Conference quark::human_relations-v1

    "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder".  I don't go by looks, but
    there must be SOME type of physical attraction.   People who have
    good hearts are more attractive in my book than a shallow person
    and it doesn't matter if they are gorgeous or not.  Sometimes people's
    looks "grow on you", there may be no real physical attraction at the
    onset, but once you get to know them, in your eyes they are the
    handsomest man in the room!
    
    Tammi
    

    are looks as important to me as they were ten years ago?
    
    yes.
    
    their importance to me in terms of whom I choose to love is and was
    statistically nil.
    
    their importance to me in terms of what I like to look at is unchanged,
    even though my tastes have changed somewhat.
    
    being married, I don't date. men and women I choose to spend my time
    with are not chosen on the basis of their looks.
    
    before I married, I was not looking for a type and I didn't have a
    shopping list.
    
      Ann
    
    
    

    .0
    
    looks are a heck of a lot more important to me than your "basic quality"
    of financial compatibility. :-) But then again I'm a young guy and
    guys (traditionally speaking) are allowed to marry below (sheesh
    I hate that expression so much I had to use it) themselves more
    so than women. Also, being young other things seem to take more
    significance then how big my house is going to be when I settle
    down next century sometime.
    
    This is really revealing....how much does the financial end of it
    count? I'll be damned if I'm gonna be with someone because they
    like my cash flow. How important is that really? Please clue me
    in before it's too late :-)
    
    Jeff

    Would looks be important if you and someone else were the only ones
    left on earth?  There would be no one else around to envy you so
    why care about looks.  Isn't that really what wanting someone nice
    looking is all about.  "Hey, look who I'm with!"  Watch us step into
    our BMW, in our designer clothes, and drive away.  Give me a good
    friend who happens to be my lover any day.  If they happen to look
    nice, great.  If they happen to be average, NO BIG DEAL.  And yes,
    I had great looking for 9.5 years.  It's NOT what many think it will
    be.  Just as average grows beautiful, beautiful grows average.
    
    Randy
         

    	I think it all has to do with attractiveness, not looks.  What's
    	attractive to me in one person may repulse me in another.  Years
    	ago looks mattered entirely, now it's how I feel about the total 
    	package.  Attitude, sense of humor, lifestyle, looks (they are a
    	factor, albeit non-ruling), his scent ... all of this adds up to 
    	attractive or unattractive.
    
    	And my "total package" has nothing to do with financial compati-
    	bility, the most inane yuppie phrase I've ever heard.
    
    							Carla
    

    
    	I agree with Carla, and would add that man who attracts ME may 
    	not attract other women.  Certain features attract me, but I
    	don't require them.  I would want a man who thinks I am attractive
    	to him, and I imagine the reverse would be true.
    
    	As we discussed tonight at dinner, I am a bit leary of a man
	who is *too* attractive.  Somehow, it's hard to trust that
    	he can love me for my flaws if he looks *that* good ;^)  Maybe
    	part of the self-esteem stuff we all need to have to attract
    	the one right for us.
    
    		sherry

Looks are certainly not everything, but they *must* be pretty important.

Most of us find ourselves doing double takes, do we not?  And Americans,
(but not limited to Americans), are always trying to improve their appearance.
That's why we have health clubs, gyms, beauty schools/parlors, etc.  We
shop for the clothes which will compliment us.  We diet.  We go to great
lengths to look the best we can.  There is nothing wrong with *any* of that.
I appreciate that in people.

And I'd like to say that all the beautiful women, and all the handsome guys,
are *not* shallow.  I don't want a shallow beauty queen, nor do I want
a shallow, homemade bar of soap either.

Looks are important to me.  I'd bet they are to 95% of the readers here.
Someone tried to make a comparison by asking what if you were the only
person of your sex left in the world, and there was only one person left
from the opposite sex..... and would looks matter....  But we DO have a
selection of folks to pick from.  And so it does matter.

The author suggested that "money" was a factor in the basic qualities.  I
certainly *don't* agree with that, and I would suppose that might be a 
shallow remark, to some of us, however... the author is *allowed* to think
that way.

Dwight

How true Dwight.

Looks are *very* important....but its more that goes with the looks-
- like that total feeling of excitement when HE/SHE walks in the room
that doesn't happen with someone you like.  Like feeling so very proud
*that* someone is with you that you smile from the inside just being
with them.  

oh, yeah, the famous singlesnote file....I always wondered about that?
I like it when very rarely someone puts in a note that says 'they  *ARE*
good looking and want someone that is...now whats so bad about that?


Yes, beauty is in the eye of the beholder...but lets start with honest first.
Now that is important!

Ms Meredith  (who thinks beautiful people are fun to be around).

                                                 
    	Listen...           
    
    	Looks, in and of themselves, are hardly "everything". What is
    "everything" is what you do with the "looks" you have. The title to
    .8 hit it right on the head; "self-love = positiveness = good looks".
    
    	*That's* "everything". Being born "physically attractive" or
    whatever - that 'n 10 cents *might* get ya a cup of coffee in life
    - if you're lucky! Without the self-love and positiveness part, good
    looks aint worth sh*t...in fact, they're more like a _teriffic waste_. 
    
    	When I see someone doing something nice with what they have
    - that's what I find irresistibly attractive!
    
    	Joe Jas

    	I think looks are important to the younger set. As we get older
    we find that looks are not at all important, especially when we
    get to the twilight of life. 
    
    	The divorce rate is extremely high and that is due in part to
    too much emphasis being placed on the wrong parts of the relationship.
    Too many people looking for their "Barbie and Ken" mates. 
    
    	I have two acquaintances who are handsome guys, both 30. Both
    divorced. One has 3 children living with him, the other 2 children
    with the ex. Both have well paying jobs and both are hard working.
    One is a body-building (not Arnold type) the other is physically
    active. Both are well groomed. Their problem is that they are seeking
    a meaningful relationship in the wrong area. They both seek an
    understanding, loving woman who will be all things. We all seek
    that, but they want it in a size one, 19 year old with a B cup.
    Well, not many 19 year olds want a built in family of three or guy
    on the rebound at 30. I'll stop with this here.....
    
    	My point is that with every person there are drawbacks of one
    type or another. Looks, brains, ability to deal with stuff....Looks
    fade eventually, as do figures and hair color. Quality inside makes
    for a quality life. Everything phyiscal came be overlooked when
    the inner person is wonderful.
    
    Ken

    Re .8, you ask what is wrong with someone writing in a singles note
    that they are good looking?  Well, what I think is "wrong" with
    it is that it sounds very conceited and that is not a trait I look
    for in people.  I remember reading singles ads where the person
    had written things such as "people tell me I'm stunningly attractive"
    or "I am an extremely attractive, vivacious blonde."  Big deal.
     It sounds self-centered and shallow, too.  (Besides, it may be
    a lie and the person could in reality be either average or homely.)
     People don't need to tell me whether their goodlooking or not.
    It's only opinion afterall, and I can decide for myself when I see
    them.
    
    I think that looks *do* matter but that there are other qualities
    that matter more such as personality, sense of humor, intelligence,
    common interests, etc., as others have said.  I've always felt this
    way.  I don't think I felt differently when I was younger.
    
