Conference quark::human_relations-v1

    Skip, I am sorry that the blind woman that you dated felt the way she
    did and that your relationship ended so tragically.  I'm sure it was
    very painful for you.
    
    However, when it comes to a romantic SO relationship, for me there is
    nothing to be had in having a relationship with someone who, for
    whatever reason, I don't find attractive.  I would prefer to be alone
    than to force myself to try to have a relationship with someone that I
    don't find attractive, in both personality and appearance.
    
    What I see in our exchange is:
    
    Me:  Saying, I think both a good/compatible personality and 
                 physical attractiveness are necessary for an SO
                 relationship
    
    You:  Saying, All you care about is looks, and that's terrible
    
    Skip, please understand.  Looks is not all I care about.  I think it is
    one of the ingredients needed for me to fall in love with someone, but
    it isn't the only one.  I also care about personality, beliefs,
    interests in common, etc.
    
    
    Lorna
    

    I have been following this and each time I read Lorna's replies she
    adds the suffix "to me" after the word attractive.  I can't help but
    agree with her.  I have dated many guys my girlfriends would consider
    unattractive but *I* found them attractive.  One person's dream can
    also be another person's nightmare.
    
    What bothers me are the people who need to have an SO  that the whole
    world thinks is gorgeous in an effort to feed their own shallow egos.
    
    -Roberta
    

    No, what I'm saying is that 'looks' shouldn't be in the list of
    requirments.  Looks, shouldn't matter, for a sucessful relationship,
    shouldn't have anything to do with it.  But unfortunatly, society 
    has placed so much importance on 'looks' that most people can't help 
    but put a priority on it.  You're included in that.  Very VERY few 
    people see all the media hipe about how only 'good looks' can result 
    from using things, or are required to use an item.  
    
    Television, newspapers, and more.  Politiicians care about their looks,
    staring role actors are always pretty/handsome (when was the last time you 
    saw an ugly hero/heroine?) 
    
    Hell it evens effects certain jobs anymore, ever see an
    overweight/unattractive waiter/waitress/bartender at the Bahama Beach 
    Club?  I havn't, and further, I see more and more law suits showing up 
    in the papers where people who fill 'public' oriented jobs are losing 
    those same jobs, not because they lack in qualifications for the job, 
    but because they don't 'fit' the public image the company wants to 
    project.  
    
    WHY?  Because as someone said in mail, people are stupid.  To the point 
    that they are showing what I call 'ignorant hypocrisy'.  You keep
    saying that looks aren't all that matters in forming a relationship,
    but you keep listing them as one of the things needed for a good 
    relationship... sorry but you're counterdicting yourself every time 
    you say it.  It's great it's not the only thing you require in a
    relationship, but you said yourself 
    
    >it isn't a primary requist
    
    >I can't have a sexual/emotional(might be the wrong word there)
    relationship with someone who is unattractive to me.  
    
    Thats a mixed message... if it isn't a primary request, it shouldn't be 
    stated as a necessity for a successful relationship.  Yet, you keep 
    repeating it as something you have to have in order to have a
    successful relationship.  
    
    No one has said you should 'force yourself' to seek out any kind of 
    relationship with any kind of person.  I've simply stated that it's 
    sad that society has reached the point in time where looks seem to 
    be so important that they make us pass up the qualities that create us 
    as an individual.  Ugly people (and I count myself in there) have as
    much to contribute to a successful relationship has 'attractive' people 
    do.  The thing is, instead of being able to let them offer it, you 
    hit that word 'attractiveness' and suddenly they drop the the list of 
    'relationship' to the list of 'friendship'.  So unless you define 
    attractivness to mean 'the being as a whole' instead of 'some with good 
    looks' then the best you'll get from me for anyone with these types of 
    requirements for a succesful relationship is a ironic smile and a shake 
    of my head.  For no other reason then, you've closed yourself off to 
    a large percentage of the population, who for the lack of 'bumps n'
    curves, teeth n hair' could be everything you ever wanted in a male 
    companion.  That doesn't just mean you as an individual nor does it
    mean just males or females... that means society over all as a whole
    including all of us.  And to be honest, I feel very sorry for society
    because these are the things we find important in order to have a 
    relationship.  When I first started to realize this, I started to 
    fight against it.  I find it offensive, that after several million
    years of evolution the human race is STILL filled with this type 
    of thinking.  It's SCARY because, you'd think that we'd have learned 
    by now, that our outward apparence is NOT what we are, it's nothing
    more then the shell we are shoved in at birth, and we don't always get 
    the physcial appearance that our personality should reflect.  
    
    Beleive me, physical attraction isn't all it's cracked up to be, but
    then, from the things you said about your past relationships, I'm sure 
    you realize that.  It was the physcial thing that brought you to them,
    but it was the rest of it, the personality, the PERSON that drove you 
    or them away.  
    
    Like I said, no one said you should force yourself to fall in love with 
    someone unattractive.  But maybe, being aware of the fact that you/we
    as a society have been tending to put too much stock into
    'attractiveness' and not enough stock into the rest of the qualities,
    maybe just maybe you won't be so quick to think that the 'fat guy with 
    the bald head and missing one tooth' in the corner is 'unattractive'
    maybe you might just go up and give him as much a chance to prove
    himself as you would the guy with the big shoulders and Adonis face.
    
    I guess what it all boils down to is that it just doesn't seem right
    for people to dismiss possibilites based (regardless on how they place 
    it as a pre-requist) on 'looks' when it comes to potential
    relationships.  There is more then just looks to the make up of a
    person and of all the thing that make us who we are, our physical 
    appearence is one of the things we have the LEAST amount of control
    over.  So how come we're putting so much importance on it?
    
    Skip 

    re.2
    
    But, how do you define attractive 'to you' and would you give someone 
    who's appearnce was NOT attractive to you a chance to become attractive
    via their content instead of their appearence?
    
    
    
    Surely their is someone else out there who understand why I find the 
    whole thing 'sad'.   Why I think it's a point worth discussing, and 
    can see what I'm getting at about our society and how it influences 
    us as individuals to the point where we are starting to BELIEVE in the 
    hipe?
    
    Doesn't it bother you to realize that if the shell isn't attractive,
    the soul doesn't matter regardless how 'right' it is for you?
    
    There's an old legend or myth or maybe even a religious belief about
    how we are actually created as one soul that is split in half when we 
    are born on Earth, and that we have to spend our life trying to find
    the other half of our soul, going through reincarnation until we
    finally do, then we can move on to heaven.  Considering the number of 
    unattractive people in the world, and considering the metaphor such 
    thinking represents... doesn't it bother anyone that the 'other half 
    of their soul' or 'soul mate' or 'perfect match' or 'Mr./Ms. Right'
    could be wondering around in a body that you'll never take the time 
    to get to know because you don't find it physcially attractive?
    
