1
   

Is Physical Appearance Completely Irrelavant?

 
 
Stradee
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Jun, 2003 12:53 pm
Sweetcomplication

Hi there fellow San Franciscan!

Blatham, your assessment of social interactions is right on!

Walter, could you please post pic link again. Wasn't able to connect from
your response. Thanks and I promise slack-jawidness :wink:

osso, very nicely said ~ thank you for sharing

Setanta, your comment reminded me of my brother-in-law. He was the kind of person who smiled, chatted with people he met daily, and placed a smile on everyones face. Smile

Lola, you have nothing to apologize for. I'm sure if any person felt slighted by you <and I sure and heck don't see where that could've happened> I'm sure there would've been some indication mentioned. There wasn't. We've given much to much credence to an inappropriate
remark made by someone not familiar wih friendships established long before the gathering took place.
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Jun, 2003 06:30 pm
yes, yes, yes, yes and yes. So many good points here. First of all, Liberty, welcome and I hope you'll speak up more often.

I have to weigh in with Setanta he makes a valid point and one I hadn't thought quite so clearly about as yet. Classic beauty can be a disadvantage in that it creates complications early in life and without the right kind of personality or help with adaptation, a classically beautiful person can and often does emerge with a very low self esteem.

The beautiful people in my book are those who present themselves in some appealing way, making the most of what one has been given. Which of us couldn't make ourselves more or less beautiful with a little effort in the desired direction? The ability to present well is due much more to factors such as intelligence, artistic ability and skill, and effort motivated by a willingness to enjoy gratification, an openness to living and an accepting attitude toward others, a pleasant disposition and a ready smile, good sense of humor and sensitivity/perceptibility and interest of and for others. These are absolute necessities in a beautiful person.

But I wonder if we're only talking about beauty. I wonder if we're not also talking about sexual appeal. Just take my favorite (male) movie star, Harvey Keitel. Now who could say that Harvey is handsome, without his obvious charm, intelligence and acclaimed sensitivity (not to mention his numerous movies in which he appears in the nude and in a tender, passionate sexual scene -- umm umm) ? He has a dynamic that it difficult to pin down. Or how about Angelica Huston? Beautiful, right? I think so. But not in that classic sense. These are the people who light up the room when they enter. And I much prefer them to those who are simply and only blessed with beautiful facial or bodily features but who walk around depressed, angry or ill at ease.

Many of us fit into this definition of beauty. Isn't it fun? Obviously physical features which are usually associated with beauty help out enormously all other things being equal. And I agree, that's not fair. But all other things are rarely equal. (This is where a few harmless surgical procedures may or may not come into play.) :-) It's the whole person that attracts me. There is nothing that will catch my attention faster than an intelligent man with a genuine smile, a love of life and an interest in women, specifically in me. :-)

So, I think beauty is multi-faceted. I'm not sure I can define every aspect of beauty because it's such an individualized, idiosyncratic matter (that is the mix is different for everyone) but I do know it when I see it. And that's the real trick after all.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Jun, 2003 09:15 pm
OK, I'm going to do a little experiment. I'll explain later.

These are two pictures I've posted on another site frequented by some of our members -- I know at least 2 A2Kers have seen them, maybe more like 5.

Hi.

-snip-

I won't say anything just now about how similar or different I look now -- those were 10+ yrs ago.

(I'll delete in a bit.)

Edit: Just did so.
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Jun, 2003 09:18 pm
Soz.......you are beautiful!
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Jun, 2003 09:24 pm
the 2nd pict i would speak to in a new york minute but not the first.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Jun, 2003 09:24 pm
The first was posted on the other site as an example of my famous glare. The second was ballast -- I'm not always that grumpy. Wink
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Jun, 2003 09:25 pm
oh, I think the first picture is mysterious, and very nice.......it all depends on fantasy, I think
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Jun, 2003 09:25 pm
soz

You are like WAY prettier than me. Lola just sent me here from IM, saying "My God! Bernie....Look at this!" I just told Lola that you are the only one I had guessed correctly about so far of anyone who's photo I've seen. You are very beautiful, and thank you for posting your picture in this context.
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Jun, 2003 09:26 pm
and we see a reappearance of one of our other a2k resident sex objects, sexy Dyslexia..........good to see you
0 Replies
 