    The way that looks do matter is that I would never date or fall
    in love with someone just because I liked the way they looked or
    because I thought they were handsome.  As someone else said, it's
    the whole package that counts.  However, it has happened to me in
    the past that I have been unable to become romantically interested
    in men, whose personalities I enjoyed, because there was something
    about their looks that I found creepy.  Because of this I couldn't
    bring myself to have physical contact with the person.  The thought
    of it would make me feel like throwing up.  I never know when this
    feeling is going to strike me about a new person that I meet or
    what is going to bring it on.  But, while no man is goodlooking
    enough to attract me simply by looks, there are some men who are
    so creepy looking that I can't get interested in them no matter
    how nice they are.  That is why I don't relate to the scenario of
    if there is only one other person left on earth would looks matter.
     I think that if the other person was too creepy to get physical
    with when there were other people to pick from, he would still be
    too creepy even if he were the only man left on earth.  I might
    want to keep him around to talk to, but I still wouldn't care to
    touch him.
    
    I also can't relate to the way that a lot of men seem to feel "proud"
    if they are seen with an attractive woman.  I don't care what other
    people think of my date's looks.  I only care what *I* think.  If
    I think he's attractive then I'm happy.  If I think he's creepy
    then I'm not happy.  The opinions of others in this situation mean
    nothing to me.
    
    Lorna
    

    Thanks for the replies. I'm glad I stirred some interest - although
    some of you are taking issue, and even making the fact that I noted
    "financial compatibility" as one of the factors I look for. If I
    recall, it wasn't my first factor - in fact I believe it was my last in
    my description for my potential partner. I don't know just how many of
    you are single parents, working two jobs to put a kid through college
    like I am. I'm not complaining - just boasting because I am making it.
    The last thing I would do is go into a relationship just for the money.
    

    re:9  "I think looks are important to the younger set"
    
    Well, speaking from the younger set (I'm 20), I can say that you
    are both wrong and right.  I know superficial people who look only
    for "looks", and these people will always be like that!!  Age is
    irrelevant- some people care only about looks, and other people
    don't.  I happen to feel that looks are secondary to personality.
    I won't be ridiculous and say that looks don't matter at all to
    me, but I have found that people get better looking to me as I get
    to like them more.  (it works the other way, too, if I meet someone
    and dislike them, I can usually find all sorts of flaws in their
    looks...)  Looks may catch my attention, but personality holds it.
    
    You can't brand all young people as superficial and shallow!!!
    
    Karen Kay
    

    Don't underestimate the importance of "financial compatability", not
    necessarily in bank account size, but in attitude. Some men don't like
    working wives, which works out fine if the woman agrees. The opposite
    is also true, but if there is an attitude mismatch, then there can be
    MANY problems.
    
    Eric

    re -1 and others
    
    I agree that 'financial compatibility' in terms of attitude to handling
    money is very important in a relationship. There are people who
    blow every cent they get their hands on  without any thought as
    to whether they spending sensibly, never save, never think about
    the future. Then there are people who try and hang on to to everything
    they get and avoid spending it.
    
    I once had a girlfriend who fell in to the former category, she
    owned a car she couldn't afford the payments on, lived on credit
    when and if she could get it, ruined her credit rating by not
    paying minimum balances, and blew any cash she had around on
    clothes and jewelry.
    
    Drove me crazy...
    
    My attitudes are more in the middle of the spectrum. I squirrel
    away a few percent of my income into the SAVE plan, like to
    keep a little money aside for emergencies, yet I sometimes get
    extravagent and impulsive and go out and buy some new 'toys'.
    
    I assumed this was the kind of thing the base noter meant by
    'financial compatability'. IMHO, if a couple are too far apart
    on this, problems will come up sooner or later.
    
    Steve

    
    I think attractivness is very important as well.  There is no way
    I would go out with a wealthy, handsom, arrogant jerk over a shy,
    sweet, blue collar type of guy that is going to treat me like a
    queen.  I might love someone very very much and to me he is the
    most handsom sexy man on this earth.  Someone else would look at
    him and say, "Yea, he's cute."  Beauty is fleeting.  I have known
    some people that were absolutely gourgeous but their personalities
    would make you sick.  In time those people became unattractive to
    me.  Likewise with physically unattractive kind people.  
    
    Sexy is not how you look either.  Its the way you move etc.  
    
    Looks ARE important, initially. It isn't enough to make a lifetime
    of love.
    
    Katrina

    RE: .0
    >> Just how important have "looks" become ...
    What do you mean, "looks"
    
    Are looks everything ??  No
    Are they important ??    To a certain degree yes
    
    Why ...
    I think grooming is very important because it seems every time
    I meet someone (regardless of age) thats what they notice
    right away...
    Does he have a haircut ... Does he shave ... Is he clean ...
    Does he smell clean ... Are his clothes neat and clean ...
    
    If your referring to "looks" meaning...figure
    Whats right for me is not right for someone else
    
    I work out and exercise because it makes me feel good
    about myself and also because it allows me to eat more!!
    I have a tremendous appetite..if I didn't work out man, I'd
    weigh 2000 pounds for all I eat, but because I workout I
    weigh about 180
    
    To me, my looks are important again, because it makes me
    feel good about myself.. I would hope others would feel
    that way but I cannot expect them to
    
    I do believe everyone there is a balance...
    and each person has to find whats comfortable for them
    
    I also agree that age has little to do with it... what
    is meant by "looks" does
    
    --Christopher

      I'm with Lorna on the "creepy" issue. There are some looks that I
      just can't get past. Personal hygene is extremely important to me
      and I am repulsed by men (and women for that matter) that appear
      dirty and smell bad. Getting dirty is no problem (you should see
      me after I've been grooming my horse) but some folks come to work
      in clothes that still have yesterday's lunch down the front. Or
      smell so badly you don't want to walk down the hall after them.
      I would not allow someone like that to touch me. I can't believe
      people think it's OK to come to work like that but I've seen my
      share of them here at the support center. (and I hear engineering
      is even worse :*))

      As for a persons features, the more I like them the more beautiful
      they are to me. I'm attracted to certain types of people more than
      to certain types of looks. I do admit that I probably wouldn't get
      romantically involved with someone who was grossly overweight but
      I believe there is a very wide range of average body types that
      people are attracted to and I have no preconcieved notion of a
      "perfect person" that I am looking for. liesl

    I resemble that remark!

    thanks, .19!!  We younger persons must stick together.
    KK

    
    After reading these replies, I think we're all saying, basically,
    the same thing.
    
    It's all very subjective, isn't it???
    
    Interesting how we take a simple question and it turns into a "define
    this" now "define that" .... type of issue.
    
    Dwight

I was reading a Reader's Digest the other day in line at the grocery, (don't
knock it, it has it's place, if only in checkout lines; it's better then
being bored), and came across an interesting quote:

"Being born with beauty is a cruel thing; it's like being born rich and getting
poorer every day."

I can't remember who it was attributed to...

Jim. 

    
    Seen on a plaque in my local pub....
    
    "Be pretty if you can
     Be witty if you must
     But be agreeable if it kills you!"
    
    Just another view on the priorities, I guess....
    
    'gail  

    I dunno, when I skim the singles file, a lot of the men there mention
    the woman must be "slim", "slender", "thin", "svelt", "willowy",
    whatever.  Don't they realize that 2/3 of all women are size 16
    and over?  I suppose it all depends on how you define "slim" or
    "thin".  I have no idea how they define it, so I don't respond,
    even though I'm pretty normal.

    Heck, when I'm old and gray, it's not my looks that will have kept
    the relationship going, so why should they be so vital now - everything
    in moderation, and appreciation for ALL aspects is nice...be they
    visible or invisible.

    I do like an attractive person, but normal people are fine, also.
    And I've seen some pretty decent looking abnormal people, too ;)!
    I mean, there's much more to people than how they look...so why
    limit yourself?

