Conference turris::womannotes-v1

    
    	In the initial moments, physical beauty can be very influential.
    After that, other qualities become more important.   Some people
    are too good looking, it becomes a distraction.

        Sometimes people seem pre-programmed to respond to a certain
    image of beauty, and when they see this they go into some kind
    of non-conscious response.   I have been in this state myself on
    occasion.   This kind of attraction can trigger a stormy relationship,
    when one or both persons are captivated by an unconscious attraction
    to an image.    Don't sneer at this kind of thing, you too have
    an unconscious mind, and could be susceptible.   I know a woman
    who always made conscious choices until she met *him* at the age
    of 30.   It's easy to think "it can't happen to me", but the power
    of instinct can be completely overwhelming, and it can wait until
    you are middle aged to trip you up.   The conscious mind may be
    detached about beauty, while the unconscious mind is going to respond
    to certain images no matter what.
    
    	There can be many factors which reinforce the power
    one feels in the relationship, and the visual is one of these.
    They say some people are visual, while others are kinesthetic
    or auditory, so perhaps what you need depends on what kind of 
    person you are.
    
       For me beauty contains aspects that are not strictly physical;
    alertness, cheerfulness, etc, that are more important than
    particular features.   A beautiful person must be able
    to smile and laugh, think and share...

	Alan.

Wasn't it Gertrude Stein who said (or meant to say):

          An attraction is an attraction is an attraction.

Pleasing looks do help people to drift over to you, but that expires after
the first few sentences. Is there anyone who hasn't been shattered when
*the beautiful one* began to speak -- and couldn't.  Or found *the
unnoticed* one was a jewel, but it took a while to discover it. 

Best yet, once I like someone, I like the way they look, women and men 
both.  

But chemistry is so weird. I confess to one 'oddity.'  I have noticed that
many of my closest friends, male and female, have larger than average
heads.  Apparently, I want to live in a world of children or Thurber
cartoon characters. In fact, if I were advertising for my prince charming:

wanted:  man with large hat size
         must be somewhat radical (left or right, doesn't matter)
         must know how to fix mechanical objects (for me, this seems to 
           be an important secondary-sexual characteristic)
         must laugh a lot
         must like music (I am totally non-musical, but he must like it)
         must be agnostic or in the philosophic neighborhood
         an extra plus, have an internal image of the number line that
           describes a counter-clockwise spiral

A goofy set of characteristics.  But if I look back on my most
significant-others who are male, including my husband, that's the 
common set of men I find attractive.         

    After breaking  up with my last girlfriend, I gave serious thought
    to  what  I found attractive in women (I was considering placing a
    personals  ad.)  I  found  that  there is something very important
    about  the  way  a woman looks, but facial expression is much more
    important  than  face  (or  body)  shape.  I  seem  to look for an
    interested, lively expression.  

    My girlfriends  have  ranged  from  10 inches shorter than me to 2
    inches taller and from under 100 pounds to almost 200 pounds, with
    all  sorts  of  hair colors. I seem to tend towards women who wear
    less  makeup,  but  that  is certainly not absolute. So, what does
    matter?  At  first  she  has  to  look  as  if  there is something
    interesting  in  the  world  (I don't know how to describe it, but
    some  people  have  perpetually bored looks. I avoid men and women
    who  do.)  Then  she  has to be smart (interestingly, it turns out
    that  all  but  one  of  my  girlfriends went to one of the "seven
    sisters", in some cases after they went co-ed) and have a sense of
    humor.

    Almost anyone  who is lively, smart, and has a sense of humor very
    quickly  starts  to  look  good,  and  that  provides the physical
    attraction which for me really matters in a relationship.

--David

Physical Attraction is important. After-all if you aren't attracted to
the person physically, and you can't stand the sight of her, how can
you make it work. 