    Skip

    re.3 You say 'looks shouldn't matter.' Why not. They clearly *do*
    matter for a great many people, yet you insist on making a moral
    issue about something that is merely natural to most people. I get
    the sense that you're trying to imply, 'since physical attraction
    doesn't matter to me, I'm morally superior to the rest of you.'
    FWIW, I reject that notion. 
    
    Physical attraction is a _component_ of romantic attraction to
    most people. Just how important that component is can range from
    zero to a hundred percent. Some people confuse the component for 
    the whole, and some few seem happy with physical attractiveness 
    alone. What other people find attractive is not subject to your 
    moral approval or disapproval. 

    Skip,

    I've always been a RO in this file (actually not very active writer
    even in  others ;) ..) but this string really prompts me to reply.

    I guess that I can understand what you say about looks as a priority in 
    establishing relationship with people and I can almost completely agree
    with  that. What instead bothers me is the fact that *I* read in your
    words a kind of  statement like "love is <such> therefore you shouldn't
    take <that> in  consideration like you are instead doing".

    How can you say so? I mean, to me there are a full set of
    characteristics a  person must have in order for me to find her/him
    attractive (and I mean  generally speaking attractive, non necessarily
    in a romantic way). Those  characteristics go from look to personality
    and viceversa (NO priorities  implied here). How can you come in and
    pretend to sort out *MY* list and tell  me what should be first and
    what last?

    Unless of course I come over to you and say something like "Skip I'm
    awfully  sorry because of my romantic life can you help me out in
    understanding why is  it so?". But given that I can live with my
    past/present stories (with the good  and the bad in them, I mean) and I
    don't really see a problem there, well I  don't really think you should
    feel bothered by it.

    Moreover, I read in Lorna's writings something like "I liked Mr. X even
    he not  necessarily was everyone's else cup of tea". To me she wrote
    quite often  something like "*I* need to feel somebody attractive" she
    never wrote something  like "Being attractive means X and Y. Only in
    that case I can be interested in  somebody". 

    How can you define the borderline between look and personality? To me
    there is just such a strict relation between the two things that I've
    often found that a specific detail is just triggering me with a certain
    person and meaning nothing with another one. 

    On top of that, I read the word "attractive". Well It might just be
    because of my lack of good English, but to me attractive means that 'it
    attracts' not necessarily 'beautiful' or 'shaped in such and such
    a way'. The fat and bold and toothless guy you mentioned may still be
    attractive because he has wonderful eyes or an incredible smile (maybe
    even without a tooth ;) ...) or <put whatever you want here>, so what?
    
    But I guess that what came out of your replies is somehow maybe more 
    polarized than what you meant. I'm not trying to put words in your
    mouth but I still feel  that what you're basically saying is that look
    shouldn't stop anybody from  getting to know anybody else. If this
    happens it may end up in such a way  that what in the beginning was
    little attractive may become just the contrary.  If that is what you're
    saying, then I fully agree with you.

    Ciao, 
    graziella

PS: I hope any of the above sounded too harsh. If so I apologize (hate to add 
that my command of English is not good enough for this kind of subject)

    re. last two
    
    ...I couldn't say it better than you two. And for me there's another
    factor: there's only complete personalities - and looks are part of
    that. *One* example is: Why is somebody fat? (I'm not talking about any
    illnesses here). Is it because he/she is maybe totally un-disciplined,
    not interested in a healthy life? Not interested in sports? I think
    that the way people look is always a reflection of their attitudes
    towards life too. Why should I, as somebody who's intersted in arts or
    design, like somebody who has no feeling for aestehtics, who doesn't
    care about clothes or similar? That would be ignoring my own interests
    and feelings. 
    
    I think it's silly to say that looks shouldn't have anything to do with
    the success of a relationship. It depends on the people. There's people
    who are very visual types and there's others who have no feeling for
    visual aesthetics. The range - from very important to un-important.
    We#re not talking about the *quality* of people here - we're talking
    about *attraction*, which includes *sexual* attraction and sexual
    attraction has to do with looks, with the sound of a voice, with smells
    and other senses. That's not my idea, that's a proven fact, whether you
    like it or not.
    
    All this doesn't mean that tastes can't vary, they can, fortunately.
    Otherwise *all* the guys would chase *my* girlfriend...wouldn't that be
    terrible..:-)?
    
    
    sascha, from across the ocean   

    re .5, thanks, Dana, you said it well.  I agree.
    
    re .7, I agree with you, also, and with much of what .6 had to say.
    
    Skip, as Dana said, I think the fact that many, if not most people, are
    swayed by looks as an indicator of who they find attractive, to be just
    the way things are, a fact of life, that even though it may not always
    be fair, has to be aknowledged and dealt with.  *I* have had to deal
    with it as well, Skip, and I've been told that I'm a reasonably
    attractive looking person.  But, I'm short - 5'1" - and some men just
    are not attracted to short women - nothing I can do about it.  Also,
    I'm flat-chested and some men only like women with big boobs.  I've had
    to deal with it all my life.  It's the way it is.  Some men aren't
    attracted to blue-eyed blondes, and I am one.  That's the way it goes. 
    Fortunately, it does seem that almost everyone is able to appeal to
    *somebody* regardless of their looks, and that's nice to know.
    
    It is true that the closer that someone gets to looking the cover
    material for GQ or Cosmo, the more people are likely to find them
    attractive.  But, most of us don't look like magazine cover material,
    so we just do the best we can with what we've got.  That's life. 
    That's the way I see it.  If you find that sad, then so be it.  It
    tends to make me shrug my shoulders and think, "Well, I may not be Kim
    Basinger, but at least I'm a normal looking, reasonably attractive
    looking human being."
    
    And, you have no idea what *I* might find attractive about a man's
    looks.  It isn't just the face, or the body.  It can be the smile, the
    light in someone's eyes when they look at me, the way they choose to
    dress, or wear their hair.  There is a photo of Keith Richards in the
    most recent Rolling Stones magazine that I just got in the mail
    yesterday.  Now there's an example of a man, that I've heard people
    laugh and joke about his looks, but, I have always and still do
    consider him to be an attractive man.  I like his hair, I like his
    jewelry, I like the way he dresses, I like the expressions he gets on
    his face.  He's not pretty, but he's so interesting looking that I find
    him attractive.
    
    And, as far as fat, bald men go - well, I'd date Van Morrison in a
    minute!  :-)  But, that's only because he's my favorite musical genius
    and living legend, and, in his case, I honestly don't care how he
    looks.  But, he's an exception to the rule, and I would never compare
    Van Morrison to mere mortals.  :-)
    
    On the other hand, I'm sorry that you've never had a chance to find out
    that *sometimes* - just sometimes - physical attraction *is* all it's
    cracked up to be.  It may not last forever, but while it does, it can
    be damn good.  
    