    -Jody

    Re: -.1
    
    Bingo.  I've watched some of my friends over the past 5 - 8 years age
    from their teenage looks to the more "mature" mid-20's look and decided
    that liking someone primarily for their looks is a real good way to
    have a relationship go down the tubes.  Maybe not immediately, but
    eventually.  After all, most people in their 60s and 70s didn't always
    look "old."
    
    While some people stil catch my eye simply because of their looks, I've
    noticed that much older or less attractive women also do once I get to
    know them.  I can't count how many women in their 40s or 50s I'd have
    loved to have gone out with if there weren't that much of an age
    difference.  Amazing how a bubbly personality can be a turn-on.

    I have to admit a few years back I would go by looks...but as you
    get older your prorities change.  I think a persons personality
    is what is the main attraction, because the looks *do* grow on you
    if you dont this person is so hot looking at first. 
    
    

    A perfect example is, a while back I heard my teenage son and his
    friend talking about this cheerleader.  My son's friend said, "I
    had a chance to go out with her a couple of years ago but she didn't
    look like THAT!...Now I'm kicking myself".  I just laughed.  It's
    definately what's INSIDE that counts.
    

    Just to make a dangerous generalization.....
    
    Many of the people that are very physically attractive in this world,
    both male and female, often seem to me to have less developed personalities.
    Those of us who are not aided by our fabulous looks have to work
    a little harder at living, and perhaps have a more developed
    personal perspective on the world.
    
    -roger
    
    

.28>    Just to make a dangerous generalization.....


	 Very dangerous indeed.  I TOTALLY disagree with you.  I could
	 name a list pages and pages and pages long of extraordinarily
	 attractive people with very well developed personalities...

	 I believe your statement to be a MISCONCEPTION not a
	 generalization.......I believe people EXPECT people with
	 looks to not rely on anything else to advance
	 themselves...when this is not a very common case.  I believe
	 it is Dolf Lungren (could be wrong?)  that holds a PhD in
	 Chemical Engineering.  Stallone (despite his gorgeous
	 body--stupid brain attitude) is actually a FABULOUS director.
	 What about Trump?!  Cher?!  Have you ever heard an interview
	 with Vanna White? I heard one and she came across to me as
	 being very intelligent and very kind/unassuming.

	 I could go on and on and on....The "women of mensa" issue of
	 Playboy had some wonderfully beautiful women that were not
	 only genius' but also very knowledgeable about dealing with
	 everyday things....
	 

	 Like I said..I'd definately call your generalization a
	 misconception.

	 /kathy    
    

re -1
         >Have you ever heard an interview
	 >with Vanna White? I heard one and she came across to me as
	 >being very intelligent and very kind/unassuming.
    
    A little over a year ago, I went to buy textbooks in U of I bookstore,
    and saw Vanna White's autobiography on the shelf.  Well, I opened it, 
    and of course, the first thing I did was to go through the photos in
    the middle of the book.  Well, she didn't look that great in those
    photos....  Anyway, I saw a long line at the cashier, so I said to
    myself: "Why not read a few pages?"  Well, guess what?  I went through
    the book in about 30mins.  Surprised?  Well, I can't read English that
    fast since it is my second language, the only explaination I can offer
    here is that....   The book was content free :-) :-) :-).
    
    Eugene
         

    
    Re:  .28  BROWN_RO
    
    >>> Many of the people that are very physically attractive in this world,
    both male and female, often seem to me to have less developed personalities.
       
    One could say that, or one could say that less than attractive people
    in this world have "blan" and "boring" personalities.
    
    Neither comment is true or supported by scientific data to my
    knowledge.
    
    	Dwight

    re .28
    
    > Many of the people that are very physically attractive in this
    > world, both male and female, often seem to me to have less developed
    > personalities.
    
    I would say that that is a big-time misconception. In addition,
    I would venture to say that attractive people have an edge on others
    in developing their personality because they get so much positive
    reinforcement. I cite personal experience and observation to support
    this claim.
    
    When I was a sophomore in high school I cared about one thing-
    baseball. I didn't cut my hair that often, wear the cool clothes,
    and I still had some baby fat. I had some good friends but was not
    Mr. Popularity by any stretch of the imagination.
    
    During sophomore year I worked on a weight training program with
    my baseball coach, played ball, cut my hair nice and short, and
    let my older sisters teach me something about style.
    
    The difference between my junior year and sophomore year was like
    night and day. All of a sudden, girls who wouldn't give me the time
    of day before started looking at me all mischievously and whatnot.
    I was told that I had a great 'personality'. Well, I was the same
    nice guy with a good sense of humor both years....Needless to say,
    by my junior year I had another interest to go along with baseball.
    
    Then I went away to college. Not only a college, but *the* college.
    Everybody in my school had wanted to go there. And it struck me
    as mighty peculiar that they asked for a photo with the application.
    When I arrived on campus freshman year I knew what they were up to.
    There were so many good looking people on campus, compared to the
    'real world' that it had to be more than just an accident. Not that
    I was complaining or anything mind you. But why would the admissions
    committee need to see a picture of an applicant. To get a better
    sense of the 'person'? Give me a break.
    
    So to close up here, I'd have to say that looks are important in
    our society. Very much so. Good looking people get a lot of breaks.
    It shouldn't be that way, but it is. And I go to bed at night thanking
    the Lord for blessing me because I have a good idea that I would
    not have gotten in the college of my choice ( there were lots of
    kids in Newton with great SATs, grades and extracurriculas ) or
    into DEC's finance training program if I were considered unattractive.
    Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying I got into college or got
    my job solely because of good looks (I ain't no Lorenzo Lamas,
    that's for sure) but I'm sure that it did help. To make my final
    point, looks are important in our society and people who have them
    are given all kinds of breaks which help in the development of their
    personal, social, and professional life. 
    
    Jeff
    

    
    
    	RE: .32,  I agree Jeff!!!  One comment I didn't make in my
    	earlier reply was, from my expereince. It seems the ones
    	that always insists that looks don't count and it's really
    	whats inside that matters are the better than average looking
    	people. They seem to say this all the while they tell us 
    	average/less than average people that we are nice people, BUT!!
    
    	G_B

"Money isn't everything" say the people who drive nice cars, eat in
haut cuisine restaurants and live in nice houses. 

But, you don't see then fraternize with poor people. 

"Looks aren't important" say the beautiful people. yet, you see
better looking people get the breaks all the time. Male and female
alike. 

Now, is it true that better looking people are shallower and have
less personality than plain folks? 

Before all the self righteous crowd jumps on my case, let me ask you
this: if a person discovered that their dancing capability improved
their chances with the OS (opposite sex, that's what) --not to
mention other arenas, as well-- would they work on improving their
golf playing before a date? No, they would work on their dancing, to
the exclusion of most other talents. 

And, if they recognize their good looks to be a big factor in their
success with the OS --not to mention other arenas, as well-- would
they work on improving their mind and personality? Again, the answer
is "no", they would work on improving their looks further, to the
exclusion of most other talents. 

I agree, it ain't fair. But that's the way it is. Of course, any one
who chooses to bury their head in a patch of sand, will likely not
see it; but **that** won't make it disappear. 

I rest my case. 

-- Ron 

    re .32
    
    That sounded like a great college.
    
    Eugene

>>                       <<< Note 797.34 by APEHUB::RON >>>

>But, you don't see then fraternize with poor people. 

	 I make well over $XX,XXX a year and I'm single and very young
	 still....I'd say I'm pretty well off!  Yet, my boyfriend is
	 job-less...his last job was as a cashier....most of my
	 friends are lucky to make $15K a year.

	 I'd suggest you quit your "generalizations"....
	 