I for one, use to be the type that would only go with very pretty girls,
with a near perfect body.  Well, first, I didn't have many dates, second
when I got to their brain, there wasn't too much there. (I'm not saying
all very pretty women, just the ones I picked out).  Slowly, I started
just meeting people, and started to learn how to like people, not pictures.

I think the DEC SINGLES is great, because #1, I get to learn about the 
person, before I meet her.  #2, when I meet them, I might like them
more, although, I can't be positive if it works vice versa.

I'm sure I've passed up some terriffic woman, because I was TOO choosy.
I'm going through, the "all my friends are getting married" stage, and
I'm still looking for a date for New Years Eve. ( I know it's kind of
late, but....).....

I guess what I'm trying to say, is, I no longer put a great emphasis
on physical beauty.  If I'm happy with the way she looks, and she's happy
with the way I look.  Then that's a great start.

			Micheal

    re: -last
    
    Micheal, its great to see that some men grow out of that "if she
    doesn't look like Bo Derek (or  whoever), then I dont date her"
    stage.  Granted,  looks count when you first met  someone,  cause
    if you just laid eyes on them five minutes ago, its probably not
    their brain that attracted you, right ????  Well anyway, it comes
    down to the fact that some people place more of a emphasis on looks
    than others, and to each his own...people like what they like. 
    But I find that alot of people who only date "10's" are pretty
    insecure about themselves, and want something  on their arms 
    when they go out Friday  nights.
    
    Kim
    
    P.S.  Good luck...hope you find a date for New Years.  I dont have
          one either....I am just going with friends....sure you know
          how that is :-)

    I'd say the negative is more the case. If something physically bothers
    me (like ultra-bad breath, smoking, or something) then I find it
    hard to get to know a woman. It's happened a few times. But barring
    that, an S.O. quickly becomes 'beautiful' to me. It's always seemed
    to me that when I am happily involved in a relationship (or even
    just starting) something in me just goes to sleep -- the part that
    looks for physical beauty in the immediate vicinity.) When not in
    a relationship (*sigh*) I catch myself eyeing women, and wryly
    note that I must be lonely....
    
    dov
    
    p.s. Question for all the women reading this: is the Nancy Friday
    view of female sexuality accurate? She always stresses that women
    do all the traditional male sexual activities like "crotch watching"
    and enjoying erotic material, etc. But I always wondered at the
    honesty of her sample because she has a vested interest, after all....
    Even if her study is honest and unbiased, she obviously would tend
    to attract the more sexual people in any case, since they would
    be the most motivated (and least inhibited) about sharing their
    experiences.
    
    
    

    Hmmmmm "crotch-watching", eh?  Only when I'm afraid a guy is trying
    to make a pass at me and I want to know whether or not I should
    get the hell out of there.
    
    Physical Attraction?  Hmmmmmph.  I suppose it exists and does play
    a role.  I don't think "good looking vs bad looking" is important
    to me (looking at my past loves), but how well we, er, get along
    physically is VERY important.  
    
    If I can't look at a lover and feel that little purr (like a cat eyeing
    something tasty), then we might as well forget it.  That purr comes
    from a lot of things tho: my menstrual cycle, how interesting I
    think he is in general, history (ie, how has our sex play been to
    date, am I pissed off about anything he did recently), etc.
    
    I am pretty sure _that_ variant of physical attraction is an EFFECT
    of the relationship, a SYMPTOM of whether the thing is working right
    or not.  I do not think it is a CAUSE of things working or not working.
    
    Perhaps I'm just being young, naive, and blind, but still...
    
    I guess I come from the school of "attraction (sex) without emotion
    = 0".
    
    Lee

    From the limited amount of talking about it that I have done
    with other women....depending on how a guy is sitting, women
    do notice if his pants are um, blush, yeah....

    This may be off the topic but:
    
    Dave Maynard posed this question to the men in the audience, just
    this morning too -
    
    On topic of first impressions:  Men tend to catergorize women's parts.
    
