world considers
    themselves to have an off-beat, or good sense of humor.
    
    Lorna
    

>    re .73, and speaking of a sense of humor, while reading singles
>    ads, I've noticed that almost everybody in the world considers
>    themselves to have an off-beat, or good sense of humor.
    
      This is known as date-attraction evolution. As men read more singles
    ads, they notice things women are looking for, and simply incorporate
    them into their ads.
    
     Let's see.... "attractive man, good sense of humor, blah blah blah, 
    likes walks on the beach, dancing, the mountains, etc, etc, etc.
    Looking for attractive woman, weight in proportion to height, age
    xx-yy, likes to dine out, ride horses..."
    
     It's a scam. :-)
    
     The Doctah

    I was convinced more than ever this weekend at a science fiction
    convention that intellectual and creative genius captivates me more 
    than anything in the universe - even in some self-admitted geeks!
    
    -Jody
    

    
    I reckon that we're attracted to people with intelligence EQUAL to 
    our own - or our perception of our own.
              
    'gail
    
    

    re .78, actually I've always been most attracted to men whom I perceive
    to be more intelligent than me.  (and I think that's rather sexist
    of me, too)
    
    Lorna
    

>    re .78, actually I've always been most attracted to men whom I perceive
>    to be more intelligent than me.  (and I think that's rather sexist
>    of me, too)


	 Why sexist, Lorna?  Sexism is descrimination based on gender.
	 What does intelligence have to do with gender?

	 Also, isn't who you are attracted to simply a facet of your
	 personal preference..and not really a factor of
	 descrimination at all?


	 kath

Lorna,

Seems to me that for the 99.9% of the population that is not exactly
50-50 bisexual, sexism is an inherent part of romantic and sexual attraction.

And in fact,  I think sexual attraction is one of the few places where sexism
is blameless.  Who could yell "misogynist" at a woman because she choose only
to sleep with men?  :-)

Choosing a partner is also inherently discriminatory.  You are "allowed" to
base your desicion on all sorts of things that would be outright unethical if
you were *hiring* them instead of *loving* them!  (Like race, religion, 
height, nose size, wallet size, car size, etc...)

I like the men I date to be taller and older.  I am both discriminatory and
sexist in my choice of romantic and sexual partners.  And proud of it! :-)

D!