Lets not make this personal

[The Colonel]

Depending on which day you catch me delete as appropriate.

-outgoing, withdrawn.
-creative, self-destructive
-egotistical, self-loathing
-charasmatic, listless
-sensitive, blunt

*The Good Points*

- incapable of commitment
- superficial



seeks atttractive female (we're talking 8 plus here) who can put up with someone who will probably break your heart without a seconds hesitation when he gets bored.
So please only interesting people apply here. More details on request. Good chance I might not bother replying. If I don't, please take it as meaning I don't like the sound of you.

[loretta]

Good luck, you'll need it!

[SiouxieSioux]

Barring superficial you are just my type. However the whole 'attractive' part is very annoying. Why must girls be put into a box like that?

[hr] £3000! that's more than that last hooker I hired!

[Anon.]

Because if people aren't attractive, then it is unlikely that people will be attracted to them. Presumably.

[Cain]

[s]SiouxieSioux wrote on 18:19, 7th Feb 2004:
Why must girls be put into a box like that?



putting girls into boxes never appealed to me personally, but i imagine that it does something for somebody somewhere.

[hr]
I hold an element of surprise

[SiouxieSioux]

Anon-define being attractive. For me its personality. Generaly people who say they will only go out with aestheticaly pleasing women need to grow up. How come men get to make such judgements anyway?

[hr] £3000! that's more than that last hooker I hired!

[wise one]

It's been scientifically proven that most first attractions are based purely on looks not personality. Personality makes a relationship lasting but it isn't needed for an initial spark - looks are.

Attractiveness is however subjective, therefore anyone who specifies that they wish to meet an attractive woman means they wasnt to find someone that they find attractive - which isn't the same as putting women in a box or whatever.

And any man who says looks don't figure into the equation is lying, men operate much more on visual stimulation than any other kind so it stands to reason that that is what they base inital attractions on. After that of course personality may make them reconsider their decision whichever way. It's the way attraction works, and generally most people who have a problem with it do so due to lack of self esteem in the way that they think they look. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and there are guys out there for every type of woman who will think that some woman is more beautiful than any other.

Perhaps it is those that cannot except that looks can play as big a part as personality who need to "grow up" or perhaps "wise up" is more appropriate.

[SiouxieSioux]

Thats all very well but there is a certain social perception of what is attractive. Perhaps idealy you could argue that attractiveness is subjective and indeed I think it is, but many men will only go out with women that society deems as being attractive.

I must be an eception to the rule because I never go out with someone based on looks. Its a rule of mine.

[hr] £3000! that's more than that last hooker I hired!

[wise one]

[s]SiouxieSioux wrote on 18:13, 8th Feb 2004:
Thats all very well but there is a certain social perception of what is attractive. Perhaps idealy you could argue that attractiveness is subjective and indeed I think it is, but many men will only go out with women that society deems as being attractive.

I must be an eception to the rule because I never go out with someone based on looks. Its a rule of mine.


No, I imagine you are an exception to the rule because you are not a bloke. It is only in men where it is the rule 100% of times. And the many men that only go out with society approved attractive girls are the ones that most sensible women know to avoid anyway - hence they don't figure into the equation at all.

In my opinion the male population at this uni (the student population that is) is made up probably around 90% boys and 10% men. The boys most normal women avoid apart from the slapper women of course (y'know the giggly "oh you're so funny, yes I do like football especially the team with that player with the blonde hair who looks like so and so" giggling idiots that do more to ruin the movement for equal treatment for women than the caveman men themselves), and then there are the men who are actually normal human beings. The same of course could probably be said for women except it is more difficult to find a nice guy (man not a boy) than it is to find a nice girl. Hence the popular saying "all the good ones are either taken or gay". As far as I am aware no such saying exists for women, probably because all the boys (90% remember) are happy with the giggling idiot type of girl.

Note: this is not a rant against men, just against the boys who won't get offended anyway because they'l just reply with a typical "you're just jealous you're not Jordan" type reply. And that really says it all.