    All of the men that I heard on the way to work who called up to reply
    to his list of questions agreed with that statement. [all 4 that
    is]
    

    I seldom crotch-watch, but I do man-watch ... more so if I am in
    "available" mode, rather than "attached" mode.  I find a whole range
    of men attractive, though, and it has nothing to do with some hunkish
    ideal that popular literature has expounded to me.  Attractive lures
    exist in all aspects of a man (or woman for that matter)...the smile,
    the laugh, the intellect, the curiosity, the wit, the curve of a
    thigh, the warm roundness of a shoulder or cheek, the glint of a
    sunset in the eyes...etc...
    
    And, of course, when watching a man, that curious of all curiosities
    occurs....particularly if my interest is severely piqued...oh hell,
    I'll admit it...I wonder what they look like when they're...um...you
    know...blush...yeah....
    

    with shamefaced brutal honesty -
    
    -Jody
    

    Didja ever notice a group of guys sitting around a table in the
    lunch room? Talk about "noticing parts". It was somewhat of a past-
    time with the guys I use to work with to head down each morning
    to the cafeteria and watch the women walk thru, and the discussion
    didn't even touch on what her educational level was.
    I guess I use this to make a point, that men are very "into" the
    physical attractiveness. I dunno, do women do this often? It is
    commonplace whenever I end up in a group of guys. It seems to go
    along with the coffee and donuts.
    Jeff

    re .11 by jeff
    
    i've noticed high school boys engaging in this type of activity,
    with scorecards, no less. i was surprised at the time that they
    got away with it. i haven't noticed older men (i won't say 'more
    mature') doing it, and i imagine that if i did, my personnel rep
    would hear about it pretty fast.
    
    liz

    I prefer what I consider to be average looking people because I
    think that when people are either too good looking or too homely
    this tends to have a negative affect on their personalities.
    

    Hey, "just looking" is a terrific way to pass the time - the trick
    is not to rely too much on outward appearances. I have occasionally
    nudged a companion and pointed out a good-looking guy, to the
    accompaniment of "Mmmmm-mmmm!" noises... However, I've never tried
    to get acquainted with someone on the basis of looks alone.
    
    Still, to tell the truth, I do find it a bit disappointing when
    someone who looks really good (whether man or woman) turns out to
    be crude, or ignorant, or otherwise unable to live up to their
    appearance. I know it's unfair; heck, beautiful people have as much
    right to be jerks as anybody else!
    
    When it comes to personal attraction, I'm a bit scared by good-looking
    guys, much as (I've heard) men are by really attractive women. The
    fear of competition, that I won't be "good enough," etc. is enough
    to make me take my appreciative eye elsewhere.
    
    -b

I've heard that men are more visually oriented/turned on then women.  Is
this conditioning?

It follows that people trying to attract men try to be good looking whether they
are straight women or homosexual men.  People trying to attract women, straight
men and homosexual women do not sem to be as concerned with their appearance.

Which way is it in animals?  Isn't the male generally the brighter colored
to attract females?  (Thinking of birds in particular)

Jim. 

    
    re .16
    
    Not as concerned with their appearance or willing to consider more
    widely varied models of beauty?   I think we all (most) care about
    our appearance and want to look nice, but we all (Thank Goddess)
    have different ideas about what that means.
    
    Justine <== who is hoping to learn how to tie a bow tie in time
    for New Year's Eve :-)

    What did I hear?  Men aren't concerned about appearances.  I beg
    to differ.  It is starting at a ripe old age of 3.  I remember my nephews
    sporting JAMS (not a swimsuit) because they "looked good".  SWATCHES
    clothing, Benneton.  Display ads with CHILDREN.  Boys and girls
    trying to "look" growup.  JORDACHE!!!!! ARRRRRRGH!
    
    Men are concerned with their looks as are women.  I used to doll
    up all the time.  I admit it.  I had low self-esteem so if my outsides
    looked good, no one could possible SEE the crappy insides.  
    
