quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: My take on the internet dating site originally referenced: I do think it's a shallow (in the typical meaning of the word) site and probably more heavily populated with shallow people than most. About the people themselves, I don't really care, other than to note that they probably aren't people I'd be interested in spending much time with.
I'll be honest, I looked at the pictures of the people on the site and though that they looked uppity, self-important, and probably more interested in partying or looking good than a lot of things I might find important.
Then I felt bad, because I realized that it was much more shallow of me to make snap judgments about people on a dating site for all attractive people than it is for them to be honest about wanting to date an attractive person.
My question is, why do we think it's shallow to want to date a physicaly attractive person? Certainly all of us have SOME standards of physical beauty which we look for in a mate. Why do we so easily believe that OUR personal level of those standards is just right, but anyone with a more specific set of standards is shallow?
Further, why are we jumping to so many conclusions about the people on this site? We want to assume that they're only interested in looks, when we have no evidence that they don't spend hours emailing each other to get the personal details before they ever go on a date.
Bottom line is, they're people too. We do ourselves a disservice to stereotype them because they have a high level of what would commonly be accepted as physical attractiveness.
Maybe they're just tired of dating people with our attitudes, and have fled to a dating site where they know they won't be pre-judged by their beauty, where the person on the other side of the screen just accepts their attractiveness at face value, and is willing to dig deeper before writing them off as shallow and uninteresting.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: Then I felt bad, because I realized that it was much more shallow of me to make snap judgments about people on a dating site for all attractive people than it is for them to be honest about wanting to date an attractive person.
I don't agree with you. [To clarify: in large part because I do not agree with your characterization of the situation. See below.]
quote:My question is, why do we think it's shallow to want to date a physicaly attractive person?
I don't. But I do think it is shallow to deliberately limit oneself to that.
This doesn't mean I think the person is morally ugly, or unredeemable, or vile -- just shallow.
quote:Certainly all of us have SOME standards of physical beauty which we look for in a mate. Why do we so easily believe that OUR personal level of those standards is just right, but anyone with a more specific set of standards is shallow?
To the extent that each of us limits ourselves in mate selection to a very narrow definition of attractiveness, deliberately reinforcing our own preconceptions of what we can be attracted to, we exhibit shallowness. This isn't a matter of religious obligation, of constraint placed externally -- it is a matter of saying to some extent, "gee, I like this, so this is all I will ever try."
I'm sure I am shallow to some extent. Maybe some great extent -- I'm always working on it. It makes me lesser than I could be.
quote:Further, why are we jumping to so many conclusions about the people on this site? We want to assume that they're only interested in looks, when we have no evidence that they don't spend hours emailing each other to get the personal details before they ever go on a date.
I don't assume they are only interested in looks. I do believe they are deliberately limiting what they will expose themselves to in a very narrow way, because, MightyCow, that is exactly what they are doing at this site.
You may have assumed more. I didn't.
quote:Bottom line is, they're people too.
Well, of course. Nobody has said or intimated otherwise.
And, like all of us, they exist on a range of various positive and negative qualities. Not an either/or, but a range. Not human/inhuman, but better or worse at being the best human beings they can be. And that, too, likely fluctuates over times, as it does for all of us.
quote:We do ourselves a disservice to stereotype them because they have a high level of what would commonly be accepted as physical attractiveness.
I do not judge them by their attractiveness. I do judge them by their deliberate choice not to seek out more ways of finding other people to be attractive in mate selection.
I don't think you are speaking to what I say; I think you might be speaking to what you think.
quote:Maybe they're just tired of dating people with our attitudes, and have fled to a dating site where they know they won't be pre-judged by their beauty, where the person on the other side of the screen just accepts their attractiveness at face value, and is willing to dig deeper before writing them off as shallow and uninteresting.
I don't judge them as shallow because of how they look. I judge them as shallow because of what they do.
And it's fine to avoid stretching oneself as a person. You're still shallow, though, to the extent that you narrow yourself down to feeding already-established appetites.
quote:I do judge them by their deliberate choice not to seek out more ways of finding other people to be attractive in mate selection.
