Love is poison disguised as candy. [Archive]

ImpyTimpy

27th October 2003, 02:25 PM

Originally posted by Lord Kenneth
It makes people feel good, but that does not change the fact that love is an instinctual desire to reproduce based on impression, mostly physical attraction.

Uhh.. Didn't this already get addressed elsewhere? I remember a certain female posting a rebuttal which basically said:

What about people unable to reproduce who fall in love with each other. Surely if love was based on the desire to reproduce as you have put, people unable to do so should be unable to love.

I'll debate on this. I chose this board because I am unsure of where to put it.

We are hard-wired for love-- people still think that just because we are love is ethically acceptable. Last time I checked, liking someone for their physical appearence (oh, please, if you have loved ones you know you probably wouldn't love them if they were burn victims).

This is weird. In order to make that statement you'd have to show that every single person finds same or very similar characteristics in people they love. This is far from the truth however. There isn't any defined, or hardwired characteristics that could cause a person to be loved by their partner.

It is instinctual but ethically repugnant.
What?

sorgoth

27th October 2003, 02:34 PM

Originally posted by Lord Kenneth
It makes people feel good, but that does not change the fact that love is an instinctual desire to reproduce based on impression, mostly physical attraction.

I'll debate on this. I chose this board because I am unsure of where to put it.

We are hard-wired for love-- people still think that just because we are love is ethically acceptable. Last time I checked, liking someone for their physical appearence (oh, please, if you have loved ones you know you probably wouldn't love them if they were burn victims).

It is instinctual but ethically repugnant.

So blind people cannot fall in love? And if you are including family and friend love in this, then you are even more wrong. I am not disputing the fact that we are engineered for it. I am, however, disagreeing on the notion you seem to have that we are completely dependant on instinct. The reason we have such a logn childhood, and large brains, is because we can LEARN.

In humans, this has gone a step farther than anything else in the animal kingdom. Our intelligence, which has permitted us to be very successful in evolutionary terms, also allows us to do what would normally be darwinian suicide.

I would love my parents and friends even if they were badly burned. It's not a physical thing.

Your bad experiences with people seem to have lead you to the conclusion that love and lust are exactly the same thing , which is wrong. Lust is purely based on physical attraction, while love is like a mixture between lust and truly deep friendship. This mixture allows love to blossom even when the physical attraction fades (My grandparents,for example, while both VERY unatractive in their old age, are deeply in love.)

I won't argue that love often begins as lust, though.

LFTKBS

27th October 2003, 02:36 PM

LK -

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Humans, like other primates, are instinctively drawn into pair bonds.

There are many factors that influence successful pair bonding. Among these are geography, physical attraction (yes, LK, you are correct here), emotional compatibility, and similar political and religious views, among a host of other correlating factors.

Like all rules, these have exceptions. But I fail to see how something as natural as a pair bond is poisonous. There are many unhappy people in unhappy relationships, but there are many happy people in happy relationships - men and women included. For all your posing and posturing on this issue, you fail to notice that reality contradicts you.

Re: "Last time I checked, liking someone for their physical appearence (oh, please, if you have loved ones you know you probably wouldn't love them if they were burn victims)": that's an incomplete sentence. Loving someone for their physical appearance what?

I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume that you meant that loving someone based on their physical appearance is unethical or poisonous or both. You're entitled to that opinion, but you're incorrect. Attractiveness often begins a relationship, but it rarely sustains it. For that, you'll need something else. Once again, reality contradicts you.

I hear tons of Christians say that love is magical and spiritual and unexplainable and irrational - nice company you've got there, LK - but they forget that we are all made of matter and that we are all products of the evolutionary process. Pair bonds in humans are desirable because they are evolutionarily advantageous. The end.

TruthSeeker

27th October 2003, 02:42 PM

Originally posted by Beleth
And a rock feels no pain.

And an island never cries.

The exact same song started playing in my head! We must be cosmically connected ;)

Kenneth, we've had this argument at least twice before. I think I'll sit out this round.

Tony

27th October 2003, 02:54 PM

This thread is stupid. Love is "ethically repugnant"? Really? That must be another reason why I tend to shun “ethics".

Lord Kenneth

27th October 2003, 03:03 PM

Sorry, I was in a rush when I posted that.

What I am basically saying is that love leads us to do unethical things which we would not do if we didn't experience it.

While people call pure physical attraction lust, that appears to me to be the main component of a relationship. A true romantic relationship must have lust, or else it is just a friendship.

Lust is often the factor in which one initiates a relationship. From what I've observed, personality, intelligence, etc are only supporting details or justifications, or additional criteria.