    Now, I wear what I want and I don't care who's looking 'cause I
    am comfortable with me. 
    
    Cathy (who wouldn't want to be with a guy who was afraid of
           mussing up his hair or wrinkling his pinstriped suit)
                                                 

Fascinating topic.  Here are the bio's of five people so beautiful that
people stopped and stared openly when they came into view:

Lois - if she stood montionless in a store, people thought she 
was a mannequin. She married after high school, had one child, 
divorced, now a department store sales woman.

Mary - dated everyone she wanted. once. Never had long-term girl friends, 
boy friends, or roomies. She had a pleasant disposition, but generally, 
"no one was home." Teaches grade school, mildly likes it.

Nancy - was class officer and head cheerleader, A+ student, modeling, grad 
school, PR career, married, had children, runs her own PR business.  She 
seems to be having a number 10 life. 

The golden boy - had an unlisted number in college because everyone who 
owned a hormone was *in love*. Married an average person, works as a 
medical technician, drinks.

Mike - changed from 10+ to 10- as soon as he said anything. The poor fellow
should have worn a "vacancy" sign on his forehead. Murdered while dealing
dope. 

It's interesting to me that Nancy is the only one who seems to be leading a
more than average life. Her looks helped but she also made an effort. She
was also the only one who had much passion towards life; the others were
mostly pleasant agreeable people who stood out only because they were
gorgeous. 

I'm an average looking person who would love to be Bo Dereck for a day.
What does it feel like to drive a limo-bod?  I would love to read a 
note from someone who is gorgeous, telling us if it is different. (Better 
post it through a moderator.  We can confess to doing dope and drinking 
too much, but I think declaring one's self "beautiful" is not quite in 
vogue.)         Meigs

    I don't see anything wrong with being attracted to someone else
    because the person is "good-looking". First of all, one man's
    good looking is not necessarily another man's (I, for one, find
    nothing particularly appealing about Bo Derek --- even just
    physically, she's about a "6" in my book).
    
    I tend to find relatively plainer woman to be more attractive
    than the "sex symbols". An example I like to use: on the relatively
    old tv show WKRP IN CINCINATTI, I found Jan Smithers to be *very*
    attractive, and couldn't understand why others went so gaga over
    Loni Anderson.
    
    The real problem is deciding that physical beauty is the *only*
    or even *major* consideration. There's nothing wrong with a guy
    who wants his lover to be a "10", but if he decides that he won't
    take anything less than an "8", he's definitely out of his mind.
    
    My "ideal" woman would look exactly like Jane Seymour. None of
    my SO's would even come close to matching her, but (1) it doesn't
    mean I love(d) them any less, (2) it doesn't mean I don't think
    they are/were beautiful, and (3) I've never felt I was just
    "settling for".
    
    --- jerry

    	RE: -1
    
    	Here's another vote for Jan Smithers. Beauty truly is
    	in the eye of the beholder.

    Re .21, .22, and I thought Johnny Fever/Howard Hessman (?) was the
    most attractive man on WKRP in Cincinatti.  (I guess I'd take a
    "hot shit" over a "pretty face" anyday.)  And, I also thought Jan
    was much more attractive than Loni.  Anyway, Jan's looks were played
    down whereas Loni's were played up (to look good in a "pin-up girl"
    way).
    

    re: .24 (and others)
    
    I think one of the strengths of the 'KRP characters was
    their human-ness.  True, the image of Jennifer is successful
    looking.  Yet, to my way of thinking, a strong element of
    this success is as a "sex symbol", something that is always
    other-centered (i.e. I'm successful as a sex symbol if others
    see me as such).  So in this sense, she's not so self-defined
    and I recall a couple of episodes in which she shows the 
    "victim" side of this image.
    