    Lorna
    

This is odd - I think I agree with both sides on this.

I don't feel it's fair on myself or that I'm likely to meet the kind of people 
I would want to meet if I limit my interest in people to only those with a 
traditionally pretty face and a traditionally good body. 

I also wouldn't want to sleep with someone who I found physically/sexually 
unattractive.

A relationship hopefully doesn't always start with a leaping into bed or with
that in mind.  Normally there's some time of some length, be it longer or 
shorter, to get to know someone a bit - to find out what feelings they as a 
whole person bring out in you.  

If the effect that person has on you is that you find them sexually attractive 
(I guess my definition of that is that you'd like to have sex with them) then 
I guess it's not unreasonable to ask that that feeling is present before you 
do sleep with them?

Surely having sex with someone you instinctively don't want to have sex with is 
rather like raping yourself and using their body to do it with?


Personally I've found that I've ended up incredibly physically attracted to 
all the people I've been involved with mainly because it stemmed from the 
relationship I had with them on a non-physical level.  There have been 
people who I haven't been as keen on the first persona they put over to 
people they don't know too well and correspondingly found them unattractive
when they were interested in me, then as I've got to know them better I've 
found them more and more attractive and ended up in what were very nice 
relationships with someone who initially couldn't've attracted me if I'd 
tried and eventually I craved physical closeness with.

    I think some of you are not reading everything I'm saying...
    
    First, I don't consider myself morally above anyone in here... never 
    have never will.  I lead my own life style and it's not for me to 
    say if your's is better or worse then mine. I am saying that it's sad 
    that physcial characteristics like a wart on the nose can mean so much 
    to a relationship that people won't give others a chance to 'be someone 
    special' in that relationship.  Don't think i'm not aware of physcial
    beauty, because I am, crips I'd be a sad artist if I couldn't
    appreciate a well turned leg or figure.  But as an artist there is
    beauty in EVERYTHING including the things you find 'unattractive' it's 
    just a matter of seeing it.  However, the society today save for a few 
    individuals are taught from the start that 'physcial attractiveness is 
    the primary gift of god' so to speak.  Or don't any of you watch TV and 
    wonder about how physcial characteristics are portrayed in certian
    characters?  Why are heavy people jovial or comedy relief?  Why is it 
    that only slender n' slinky models where Navy perfume? Why is it the 
    guy who gives that girl flowers is always a cousin of Adonis?  
    
    
    2nd some of you are getting 'physcial attractiveness' mixed up with the 
    attractiveness that manifests when you get to know someone's
    personality and allow it to 'show you' what they look like.
    
    3rd, I WILL agree that when you look at someone you can judge certain 
    characteristics about them from their appearance.  And can make some 
    assessments from it, like if they enjoy bike riding/exercise/sports.
    BUT, to way the results of a reltionship soley on appearnces is also 
    wrong unless your ONLY interest is to find someone to participate in 
    sports with you.  What I'm saying is when you.. no WE as a society 
    evaluate people... let put too much stock in 'physical attractiveness' 
    as a means to determine if the person is worth knowing.  
    
    When was the last time you walked into a bar, or a night club, or a 
    comedy club, and sat down next to the ugliest guy in the place, and
    started a conversation... just for the sake of getting to know him?
    And after that, when did you go out in front of the world and let him
    dance with you?  Just to have a good time.  Things like that bother 
    me and yeah, I guess I feel that morally society as a whole has screwed 
    up in their evaluations of people.  
    
    You read more and more in the paper where people are fired from jobs 
    because they don't fit the company image of physical attractiveness.
    You see more and more where politicians are elected to office because 
    they are physcially more attractive and personable then the person they 
    are running against (caught that on an interview on T.V... Man in the 
    street: "Who are you going to vote for?" Woman: "Clinton" MITS: "Care 
    to explain why?"  Woman: "Well, Bush is old and getting kind of (don't 
    remember adjective use my own) frompy looking, and Perot has big ears."
    You see on TV and at movies (video's) where UGLY means 'BAD GUY' over
    weight means 'Comedy' and anyone with intelligence must be GOOD
    LOOKING.  It's pretty much standard casting formula and only on very 
    rare occasions do they break these molds that they've 'type cast' the 
    world into.  
    
    And I still say it SCARES me, but my son, and the rest of the world.
    
    Don't get me wrong here either, I'm not proposing 'censorship' on the
    media, I'm saying that WE as a society should stop hiping the perfect 
    body so much and try and find ways to start saying that there's more 
    to people then that 'physical attractiveness' because if we don't, 
    then the step to follow is going to MEETING those standards for
    everyone.  Hell we already are, at least those who feel a need for it,
    everything from seeking the dentist who will give us a perfect smile,
    to the plastic surgeon who can give us the perfect 'physical apparence'
    Lyphosuction, tummy tucks, butt tucks, leg sculptureing, platic add
    ons, artifical removels.  Is it me or is the world getting crazy with 
    all this?  They found that silicon breast implants something that was 
    originally designed for women who have a breast removal for cancer or
    other reasons, is dangerous.  Suddenly I see women who are knock dead 
    gorgeous going in to have implants removed from BOTH breast???? Because
    they need bigger ones?  Because society has reached a point where we
    demand the perfect breast of women???????  Good grief!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    If WE didn't 'worship' the perfect body so much, and considered other 
    things as a primary concern, would it have mattered so much to these 
    women to go to that sort of trouble?  I dunno, I still think we've all
    got it messed up somehow.  I hear you all talking, and in some ways 
    you're agreeing with me in different respects or perceiving something 
    I say one way and trying to argue it.  But in some respects, I think
    I'm the only one who 'gets it' and the rest of you don't like to admit 
    that you care too much about how someone looks on your arm to take the
    trouble to find out if they are compatable.  I hear single women
    complain a lot about how 'there are no good men out there' but when I 
    watch them in bars, they'd rather be with the stud that fits their idea 
    of physcial attractiveness instead of the guy with the qualities they 
    need to have a long term relationship.  But what amazes me even more,
    is I can listen to the same type of complaints from my 'buds'.  There 
    just aren't any 'worthy' females out there.  
    
    There ARE worthy females and males out there, just quit being so
    narrowed minded to attribute physical attractiveness as the first thing 
    that makes you decide if you're going to talk to them or not.
    