>"Looks aren't important" say the beautiful people. yet, you see
>better looking people get the breaks all the time. Male and female
>alike. 

	 I'm sure that many of the top-notch models in this country
	 would differ with that.....

	 Also, I consider myself attractive (tho some in here would
	 beg to differ!) :-)  and I can't say I've EVER gotten a break
	 cuz of my looks.
	 
>Now, is it true that better looking people are shallower and have
>less personality than plain folks? 

	 no....and what is considered "plain"?  Go ahead and consider
	 yourself that if you wish, but I feel that anyone and
	 everyone is beautiful...in there own way.....what's plain to
	 you is probably not plain to someone else....how do you
	 define "beautiful people"?
	 
>Before all the self righteous crowd jumps on my case, let me ask you
>this: if a person discovered that their dancing capability improved
>their chances with the OS (opposite sex, that's what) --not to
>mention other arenas, as well-- would they work on improving their
>golf playing before a date? No, they would work on their dancing, to
>the exclusion of most other talents. 

	 Perhaps some of us could really care less about "improving
	 ourselves for others"....if someone can't accept me the way I
	 am, then they aren't acceptable to me....
	 
>And, if they recognize their good looks to be a big factor in their
>success with the OS --not to mention other arenas, as well-- would
>they work on improving their mind and personality? Again, the answer
>is "no", they would work on improving their looks further, to the
>exclusion of most other talents. 

         I was in the homecoming court and also a cheerleader in high
         school (as well as one season on college)...which, in an
         inmaturish, high schoolish sort of way, we all know both of
         those positions to be held a lot of times, by the "pretty
         people"....Wow..I guess I should have gotten that Fine Arts
         degree instead of Computer Engineering, eh?  And I CERTAINLY
         should never have graduated with honors...oops!  You should
	 have warned me earlier.
	 
>I agree, it ain't fair. But that's the way it is. Of course, any one
>who chooses to bury their head in a patch of sand, will likely not
>see it; but **that** won't make it disappear.

	 perhaps you need to shake that sand outta your ears.  And I
	 don't want to hear any of that BS about how I'm an exception
	 to the rule....I know MANY people that have acheived MUCH
	 more than I and are MUCH prettier/good-looking....


	 Perhaps you just WANT it to be this way because you feel
	 you've been cheated out of something?

	 /kath

    re .34  APEHUB::RON
    
    > But you don't see them (the wealthy) fraternizing with poor people.
    
    That's just not true. I grew up as a poor kid in a rich town. Didn't
    have a dad and my mom didn't make big bucks- she was a secretary.
    She had rich friends, poor friends the whole spectrum because she is
    a real person who is able to see people as they are, not as they
    appear on the surface. She is not the type person to condemn all
    rich people as arrogant when only a small percentage of them are.
    Hence, she did not preclude the possibility of meeting and being
    friends with rich/attractive people who are cool, as you appear to have
    with your attitude based on sweeping generalizations.
    
    In addition, your argument about improving looks "at the exclusion
    of most other talents" takes place in a vacuum. Is the only goal
    in life to go on hot dates? It may be a goal, but certainly not
    the only goal. I think most people are not as myopic as you make
    them out to be. Some people do get a kick out of friendship, family,
    professional, spiritual, athletic and other aspects of life which
    along with life's ups and downs tend to develop one's personality-
    like it or not.
    
    Maybe you'd be better off saying that you don't like the stereotypical
    rich/attractive person. But then again, maybe they don't like you.
    Who is to say how someone else should come across in social situations.
    Everybody has the right to their opinions. You have yours. You seem
    to be saying that rich/attractive people have less of a personality
    because they can get what they want in society without trying as
    hard. But how do you think that they got it? Most of the rich people
    I know, and middle class people for that matter, worked damn hard
    to make life better for their kids. To me that shows character,
    dedication, and deep down caring.
    
    Maybe, you've been through certain situations in life that cause
    you to truly believe the things that you are saying. My experience
    has shown me that you can't tell what a person is like unless you
    are willing to evaluate them on their own characteristics, not classify
    and dismiss them.
    
    Everybody has their own particular hang-ups. I would find it hard to
    trust someone who claimed that they didn't. Whether it's looks,
    socioeconomic class, race, religion etc we seem to put up barriers
    amongst ourselves and create an us-them dichotomy out of life when
    it (life) is really a lot more complex than that. It will be a great
    day indeed, when we can see each person as unique and valuable,
    instead of categorizing people in an attempt to simplify life.
    
    Jeff
    
    
    
    
    
    

What's with you people? Can't you discuss an issue without getting
personal? 

In .34 I offered the following opinions:

	1. Rich people tend to detract from the importance of 
	   wealth, yet they also tend to socialize with other rich
	   people, not with the poor.

	2. People who are particularly good looking tend to
	   trivialize the importance of looks, but do achieve more,
	   in their lives, due to their good look and not their
	   other attributes.

	3. As a result, 'beautiful' people tend to place more
	   emphasis on their looks, to the exclusion of developing
	   other talents. In common usage, they would be considered
	   more 'shallow', whatever that means.

These are GENERAL comments. There are varying degrees of riches and
there are varying degrees of good looks. People develop the traits
based on these, also by varying degrees. I was talking about
**trends**. I never said "100% of rich people treat 100% of poor
people as dirt". Maybe I should have elaborated more - I didn't think
I needed to. 

So, what happens? As anticipated, .36 and .37 'jump on my case' and
have some personal slurs to bolster their opinion. 

.36 says "Go ahead and consider yourself that [unattractive] if you
wish" and "Perhaps you just WANT it to be this way because you feel
you've been cheated out of something?". 

What does **that** have to do with anything? No, I do not consider
myself unattractive. No, I do not feel I have been cheated out of
anything. I, too, graduated 'with highest honors' with a GPA of
3.9. Does all that enhance the validity of my observations? Had I
been ugly, would my argument carry less weight? 

.36 also objects to my "you don't see them [the rich] fraternize
with poor people" by recounting her own personal situation which is
--I'm afraid-- as irrelevant to the discussion as my own. Her boy
friend, it seems, is out of a job. Poor example. How often is she
invited to mingle with people who consistently makes $5 Millions a
year? That's 'rich'. The $XX,XXX she makes, place her right in there
with all the people who make $10,000 to $100,000 a year, along with
you, me and the other 98% of Digital employees (including those that
make twice her $XX,XXX).

Well, we spent last weekend on a boat that couldn't possibly be
bought with .36's and mine combined earnings in the next ten years -
but we've known the people since heaven knows when. We are also very
friendly with another multi-millionaire, but he happens to be my
wife's cousin. Does this refute my own observation? No, these
specific examples --and yours-- not withstanding, rich people still
do not fraternize with the poor. 

So much for a rathole of an analogy that had nothing to do with the
original subject... 


.36>	I'd suggest you quit your "generalizations"....

Why? many generalizations are valid. "People that spend a lot of
time in the sun are tanned" is valid, even if some of them stay
fair, some become tomato-red and some are peeling in strips. 


.36 goes on to say that she considers herself attractive. She then
relates that she got all the breaks (homecoming court, cheerleader,
good grades in school, etc.) in her life.

This story seems to support my argument, even though .36 assures
us that "I can't say I've EVER gotten a break cuz of my looks.". I
wonder how objective she can be, under the circumstances (which is
another argument against supporting a statement with personal
examples).

Finally:

.36>	And I don't want to hear any of that BS about how I'm an
.36>	exception to the rule....

Why not? if the shoe fits... Besides, I am not even sure you are.


.36>	I know MANY people that have acheived MUCH more than I and
.36>	are MUCH prettier/good-looking....