    Also true that Bailey was portrayed as generally "mousier", yet
    she seemed to me to be less other-defined.  It seems to me 
    that she portrayed someone coming out of a shell - the episode
    in which she gets the job as the newscaster (relieving Les' 
    "overload") has her fighting the "male establishment" (portrayed
    by Les' resistance to a female newscaster.)  In my mind, Bailey
    showed more growth as a character over the course of the series
    than the rest.  I think the early Bailey was relatively "unhappy"
    but the grew into a stronger, happier person while Jennifer's 
    "success" was usually based on manipulation of males via "feminine
    wiles".
    
    All this notwithstanding, I think there are elements of truth
    in both ideas:  beauty is both in the eye of the beholder *and*
    the self.  To the beholder, a person either is or isn't beautiful
    independent of the person's own feelings (if you think I'm "beautiful",
    I *am* (to you) despite the fact that *I* feel ugly).  On the other
    side, I'd bet that if *I* believe in my own "beauty", far more 
    people would see me as attractive/beautiful than if I were walking
    around telling myself that I'm a real toad.
    
    Then too, I think in this topic there's the danger of my assuming
    that my definition of beauty is also (the global) yours.  I 'spect
    we all have our own flavors on such words.
    
    Steve
    
    P.S.  I dunno if I consider him "beautiful", but I *really* liked
          Mrs. Carlson's butler, Hersh (sp?).
     

    I heard it said once that how a person looks only gets your attention.
    The attraction will be for the actual person.  This is basically
    my rebuttle to the cliche' "You can't judge a book by its cover",
    which is, but if you're not attracted by the cover you'll never
    open up the book.

    ah, Andy Travis, tasty morsel of somewhat-longhaired manhood....
    
    I liked Jennifer's sexiness (and envied her and stuff like that)...but
    the episode when Bailey really came in on her own was when she had
    to stay over at Johnny's place for a few nights.  And people assumed
    the wrong thing.  And she let them.  She came in the next day with
    HIS t-shirt on, tight jeans, and no glasses.  She had as much appeal
    as Jennifer...it's just the show tended to tone it down.
    
    And the show had more than just pretty faces...it had human-ness
    (as previously stated), and substance and development and such like.
     Sure Bo and Luke Duke were cute, and Daisy had legs down to there,
    but they were cardboard cut=outs stuck in the same situation week
    after week.
    
    Truly beautiful, interesting people have many dimensions, many facets,
    and the more I see on people, the more they catch my eye with their
    *sparkle*
    
    -Jody
    

    Re: .26

>    which is, but if you're not attracted by the cover you'll never
>    open up the book.

    This may be true for relationships that start in a bar, but not
    for a progression from acquaintance to friendship to intimacy, where
    you have plenty of exposure to the other person's personality before
    the non-casual relationship starts.  There is, of course, a component
    of your attraction that is based purely on physical appearance,
    but I think it's usually small by then.
    
    How much influence does your perception of how others (parents,
    for example) will react to a potential SO's appearance have in
    deciding whether to pursue a closer relationship with someone?

    Re .28:
    
>    How much influence does your perception of how others (parents,
>    for example) will react to a potential SO's appearance have in
>    deciding whether to pursue a closer relationship with someone?
    
    Good question. I hope the answer, for those of us who are pretending
    to be adults, is "none"; but I clearly remember a few times in college
    when I would delight in imagining my parents' reaction to the crude
    behavior of someone I was infatuated with. I don't recall seeking
    such people out specifically to annoy my parents, though; for one
    thing, my folks lived 1500 miles away, and thus were not likely
    to run into my boyfriends very often. But even now I get the occasional
    fantasy chuckle out of imagining bringing home anyone from a major
    Broadway star to Michael Corleone...

    High school was a different matter. While I didn't date then, I recall
    many, many other kids stating that they would never be seen with
    so-and-so, even if he or she turned out to be a "pretty nice person,"
    just because they weren't up to standards appearance-wise. (This may,
    she said wryly, be the *reason* I wasn't asked out when I was in high
    school...) 
    