[SiouxieSioux]

You made some very good points. I think its safe to say that the majority of people who fancy Jordan arn't eactly the nations greatest thinkers? Besides, don't men generaly not marry these girls?

However, it still dosn't make me any less annoyed that there has to be a certain perception of what is attractive.

[hr] £3000! that's more than that last hooker I hired!

[Emma]

If you're going to get cross about there being "a certain perception of what is attractive" you might as well expand your frustration-horizons to include such subjects as: the weather, getting old, dying, and the earth going round the sun. That's the way it is - you can choose whether to respond to/judge others on what you find attractive in others but there's no denying that a nice firm arse/pleasingly hairy arms/ melting brown eyes are in themselves Good Things.

[Peaches]

I would only consider going out with an atractive male. Atractive to me, which does not mean everyone agrees with my judgment. But i judge on looks, and then personality. First impressions count. Why would I go out with someone who is not atractive to me? I don't want to have to spend time kissing someone that makes me cringe or even, leaves me indiferent for that matter.

I do not expect any male to act any differently.

[Anon.]

[s]SiouxieSioux wrote on 01:49, 8th Feb 2004:
Anon-define being attractive.

I would define "attractive" as "being able to attract", and certainly not the same as good-looking. Some amazingly beautiful people (in an aesthetic sense) can leave one absolutely cold, while if someone is really attractive then whether or not they are good-looking in a conventional sense is simply irrelevant. Besides, of course, "beauty is in the eye of the beholder", and all that sort of flannel.

[SiouxieSioux]

Quite right.

[s]Anon. wrote on 21:56, 9th Feb 2004:
[s]SiouxieSioux wrote on 01:49, 8th Feb 2004:[i]
Anon-define being attractive.

I would define "attractive" as "being able to attract", and certainly not the same as good-looking. Some amazingly beautiful people (in an aesthetic sense) can leave one absolutely cold, while if someone is really attractive then whether or not they are good-looking in a conventional sense is simply irrelevant. Besides, of course, "beauty is in the eye of the beholder", and all that sort of flannel.
[/i]

[the colonel]

no real responses bar the discussion on attractiveness. How dissapointing!

I could join in this discussion but I really can't be bothered...i wonder how many responses I would have got if I left out the attractive criteria?

[The colonel]

a few afterthoughts

1)i find Jordan repulsive...

2) i think statements like "all the good guys are taken or gay" are damn ridiculous. It's a cop-out and an excuse for not feeling up to making an effort.

That's like me saying "all the girls in this town are only after a rich guy with a polo" I hear that a lot from guys who actually believe it and usually it only evokes pity from me, not agreement.

and to infer that I'm a boy and not a man because I openly admit I want to date an attractive girl is ridiculous. Should I go against my genetic programming and eradicate aesthetics from my decision? I'm no scientist but I imagine that's a pretty impossible task.

and to avoid this what is attractive question tell me what you look like

[Anon.]

Who drives a polo, who wears a polo, who plays polo, or who eats polos? Or all of them?

[random]

[s]Anon. wrote on 21:56, 9th Feb 2004:
[s]SiouxieSioux wrote on 01:49, 8th Feb 2004:[i]
Anon-define being attractive.

I would define "attractive" as "being able to attract", and certainly not the same as good-looking. Some amazingly beautiful people (in an aesthetic sense) can leave one absolutely cold, while if someone is really attractive then whether or not they are good-looking in a conventional sense is simply irrelevant. Besides, of course, "beauty is in the eye of the beholder", and all that sort of flannel.
[/i]

Bingo. Being attractive is a skill, not a birth-right. And it's a skill that can be learnt and mastered.

[loretta]

Bingo. Being attractive is a skill, not a birth-right. And it's a skill that can be learnt and mastered.

Its something that grows with age, maturity and knowledge. Looks can't create a spark or a chemistry in isolation, its down to conversation, repartee, interests etc.You can only be seriously attracted to a person when you want to know more about them and be in their company frequently.

[colonel]

well this discussion is dead, now applicants may reply..