Yes, that's EXACTLY what I have been saying.

---------------

.37 also had a personal message: "Maybe, you've been through certain
situations in life that cause you to truly believe the things that
you are saying.".

Correction: I haven't 'been through', but I did witness many of
these 'certain situations'. Again and again. All you have to do is
IMPARTIALLY observe and evaluate society around you. You will come
up with many unpopular --but very valid-- conclusions. 


.37>	Everybody has their own particular hang-ups. I would find it
.37>	hard to trust someone who claimed that they didn't.

True, but irrelevant. I have my own (not concerning my looks, or my
income either - except for the taxes I pay for it) hangups, as --I
am sure-- you have yours. But I think we should be able to discuss
the subject matter in an aloof, impersonal manner. I call the shots
the way I see them. If you see them differently, by all means,
enlighten us - but don't try to refute a general statement by a
single, personal, example to the contrary. 


>	It will be a great day indeed, when we can see each person
>	as unique and valuable, instead of categorizing people in an
>	attempt to simplify life.

If you want to understand the universe around you --and that does
include your fellow human beings-- you will need to indulge in
categorizing it. This has nothing to do with 'simplifying life';
it's the **only** way available to us, to deal with our environment.

I accept your abjection to categorizing **people** ("all
<insert-ethnic-group-here> are <insert-slur-here>"). But, no
understanding of social phenomena can be gained until we do
categorize **behavior**. Psychology and Sociology could not even
exist without this. 

-- Ron

>                       <<< Note 797.39 by APEHUB::RON >>>

	 PLEASE try to limit your replies...100+ lines.....Ack!

	 
>In .34 I offered the following opinions:

	 Granted, your opinions are WONDERFUL as long as you PUT THE
	 WORD "some" in front of people!!!!  Generalizing into the
	 catagories "rich people", "beautiful people", etc is WRONG
	 IMO because the majority of people in your generalizations do
	 NOT fall into those categories.

	 Plain and simple.....if you wish to generalize like that,
	 then support it with facts/statistics/other....don't just
	 generalize and expect people to not refute it.

	 
>These are GENERAL comments. There are varying degrees of riches and
>there are varying degrees of good looks. People develop the traits
>based on these, also by varying degrees. I was talking about
>**trends**. I never said "100% of rich people treat 100% of poor
>people as dirt". Maybe I should have elaborated more - I didn't think
>I needed to. 

	 You should have elaborated by saying "some"...in not saying
	 that you've stereotyped every rich person into being a snob
	 and every beautiful person into being an airhead.
	 
>.36 says "Go ahead and consider yourself that [unattractive] if you
>wish" and "Perhaps you just WANT it to be this way because you feel
>you've been cheated out of something?". 

	 these are NOT personal slurs...did I SAY you were
	 unattractive?  Nope....did I SAY you had been cheated out of
	 something?  Nope....I said that you can put yourself in those
	 categories if you wish to, but I however do NOT fit into any
	 of your categories.

	 Nix.  Sorry, Charlie...  :-)
	 


	 I'm not going to answer the accusations you've made against
	 me because, basically, they are unfounded.....You've make
	 blanket statements/generalizations and I've disproved them
	 with my own experiences...I could relate more and more and
	 more instances that disprove them, but frankly, I'd rather
	 not.

	 I could make PLENTY of generalizations about categories that
	 you fall into and you would dispute them for AGES....unless I
	 have statistics to back it up, it would basically be my
	 personal opinion as to what I perceived certain people to be
	 like....

         In your original note, you stated your generalizations as
         facts....not as your personal opinion about how you view rich
         people/beautiful people....Your generalizations are NOT fact
         and IMO are very far off base.....probably by about 180
         degrees.


	 /kath

    re .39
    
    Okay, we can discuss the issue without getting personal, eventhough
    I feel that one's experiences (whether direct or vicarious) are vital
    to one's way of seeing things. People can claim to be impartial,
    but they *usually* wouldn't be having the discussion if it meant
    nothing to them. 
    
    If you look back to my entry in .32 you can see that I too feel that
    good looking people get breaks. Shouldn't be that way, but it is.
    However, we differ in our conclusions. I feel that because of the
    positive reinforcement throughout life, it helps to create a person
    with a better personality. You feel that good looking people would
    
    "work on improving their looks further, to the exclusion of
    most other talents."   
    
    I think this a myopic view of things. Going out on hot dates is not
    the sole motivating force behind people's character. 
    
    In addition, I have not seen any studies that correlate looks and
    personality from a genetic viewpoint. Until I do, I will assume
    that they are unrelated. Thus, that leaves us with socialization
    as the determing factor in our little argument here. I think that
    positive strokes have a long-run beneficial effect. You think that
    the special treatment that causes people to rest on their
    laurels, so to speak. 
    
    So in response to your question-
    
    "Is it true that better looking people are shallower and have less
    personality than plain folks"
    
    here's my answer, no.
    
    Now for the next piece of the pie we are feasting on in this here
    discussion. $Money$. It is outside the boundaries of this topic
    as I believe this note was started with the purpose of discussing
    'Are Looks EVERYTHING?' There, end of my discussion in an "aloof,
    impersonal manner". 
    
    Jeff
    

    Are looks everything?  Of course not.  If that was the only question
    to be answered, this would be a short note indeed.  However, the
    question could very well be, is the perception "look are everything"
    held by the vast majority (or even a simply majority), or even "how
    much do looks count"?
    
    Looks do count for a lot.  That is a given I really don't think
    needs proof.  People are a visual creature.  They are drawn by things
    that catch their eye.  I am.  I admit it.  However, luckily (or
    perhaps not, depending on your POV ;) exterior decor is not my sole
    criteria.  
    
    That's my own opinion, replete with a nice generalization.  On the
    subject of generalizations, I perceive a generalization as just
    that--a generalization about most (not all) of a group, or at least
    a healthy enough percentage for that generalization to be made.
    People do not make generalizations without cause--you don't have
    to live the "deprived life" to make a generalization about a different,
    perhaps more sucessful group, and it works the same the other way
    around.  Sure, a lot of attractive people don't get all the breaks,
    but a heck of a lot more of so-called 'plain' types get even less,
    and God Forbid if you are truly one of the rare people who can be
    called ugly (cruel, but true).  It's not ALWAYS the case either
    way, but GENERALLY is.  
       
    Re: getting personal--I think the gist of that statement did not
    mean relating one's own personal experiences, but making comments
    about another author, especially one's that might be construed at
    insulting.  Notesfiles are often a dangerous and insensitive place,
    made more fraught for peril by the lack of non-verbal clues to cue
    one in on exactly how a statement was meant.  Seeing your text
    extracted probably doesn't help   ;)    (makes me jumpy anyway)
    
    Basically, .41's title sums it up.  Looks are not everything, but
    they do not hurt (in most cases).
    
    Regards,
    
    kim

    Gee, Kathy, why do I feel YOUR examples prove MY point?
    
    JUST to write .......in YOUR style....for a moment....
    
    ....I found most of your examples pretty HILARIOUS......
        
    Dolph Lungren? Personality? Sylverster Stallone? Mr. Personality
    himself. And Vacant, er, Vanna White?
    
    Very funny.
    
    -roger
    
    

        
>    Dolph Lungren? Personality? Sylverster Stallone? Mr. Personality
>    himself. And Vacant, er, Vanna White?

	 Roger...you're not writing in my style.....except in maybe a
	 perverted sort of sense.....I'm trying to make a valid
	 argument and you laugh at it....c'est la vie...not the type
	 of person I'll waste my time talking with.