How the heck do you know that they aren't doing that? Do you seriously think that these people aren't doing other things when looking for people to date? Maybe I was wrong and there really is a law that says that you can't register for more than one dating site.
I don't know, it sounds to me like you are not judging people, but instead judging simplistic two dimensional cut-outs that fit your prejudices.
edit:
quote: highly doubt my opinion would matter to anyone posting there one whit
And why do you think that? Do think that the people who are on that sight would value your opinion or even friendship based solely on how you look?
posted
I have very little to contribute these days. I mostly just ingest. But I would like to say that the inside of my mind is pretty much a constant discussion between the Kat-like voice and the Porter/Bev-like voice.
Posts: 8504 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I applied to see if I would get accepted. I could use an ego boost. Of course, I may end up doing myself more harm than good if I get rejected.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think it's a fair distinction to say that the people on this site are any more shallow than any other person. EVERYBODY who dates sets has standards of physical attractiveness, and ignores people who fall below their threshold. Many people do it subconsciously, these people choose to do it actively.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I like to think that I tend to do it consciously, but then repress those inclinations so as not to be shallow. But then I only date pretty girls anyway.
P.S. Not recently. I haven't dated anyone in a year. I haven't found a pretty girl who is interesting and has character and personality who isn't already taken. I either need to lower my standards of attractivness or my standards of personality. I'm at an impasse.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just don't understand these conscious "standards." There are certain factors that make someone less desirable to me (ie. being a smoker), but when it comes to looks and personality, it's more of a "know it when I see it" kind of thing.
quote:EVERYBODY who dates sets has standards of physical attractiveness, and ignores people who fall below their threshold. Many people do it subconsciously, these people choose to do it actively.
Not so. I once fell in love with a man that most people would say is rather unattractive, even ugly. I dated and very much enjoyed dating another man that the same could be said for. (Didn't actually fall in love with the second guy, just really enjoyed dating him.) At first glance, there was nothing in the way they looked to attract me. Both repulsed me on first impression.
But that impression changed when I saw the value of who they were. They each had a lot to offer in their own way and that beauty made them beautiful to me.
I once heard Porter say that the only reason a guy feels the need to have a pretty girlfriend is to impress others with how well he did for himself. While I think he is wrong (I think many men, and women, but more often men require a certain level of beauty in order to feel the attraction in the first place), it reveals a refreshing lack of dependence on physical beauty on his part.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Beverly, perhaps you are one of the very rare people for which there is no lower threshold for physical attractiveness.
I suppose another point I would make is, why is desiring a certain level of physical attraction seen as a negative, but desiring a certain level of say intellectual attraction or some common interest or trait is very deep.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: How the heck do you know that they aren't doing that? Do you seriously think that these people aren't doing other things when looking for people to date? Maybe I was wrong and there really is a law that says that you can't register for more than one dating site.
I have claimed, and continue to claim, that to the extent that these people are limiting themselves to being exposed to what they already find attractive -- which is being done explicitly at this site, regardless of what they may be doing elsewhere -- these people are behaving in a shallow way.
And also as I have said before, that isn't a black/white judgement: it is a matter of degree. And it is something of which a degree which I laid claim to, as well.
I don't think you are actually reading my posts.
quote:edit:
quote: highly doubt my opinion would matter to anyone posting there one whit
And why do you think that? Do think that the people who are on that sight would value your opinion or even friendship based solely on how you look?
*amused
No, and no. I just take it for granted that most people don't care what I think.
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: [quote] I don't think it's a fair distinction to say that the people on this site are any more shallow than any other person. EVERYBODY who dates sets has standards of physical attractiveness, and ignores people who fall below their threshold. Many people do it subconsciously, these people choose to do it actively.
*sigh
I am not judging them for experiencing attraction to specific particulars, something which we all experience because, well, that is part of being human. Some things will kick more of a hindbrain response than others.
Whatever.