    Well, enough preaching.  I've been accused of trying to make one person
    live up to my morals and trying to set myself up as 'morally superior'
    to everyone else.  I didn't start this conversation to be accused of 
    such, I started it to point out the problems people are having with 
    things that bother them, like "Why can't I find a food 'long term'
    relationship?"  Well a real good possiblity is you automatically 
    elminate a good 75% of the population without even thinking about it.
    Simply because they don't 'look good' to you, and ONLY because they 
    don't 'look good'... sorry there's something definatly WRONG with that.
    
    ONe other thing, there was a comment about not sleeping with someone 
    becasue they weren't physically/sexually attractive to the person.
    physical attration and sexual attraction can and sometimes are two 
    different things.  It doesn't happen often but there ARE other people 
    in the world who see things the same way as I do.  ANd even understand 
    what I'm saying about 'WE' as a society tend to put too much stock in 
    physical attraction and not enough into the person inside the 'shell'.
    
    THanks for your time, I know I've gotten some things out this to 
    think about.  I hope the rest of you have too.  I know you don't 
    necessarily agree with my views and if I've given the impression that 
    I consider myself 'superior' to anyone because you don't, that was 
    never my intention.  I just see the world with different 'eyes' is all
    I don't consider my outlooks better then anyone elses... just
    different.
    
    Skip

    Umm in re-reading the previous entry I see a LOT of typos, and
    grammatic errors, a case of my brain running faster then my fingers.
    
    If anything seems confusing, ask about it and I'll try to clarify what 
    I was saying.
    
    
    Sorry!
    
    Skip

    Skip, in an attempt to further explain how I see this, for me whether I
    find someone attractive enough is not an intellectual decision.  I
    don't look at someone and say, "No, this person is not who I see
    walking on my arm, or as my husband."  For me, it's more of a gut
    reaction that no amount of intellectualizing can really ever change.  I
    don't care what anybody else thinks about a person's looks when that
    person walks into a room with me.  All I care about is how I feel about
    the person, especially when it comes time to get physical.  There have
    been certain people who, although they didn't immediately appeal to me
    on the basis of looks, I later found attractive.  However, there is a
    limit to that.  There are certain types of looks that regardless of how
    much I might like the individual's personality, I am never going to
    want to have a relationship with that person, simply because I dislike
    their appearance so much.  There are some looks I just can't get
    beyond, and it isn't an intellectual decision.  To be honest, it's pure
    physical reflex.  In other words, I would barf my guts out at the
    thought of making love to some people, just based on their looks.  As I
    said before it would be like trying to force myself to eat vomit.  Why
    bother, if I can possibly eat lobster, or a piece of broiled haddock? 
    And, if the women's movement has taught me anything it's that I should
    never feel compelled to have sex with anyone that I don't want to have
    sex with.  So, I don't think it's fair of you to attempt to pass moral
    judgement on me just because I don't want to force myself to try to
    have sex with men I think are creepy looking.  
    
    You say that it would be a better world if I, and everyone, were
    oblivious to looks, but that just isn't the case.  I do want my dates
    to be attractive, and I don't think I should have to be made to feel
    immoral because I don't want to force myself to have sex with men with
    whom the very thought would make me nauseous. Surely, if we have the
    freedom of choice in anything in our lives, it should be the freedom to
    choose who we want to have sex with and why.
    
    So, if looks don't matter at all to you, fine.  That certainly broadens
    the pickings for you.  Go for it.  I'm happy with my own way of seeing
    things.
    
    Lorna
    

A passing thought on cover girls I tend to think of the looks of cover girls
not to be superior to others just judged to be by the marketing people 
most likely to appeal to and be found attractive by the largest number of 
people in the target audience.. 


Jo

I can't see how anyone heterosexual or homosexual can claim that physical
attractiveness does not influence who they find attractive, given that there's
a huge section of the population that they would really rather not want to
go to bed with.


+Mark+

    I say once again, 
    
    
    I AM NOT PASSING MORAL JUDGEMENT ON YOU!  
    
    
    Sheesh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    
    
    Got it?  
    
    
    
    Now I also said a couple times that I don't work the same way you do, 
    I AM aware that the world doesn't work the way I think it should with 
    'looks' being ignored.  But don't you agree, that maybe JUST MAYBE 
    the world WOULD really be a little better off if we COULD all put 
    this consistent hammering of 'GOOD LOOKS' aside and start realizing 
    the other quailities people have?  
    
    Several professional physichiatrists and psychologist have written
    books based on the subject of looks in relationships and have stated 
    that the BEST realtionships for women tend to be with men that are not 
    6 ft, 180 lbs, blue eyed blond haired tight butted, wide shouldered, 
    well sculptured slightly bronzed glimming smiled sexually alluring 
    great in bed studs.  Or reasonable/close approximations there of.
    
    IN fact, for the most part, the thing that really perplexes me with 
    all of it is that the 'uglier' a person is (generally speaking mind
    you) the more sincerity, trust, willingness to 'relate', sensitivity,
    emotional strength they tend to have.  THis is in relationships where
    in the women are lovely bits of fluff and the men are 'vomit causes'.
    
    And further more its' proven that our conceptualization of 'Good Looks'
    is directly effected by media hype.  
    
    Thus the change in what was considered by society as a whole to be 
    good looking 'Mae West' (she's a good example, slightly overweight
    and all) was a sex goddess once upon a time, but now it's someone else.
    Make ups styles from the 40's would only be considered 'gross' by women 
    today.  And the make ups styles were effected by the make up used in 
    silent movies (a dark eye liner and shadowing was used on the eyes to 
    bring them out because the lights and such used for these movies and
    the type of picture develpment techniques used back then had a tendency 
    to 'wash out' the eyes.  Since no one could actually talk, it was
    necessary to WATCH facial expressions and the eyes rolling, fluttering,
    winking, looking up down or to the side, were essential to the
    'action') influenced the make up women wore.  Today if you wore make 
    up comperable with the styles from the silent movie era, you'd be 
    laughed at.
    
    NOW do you see what I'm trying to say?  
    
    Hell I KNOW the world doesn't work that way... We ALL know it doesn't
    but a lot of it is simply because we don't know better.  
    
    Our 'appreciation' of beauty is NOT a natural reaction.  We are TAUGHT 
    what beauty is.  That's why people from different countries don't
    understand why various forms of 'beauty' in one country are so
    unappeling to us.  A real good example would be all the make up the
    traditional Japaness woman would wear for a formal function, the white
    face eye liner, lipstick, and black wig are considered tradtional but
    also beautiful by the men there, who find the rouge, lipstick eyeshadow
    and such that American women wear repulsive and even ugly at a formal 
    function (I have first hand experience with this when I worked laison 
    with the JMSDF and USN in Misawa Japan).  
    