	 Do you know these people personally?  Then I request that you
	 refrain from bashing them....

	 get out your trusty Webster's Dictionary and look up the word
	 "act"....as in "actor" or "actress"....

	 please tell me you're not basing your opinion of these people
	 on the parts they portray????


	 /kath
    

    Re: .43
    
    >Dolph Lungren? Personality? Sylverster Stallone? Mr. Personality
    >himself. And Vacant, er, Vanna White?
    
    I don't know much about Dolph Lundgren and Vanna, while sweet, strikes
    me as being a little fluff-headed, but Stallone has done some very
    respectable films.  I think all those rounds in the ring eventually did 
    something, though....  But, there are plenty of other examples.  Kevin 
    Costner.  Mel Gibson.  (Both are well-documented nice guys and family 
    men, as well as certified hunks.)  Michelle Pfieffer is certainly
    beautiful, and she seems to be a good mother and an intelligent,
    talented actress.  Unfortunately I don't see a lot of pictures of
    people who are famous or talented outside of the performing arts, so I
    can't list a lot of attractive, intelligent and nice people in other
    fields.
    
    My own bit of anecdotal evidence:  In high school, about half the
    cheerleaders were in honors classes.  My guess is that they were at
    least as nice, if not nicer, than the average student.

    
    About blanket statements and personal opinions....
    
    I don't feel a person needs to say, IMHO.  If I say something in
    a note, then obviously, I'm stating my opinion.
    
    If Jack says, "Bowling sucks," while that may offend bowlers and
    cause some heated debate as someone feels the need to defend bowling,
    it doesn't matter to Jack.  To him, bowling sucks.  Period.  It
    may be termed a blanket statement, but it has value to Jack because
    bowling does suck.  He doesn't have to show any stats or give any
    reference from any books he's read, after all, books are just someone
    else's opinion.
    
    I'm amused by people saying, "You better state that it's your opinion
    next time!"  When I read a note, I feel I can determine how the
    person stands on an issue.
    
    	Dwight

    re: .46
    
    "If I say something in a note, then obviously, I'm stating my opinion."
    
    Obvious to you, perhaps, but not necessarily so to all readers.
    Why, for instance, shouldn't a reader consider it "obvious" that,
    without a qualifying remark, you are stating what you consider to
    be "fact" - a truism for all people.  The idea that something in
    this written medium is "obvious" rests on an assumption that the
    reader sees the world in the same way as the writer.  Time and time
    again in these conferences I've seen evidence to disprove that
    assumption.
    
    It seems to me that the reason we have phrases like "I think", "IMHO", 
    or "It seems to me" in the first place is to be able to separate
    an author's statements of fact from his/her statements of opinion.
    If one goal in these discussions is to be *clearly* understood, I 
    think that not using appropriate qualifiers ends up being counter-
    productive; using them helps eliminate a reader's impulse to assume
    or read meaning into the words written.
    
    re: looks
    
    I know a woman who's good looks have made it possible for her to
    manipulate a series of men to get what she felt she wanted; outside 
    the package is pretty, but the total person isn't someone with whom 
    I (or, ultimately, all those manipulated men) want to be in the
    same county.  Not coincidentally, she is, at this writing a very
    lonely, unhappy person.  I also know women of exceeding good looks 
    who are as humble, open, and "real" as anyone I've ever met.  Maybe 
    it's not so odd that after spending a little time with these women, 
    their looks don't seem to matter a whole lot.
    
    On the other side of the coin, I know women who aren't as pretty
    on the outside, but who, depending on what's cooking inside, are
    either a real pleasure to be with or make me want to run for the
    hills.  In terms of what's made a difference in their lives, I'd
    say that while looks have counted somewhat initially (as in first-
    meeting situations), but what counted in the long run was personality.
    
    And I'd say the same is analagously true for men I've known; those
    with the "look of success" have often gotten the first attention,
    but the ones who've been truly successful have had a lot more going
    for them besides their looks.  And those who haven't had "the look"
    but have had those inner qualities that bring success have succeeded
    despite their relatively less attractive "packaging".
    
    Steve

    What this discussion reminds me of it one of the reasons I didn't
    like Broadcast News....
    
    While I know it isn't ALWAYS true, the movie seemed to enforce the
    idea that if you were handsome (albeit shallow) you'd get the romance,
    while the nice, sensitive guy who was really deserving but not quite
    a William Hurt got pretty much shafted careerwise and romance wise,
    when his was the obvious talent. 
    
    And yeah, I know it was JUST a movie....  :)
    
    kim

RE: .40,


>	PLEASE try to limit your replies...100+ lines.....Ack!

I was responding to .36 (72 lines) and .37 (55 lines). Between quoting 
from those 127 lines and adding my own pearls of wisdom, I do not 
think 100+ lines were excessive. But, I will now try to be briefer. 
Brace yourself...


>	 Granted, your opinions are WONDERFUL as long as you PUT THE
>	 WORD "some" in front of people!!!!

Go back and read .34 - I said "you don't see them do" such and such.
I meant to say such behavior is not prevalent, not that none of them
never, ever do it. When talking about behavioral trends of the
masses, no statement is absolute (example: "people do not undress on
the street corner" is true, even though there are people who do do
just that). 

Continuously using 'some', 'most' 'usually' gets tiresome after a
while. The readers (oops... most readers) are intelligent enough to
comprehend the meaning (that is, most of the time).


>	Generalizing into the
>	catagories "rich people", "beautiful people", etc is WRONG
>	IMO because the majority of people in your generalizations do
>	NOT fall into those categories.

That's where we disagree. I see most (that is, the vast majority),
definitely do. 


>	 Plain and simple.....if you wish to generalize like that,
>	 then support it with facts/statistics/other....

You gotta be kidding. I do not have statistics about who rich people 
are friendly with. I was stating an observation, based on the (very 
few) rich people I mingle with. I thought it was commonly agreed to
knowledge.


>	... you've stereotyped every rich person into being a
>	snob ... 

I never said that, nor do I believe it's true. Rich people are not,
as a rule, snobs. I did say that they do not, as a rule, fraternize
with people of lower means; first, because the two groups do not
have that much in common and second, because most people cannot keep
up with the rich. 


>	 ... and every beautiful person into being an airhead ...

I didn't say that, either, nor do I believe it's true. I did not 
attach a label to 'beautiful people' at all. Go back and read .34.

I simply painted a scenario, by which these people are motivated to
cultivate their external appearance to the exclusion of other
attributes. I believe that, generally, 'pretty people' abide by that
scenario and that the prettier they are, the more motivated to act
that way they will be. If you disagree, by all means explain why -
but do not offer a single example by way of an argument. 

SET FLAME /ON

	In general, assigning a statement to a noter (which
	he never made, let alone believe in), then blasting
	him for that statement, is a well know technique in
	this and other notefiles, developed to perfection by
	some other notorious noter. Regardless of whether you
	support that person or not, please do not use this
	particular ruse. It's well beneath you.

SET FLAME /'NOUGH SAID

>> .36 says "Go ahead and consider yourself that [unattractive] if you
>> wish" and "Perhaps you just WANT it to be this way because you feel
>> you've been cheated out of something?".
>>
>	 these are NOT personal slurs...

Well, ugliness is in the eyes of the beholder :-). Why not show
your reply to someone you trust and ask his/her opinion concerning
its personal slurriness? 

You can avoid such an argument by refraining in the future from
personally directed remarks, if they have nothing to do with the
subject matter. I show nothing but respect when I respond to your 
notes - you would do well to treat others the same way.

Responses such as "Nix. Sorry, Charlie...  :-)" or calling me
'bucko' (meant, I assume, as derision - the smiley face
notwithstanding) do little to elicit respect for you or your
position. 