I am judging them to the extent (whatever that may be, although we have evidence that it is to some extent because, you see, that is what enrolling at this site means) that they are deliberately limiting themselves to the very narrow range of what they already have appetites for. Of note, this site also operates by kicking out those who are not judged sufficiently attractive by a sufficient number of other people -- not just what one happens to like oneself [which could be easily addressed by just requiring photographs, etc.]. That is a very narrow range, indeed.
They may be otherwise quite lovely people. They may, on the whole, be much less shallow than I. But to the extent they participate in this deliberate reinforcement of already-established inclinations, they are not extending themselves. That is shallow, to the extent it is practiced.
I would really love to hear you comment on what I am actually saying. If it is not interesting or relevant to you, that is fine, but I am not saying what you seem to be hearing. it is certainly not what you are responding to, if indeed you are trying to respond to me.
posted
These people are only going to date the hottest of the other (or same) sex anyway. I say let them group together on-line. If someone joins this site, it shows what they are looking for.
quote:I suppose another point I would make is, why is desiring a certain level of physical attraction seen as a negative, but desiring a certain level of say intellectual attraction or some common interest or trait is very deep.
Possibly because attraction to beauty is more reflexive and instinctual while attraction to intelligence is more a matter of compatibility. I think the later is more important for a lasting relationship, therefore a more "worthy" impulse.
I imagine that many of the people who say they want an intelligent mate could easily be attracted to someone who isn't very intelligent. Maybe that person is otherwise quite charming. Seeking out specific character traits is often a matter of mind over instinct, knowing what is best for you. Goodness knows I have a tendency to be attracted to people who would be no good for me.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
To answer your question, Tom, I have doubts about whether attraction can be learned (well, whether *I* can learn it--I'm willing to acknowledge that it's likely others not only can, but have done it). I've never been in a serious relationship, let alone married. It seems to me that I can turn attraction off; I can't turn it on.
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
But what is the value in cutting out less attractive people? Is beauty a virtue? I think there is good argument that there is value in cutting out those involved in unhealthy addictions.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: I suppose another point I would make is, why is desiring a certain level of physical attraction seen as a negative, but desiring a certain level of say intellectual attraction or some common interest or trait is very deep.
I would say that to the extent that one deliberately limits oneself in mate selection to a narrow range of characteristics already known [to oneself] to be attractive [to oneself] -- be it by participating in this dating site, or by focusing on dating Mensa members, or only dating physicians -- then one is being shallow.***
We don't all have to be un-shallow all day, every day. There isn't a moral imperative to endeepify oneself, or to pretend to have been endeepified. But to the extent that we do [the former], I think we make more of ourselves, not less.
Please note: this is not a blindingly irrational injunction against any group of persons, 2-dimensional or otherwise. This is a claim about a degree of [a non-admirable but not necessarily indicative of general depravity of any sort] quality which all of us have, including me to some extent or another.
I had referenced an analogy to untrustworthiness previously. I have not been trustworthy in the past with regards to making it to appointments on time. I have worked on this and am much better about it than I was in Madison. However, in Madison, Tom once acknowledged that he allowed an automatic extra 1/2 hour to my estimated times of arrival.
He knew I was untrustworthy. He would even acknowledge it to my face. I still am quite secure that overall he still harbored (and still does) some affection and respect for me. He and his wife entrusted the care of their child to me on multiple occasions, after all.
But to the extent that I behaved this way, I was untrustworthy. Maybe not untrustworthy overall, certainly not in many other areas, but in this area, yes. And that was not one of my more admirable qualities. (Should this have come up in discussion with Sophie, if she were speaking much back then, I assume they would have said something like, "Yes, Aunt Sara can't be counted on to arrive on time, and we expect more of you than that. But she sure is a good person in other ways, isn't she? She loves you very much.") Still, they would hope for Sophie to do better than I did in this aspect. Moreover, I think Tom and Christy would be pleased and proud that I'm doing better in this respect. I sure am.