LibertyD
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Jun, 2003 09:29 pm
Lola, thank you for the warm welcome! I'm interested in the sex appeal versus stereotypical beauty issue, as well. Like you said, it's so difficult to define what a beautiful person is because it's truely such a broad spectrum. Your examples of Harvey Keitel and Angelica Huston are perfect -- and using Mac's point that an "average" looking person may be more approachable, people like Keitel and Huston could even be considered a little sexier than people like Catherine Zeta-Jones and Mel Gibson simply because they look more approachable. I don't know -- maybe. But I agree that anyone can be beautiful if they want to be.

Sozobe -- you are absolutely gorgeous.
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Jun, 2003 09:41 pm
Yes, Liberty, I think Keitel is the most sexy man in the movies because he has the obvious sensitivity required to touch a woman.......and he's so damned smart! But I love him in his sado masochistic roles as well. The Bad Lieutenant is one of my favorites.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Jun, 2003 09:48 pm
Grumpy? Not one tiny bit. You're a nice look'n lady. c.i.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Jun, 2003 09:53 pm
ci...I want to marry you and have your baby
0 Replies
 
Eva
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Jun, 2003 10:08 pm
Soz, I think your pictures clearly illustrate how much a smile can do for a person's appeal. If those pics are 10+ years old, and if you have smiled a lot during the past 10 years, I'd be willing to bet you are even more beautiful now than then.

Re: sex appeal in general...in my single days, I used to notice that my women friends who were slightly-better-than-average looking got a lot more action than those who were great looking. At the time, I thought it was because they were more outgoing...easier to talk to. Now I realize it was because they seemed more accessible to guys, who must have been too afraid of rejection to approach the lookers.

I agree wholeheartedly that mannerisms, laughs, voices, body language, etc. can add a great deal to a person's attractiveness. Or take away. No doubt most us have spotted someone we thought was gorgeous, only to lose interest when they opened their mouth. And some people who are not particularly attractive upon first meeting turn out to be extremely attractive the better we know them.

I find most people more attractive as they age. I'm not entirely sure why. Perhaps it is because they are more sure of themselves, more comfortable with who they are.
0 Replies
 
Eva
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Jun, 2003 10:09 pm
Oh, and one other thing. Tomorrow I am meeting LibertyD for lunch. We have not met before...just discovered last week that we are in the same town. After this thread, I don't know whether to dress up or down!!! Smile
0 Replies
 
Butrflynet
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Jun, 2003 10:13 pm
Much like the penpals of old, internet friendships give us a chance to get to know each other's inner beauty before judgements of the outward beauty get in the way.  The difference is that in the case of chatrooms or message boards like these, it happens in a group rather then one-on-one and consideration of the group becomes as important as the individual.

I believe that keeping the dialog open spreads good vibes to all while still affording the exclusive opportunity for individuals to further explore their relationships in private.

That is a summary of what I have been trying to articulate in my admittedly inept way.
0 Replies
 
LibertyD
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Jun, 2003 10:16 pm
heehee Yeah, we'll be able to tell on each other tomorrow, huh? Smile Good question, what am I going to wear?

It will be fun -- I'm looking forward to seeing you!
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Jun, 2003 10:20 pm
Blatham, My wife performed that function many, many, years ago, and I plan to have no more. Wink c.i.
0 Replies
 
Eva
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Jun, 2003 10:20 pm
And on that note, I shall wear something "fun"!

See you at 11:30...(here's another first: confirming a lunch appointment via message board.)
0 Replies
 
LibertyD
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Jun, 2003 10:24 pm
Visitor wrote:


See you at 11:30...(here's another first: confirming a lunch appointment via message board.)


LMAO This is so special -- going through so many firsts together! Very Happy

Okay, I'll wear something fun too. See you tomorrow!
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
Paradigm shifts - Question by Cyracuz
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.61 seconds on 12/22/2024 at 04:05:06