RE: .41

>    ... I have not seen any studies that correlate looks and
>    personality from a genetic viewpoint. Until I do, I will assume
>    that they are unrelated.

I never said otherwise and I tend to agree. But, I illustrated a
scenario which will **motivate** certain people to emphasis their
looks to the exclusion of other attributes. This happens long after
genetic factors are cast in concrete.

You think that "positive strokes have a long-run beneficial effect".
Yes, they tend to increase a person's self assurance. We sometimes
witness the charming and engaging bravado displayed by 'beautiful
people'. It often enhances their perceived physical appearance and
their attraction. How does it make them less shallow or promote
development of their personalities? 

To summarize: both authors (.39 and .40) agree that good looking
people get better breaks (the author of .39 states so, while
vehemently denying it). The contention seems to be around the
question of the results. I honestly do not think we are going to 
resolve it here.

-- Ron

    Re: .49
    
    >Continuously using 'some', 'most' 'usually' gets tiresome after a
    >while.
    
    But not as tiresome as clearing things up when you don't use them.  I
    sprinkle them around with a liberal hand because they're such useful
    face-savers.  If someone throws in a counter-example, you can say,
    "Well, of course; I never said ALL <x> were <y>."  I tend to note with
    the "opposition's" response in mind so I can head 'em off at the pass
    if need be.  So much simpler that way.

"My own bit of anecdotal evidence:  In high school, about half the cheerleaders
were in honors classes.  My guess is that they were at least as nice, if not
nicer, than the average student."

RE: Cheerleaders

I knew several cheerleader in high school, albeit not as well as I would have
liked to; :-) they didn't associate with me.  But, I observed them enough to
say... 

Several of while beautiful and scholastically talented were none the less quite
shallow in my opinion.  I guess that they were very achievement oriented. Some
cheerleaders were even 'nice', but still shallow.  Very few were what I would
call genuinely nice. I don't imagine that the distribution of depth of
personality and 'niceness' was all that different from normal people. 

However, did they get breaks?  Were they more visisble?  Did they get noticed
more often, and interest more people in themselves?  You betcha. 

Jim.

	As the saying goes...

	  "The average woman would rather have beauty than brains
	   because the average man can see better than he can think."

	Dan

"The average woman would rather have beauty than brains because the average man
can see better than he can think."

Interesting comment...  It leads me to believe that the woman's goal in life is
to 'get something' out of/from the man, rather then being an independant person.
It describes the stupid leading the stupid. 

I really think that beauty (in women) is naturally more important to men then it
is to women.  As evidence I offer the fact that gay men are usually quite well
groomed, while lesbian women tend to have other things that are more important
to them.  (no offense intended) 

Which is easier?  To make a beautiful woman smart, or to make a smart woman
beautiful? 

Jim.

    Ain't it John Keat who sex (woops that should be sez) "Truth is Beauty 
    and Beauty is truth"?  Or is it Patrick Henry who sez "Give me beauty or 
    give me death" (or is it "Give me beauty or give me brain"?)?
    I would choose beauty any day caus' some other hot shot once said 
    "Beauty is eternal" (or is it "Beauty is momentary"?).  Besizes, I got
    enough brain for ten people, so why do I need any more?
    
    :-) :-) :-)
               
    Eugene

    RE:49
    
    Well stated, Ron. 
    
    RE:29 & 44: Kathy
    
    From your examples I realize how subjective the concept of personality
    is, for most of the people you listed I would find to be neither
    attractive, or to have interesting personalities. The 'attractive'
    is a quality that I can't separate from their work, most of which
    I don't admire. We obviously have very different taste.
    
    It has been my personal experience in life that many of the unusually
    attractive people I have met have been "airheads"; this is an
    observation, not a "misconception". I also have observed that many
    of these attractive people get by with less effort and ability 
    than others. 
    
    You've stated that I am making assumptions about these celebrities
    based on the roles they play. How do you know this, Kathy? This
    seems like a major flight of imagination , which you are perfectly 
    willing to draw conclusions from, despite that it is based
    on absolutely no knowledge on your part as to what I've read, or
    watched. Stick to what you know, Kathy.
    
    -roger
    
    
    
    

Re:  .0


	You know, I've been thinking about this a lot lately.  A few years
ago, and especially in high school, looks meant a lot to me.  On the other
hand, I've never considered myself especially shallow.  How to resolve this
apparent contradiction?  Easy.  I simply hadn't had enough experience to
know what was *really* important to me, and looks were all I had to go on.


	Now I have a *much* better idea of what I want from someone I date.
This the case, I've turned around almost 180 degrees!  Looks mean very little
to me now, except as an indication of how the person feels about herself (do
they take care of themselves?), and of course that initial attraction that
most of us agree is usually necessary to get things rolling.  But by and large,
I find myself looking for women who aren't "knockouts" physically, because
they generally (yes I'll use that word!) IN MY EXPERIENCE have better-formed
personalities.  This is not to say I rule out more physically attractive
women, I do try to keep an open mind.  I'm just pointing out which type of
woman I've had more success with.


	Lately, it's been my experience too that as I get to know someone
and come to like her personality more, she becomes more and more beautiful
to me (in the most real sense you can imagine -- this is NOT fantasy).  I've
always said (well, ever since high school  ;-) ) that a person's true beauty
comes from within, and now I truly understand why.


	At the risk of incurring more wrath  ;-), I agree with Ron.  Whether
we realize it or not, I think most if not all of us generalize in some way
to some degree.  There is simply too much detail in this world to cope with
the specifics!  Also, we tend to generalize BASED ON OUR OWN EXPERIENCES.  At
least I and most people I know do.  Right or wrong, it's a natural human
tendency.  And in this case, I tend to agree with Ron in his generalizations
on rich/poor and attractive/unattractive.  Apparently, Ron and I have had
some of the same experiences; also apparently, others of you out there have
not.  Since we don't keep statistics on this stuff, who's to say who is right
or who is wrong?


	It seems to me that when folks jump on someone like this, it's because
they haven't taken the time to truly understand why the person said what they
did.  Granted, it takes a *very* open mind to understand a point of view which
is 180 degrees opposite of yours, but if you don't really understand where
they're coming from then you shouldn't be jumping (i.e., judging) on them in
the first place!  Ron's point of view is totally valid from *his* perspective.
Yours are valid from yours.  Just because there's no intersection between the
two should either one be thought to be invalid.  I know there are lots of views
out there quite different from mine, but I've also learned to accept that with-
out thinking they are necessarily "wrong".


	Of course, the fact that I tend to agree with a lot of Ron's notes in
no way biased my reply here....  ;-)  ;-)  ;-)  ;-)


Brian
    

    One more quote....from Thomas Dolby in his song "Airhead"
    
    "They say she's a dumb blonde, 
        but they don't know she dyes her hair."
    
    ;^)-roger
    
    
    

    Re: .53
    
    >to 'get something' out of/from the man
    
    Like companionship, intimacy, sharing....  Oh, wait, if someone goes
    out and actively looks for a relationship, then obviously nothing good
    can ever come of the effort.  Nope, deliberately looking for a partner
    in life doesn't work; it only works if you stumble into a relationship.
    
    >As evidence I offer the fact that gay men are usually quite well
    >groomed, while lesbian women tend to have other things that are more 
    >important to them.  (no offense intended)
    
    The fact?  How about "the observation"?
    
    >Which is easier?  To make a beautiful woman smart, or to make a smart 
    >woman beautiful? 
    
    Depends on the woman.