So I don't see why in heavens you would read my saying "this behavior is shallow" as making a blanket condemnation of a person. My head just doesn't work that way, and I find it puzzling and rather irritating to have it assigned to me. I wonder if we are coming from very different backgrounds and languages with reference to such situations -- and perhaps we are completely talking past one another.
----
Edited to add: *** [And perhaps a certain amount of such shallowness is inevitable, just in order to live in the world and not be overwhelmed by possibilities. *shrug Doesn't make a difference to my claim to admit this, and I'm open to the possibility. Similar real-world constraints on the limits to morality have made sense to me before.]
quote:Originally posted by pH: But CT, deciding you don't want to date, say, someone who smokes/drinks rules out part of the population too.
-pH
I am not saying that all discrimination on basis of any and all characteristics is shallow.
I am saying that to the extent we limit ourselves to our already-established hindbrain jiggers, we are failing to make more of ourselves.
Are limited-scope hindbrain jiggers the only reason why people might chose not to date smokers or drinkers? That would be an odd hindbrain.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Should this have come up in discussion with Sophie, if she were speaking much back then, I assume they would have said something like, "Yes, Aunt Sara can't be counted on to arrive on time, and we expect more of you than that. But she sure is a good person in other ways, isn't she? She loves you very much."
It depends on which one of us was saying this. If it were me, I'd say something more like, "Don't worry. Aunt Sara sometimes runs a bit late because she's an international spy. It's a small price to pay for a world where marmalade has been liberated from the greasy hands of evil."
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
To further beat the horse in clarification, I agree with katharina that faking attraction is Not a Good Thing. And as I said before, I don't think less of people for feeling what they feel. That is just the way it is. But when you deliberately cut yourself from other potentialities (and to the extent that you do), you are missing an opportunity to see if that really is all you are [and can be] attracted to.
[One reason to not limit oneself by underscoring one's already-established appetites to the exclusion of other possibilities is that we do, indeed, change over time. All mates we might have will, as well, and often not in clearly predictible ways. Developing the possibility of enjoying broader (rather than narrower) criteria of attractiveness gives us better skills at maintaining healthy relationships over time, should we wish to do that. (I think it's a good and useful trait for those not interested in long-term mating as well, but obviously for other reasons.)]
But if you do, I'll still be your friend. I might even call you an International Marmalade Spy. *grin
posted
Is it worse to cut yourself off from potentialities, or to date someone for a while, realize that you really don't find them attractive, and dump them because they really weren't for you, but you were trying to expand your horizons?
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that part of this issue touches on the question of what we think are the essential qualities of a person. What makes us the person we are? What parts of the bundle of things that make up "Kate" are close to the core of who I am? When we fall in love with someone, we fall in love with that bundle, some of which will change. What, if changed, will make me fundamentally differert?
Ultimately, I think this is the soul and none of us can perfectly know that, but there are qualities, I think, that are more or less central. My long hair, my comfy upholstered-ness, the fact that I often smell good are all parts of who I am, but I think that there "deeper" qualities that are more essential parts of the bundle. For example, I think many of you know "me" better from reading what I write than you would from seeing my picture.
I think that this dating site focuses on criteria that, at least for me, is both more changable and less essential.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Annie, it's a funny image, but what I really think has been mischaracterized here. I don't have the energy to keep explaining it when there didn't seem to be a lot of attempt to understand in the first place. I'm not the opposing angel.
Basically, I think that I'd rather slit my wrists than talk myself into liking someone. I'm sad for anyone that is with someone they had to talk themself into liking.
quote:But what is the value in cutting out less attractive people?
Dating is not without cost. Dating is an allocation of resources, and dating people you don't like means you are not available to those that you might.
quote:I imagine that many of the people who say they want an intelligent mate could easily be attracted to someone who isn't very intelligent.
