posted
To natter to themselves, or to turn down marriage proposals?
I take it you mean to be left alone. I know this is likely to come off as rude, so I will be as delicate as possible (because honestly, I do not want to offend you, and I like you far too much to treat you lightly): do you mean that people shouldn't respond tot he discussion at a public forum, or that people shouldn't ask prying questions about personal elements which haven't already been put out in the public forum?
I understand the latter, but I can't quite wrap my head around the former.
However, for what it's worth, I mostly agree with you, and I think you are simply smashing. I think, to be specific, that you've done much more with your self and have a much better life than I. I'd certainly point more to you as a role model than myself, katharina.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think attraction is a largely unconscious action, and eventually our conscious mind catches up and (correctly/incorrectly) fills in the blanks or reasons for the attraction. When we are attracted to physical beauty, then we try to rationalize other qualities to support that attraction, qualities that we may not otherwise have entertained (for example, obnoxious turns into confident and funny). When we are attracted to other qualities, then sometimes we begin to view their physical qualities differently to support our attraction. In either case, we can't really decide our attraction, just the reasons we use to understand or rationalize that attraction.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hoo-ha, katharina, did your last post on the previous page get edited after it was first posted? It's much different than I remembered; ie..e, you hadn't specified "on that site."
No matter, really, just trying to keep track of the conversation.
---
Edited to add: In the context of how your post is currently written, you'll note that I haven't done anything at all that affects the people on that site whatsoever. I have formed an opinion of them (as we all do, of all things and people we experience) to the extent that I know something about them, but this opinion affects them not in the slightest.
How much more "leaving the alone" could I be and still pay attention to what has been put in the public arena? And even then, it affects them not. Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Claudia Therese, I think you are darling, and I the reason I haven't responded specifically to your posts is because I swear it causes panic in my heart to be in disagreement with you on anything.
I didn't edit my last post.
I'm all for turning down marriage proposals. I've turned down more than I've accepted, which added together makes a number that at this point tends to make my family and friends shake their heads lightly.
For the let alone part, I think that, in general, people know best about who they are attracted to, and telling people they should have standards different than those that they do seems futile.
Maybe it is the word "should"? I hate the word "should." I don't give it credence at all. The Lord never uses such a word - I like that the Lord doesn't deal in subjunctives. "Love thy neighbor." "Turn the other cheek." "Thou shalt not kill." Those are commandments. "Should"s deal with societal expectations, but those without the force of laws or commandments. The great thing about commandments is that they also carry promises. "Should"s carry no promises. If you bend yourself to follow a "should" and it doesn't work out, that's the breaks - there were no guarantees in the first place. Shoulds are like unfunded federal mandates, without the federal part.
I think there are things which we are ordered to do, and the rest is up to our own discretion.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I tend to turn down more propositions than proposals...
Well, kmboots, you are better in bed than I am. In this I bow to the Master. Mistress. *grin
I think I have been seen by mates seeking marriage to be a useful object, like a vase. Fits in the corner, looks nice, blends in.
quote: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.
Indeed, it does. And I think you are very wise.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Claudia Therese, I think you are darling, and I the reason I haven't responded specifically to your posts is because I swear it causes panic in my heart to be in disagreement with you on anything.
I didn't edit my last post.
Then I am, indeed, a little Crazy Auntish. *grin
quote:For the let alone part, I think that, in general, people know best about who they are attracted to, and telling people they should have standards different than those that they do seems futile.
Hmm. I'd consider it "encouraging people to keep themselves open to unexpected treats," but I might have not have been clear. It is certainly not the only spot in my life where misinterpretation (or my own lack of clarity in speech) is going on.
quote:Maybe it is the word "should"? I hate the word "should." I don't give it credence at all. The Lord never uses such a word - I like that the Lord doesn't deal in subjunctives. "Love thy neighbor." "Turn the other cheek." "Thou shalt not kill." Those are commandments. "Should"s deal with societal expectations, but those without the force of laws or commandments. I think there are things which we are ordered to do, and the rest is up to our own discretion.
