brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (05/20/85)
I've always found this a fascinating issue. Society applauds when men and women go after one another for good looks. But being attracted to wealth, fame, power or position is considered sinful. In a society that tries so hard (on the surface) to get people treated according to what they are and what their abilities are, instead of their genetic heritage, isn't this a contradiction? Now I know good looks can be a combination of natural looks and hard work, but the genetics certainly play a part. Not so with other attributes as long as they are self made. Is the problem that it's hard to split "she loves me because she admires my ability to make money" from "she loves having access to my money"? Otherwise, it seems to me that ability to do things (and earn money for it) should be one of the primary attractive qualities, above good looks. Of course, a person's intelligence or earning power don't show (normally) on the other side of the room at a party. Looks do. -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
howard@sfmag.UUCP (H.M.Moskovitz) (05/21/85)
> > Now I know good looks can be a combination of natural looks and hard work, > but the genetics certainly play a part. Not so with other attributes as > long as they are self made. > > Of course, a person's intelligence or earning power don't show (normally) > on the other side of the room at a party. Looks do. This past weekend, (Saturday night, I believe) ABC aired a special entitled: LOOKS which discussed how our looks affect us in society. I found a very interesting point ( that I suspected for some time) is that more attractive people tend to get better jobs, promotions, and pay. In fact if two people are at the same experience and competence levels, and are performing the same job, the more attractive of the two will most likely be earning a higher salary than the less attractive person! So, taking this into consideration, maybe physical attraction and monetary attraction are directly related. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Well he came down to dinner in his Sunday best, and he rubbed the pot-roast all over his chest..." - Warren Zevon Howard Moskovitz AT&T Info. Systems attunix!howard
desjardins@h-sc1.UUCP (marie desjardins) (05/22/85)
> I've always found this a fascinating issue. Society applauds when men > and women go after one another for good looks. But being attracted to > wealth, fame, power or position is considered sinful. In a society > that tries so hard (on the surface) to get people treated according to > what they are and what their abilities are, instead of their genetic > heritage, isn't this a contradiction? I don't think this is true. I will agree that people are probably more likely to think that it's OK to choose a partner on the basis of looks than on the basis of power, etc. But I don't think that (in theory at least) society really "applauds" this. In reality, lots of people DO choose partners on the basis of all of these factors, but I think that most people believe that you should judge people based on their personalities, attitudes, values, and so forth. > Now I know good looks can be a combination of natural looks and hard work, > but the genetics certainly play a part. Not so with other attributes as > long as they are self made. I'm not convinced of this totally. For example, a question that bothers me (I have no answer to it, unfortunately) is "why do we judge people on the basis of their intelligence? why do intelligent people often have it so much better than unintelligent people?" Why should intelligence, which is not really a self-determined trait (I don't know what a psychologist would say, but it seems to me it has more to do with genetics and early environment, e.g. parental influence, than any kind of desire or will to be intelligent), be used to judge a person? I think the answers to this question are not as simple as one might think. (You may disagree, that's fine.) What point am I trying to make here? No point, just something to think about and see if anyone has anything (intelligent, of course! :-) ) to contribute. marie desjardins
eom@rti-sel.UUCP (Estelle Mabry) (05/23/85)
> > I've always found this a fascinating issue. Society applauds when men > > and women go after one another for good looks. But being attracted to > > wealth, fame, power or position is considered sinful. In a society > > that tries so hard (on the surface) to get people treated according to > > what they are and what their abilities are, instead of their genetic > > heritage, isn't this a contradiction? > > I don't think this is true. I will agree that people are probably more > likely to think that it's OK to choose a partner on the basis of looks > than on the basis of power, etc. But I don't think that (in theory at > least) society really "applauds" this. In reality, lots of people DO > choose partners on the basis of all of these factors, but I think that > most people believe that you should judge people based on their > personalities, attitudes, values, and so forth. > > > Now I know good looks can be a combination of natural looks and hard work, > > but the genetics certainly play a part. Not so with other attributes as > > long as they are self made. > > I'm not convinced of this totally. For example, a question that bothers > me (I have no answer to it, unfortunately) is "why do we judge people on > the basis of their intelligence? why do intelligent people often have it > so much better than unintelligent people?" Why should intelligence, which > is not really a self-determined trait (I don't know what a psychologist > would say, but it seems to me it has more to do with genetics and early > environment, e.g. parental influence, than any kind of desire or will to > be intelligent), be used to judge a person? I think the answers to this > question are not as simple as one might think. (You may disagree, that's > fine.) > > What point am I trying to make here? No point, just something to think > about and see if anyone has anything (intelligent, of course! :-) ) to > contribute. > > marie desjardins Let's not forget Henry Kissinger's famous line: "POWER is the most powerful aphrodisiac!" (SMIRK by Henry) If you didn't hear that phrase, you're young (<30); if you don't believe it, look at his wife! Let's now mention the Hollywood starlets (: I know) who threw themselves at Henry. "Learn to love the one you're with"* and yourself! Estelle *Crosby, Stills & Nash, a long time ago.