    So I guess what I'm REALLY getting at is that if we were taught
    differently, to consider beauty as somthing that ISN'T related to the 
    skin, maybe we'd ALL be a bit better off.   However, so long as people 
    get getting devensive about personal values, instead of trying to
    figure out a way to change them.  Welll society has STILL got a long 
    way to go when it comes to social development, relationships,
    attractiveness, and the rest of the items you look at when you consider 
    life with someone.  
    
    Dat.... Dat's what *I* think.  Again, I DON'T feel morally superior to
    you or any one individual.  What *I* feel is sorry for the way our 
    society has developed, to the point where we teach ourselves that 
    beauty is all... without you're nothing.  
    
    Something I do think is that I've been able to some extent, look
    through the hype call IT ugly and understand that if we can teach 
    our kids something different then we've learned, then the world CAN 
    change.  And that includes the consepts of how important 'looks' are in 
    a relationship.  
    
    You say it's natural, I say it's learned behavior and as with all forms 
    of learned behavior, a little hard work and effort can 'un-learn' it.  
    Don't ask me to tell you HOW to do that, I'm not a psychologist or
    psychiatrist and havn't the faintest notion of HOW to go about doing
    it.  Maybe it starts but taking a look at someone and instead of saying 
    to yourself 'He'd make me vomit' finding something that IS attractive 
    about him.  A friend of mine is a womanizer, I mean this guy LOVES
    woman... his view on it is simply 'there's only ugly parts on a woman,
    but they ALL have something beautiful too.  So you concentrate on
    that.'  (This from a general conversation one afternoon with several
    other guys about the woman we were dating, one of the guys made a
    comment about the 'Dog' he was dating and that was his comment).
    
    Maybe that's the key maybe not.  Maybe it's all just one more grandious 
    scheme like the stuff that happened in the 60's th 
    

    I once read that in the Middle Ages people who were unattractive were
    thought to be evil inside as well. ("The face is the mirror of the
    soul.")
    
    Are we Westerners are still stuck with a leftover hybrid of this 
    myth, and is it wreaking mischief in our relationships? 
    
    The older I get, I'm beginning to think so. I have been attracted to
    various women who were not good for me at all. I'm learning to broaden
    my defintion of "attractive," believe me. 

    For what it's worth, I hear you Skip, and I understand.  I agree
    it would be nice if things weren't the way they are.  We have all
    been conditioned to put more of an emphasis on physical beauty 
    than I feel is healthy.  I don't fit many people's idea of what's
    attractive, and have been ridiculed for my looks, as well as passed
    over as somehow "unworthy" of getting to know, based solely on an
    outside appearance.
    
    ...ah, would that it were different......what a very interesting
    place this might be then.
    
    bright blessings,
    -HA

    re .15, Skip, I think there's a big difference between wanting one's
    SO's to look like Mel Gibson or Kim Basinger, that is, drop dead
    gorgeous, and wanting to be able to feel physically attracted to our
    partner's.  For example, if my idea of an attractive date is someone
    like Dustin Hoffman, or Keith Richards, but I would consider John Candy
    or Danny DeVito to be barf material, I don't think that means that I
    think looks are the most important thing in the world.  I think it
    would simply illustrate my personal taste in men.  I think we all have
    certain preferences for certain physical types, whether we try to
    overcome it out of necessity, or idealism, or not.
    
    I agree that looks have been over emphasized in our society.  I think
    it is wrong that people are sometimes judged on the basis of looks for
    political positions or jobs.  However, when it comes to personal love
    relationships, I see nothing wrong with people taking looks into
    account.  I don't wish people wouldn't.  I don't even especially think
    the world would be a better place if people didn't.  This is not to say
    that I think looks are everything.  I think you have me confused with
    someone who does.
    
    Lorna
    

    .18> I agree that looks have been over emphasized in our society.  I think
       > it is wrong that people are sometimes judged on the basis of looks for
       > political positions or jobs.  However, when it comes to personal love
       > relationships, I see nothing wrong with people taking looks into
       > account.  I don't wish people wouldn't.  I don't even especially think
       > the world would be a better place if people didn't.
    
    Bingo!  I think there's something instinctual about attraction, and I
    don't wanna mess with Mother Nature.
    
       > but I would consider John Candy or Danny DeVito to be barf material
    
    I can dig it!  But you know what, in (I think it was) "The Great
    Outdoors", there was a funny, tender scene between John Candy's character
    & his character's wife (sort of an unexpected afternoon-delight kind of
    scene) and I found myself reassessing his attractiveness quotient!
    
    Leslie  

    RE .16 & .17... THanks someone DOES see what I'm trying to get at.
    
    
    I've written a reply twice to .18 with some explainations aimed at 
    a couple of comments in .19 but this dumb system keeps kicking me out 
    before I can get it entered, so I'll write it up and put it in later
    (tomorrow)...
    
    Lorna, you've said a few things that still bug me however, I want to 
    mention that I think one thing that's being confused here is the 
    definition of 'phsycial actractivenss' and 'physcial attraction' which 
    are two different terms all together.   I'll explain what I mean in 
    my next reply.  
    
    Right now, I'm just too tired to work on it... time to take a nap (I 
    wish!)
    
    Skip
    

    One thing that has not been brought out in the nature of the physical
    attributes that `one' finds attract-ive.  If I say I'm drawn to men
    with the following physical attributes, am I really talking about a
    man's outside?
    
    eyes - intelligent, direct, twinkling
    mouth - firm
    chin - ditto
    hair - clean, well-groomed
    posture - not droopy
    nails - clean, not chewed
    
    							Ann B.

    Well, part of that is 'hygiend' and that would be an entirely different 
    subject.  Although hygiene does attribute to physcial appearences, it's
    one of the physcial aspects that we all can have control over.  Posture
    is in MOST cases the same way, however, in those cases where it's a 
    deformity, I don't think it should matter.  
    
    The 'firm' I can't comment on because in reality I never could figure 
    out what a person meant by 'firm mouth' or 'firm chin'.. hard lips and 
    clenched teeth?
    
    
     For the most part you've described 'personality traits' rather then
    actual physical 'looks' and theres a difference between the two.  I
    never met a person yet who's eyes REALLY twinkled, the expriesion seems 
    to me to actually regard certain facial expressions that suggest mirth,
    a sense of humour, or perhaps a mischieveious personality.  They are 
    'characteristics' and although they CAN and often DO effect 'personal 
    attractiveness' I think they fall into a catagory that more along the 
    lines of 'clues to a personality' such as expressed earlier about a 
    person being 'heavy' being interpeted to mean they don't enjoy physcial 
    sports.   I mean phsycially we all have visual characteristics that can
    project clues to our inner personalities, grease under finger nails can 
    suggest a love of cars or mechancial inclinations.  Taped fingers could 
    suggest someone who enjooys working with stained glass (I KNOW about
    this one, someday I'll wear gloves but then I don't have the 'control'
    I need.) 
    