Ah. "Should." I will go back and reread my posts and look for the "shoulds." I would like to be aware of this, if this is what I am doing.
posted
CT, it is entirely possible that you never have used the word "should." Perhaps I am reading more into it than is there, relying too much on past experience to inform the present one. I hope I am not, and if I am, I am sorry.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
katharina, when I research back through the last few pages, I see you using "should" relatively frequently, and a few times in quotation marks. beverly seems to use it as well, and you were mainly talking to each other.
The very few times I used "should" (and not once "ought," I think, though I didn't search for that in particular), it was not in respect to what people ought to do with their personal lives.
I can repost those instances here, or perhaps you could show me where the "should" comes in that I am missing and which you referenced just above. Or did you think it was implied?
---
Edited to add: Ah. Well, I have done it many times myself, katharina. And perhaps with more careful wording and more detailed explanation, it would have been more difficult to misread. I'll work on it.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
CT, I am not saying that you have used the word. I think I was thinking of the times beverly used it.
I probably have. It is such a natural part of our vocabulary, and I have to remind myself that I don't believe in it every once in a while. It's like a profanity habit that I regret in myself but they slip in when I'm not paying attention.
quote:But I still think that when it works, that's pretty much how it works.
The other alternative is that someone has a standard, they come to realize that someone who doesn't meet that standard has become important to them, and THEN they revise the standard because they have compelling reason to - they want to be with the person who doesn't meet it.
That isn't the process you described, but I think that happens as often as (more often than)the other way around. In part because not everyone thinks ahead of time exactly what they are looking for, and in part because without that darling person who fits in all the ways at stake, there's no real motivation to change one's preferences.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
What do you folks for whom physical beauty is a necessary but not sufficient condition of attraction plan to do when your partner (and presumably you) stops being physically beautiful?
Not judging, just concerned/curious. As I said, I have known more than one marriage to end because a partner put on weight.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Maybe it is the word "should"? I hate the word "should." I don't give it credence at all. The Lord never uses such a word - I like that the Lord doesn't deal in subjunctives. "Love thy neighbor." "Turn the other cheek." "Thou shalt not kill." Those are commandments. "Should"s deal with societal expectations, but those without the force of laws or commandments. I think there are things which we are ordered to do, and the rest is up to our own discretion.
I'm interested in this idea. At least initially, I don't agree with it, but I know that something similar has really helped me in the past. I think there's truth there, but I don't grock it yet.
When I was in the middle of my most difficult bout of depression, it really helped me to rephrase things like "I should do X" to something more like "I will be happier if I do X" or "I'm more likely to get result Y if I do X". And yet, I don't really understand how it helped.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
MPH: You changed the statement from an unfunded mandate to a statement with a promise attached. I can see that being more helpful than an injuction with no promises to it.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The one thing I'm noticing is reference to an objective standard of beauty. And I don't think there is one. What people in general consider beautiful varies from place to place. Take off the "in general," and you have a whole other can of worms. I think that's where we're talking past each other a little. I don't think kat has referred to an objective standard of beauty. And I don't really think there is one. Or if there is, I don't know what it is. Most of the men on that site are a bit bland-looking to me. So either I only date people who are much hotter than an 8, or we're using an entirely different physical attractiveness scale.
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: What do you folks for whom physical beauty is a necessary but not sufficient condition of attraction plan to do when your partner (and presumably you) stops being physically beautiful?
Not judging, just concerned/curious. As I said, I have known more than one marriage to end because a partner put on weight.
I don't understand why everyone assumes physical beauty fades with age.
quote:Originally posted by pH: The one thing I'm noticing is reference to an objective standard of beauty. And I don't think there is one. What people in general consider beautiful varies from place to place. Take off the "in general," and you have a whole other can of worms. I think that's where we're talking past each other a little. I don't think kat has referred to an objective standard of beauty. And I don't really think there is one. Or if there is, I don't know what it is. Most of the men on that site are a bit bland-looking to me. So either I only date people who are much hotter than an 8, or we're using an entirely different physical attractiveness scale.