    -b

    Hi,
    
    I think that a physical 10 is a thing in ones mind, male or female.
    I wish that I were taller and other things..maybe I would rate my
    self a 6,7, or 8.  Sort of average.  Why then Should I EXPECT 
    perfection?  I found an 11 once, To me the most Beautiful Woman
    In the world, everything in the right places, 5'8" 125-
    135 pounds, and most of all she wanted me.  I did not date her?
    Why, I do not know.."need my head examined!", I just want more
    than to have my partner as the center of attraction.
    
    I will admit there is not a thing nicer than a pretty woman
    to please my eyes, and I am now 47 years old and I have seen
    many beauties, But I prefer someone who can make me feel good,
    talk up my ego, be interested in some of the things that I
    am interested in.  But we must have some differences as well
    to be able to differ upon.  Relationships are not ever entirely
    physical..It they were I would have married the blond in Norway
    in 1961.  We never even dated.
    
    I still look at women and some parts are more magnetic than others,
    and I will stop looking only when they throw dirt on my face.
    I hope that I am not crude or offensive but admiration is 
    the only reason to look.
    
    Dave

    re .16
    
    Most often it is the male that is the most colorful but this is
    not to attract a mate but to attrack predators.  If a predator
    approaches the family while they are feeding their young or nesting
    eggs the male will dash off away from his family in hopes the predator
    will follow him and not notice the others.
    
    
    On the topic of crotch watch...
    I know some women who do...not me though...I am a buns watcher..blush...
    that is how I met my SO I thought he had the best looking..um...buns
    so I sat next to him during our class together hoping he would notice
    me.  He said he noticed my eyes first.  Quite an embarassing difference
    in attractions...oh well.
    
    On the topic of attraction...
    beauty is definitely in the eyes of the "lover".  Once I have 
    fallen in love with some one they are a hundred times more beautiful 
    than when I first met him.
    
    The Embarrassed Buns Watcher.

    re .32 re .16 I thought it was the mama bird (the drab one) who
    did this.
    
    Re attraction. An average girl who smiles is worth a hundred
    'ice princesses' any day. Or night. 
    
    Dana

    
    	RE:.25
    
    	A real toad??!!?? Watch it. |^)
    
    	Todd

    
    Dana,
    
    I know we've discussed this issue elsewhere in the file, but may
    I tell you that I personally would prefer it if you would use the
    word woman instead of girl?
    
    Thanks,
    
    Justine

    OOPS sorry

    "Ranae are okay, but Bufos are bad news."
    
    :-)

    Lisa, correct me if I am wrong but aren't Bufos toads not
    frogs!

    Yes, that's the point.  (I can't spell latin, maybe the first word
    is supposed to be "rani"?  Anybody got an encyclopedia?)

    My eldest, Pat, was positively in love with both Ranae and Bufonis
    during her early adolescence.  She was especially keen on Bufo Fowleri
    and Rana Catesbiana, tho we never actually found one of the latter for
    her to get better acquainted in vivo; our best shot was Leopard Frogs
    along the riverbank up in St. Croix State Park; she was enchanted
    (and enchanting) anyhow.
    
    						=maggie
    
    (the plurals are from my copy of C.T.Lewis's Elementary Latin Dictionary)

>< Note 622.32 by NSG022::POIRIER "Suzanne" >
>                            -< On the topic of... >-
>
>    re .16
>    
>    Most often it is the male that is the most colorful but this is
>    not to attract a mate but to attrack predators.  If a predator
>    approaches the family while they are feeding their young or nesting
>    eggs the male will dash off away from his family in hopes the predator
>    will follow him and not notice the others.

    I don't  think this is the case. In particular a peacock certainly
    spreads  his  tail  in  courtship,  and  it is unweildly enough to
    convince  me  that  it  wouldn't make it easier to run away from a
    predator  or  even  attract  the  predator  very far away from the
    peahen.

--David