    See what I mean?
    
    Skip

    I understand what Skip's saying...and for what it's worth...I've been
    out with the drop dead hunks as described so wonderfully by Skip in...
    was it .14 hun?  Most of them didn't have an IQ bigger than their shoe
    size.   Ah well....
    
    ;-))
    
    Lynne
    

    re .23, yes, but just because a person takes looks somewhat into
    account, along with personality, doesn't mean that a person is only
    interested in dating hunks.  It only means that the person would like
    to date people they find attractive, and I see nothing wrong with that.
    
    Lorna
    

    It seems to me that the minute a person says that they want to be able
    to consider their SO attractive, Skip immediately leaps to the
    conclusion that the person only wants to date hunks that could grace
    the cover of GQ, and that just isn't the case.  It only means that the
    person would like to date someone reasonably appealing, instead of
    someone whose appearance repels them.  Skip doesn't appear to be able
    to see any middle ground betweeing a woman wanting to date hunks, and
    being willing to date extremely homely men, and there *is* a middle
    ground, and, in fact, most people fall into that middle ground.
    
    Lorna
    

    Skip,

    
>    Basically the discussion dealves into physical/sexual attraction 
>    vs. 'other attributes' and which one makes the better relationship.


    	I haven't had time to read every reply in great detail, but I've
    more or less followed this line of thought.  I apologize in advance if
    I duplicate other folks thoughts.


    	One of the issues at hand Skip is you've used the word "should".
    Generally, when you do this in this type of context you are either
    trying to tell people how they should live, or passing judgement on
    them.  This will never fly.  Perhaps you meant something else, and if
    so it would be better to couch your thoughts differently.


    	You say that looks don't matter to you in terms of how attractive a
    person is to you.  I applaud you for this.  Lorna has stated something
    slightly different, and I applaud her.  The point is, each of us has
    our own agenda, and each is perfectly valid.  That's the beautiful part
    of life, making our choices and taking our own paths.  There is much to
    be learned from the differences between us, and for that reason (and
    others) I celebrate those differences.  Rather than rail because other
    don't share your views, think about those other views and see if you
    can learn from it.  I find that almost no matter how disparate
    someone's views are from mine, there is usually *something* I can
    learn.  Even if it's simply that I don't ever want to agree with them.
    ;-)


    	As long as I am at peace with my choices, and happy with how I live
    my life, that's what's most important to me.  I cannot say that looks
    don't enter into at all into how attractive someone is to me, because
    they do.  It's a fairly small part, relatively speaking, but it's
    there.  However, even if I'm "wrong" and you're "right", it's still my
    choice and I'm allowed to make it.


    	Conversely, some women find me attractive; others do not.  If
    someone doesn't I don't rant and rave and call them a bad person, I
    simply realize they are looking for something different.  This need not
    be a personal attack on me.  I'm secure enough to let this flow on by.
    What's most important is that *I'm* happy with how I look.


    	Attractive is a subjective term.  I often find women attractive
    that my friends do not; And the reverse is true too.  I've often felt
    that I see things differently than most people.  But then I've never
    minded being different.  At any rate, your statement above is difficult
    to comment on objectively because "attractive" is subjective and
    "better" is subjective.


    	In the long run, I don't think there's any question (for me) that
    personality is most important to the successful running of a
    relationship.  Which is why personality plays such a big part in my
    mind, because personalities are so much harder to change than looks.
    But do I want to separate the two?  No way.


    Brian

    
    	I think that there's some goodness in each kind.
    
    	I mean, there's this biological bonding mechanism we have, which 
    probably at its root takes physical attributes into account. Like when 
    you *see* someone of the opposite sex and...you somehow feel - at an 
    almost "metaphysical" level - an uncanny attraction to them. I believe
    this "pull" you feel is actually a "biological bonding" to them as
    someone who would be an ideal being to, er, "make a baby with". 
    
    	That's just Nature at work within us; we all have this biological
    bonding mechanism to some degree because Nature wants babys. Of
    course, *of course* it's going to be responsive to attributes that are 
    solely in the physical domain because it so often starts with an 
    observation; you "see" them and then react or respond. 
    
    	Skip talked about an interesting situation; what if you're blind?
    What if you cant see; you have no means of observing physical aspects
    of someone at all. Well, nature still wants to make babys, so the
    mechanism of attraction might simply swap its initial context of
    operation from an observable "physical appearance" to...
    
    	Maybe how someone *sounds* - the sound of his or her voice! Maybe to
    how someone smells - "the smell when she's around just..."! Perhaps it
    chooses to operate in the intellectual context instead - the way she or
    he thinks...all they know and wonder about! Maybe it also can work
    in the context of observed emotions; "I dont know what he looks like, 
    but the heart this man has! Ooooooh!" 
    
    	Maybe the truth is that *all* the contexts that a biological bonding 
    mechanism might work within are just as valid as an attraction based
    solely in any one way! Maybe - since most of us here are not blind - it's 
    not so much a matter of one kind "vs" another; it's a matter of getting
    a balance between all the ways that one's inate nature might be
    attracted to another person of the opposite sex - as we grow and
    mature. A teenage boy's "pubescent" level of what he finds attractive
    in a woman might just be perfectly appropriate for that time of life.
    
	It's so hard not to judge someone else at whatever point they're at
    in this growth and maturity. Even in saying that someone who's with
    the drop dead hunk that's brainlesss and heartless "hasnt got any
    balance". Or saying someone is "as bad off" because they're with someone 
    that's barf-ugly and smells bad - yet they just happen to have the
    most beautiful sounding voice that person's ever heard! 
    
    	Basically, whatever attractiveness works for someone - different
    contexts in any proportion - is no less valid than what works for
    someone else. It's only different - and because it's not like what 
    *your* take on it is - they're wierd - and you can argue with them about 
    it here.
    
    	Joe

As promised, Brain, and Ann and couple of other folks, I realize it seems 
    I'm personally attacking Lorna, here where I'm at, I don't 'Feel' it's 
    to cause her a problem, or anything personal, she set up a line of 
    words on a screen and I reacted to them.  My real feelings aside from 
    the discussion and debate, is that if I ever meet her face to face,
    I hope 1) she don't slap me silly.  and 2) we can be friends with
    different points of view on some things.  It really isn't anything 
    personal on her, it's the line of thought, and I don't want anyone 
    to think I'm trying to 'Twist' the way they view the world to my way
    of looking at it.  I WOULD like people to be more aware of how they 
    view the world.  And more then anything else, that's the basis of the 
    discussion, I keep pointing out things, and I keep making the statment
    that I do not consider my morals 'above anyone elses' just different.
    But I've spent several years trying to veiw things from other peoples 
    side of life, (partly because I like to write stories and poems) and 
    the statements I'm making are based on observations, and things that 
    I find personally kind of sad.  If I raise my voice, point out that 
    I find it sad, or shocking, maybe someone else will take the time to 
    try and see it from my point of view, and we BOTH walk out a little
    more aware of how we are looking at the world.  
    