    Having dinner with my 12 year old last night reminded me of this
    topic...  (It took all I could do not to laugh at what she was saying
    too much!!!)...
    
    She informed me that she thought the guy cutting the grass yesterday
    was cute "...cuz he had nice cheekbones"...
    
    Guess looks mean everything to a 12 year old....

    GEeeezzzzz, What a rat hole!

"The fact?  How about "the observation"? ... Depends on the woman."

Yes, observation would have been better, thanks.  Also, I should have made the
beauty/brains question gender independant. 

Jim.

    Whenever I get worried that looks seem to be everything to lots
    of people (like after I went to the beach last weekend, thoough
    I was smart enough not to go to Salisbury Beach cause I knew the
    Playboy Bunnies were going to be playing Volleyball on behalf of
    WAAF) - I always have this urge to grab a VCR, and rent the Jean
    Cocteau movie (1938?  1946?) "La Belle Et La Bete".  *sigh* - it
    restores a bit of faith...
    
    -Jody
    

         Just a couple of seemingly unrelated observations
         
         First, what defines good looks has historically been
         defined by whatever the going fashion was. All those
         women in the [Renoir? Rabelais?] paintings were oh-so
         wonderfully plump and curvey...and they were thought
         to be the absolute epitomey of good looks at the
         time....
         
         Today we strive for hollow cheek bones and concave
         tummies that would have indicated just a mere few
         decades ago that we were candidates for a plot in
         the back yard...[sigh]
         
         Second, it is established sociological thought that
         going with the social norm rather than fighting it
         [or at least trying to]....is less stressful, and less
         challanging than going against. [except of course
         when you can't possibly attain it...but that is another
         topic altogether...]
         
         If we combine these two facts [yup...they are easily
         proven and heavily documented...] we MIGHT [here
         is the personal opinion part] come to the conclusion
         that being good looking at any point in history is
         a position of less threat and challange than defining
         your own "look" and making a go upstream...as it
         were.
         
         So...if we arrived at that conclusion, we would not
         be [necessarily] casting aspersions on good looking
         peoples' minds or hearts...just observing that as
         in all things....struggle often breeds an air of
         intrigue and depth that riding the waves does not.
         
         The personality created from such a struggle often
         makes for good conversation, heady humor, lack of
         self consciousness...etc. 
         
         And, before someone rushes in to cut me down...
         [grin]...
         
         Third, the struggle to *attain* good looks can also 
         breed the same kinds of depth. Perhaps the point we 
         should be discussing is not whether people are pretty 
         or not...but how they got that way. 
         
         I might be more apt to observe that folks who do
         not have to work for any given talent or attribute
         do not often understand the value of having it and
         are therefor sometimes less sensitive to and about
         those not having it.
         
         I may not think much of Mr Stallone personally...
         his looks rather turn my stomach...but...I would
         suggest that he has worked relatively hard to get
         wherever it is he is going...that would probably
         make him a rather interesting person...if not one
         I would like to bunk with...[grin]
         
         Fourth, as we all have...I have met some pretty ugly
         people...who smell bad, act badly, speak atriociously,
         the whole nine yards. Being ugly doesn't guarantee
         one a good personality either...[grin]
         
         I guess my point is...[ah there was one...I know
         you all thought I was wandering aimlessly again...]
         being pretty is not the point. The point [I think...oh
         God *I* think....I do not assume you think also...]
         is....presentation is a package deal. And presentation
         is made up of a lot of social/economic/emotional
         factors that have nothing to do with how hollow my
         cheekbones are...[either set!].
         
         hugs
         
         Melinda

    Are looks everything?  
    
    	No.
    
    Are they important to me?  
    
    	Yes.
    
    Do I place too much importance on them?  
    
    	Don't know yet, the jury's still out.
    
    					andrew
    
    P.S.  Sweet Melinda, the artist whose name you were searching for --
          he of the buxom beauties -- does the word "Rubenesque" ring
          a bell?
    				     (-: -ak- :-)

    Re .63, gee, Melinda, I wish hollow cheekbones counted for as much
    in this world as your note seems to imply....:-)
    
    Actually, it seems that the people who are universally considered
    great looking, and who seem to get more breaks than average, and
    have a larger selection of potential lovers, etc., because of it,
    have a combination of great features.  For example, our current
    standards of beauty for a woman seem to be: large, far apart eyes,
    high cheekbones, small, straight nose, defined chin line, thick,
    lustrous hair, clear, tanned skin, tiny waist, flat stomach, shapely
    rear end (not too flat, not too wide), high, firm, medium sized
    bosom, shapely, long, tanned, legs, well defined calf, thighs not
    too fat.  Oh, and a full mouth is definitely in.  Examples might
    be Michelle Pfieffer, Christy Brinkley, Kim Basinger.  So, the point
    is just having one supposedly attractive physical characteristic
    is not enough to guarantee an easier life on looks alone.  A person
    has to have a whole bunch of good features! :-)
    
    I agree with you that it's the way the whole package is presented
    including what a person says (personality), that is important to
    me.  I also agree that various different experiences can
    contribute to a making a person interesting, whether they are
    goodlooking or homely.  Two or three years ago, while visiting in
    Vancouver, B.C., I met an extremely goodlooking guy in his early
    20's who was a relative of some friends.  When I first saw this
    guy, I thought, Oh, god, he's too goodlooking.  He's bound to be
    a shallow, conceited jerk!  I was prepared to dislike him.  But,
    after we started talking I slowly began to realize that he had a
    wonderful personality!  He was extremely nice, charming, witty,
    and down-to-earth.  Needless to say, I thought he was wonderful.
     Well, afterwards when I was talking to his aunt and my girlfriend,
    I found out that he was almost completely deaf.  He had practically
    invisible hearing aids and read lips!  His aunt told me that when
    he was a little boy he was deaf, very skinny, very shy, had no friends
    and that the other kids at school used to pick on him terribly because
    he had huge hearing aids and couldn't hear them.  It instantly dawned
    on me, and I said to his aunt, "That's why he has such a wonderful
    personality and is so nice, even tho he's so goodlooking!  It's
    because when he was a little kid he was skinny with huge hearing
    aids and got picked on!  Now, he's extremely handsome with a great
    build, but inside he still remembers what it was like to be that
    skinny little boy with the big hearing aids that all the kids picked
    on!"   (I really regretted that he lived 3000 miles away and was
    about 12 or 14 yrs. younger than me, too!)
    
    Lorna
      

    Now that the buildings have seemed to stop shaking for a bit, let
    us try again....  ;)
    
    
    Relative to the amount of people on this planet, and physically
    speaking, there are dern few "plain" people (homely, if you like)
    and even less outright ugly ones (I have seen exactly TWO people
    who looked UGLY, much more who were plain).  For example, wandering
    about in our buildings here, or even on campus at school, the vast
    majority of the people I see are neither plain, nor striking, but
    not unattractive.  There are many striking (or knockouts) and some
    outstandingly attractive, but taking an overall look, there are
    a lot of people that fall well above the unattractive line of plain.
    Guess my point is is that you have to work to really find someone
    yucky (unless you look for striking)....
    
    Now, admittedly, looks are nice, but you only have to wait for the
    most gorgeous of men or women to open their mouths a few times to
    find out if they are as pretty as they seem.  A rotten apple can
    look great till you chomp into the worm.   :)
    
    kim (who has the theory that you need to visit the other side of
    the fence to gain a good perspective)
    
    

    
    Andrew...
    
    Thanks cutey! I knew you would know who I meant.
    
    Melinda...
    
    PS Yourself:....
    
    "Sweet Melinda..." of "Goddess of Gloom" fame I presume?