Maybe this is the crux. I don't think so. I have dated a wide range of guys, and several of them were righteous, good, charming, and hot, but of either average intelligence or smart in things I didn't connect with (despite my clinical admiration, it turns out a knowledge of computers does NOTHING for me). A couple I dated ONLY because they were hot, which I feel kind of bad about because nothing else attracted me but I suppose I'm terribly shallow and there's something appealling about pure eye candy. It only lasted a few dates, though. I was bored out of my mind. I gave it an honest shot, and I'd rather shoot myself than do it again. I suppose some people can handle being mentally frustrated every time they talk to their significant other, but to me it sucked all the fun out of being with someone altogether.
Maybe this is the difference - I would a million times rather be alone than be with someone whose company I don't enjoy. No one HAS to find someone, and it's a big world - big enough to include people who are intelligent, righteous, and hot all at the same time. That's worth searching out and waiting for.
Annie, I'd recommend reading what President Kimball said about this in the Teachings of the Presidents of the Church book for this year. There's a couple chapters on dating and marriage, and in there I made the joyous discovery that while he did say the "any two people living the gospel" thing, he prefaced it with "start with finding someone who meets as closely as possible what you want in a partner." Yay!
quote:Basically, I think that I'd rather slit my wrists than talk myself into liking someone. I'm sad for anyone that is with someone they had to talk themself into liking.
I don't think it's the first sentence that people take issue with, but the second (not the accuracy of the description of your feelings, obviously, but the understanding that informs it.)
Why would you be sad for someone who has a loving, committed relationship with someone they truly want to spend the rest of their life with because they started from different premises about learned attraction than you?
There's a missing step between "I could not be happy with someone I had to talk myself into liking" and "I'm sad for anyone that is with someone they had to talk themself into liking." Nothing that I can think of to fill it in implies that you accept their own assessment of their state of happiness.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Fortunately, everyone is in charge of their own lives, and if that's what people want to do with theirs, they are welcome to it and my opinion is meaningless and I won't share it unless asked. Especially since what happens in any given relationship is unknowable to anyone but those involved, unknowable even to closest friends. At least, it should be. Opinions of other people's relationships are inherently misinformed.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think people fill in the gaps with speculation, and unless they have amazing speculating powers, they are almost always at least a little bit wrong.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm sad for anyone that is with someone they had to talk themself into liking.
I really don't get this. If they talked themselves into like someone, instead of faking it, then they like that person, and have as great a chance of being happy with that person as anybody else.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
My guess is that this "little bit wrong," for many people, falls well within the margin of error. I can't imagine how crippled as a race we'd be if we didn't speculate about things we hadn't experienced.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:My guess is that this "little bit wrong," for many people, falls well within the margin of error.
See, like the above statements where people are sure that other people could talk themselves into not wanting someone intelligent, it's down to opinion. I think the speculation is often (usually? in some things at least) outside the margin of error. Outside of a some study (and the effort needed to make it a good one is astounding), I don't think this is provable either way.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I'm sad for anyone that is with someone they had to talk themself into liking. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I really don't get this. If they talked themselves into like someone, instead of faking it, then the like that person, and have as great a chance of being happy with that person as anybody else.
Maybe I mean "have to" instead of "had to." If every morning there needs to be another self-pep talk, then that's sad. If not, hey, more power to them. My opinion on their relationship doesn't matter anyway. Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here's another angle to consider. I would suggest that all well adjusted individuals would ideally like to find the partner who is best suited for them, who would make them the most happy out of all possible partners, whom they could best please, and in short, is the awesomest possible mate.
If you feel that one of the qualities of your awesomest possible mate is that they're really hot, it makes sense to start your search among really hot people.
Let's say that some of your awesomest possible mate qualities are good at chess, loves Tolstoy, sings opera, is very attractive, is successful at work, loves children, and aspires to write poetry. Unfortunately, you can't find ChessGrandmasterDating.com, MeetTolstoyLovingOperaSingers.com or PoetsWhoLoveChildrenAndTheirWorkAndWantToMeet.com, so you have to settle for starting at the attractive website, and scanning through their profiles looking for the rest.