-pH
*nods
The only such objectiveness in a standard of beauty I've seen in this thread is the way that site works: namely, that unless sufficient numbers of other viewers rate a member as attractive, that member will be dropped from view (as I understand it -- perhaps I am misunderstanding).
This for me, went quite past the idea that those involved were only seeking that which they themselves were attracted to anyway. I mentioned this previously, I believe even in bold font.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: 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 agree with this statement only because the word "objective" is unqualified. [Added: That is, I agree with the people who question or deny the existence of such a standard.] But that hit of dopamine you get when you first see someone has to come from your conscious and/or subconscious criteria for physical attractiveness (regardless of what those criteria actually are), unless you're arguing that there's some kind of ESP thing going on. I don't think there's an objective standard, but I absolutely think that everyone has subconscious hot/not hot triggers and that many people have triggers in common (e.g. facial symmetry).
An obvious example for me is when I see a girl who is hot (by whatever criteria for hotness are buried in my subconscious) smoking a cigarette. It triggers simultaneous attraction and repulsion, with the attraction being a largely subconscious response and the repulsion being a conditioned but conscious response based on my strong dislike of cigarette smoke.
I don't dispute that it's possible to become attracted to someone without having seen them, but I do think it's relatively uncommon. There have been a couple of times where I've met someone who I either haven't seen before or have only seen photos of, and I try to go in to those situations with the understanding that I might be physically unattracted to the person upon actually meeting them.
Similarly, when going on a date with someone who I only know in passing and am mostly attracted to for physical reasons, I try to keep in mind that we may well not be on the same intellectual wavelength in terms of ideology, interests, et cetera. Matching these things isn't a requirement, of course, but too vast a difference can certainly lead to problems. For example, if she looks on video games with scorn, we probably aren't going to get along; I talk about them rather a lot.
I tend to split my thinking on attraction and compatibility into three categories: emotional, intellectual, and physical. Each category is encompassing, though, so physical compatibility includes both the hot/not hot triggers and the mechanics of doing naughty things together. As an example, I dated a girl who I found extremely attractive, but for some reason we just didn't kiss well. This same girl put me up on what I'd call an intellectual pedestal -- we could never really discuss many interesting and substantive topics because she would just defer to my opinion.
Those, though, are longer-term things, at least in the conventional sense of physically meeting someone first before getting interested.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Beauty, as defined by "objective" standards such as used in this web site, most definitely fades as the decades pass.
---
Kat: would you mind elaborating more, either here or elsewhere, about why you hate the word "should"? I truly am interested in it.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pH: The one thing I'm noticing is reference to an objective standard of beauty. And I don't think there is one. What people in general consider beautiful varies from place to place. Take off the "in general," and you have a whole other can of worms. I think that's where we're talking past each other a little. I don't think kat has referred to an objective standard of beauty. And I don't really think there is one. Or if there is, I don't know what it is. Most of the men on that site are a bit bland-looking to me. So either I only date people who are much hotter than an 8, or we're using an entirely different physical attractiveness scale.
-pH
*nods
The only such objectiveness in a standard of beauty I've seen in this thread is the way that site works: namely, that unless sufficient numbers of other viewers rate a member as attractive, that member will be dropped from view (as I understand it -- perhaps I am misunderstanding).
This for me, went quite past the idea that those involved were only seeking that which they themselves were attracted to anyway. I mentioned this previously, I believe even in bold font.
Sorry I missed it, then. My contacts are blurry, and I've skimmed posts that happened since I went to bed.
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Beauty, as defined by "objective" standards such as used in this web site, most definitely fades as the decades pass.
I wasn't aware this website was using an objective standard, or that such an objective standard existed.
Whatever it is, I never agreed to it!
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
CT, I think I must really not be understanding what you are saying then.