annab@azure.UUCP (A Beaver) (05/24/85)
> Is the problem that it's hard to split "she loves me because she admires > my ability to make money" from "she loves having access to my money"? > After many years of making the mistake of taking money and the ability to make money, as a factor of my relationships, I have changed my thinking. It is SO much nicer when one is thinking "They love me because of the way that I try to communicate with them." and "I love the way that they share my desire of working in each other's interests". It seems that in having finally found this in genuine form, the money issue doesn't even come into play. We both do what it takes to get by. > Now I know good looks can be a combination of natural looks and hard work, > but the genetics certainly play a part. Not so with other attributes as > long as they are self made. > > Of course, a person's intelligence or earning power don't show (normally) > on the other side of the room at a party. Looks do. > -- > Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473 To a toad, another toad is beautiful. It is all in where your head's at. Annadiana Beaver A Beaver@Tektronix "Angel Lips was built for pleasure" "and Angel Lips was well built." - T.J.Teru -
brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (05/25/85)
1) Society (whatever that is) *does* applaud good looks as the first factor of attraction. Look how big the fashion, cosmetic, and clothing industries are. Most of societies accepted courting rituals are based on attraction by looks. Now there are exceptions, like computer dating, and certain clubs, but in the long run that first initiative is supposed to be based on looks. You see several MOTAS and you decide to introduce yourself to one. My personal preference is to make that introduction only after first finding out something more important about the person than her looks, but this preference is rare, it seems. I'm lamenting that society isn't geared up for the type of meeting that I prefer to do. 2) On the subject of "she loves me for my ability to make money" one poster said he preferred to deal with love based on common interests and good converstation. Of course, this is nice, but that doesn't get away from the main point, which is that my ability to make money and what I do to make it are major parts of what makes up me. Like most entrepreneurs, I'm in the office 12 hours a day or more. My company takes up so much of me that it is a big part of me. So it's hard to say you like me if you don't even consider what I devote myself to. So I desire people to like and respect me for all my facets, but unfortunately this money facet has all sorts of bad impressions in the real world. That's the problem. I want to be loved for my conversation, humour and love of life, too, perhaps even foremost. But the other part is also important. to make money -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
rjv@ihdev.UUCP (ron vaughn) (05/26/85)
In article <371@h-sc1.UUCP> desjardins@h-sc1.UUCP (marie desjardins) writes: >I'm not convinced of this totally. For example, a question that bothers >me (I have no answer to it, unfortunately) is "why do we judge people on >the basis of their intelligence? why do intelligent people often have it >so much better than unintelligent people?" Why should intelligence, which .... >be intelligent), be used to judge a person? I think the answers to this >question are not as simple as one might think. (You may disagree, that's >fine.) > > marie desjardins i think it's partly because people "admire" intelligence. that is THE NUMBER ONE way someone can really impress me, with their intelligence. while not everyone feels as strongly about this, almost everyone *is* impressed with intelligence. if a bunch of us are working on a tough math problem and are stuck, but joe schmoe comes along, screatches his head, and figures it out, let's face it, we are impressed. we think "ghee, why didn't i see that" etc. why do intelligent people have it so much better? depends on what you mean by intelligence, it's a pretty wide open term, but part of intelligence (to me) means you can, like the example above, solve problems better. intelligence is a profitable, marketable asset to have. you do your job better, "smarter", more efficiently etc. if you are intelligent and apply your intelligence to your job, life, studies etc., (and most (not all) intelligent people are intelligent enough to do so), you will go far and be "so much better". i think intelligence is a very good, but not complete, way to judge someone. for the record, when it comes to "how i judge women" in terms of being my SO, here are some of the major items: good looks // yes, she must be good looking good sense of humor // i have an ever running sense of humor, and i'm an unstoppable kidder intelligence // see above spirit of adventure // "what the hell, let's do it!!" good communication // has to be for good relationship skills honest // has to be for good relationship can put up with me // we all have our quirks, mine aren't necessarily awful, but i have my share like everyone else. some may give me crap about the "good looking" part, but i'm being honest. there are BILLIONS of women out there. when i choose a mate (actually, i already have) i'm going to choose a good looking one. one might argue "but ron, what about ms. X, who has all the qualities but looks?? aren't you being mean, cruel, heartless??" and i reply "yes, there are millions of ms. X's out there, but there are also thousands of ms. Y's out there, so that's the group i'm targeting for." other's say "i don't want a dumb broad" or "he HAS to have a sense of humor" etc. this is no different. like i said, i'm just being honest. and i met a wonderful girl a couple of years ago who meets all of these qualities (and has many more terrific qualities), and things are hunky-dory. summary: just about everyone admires intelligence, intelligence seems like a good thing to have, rons has a tough set of rules for becoming his mate, ron has met miss wonderful who passed all the rules and is now living happily ever after. tab witty saying comma new-line ron vaughn ...!ihnp4!ihdev!rjv ps: one more things, her name must NOT rhyme with 'vaughn' -- nevonne, yevonne, shawn.... luckily melinda's name is melinda.
tron@fluke.UUCP (Peter Barbee) (06/04/85)
So here we are talking about what promotes interest from MOTAS, and why, again |-). This is probably a stupid and naive thought but, does it matter? Does it matter why you are attracted to another person? Maybe it would be nice if the two of you were honest (I've always liked women whose second toe is longer than their big toe) about what the big attraction is, but it seems to be most important that there is one. Later it will be important that is still exists, of that there is a new attraction. I have asked women to share some time on the basis of their good income, or their shapely legs, or any of a hundred (well maybe a couple of dozen) other reasons. I mean there has to be some reason to notice that particular person in the first place. What keeps me (and I hope her) coming back is simply a feeling of enjoyment. I know I never enjoyed an afternoon bike ride because of her good income (her shapely legs might be a different story |-)) but because of how I felt in her company. Does is really matter why? No, we just want to have fun. Peter B
ee171ael@sdcc3.UUCP (GEOFFREY KIM) (06/13/85)
Yeah, but waddaya look like Marie.