I guess that makes you pretty damn shallow.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Maybe I mean "have to" instead of "had to." If every morning there needs to be another self-pep talk, then that's sad. If not, hey, more power to them. My opinion on their relationship doesn't matter anyway. [Smile]
Ah. I understand what you're saying.
However, in my experience, it doesn't work that way. First you develop the ability to be interested in / attracted to people with [insert_quality_here], and only after that is finished do you somebody with that ability that you like enough to get into a relationship with.
So by the time the relationship starts, there's no need for pep talks.
Because who would want to get into a relationship with somebody they don't like in that way? Ick.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Because who would want to get into a relationship with somebody they don't like in that way? Ick.
Exactly!
For the other part, I disagree, but I can't imagine that further discussion in circles would help anything.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
CT, If I understand you correctly, it is shallow to not try to find people you don't find attractive, attractive. If that is the case, I just don't agree and I don't think that your description of how mucher richer your life would be if you do this makes much sense.
I'm a little confused by you reducing this to hind-brain only preference. Appreciation of beauty is not merely a hind brain thing. Aesthetic enjoyment involves activation of much more than the hind-brain. When I'm appreciating a work of art, say of a beautiful person, I am not primarily operating on an erotic or hind-brain level. I know plenty of beautiful people that I feel no sexual attraction to whom I still appreciate the looks of. The part of my stunningly attractive girlfriend that takes my breath away isn't confined to base erotic desire, but takes a large part from her aethestic "goodness".
There are people who are plainer than others, who are aesthetically less interesting. I don't see how preferring the more beautiful person (all other things being equal) is more shallow than preferring a more accomplished work of art over a lesser one.
I don't see how one would intrinsically grow less from dating more attractive people versus less attractive ones.
I also want to make the point again that there is no reason to believe that the people on this site are limited or limiting themselves to this site in their dating pool. This is only one of the many places they may be looking.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:For the other part, I disagree, but I can't imagine that further discussion in circles would help anything.
Do you disagree that it has worked that way for some, or that it could work that way for you, or something else?
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I disagree that that is the only way it works. Since it your experience it has worked for you, it can clearly work for some.
However, I do NOT think that that is "the way it works" and other people who handle it differently are out of the norm. I think this is a highly, highly individualized thing, which is why I think being judgmental about the way other people conduct their love lives (barring, of course, the ridiculous extremes (and, incidentally, barring any children that are involved and are being adversely affected by their parents' choices)) is wrong in both a moral and factual sense.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am not at all saying that people should try to be attracted to people they are not. I don't think that is possible for everyone. I think it is easier for some than for others. I don't think it would be something I could do.
My argumment is different. I am saying that "attracted" does not have to be a function (or only a function, or primarily a function) of an objective standard of physical beauty. I think that we are conditioned to think that it is through TV etc. I think that as society we tend to think that how we look is much more connected to attraction than it has to be.
For example: I work at a University and there are a lot of very, very good looking, young, fit, could-be-models coeds who are having sex lives that suck compared to mine (on those occasions when I have a sex life).
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think this is a highly, highly individualized thing, which is why I think being judgmental about the way other people conduct their love lives
I don't understand the difference between "I'm sad for anyone that is with someone they have to talk themself into liking" and "I'm sad for anyone that couldn't be with someone who doesn't possess a certain level of physical attractiveness."
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: CT, If I understand you correctly, it is shallow to not try to find people you don't find attractive, attractive. If that is the case, I just don't agree and I don't think that your description of how mucher richer your life would be if you do this makes much sense.
*sigh
No. That is not what I am saying.
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:I also want to make the point again that there is no reason to believe that the people on this site are limited or limiting themselves to this site in their dating pool. This is only one of the many places they may be looking.
This is also not what I am saying.
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: Is it worse to cut yourself off from potentialities, or to date someone for a while ...
And these are not the only options I have raised, so this isn't related to what I have suggested.
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Basically, I think that I'd rather slit my wrists than talk myself into liking someone.
I'm not sure if katharina is talking to me, but this is surely not what I am suggesting. She and I are in agreement here, for what it's worth.