One thing did seem pretty clear to me though. That is, you seem pretty sure that the people on this site are shallow. As I said, I would consider joining this site in different circumstances. To my reading, I think you're pretty strongly implying that I am shallow.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not sure, but one reason to dislike "shoulds" from another person is that they have to do with another person's interpretation of right. We all should (there I go using the "s" word) be able to define right for ourselves, right?
Also, "should" seems to suggest an unwillingness. "I really should go to bed and wake up earlier, but I sure don't want to." Saying "If I go to bed and wake up earlier, I will be happier," we leave out the sense of reluctance and focus on the good it will bring.
My internet connection is really sluggish right now, so I don't really feel like looking back and finding all my uses of "should." Though I am curious about what I said.
Edit: I used the word "should" three times before it was brought up. I never used in reference to being attracted to "hot" people. Two were hypotheticals (not representing my actual opinion) and the third was to make a point of agreeing with what others had said. Just for the record.
posted
Beverly, none of that is what I meant. I have a project right now that needs my attention and I want to type out what I mean clearly, so I'll just mention really fast that those are interesting thoughts, but they are not mine.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think most of you are too concerned about the morality/ethics of whether a site filtering people based on looks "should" be done, rather than whether it "can" be done well at all.
I took a look at their procedure:
quote: 1. New members (registrants) must submit three photos of themselves at signup. These photos must include one full body shot. Only one professional photo will be allowed. 2. Submitted photos will be sent to our site administrators where they will be judged based upon whether the registrant appears well-kept and in shape. 3. If the registrant passes the assessment, he or she will be granted prospective member status. 4. Prospective members photos are then forwarded to Hotenough’s voting area where active members will cast their votes. 5. Once a prospective member receives 25 votes, he or she must maintain a score of eight or above to become an active member.
Note that the site administrator was a first pass and that the popularity scheme is based on mass popularity of existing members.
I see several problems: First, the site administrators can be extremely arbitrary with no recourse. Second, the existing population may be very skewed with consequences on who they find attractive/admit. Third, beauty is very culturally dependent, at least in my experience most of the Chinese women Chinese people find really attractive are not attractive by Western standard. Conversely, the Chinese women that Westerners find attractive tend not to be attractive to Chinese people since they tend to be , essentially Chinese versions of American models...except "exotic" so long-legged, large breasts, "exotic" looking eyes maybe. Fourth, there's no real safeguard against fake pictures which I've heard are surprisingly common in online dating communities.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: CT, I think I must really not be understanding what you are saying then.
One thing did seem pretty clear to me though. That is, you seem pretty sure that the people on this site are shallow. As I said, I would consider joining this site in different circumstances. To my reading, I think you're pretty strongly implying that I am shallow.
I am not sure what to say, except to say that given how I read you reading me (e.g., making a blanket black/white condemnation of a person rather than "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" (such as untrustworthiness, as analogy) (see prior page's attempts at disambiguation, unwieldy as they may be)), I wouldn't much appreciate myself either.
The former is quite offensive, I think. I tried over and over and over again, as hard as I possibly could, to constrain my implications to the latter.
I can understand not liking being thought of as non-admirable in any way, shape or form, but I think it's inevitable, unless one believes oneself a perfect ideal. I doubt any of us do.
I certainly wouldn't say you were a worthless human being, or terrible, or a horrid person for joining that site, MrSquicky. I do think it would be a choice that is on a trend that makes less of you rather than more of you, but -- of course -- I make many such decisions myself, all the time. So it goes.
My apologies for having been offensive. It was not my intent, but it was the effect, and I am responsible for that.
----
Edited to add:
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: To my reading, I think you're pretty strongly implying that I am shallow.
Hmmm. I think this is the point where I lose you, or you lose me, or both. Right here.
Is it worth pursuing, or is it better dropped? I can't tell myself which is the better action, and I'll defer to your wishes. [Edited again to add: Actually, it seems pretty clear that not only is this going nowhere, but it is actually going backwards. I think it's best to end the discussion between us without any semblance of resolution, unfortunately.]
Does anyone here actually HAVE a set standard of physical attractiveness? I mean, I have preferences, but none of them are absolute deal-breakers. What do you look for physically, if anything?
posted
Must be taller than me. Prerably by a couple of inches.