    That's my view on my comments and if I'm wrong in it, then maybe I 
    should go ahead and shut up.  But then I'd feel like I left something 
    incomplete.  I don't like things left 'incomplete' so once I feel that 
    the subject has gone as far as it can... I'll probably write up some 
    sort of 'summery' on my views, apolgize for taking up everyone's time
    on this, and 'get the heck out of Dodge!' 
    
    Lorna, before reading the below, keep in mind that I am ENJOYING the 
    conversation and debate... not getting frustrated or upset, I'm
    learning things and overall, THAT says a lot more about what you are 
    saying and have said, then anything else I can offer to you.  As long 
    as I'm learning something, then I don't feel the 'attack' is
    unwarranted, UNLESS... I'm causing you to get angry or frustrated...
    
    If that is the case, then let me apologize now, offer you my posterior 
    to kick, and my hand to shake.  I DON'T want to cause anyone any grief 
    or anger over this.  I WANT to learn something from it, and maybe in 
    the process teach something too.
    
    Skip
    
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
>    re .15, Skip, I think there's a big difference between wanting one's
>    SO's to look like Mel Gibson or Kim Basinger, that is, drop dead
>    gorgeous, and wanting to be able to feel physically attracted to our
>    partner's.  For example, if my idea of an attractive date is someone
>    like Dustin Hoffman, or Keith Richards, but I would consider John Candy
>    or Danny DeVito to be barf material, I don't think that means that I
>    think looks are the most important thing in the world.  I think it
>    would simply illustrate my personal taste in men.  I think we all have
>    certain preferences for certain physical types, whether we try to
>    overcome it out of necessity, or idealism, or not.
 
Me thinks (he says as a light bulb flashes over his head) thou art confusing 
physical attractiveness and physical attraction.  Wherein attractiveness is 
"Wow whatta great looking man/woman! I'd like to......" and attraction is 
something else some call it 'chemistry, electricity, a spark, karma, and it
can somtimes transcend attractiveness "I don't know why I'm attracted to him/her
he's/she's big, dumb, and ugly but there's something about him/her that I'm
attracted to."  Two completly different things.   
 
>I don't think that means that I think looks are the most important thing in the 
>world. I think it would simply illustrate my personal taste in men.  I think 
>we all have certain preferences for certain physical types, whether we try to 
>overcome it out of necessity, or idealism, or not.
 
  >  I agree that looks have been over emphasized in our society.  I think
  >  it is wrong that people are sometimes judged on the basis of looks for
  >  political positions or jobs.  However, when it comes to personal love
  >  relationships, I see nothing wrong with people taking looks into
  >  account.  


>this is not to say that I think looks are everything.

What I keep getting from these statements and some simular ones you've made 
earlier is that you don't think looks are important unless the person doesn't 
measure up to your ideals of physcial attraction, then suddenly they ARE,
simply because you catagorize the prospective male as being 'unworthy of 
romantic envolvment and only good for a friend.'  It's an oxymorum... 
Either the looks aren't important at all, or they are important enough to 
make you catagorize males into 'romantic possibility, or friendship only'
weither you're aware of it or not.  Seems to me, that looks ARE important
to you because you make a life time decision about people as soon as you 
meet them.  

>	I don't wish people wouldn't.  I don't even especially think
>    the world would be a better place if people didn't.  This is not to say
>    that I think looks are everything.  I think you have me confused with
>    someone who does.


Think about what you've said to me, and reconsider things a little, you're 
right, we all seem to be attracted to certain physical characteristics,
but those characteristics change from one generation to the next, based 
on current fashions for years Mae West was the ideal woman, now she'd be 
considered 'Over weight' my comments on fashion and physcial looks 
means just what I said, we LEARN our 'physical attractions' when you mean
those physcial characteristics that define 'beauty' such as hight, weight,
shape, hair style, makeup, build, etc.  

As to this...

>I don't wish people wouldn't.  I don't even especially think the world would 
>be a better place if people didn't.
   
Stop and think about it though...

1) a lot of people would grow up without the insecurities they have now 
because they wouldn't be subject to the ridicule they get when growing up.

2) there would be a lot less lonely people in the world because suddenly 
theMore people would go out for a 'good time' at night because they wouldn't 
have to be self counscieous about their appearence.

4) All the frustrations of looking for that 'perfect someone' would be 
drastically reduced because it wouldn't matter if they met the 'looks 
criteria' anymore.  

5) I honestly think there'd even be less brutality in the world because 
so many folks who walk around with a chip on their shoulder, woulnd't have 
that chip anymore... it got there because they were sensitive to some 
'deformity' that caused 'uglyness' and someone made a comment on it.

You honestly don't think it would make much of a difference?

I'd argue that point on and on because if nothing else, this arguement 
would never have taken place.


Finally... Leslie made a comment about John Candy and his 'sexaul attractivness'
A girlfriend of mine made a simular comment about Danny DeVito in 'Other 
Peoples Money' (Danny D. and John C. are BOTH prime examples of type casting 
by the way... short ugly... give him comedy roles, Big Fat, make him funny.
BOTH have done work outside these stereo types, but not much of it was 
recognized, even though they were BOTH excellent in those roles).  In both
situations, these two actors became 'sexually attractive' because the writer
of these movies allowed the audience to look past the physical appearances 
and see a bit of the 'inner being' of both characters.  When it happened 
they weren't quiet so 'repulsive' or 'barffy looking' if you will.  Simply
because there was that insight... the audience however HAD to look inside
because they were wrapped into the story by then.  BUT, if it had been a 
case of choice or real life.... both would have been written off as ugly
and we'd have gone on about our business.  


Okay, I've hounded you specifically Lorna, BUT mostly because your comment 
was the last one I'd read bringing out these issues, I've seen and heard 
a LOT of other folks out there making the same statements.  'Looks don't
really matter to me..... ME? Go out with him?  UG! He's too ugly!"

Like I said before it SCARES me... and further, this insistence about 
physically attractive characteristics appeal' being 'instinct' is a load 
of B.S.  this is NOT instinct, and to prove it all you have to do is 
look at the various cultures in this world and what they perceieve as 
beauty compared to what you personally perceive as beauty.  WE LEARN 
what we consider to be beautiful... from our peers, family, and the MEdia.