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I'm sad for anyone that is with someone they had to talk themself into liking.
Also not what I'd promote.
quote:Originally posted by katharina: ... but I suppose I'm terribly shallow ...
Not a statement I'd endorse at all, but again, katharina may not have been talking to me. (I, however, have been talking about gradations, but not to the extent of "terribly," which suggests the sort of black/white blanket condemnation I have specifically opposed.)
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Maybe this is the difference - I would a million times rather be alone than be with someone whose company I don't enjoy.
Me, too, and avoiding this is a course I would recommend to anyone.
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: ... I guess that makes you pretty damn shallow.
Ah, MightyCow, you cause a great pain in my breast. A great, great pain. I cannot see how you cannot be deliberately misreading me, but perhaps that is a failure of my imagination. (I surely do have that, to some extent, just as I have greed, to some extent, and sloth, to some extent, as well as the rest of the many vices we humans have. It doesn't make me want to overstate that self-judgment in order to make it seem absurd, though, as that seems an even greater vice to me. perhaps because I associate it with my ex-husband, who would do this in order to avoid sealing with the actual criticism, which was much milder and, as it turned out, most apt. But that's another matter.)
I suppose I cause a pain in your breast, as well. I can only hope not. It isn't something I would wish on you.
I am just going to cut and paste from above, as I am too weary to continue: Not a statement I'd endorse at all, but again, [MightyCow] may not have been talking to me. (I, however, have been talking about gradations, but not to the extent of ["pretty damn,"] which suggests the sort of black/white blanket condemnation I have specifically opposed.)
---
And what Tom said. And Porteiro.
---
But I can only conclude that I am not actually talking to anybody, because from what I can see, nobody is talking to me. This is a puzzle, but perhaps a very useful lesson. Whatever I may have to say may well be quite relevant and interesting in my head, but that says nothing about the world outside it. And surely there is no requirement for anyone at Hatrack to listen to or respond to any particular poster, save for Papa Moose.
I may well be just nattering on aloud in the corner. Rather like the embarrassing aunt you keep hoping won't show up at Christmastime (I mean, perhaps you like her, and you might have good memories of her, but you mostly feel sorry and embarrassed for her.)
---
Edited immediately to make the HTML do my mighty bidding. And correct a word choice, and to finish a truncated thought.
quote:Aw, Dag, can you see how they are not the same thing?
I can see how they are different. I honestly can't see how those differences render one as being judgmental and one not.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think I get what you are saying Aunt CT. Of course, I'm sitting here in the corner with you, knitting and chatting about our great sex lives.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Do you know I have turned down 7 serious marriage proposals, other than the two I accepted? It's true. Ah, memories.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm just saying that it would be nice if, say, the people on the website were let alone to do the same. Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
For what it may be worth, I have seen Kate touch a couple of times on something that I'm not really seeing acknowledge by anyone else (though I am skimming very lightly, so I may have missed it entirely).
Kate keeps referring to having a problem with an objective standard of beauty.
Is it possible that some of the people who have a problem with that site have a problem with it because it is, to an extent, saying "here are people that we have, on our authority, declared hot."
IOW, it's not that the people who are searching are looking for someone attractive, but that they are limiting themselves (to use CT's phrase)to only searching what the people who own the website have pre-screened as being attractive, according to, presumably, empirical criteria.
Just a thought. Maybe one that has been brought up, but it seems it's being overlooked at this stage of the conversation.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I tend to turn down more propositions than proposals...
Does my nattering makes sense to you?
I keep reading this and thinking of various conversations I have had with gorgeous young women dating gorgeous young men and having a lot of not very good sex.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I find it kind of interesting that "hot" doesn't always even begin to equate to "good in bed", IME.
I've been seeing this girl for a couple of weeks who is fairly average in looks, but she kisses and does...other things....well, she's by far the best kisser I've ever kissed.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I don't have the energy to keep explaining it when there didn't seem to be a lot of attempt to understand in the first place. I'm not the opposing angel.![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