Hmm...but you know, I don't know if that's actually iron-clad. I can think of a guy I would have happily dated under different circumstances who was, I think, my height or maybe one inch shorter. It is hard to tell because I usually wear high heels.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
CT, I was never reading you as issuing a blanket condemnation of me or of the people on that site. I was reading you as (in my opinion, unjustifiably) attributing an attribute and likely behavior to me and to these peopel.
I fail to see how making a choice towards signing up for this site, in conjunction with all the other things I'd be doing to look for potential dating partners means that I'd be making less of myself than I could. I'd like you to explain, if you could, in what way I would be less of a person if I joined (or perhaps it would be easier to show how I would be more of a person if I did not join the site).
Also, I'd appreciate it if you would address my point about aethestic beauty not being a function primarily of the hind-brain.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have yet to talk to anyone about this further along in life (oh, say, the equivalent of a mildly aged cheese, although not necessarily well-crusted) who hasn't related at least one "you know, I never thought I'd be attracted to a <____> guy (or <____> woman), but there was this time when <____> and man! Where did that come from?" kind of story.
Of course, I have not spoken to everyone I've met about this. It's been a good smattering, though, which leads me to suspect it's pretty common.
I think I'll carry my discussion on over to Mike's place at this point, as it involves me discussing my own depraved impulses and experiences, and I've skirted close enough to HR's boundaries of TMI as it is.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Must be taller than me. Prerably by a couple of inches.
Hmm...but you know, I don't know if that's actually iron-clad. I can think of a guy I would have happily dated under different circumstances who was, I think, my height or maybe one inch shorter. It is hard to tell because I usually wear high heels.
My height issue is more along the lines of whether or not the man has an problem with my height. If he's okay with the height difference, I'm okay with it. If he's not, I'm not going to stop wearing heels or start slouching, so chances are it won't work out. Of course, most of the time when a man has an issue with my height, it seems to have more to do with how secure he is in his masculinity...which makes it a personality concern.
Is there a reasoning behind your height preference, or is it just what you like better? ( Not asking you to defend yourself or anything, just wondering)
posted
I still fail to see how being suprised by being attracted to someone you wouldn't expect makes you more of a person.
If you treat them correctly, every person is a bundle of surprises. What is it specifically about physical attraction that raises it above these other things?
Also, I'm not sure what about signing up for this site would prevent me from being surprised by being attracted to someone I didn't expect.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have a certain "look" that I find particularly attractive, but I haven't often dated guys with that look. Honestly, that appearance seems to have practically nothing to do whatsoever with my actual happiness with a relationship. It is extremely superficial.
Doesn't change the "wow" reaction when I see someone that has that look, though. If I were to sign up for a dating site that somehow only had guys that had that look, I would certainly be selling myself short. (Not saying this to anyone in particular, just sayin'.)
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: CT, I was never reading you as issuing a blanket condemnation of me or of the people on that site. I was reading you as (in my opinion, unjustifiably) attributing an attribute and likely behavior to me and to these peopel.
I fail to see how making a choice towards signing up for this site, in conjunction with all the other things I'd be doing to look for potential dating partners means that I'd be making less of myself than I could. I'd like you to explain, if you could, in what way I would be less of a person if I joined (or perhaps it would be easier to show how I would be more of a person if I did not join the site).
Darlin', I can only refer you to my prior posts, where I done discussed that one to death. I honestly just can't bring myself to do it again, especially with likely no better understanding to come of it.
I'm sorry. Honestly, I am. I just can't do it yet again.
quote:Also, I'd appreciate it if you would address my point about aethestic beauty not being a function primarily of the hind-brain.
I was addressing the general topic at hand of not being able to help being attracted to certain people, and whether chosing dates on that basis was a shallow action. I wasn't being exhaustive of all the ways in which one could interpret all of the various terms we were using, but then again, I wasn't expected that I'd have to.
(The conversation has been surprising in so many ways. Who knew!)