ANd I maintain that if we can learn it, we can with some effort, unlearn it.
We just need to take the time to get the soaps suds used to brain wash our 
perceptions out of our heads.  The problem is we start learning this at 
birth and don't become mature enough to realize what it is, until it's so 
ingrained that it's thought to be 'instinctive'.  

Skip

    Hey Skip...I wonder what you look like..:-))) (actually I know 'cause
    I've seen a photo..:-)
    
    But I can't help it...I always fall in love with the most beautiful woman
    on the planet. The one I'm with is definitely the most beautiful one. I
    didn't know when I met her first, but now I know!
    
    sascha

    First Physcial attraction is very important to attract yourself to that
    person, but once you get to know them, you have to click, on the
    emotional and intellectual level as well or it just wont work out.
    There has to be that spark between two poeple!!
    
    As far as attraction everyone has different tastes in what they like,
    some like blondes, others brunettes, some like tall some like small,
    some like thin some like plump......beauty is in the eyes of the
    beholder :')

    
     Maybe since we no longer have to copulate with the biggest, fastest,
    strongest to propregate the species, the new criteria has become
    copulation with the most attractive for social purposes. Maybe everyone
    should try coupling with the most intelligent since we are becoming
    such an electronic society.
    
    TC
    

Something I consider whenever I am in an emotionally dead state: perhaps
this 'instantaneous clicking' feeling should be suppressed! It seems to lead
to these disasterous relationships that are often chronicled here (although
I'm sure they are plenty of nice relationships too).

Sometimes I feel that these ludicrous emotions that we sanction by labelling 
'love' (which have little to do with caring, consideration or anything thing that
receives the same label in the context of a friendship or relationship with a 
memory of a family) are a bad thing. Unfortuately a bad thing that feels really
good. 

Should one risk one's life by giving in to a feeling that defies logic? 


One of my friends avoids getting involved in physical relationships with people
she really cares about to avoid this 'love' thing: she makes friends with the 
people she  likes being with, has sex with the people she finds physically 
attracted to, and basically has a lot of fun planning her own life without being 
swayed by the interests of a partner. I used to think she was missing out on
a lot by never falling in love, but really, is it worth it? Is it a good thing
that she has separated physical and intellectual attraction totally so as not
to confuse them? 

+Mark+ 

    re .33, whatever works for her.  If she doesn't think she's missing
    anything, and if she isn't hurting the people she's dealing with, then
    I don't see a problem with it.  
    
    I've known men I was intellectually attracted to, or attracted to as
    friends, and men I was only or mostly physically attracted to, but I've
    always thought the best relationships were when it was a fairly even
    mixture of both physical and intellectual attraction.  When it's only
    one or the other I always feel that something is missing.  But, your
    friend may not care.
    
    Lorna
    

    re .29, Skip, don't worry.  If we ever meet I won't attempt to slap you
    silly.  I'm not prone to physical violence.  :-)
    
    I agree that there is a difference, for me,  between someone being 
    conventionally good looking and  someone being attractive.  What I've
    been saying all along is that I have to find my SO's attractive.  I
    have not been saying that my SO's have to be conventionally good
    looking.  But, it has seemed to *me* that you didn't pick up on that. 
    It has seemed to me that when I said that I had to find my SO's
    attractive, you would turn around and accuse me of wanting my SO's to
    be conventionally good looking, which is not the case.  What I am
    saying is that I need to find a man physically attractive, there has to
    be chemistry between us, for me to fall in love.  I am not saying that
    he has to be conventionally good looking.
    
    So, do you need to feel attracted to your SO's in order to fall in
    love?  Do you need to feel chemistry?
    
    The difference between us may be that I consider looks to be a part of
    what makes someone seem attractive to me, along with personality,
    style, and whether I think the person is a decent, good person.  It's
    all part of the package.  
    
    It sounds to me, though, that you have been saying, that to you, looks
    don't play any part at all in who you find attractive.
    
    Lorna
    

    
    
    Bingo!
    
    Conventional good looks don't 'figure in' with what I consider to be 
    attractive, and from what I've seen around me, it DOES play TOO much of 
    a part in a large precentage of people.... who then wonder why the 
    can't have a successful long term relationship with an SO.
    
    I've gone a long time letting 'chemistry' work for me, and don't take 
    much stock in it anymore if, (as in my current relationship) it's there
    that's great and adds a bit more spice to my feelings, but, when the 
    chemistry isn't there initially, I don't 'back away' or recatagorize
    the potential of it developing later.  
    
    Now as for 'I'm not prone to physical violence'  Suddenly I get the 
    feeling you're like a math teacher I used to have, he was never prone 
    to physical violence either, whenever I did someone did something wrong in
    class he'd have them work out Pi to the last decimal.  Well at least 
    for the rest of the day.  Then check the numbers to be sure they were 
    correct.  
    
    ;-)
    Skip 
    
    

    I can honestly say that I think that the relationships I have tried to
    have with people for whom I didn't feel an initial chemistry, or
    attraction, have resulted in more unpleasant experiences, overall, than
    have the relationships where there was an initial feeling of chemistry
    and attraction, therefore I continue to consider chemistry and
    attraction to be essential in a couple relationship.
    
    Lorna
    

A few years ago (well, about 4!) I was completely in love.  The 
chemistry was amazing!!  It was a 2 year thing, and I would've 
married him and had his children and all that (and believe me - 
I *HATE* babies!!!!) and done just about anything for him!  

I got out a photo of him a few weeks ago.  What a wrinkle-bonce!!  
(He was 10 years older than me)  And I thought he looked
just like some bloke you might see down the pub.  Nothing special.
But in my memory he is DAMN good looking!!  I guess it must be
that something that can't be captured in a photo - the way someone
walks, the way they think.....  Photos in mags don't do much for
me, (although "For Women" was good for a laugh!!!! ;o) ) - I'd
prefer to watch Mel Gibson on as big a screen as possible, thank
you very much!!!  ;o)

A friend of mine, when asked what he thought of "that girl over 
the room" would refuse to comment until she walked across the 
room and/or spoke!  

I think physical attraction does count - but it may be just
because that person has something you go crazy over!  You
may not even know what that thing is until you meet them - or
get to know them better and realize they've got it.....!  And
I think that a persons outer reflects their inner - but I'm 
not talking physical attributes.... I'm talking about the way
they dress/wear their hair, talk etc etc

I guess I still carry a flame for the aforementioned wrinke-bonce,
but I've never found anyone who could match that chemistry!  I
thought I did recently, but it was unrequited (sob sob) and
looking back maybe it was just cos they reminded me of Mr
Wrinke-bonce.....!!!  Ho hum!  One day.....  Till then I'd 
rather stay single...

:o)

Julia

    re:.37
    
    Yup.
    
    If there's no spark, there's no fire.