I can see where one might distinguish that topic of conversation from, say, if one were to consider if it is shallow to deny attraction to someone because he or she does not fit one's purely cerebral notions of attractiveness, in a sort of unemotional aesthetic appreciation. But that had seemed like a different conversation, and it still seems like it would be a different conversation, and you are welcome to carry it on without me. Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
CT, Have you read my posts at all? I don't see anything in what you've written that touches on anything I've said except in a very superficial manner.
edit: I don't mind if you don't want to respond to my posts, but it does kind of bug me if you pretend like you have when it really doesn't look to me like you haven't.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: I still fail to see how being suprised by being attracted to someone you wouldn't expect makes you more of a person.
This is a marvelous trainwreck. Marvelous in the sense of "we are on different planets, and apparently on yours, trains are made of cheese, and also a trainwreck is a formal dance party."
quote:If you treat them correctly, every person is a bundle of surprises. What is it specifically about physical attraction that raises it above these other things?
Ah, this too.
MrSquicky, I'm not engaging in discourse [further with you] at this point, because from what I can see, it is either not in good faith, or there are two different and noncommensurate conversations going on between us. It seems prudent to just call a halt.
However, I may continue to be flippant and mocking to you, especially if I think you are continuing to address a hypothetical and uncharitable version of me. I do think this is rude of me, but I think I might just do it. Or maybe go grade some papers. But I thought I should warn you, as that (at least) might mitigate some of the rude behavior to come. Or not.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Because it is a meaningless trait to look for. That "wow" impulse means very little to my happiness and enjoyment of being with someone. Also, I can't trust myself to not be swayed in ways that would mar my better judgment.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: CT, Have you read my posts at all? I don't see anything in what you've written that touches on anything I've said except in a very superficial manner.
See above re: non-commissural conversations
Welcome to my world! It's better than a kick in the head.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
CT, When were you engaging in discourse? I went through them and I honestly can't find a post of yours where you addressed any of the points I made.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beverly: Because it is a meaningless trait to look for. That "wow" impulse means very little to my happiness and enjoyment of being with someone. Also, I can't trust myself to not be swayed in ways that would mar my better judgment.
I absolutely require a "wow" feeling before I will consider dating someone. I've tried to date people without that factor before, and it ends in disaster. I end up resenting him, or he ends up resenting me.
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: CT, When were you engaging in discourse? I went through them and I honestly can't find a post of yours where you addressed any of the points I made.
I honestly (non-flippantly, quite sincerely and seriously) don't think that anything I could say would help you in this matter. It certainly would not help me.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Because it is a meaningless trait to look for. That "wow" impulse means very little to my happiness and enjoyment of being with someone. Also, I can't trust myself to not be swayed in ways that would mar my better judgment.
The second part surely makes sense to me. I can completely see that.
The first part is one of the things I've been trying to get across. Is there any reason to believe that you are less likely to find the things that are meaningful to your happiness and enjoyment with the people you get the "wow" feeling from than those whom you don't?
There seems, to me, to be a subtle current of thinking that a person's qualities are a zero-sum game, such that a positive like high physical attractiveness must mean that they are less suitable in some other way. I just don't think that this is true.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I must say, I definitely had a "wow" reaction the first time I saw Porter. Though he wasn't this "type" I speak of. Count me among the pleasantly surprised that CT mentioned. Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bev, seriously, maybe that's the difference here. Your bad experiences came from following the "wow" factor. My worst experiences have ALL come from when I DIDN'T follow the wow factor. Of course you don't trust it, and of course I think it is utterly essential.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pH: Does anyone here actually HAVE a set standard of physical attractiveness? I mean, I have preferences, but none of them are absolute deal-breakers. What do you look for physically, if anything?
Height often trips my "hot" indicator, but I've never actually dated a girl who was as tall as me (or taller), even in heels. Most have been significantly shorter than me, and it hasn't particularly mattered.
Added: Er, to be clear, I have no set standard, only whatever subconsciously trips my "hot" indicator.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