Now, there may be the rare case when someone finds someone else attractive for their personality, intelligence, or non-physical attributes. I personally don't know if and to what extent blind people experience lust, so I won't speculate on that.

Now, if you have a romantic partner, you might insist that you'll love her (assuming most readers are males) no matter what happens to her. I doubt that, but think of it this way-- would you love them if magically they turned into the opposite sex overnight? If physical characteristics aren't a factor, then why aren't we all bisexual? Clearly, our selection is already limited (for most of us, anyway) by gender.

I'm not saying physical characteristics are the only factor, but they are the main one by a large margin.

A truly ethical person would realize that while love *feels* good, it is still judging people mostly by physical characteristics. "Beauty is only skin deep", while a popular adage isn't (and can't be!) appreciated by a vast majority of people.

What do I propose people do? To force themselves not to allow themselves to treat people different based upon how they look. This pretty much means no romantic relationships and doing the best they can to be sociable with everyone equally (by this I mean talking to someone just because you find them attractive, admit it men, you feel the desire to talk to a female because she has a nice face). It's an instinct we must fight... we must fight to be unbiased to factors that don't involve how someone acts.

I am already doing my part.

Lord Kenneth

27th October 2003, 03:04 PM

Originally posted by Tony
This thread is stupid. Love is "ethically repugnant"? Really? That must be another reason why I tend to shun “ethics".

So you just do and think "whatever feels good", right?

Lord Kenneth

27th October 2003, 03:10 PM

Originally posted by LFTKBS
LK -

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Humans, like other primates, are instinctively drawn into pair bonds.

There are many factors that influence successful pair bonding. Among these are geography, physical attraction (yes, LK, you are correct here), emotional compatibility, and similar political and religious views, among a host of other correlating factors.

Yes, but which is the main one?

Like all rules, these have exceptions. But I fail to see how something as natural as a pair bond is poisonous. There are many unhappy people in unhappy relationships, but there are many happy people in happy relationships - men and women included. For all your posing and posturing on this issue, you fail to notice that reality contradicts you.

Just because a behavior is natural does not make it right. Humans are instinctually violent creatures, should beating someone because we don't like them be allowable?

Re: "Last time I checked, liking someone for their physical appearence (oh, please, if you have loved ones you know you probably wouldn't love them if they were burn victims)": that's an incomplete sentence. Loving someone for their physical appearance what?

"...is not looked down upon."

I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume that you meant that loving someone based on their physical appearance is unethical or poisonous or both. You're entitled to that opinion, but you're incorrect. Attractiveness often begins a relationship, but it rarely sustains it. For that, you'll need something else. Once again, reality contradicts you.

No, loving someone alone is unethical because most of that love is based on how they physically look. If your love suddenly turned into a dog (but retained her thoughts and personality) could you still love her?

I hear tons of Christians say that love is magical and spiritual and unexplainable and irrational - nice company you've got there, LK - but they forget that we are all made of matter and that we are all products of the evolutionary process. Pair bonds in humans are desirable because they are evolutionarily advantageous. The end.

I'm not saying love itself is irrational (as it itself is an evolutionary advantage) or magical, etc.

I'm saying how it makes us think IS.

And I don't care if it's an evolutionary advantage. Apparently, so is beating up people in power struggles, and we now look down upon that. We aren't savages anymore.

Love is like aggressive violence-- it helped us get to where we are now but we must dispose it for both our own good and intellectual prosperity.

Tony

27th October 2003, 03:11 PM

Originally posted by Lord Kenneth

So you just do and think "whatever feels good", right?

I dont "just" do that, but that is included in my repertoire of activities.

geni

27th October 2003, 03:15 PM

Originally posted by Lord Kenneth

While people call pure physical attraction lust, that appears to me to be the main component of a relationship. A true romantic relationship must have lust, or else it is just a friendship.

Lust is often the factor in which one initiates a relationship. From what I've observed, personality, intelligence, etc are only supporting details or justifications, or additional criteria.

I'm sorry to tell you this but brain scans clearly show that love and lust are to seperate things. interestingly the areas or the brain that are involved in love are the same areas that are involved in adiction.

TruthSeeker

27th October 2003, 03:18 PM

Kenneth,
I know I wasn't going to get involved, but ...

What/who have you read about the nature of love? (no porn titles, please;) ) I know you haven't personally been in a love relationship and at your age, your "observations" have probably been fairly limited, so who/what have you read?

Thanks.

Lord Kenneth

27th October 2003, 03:23 PM

Originally posted by geni

I'm sorry to tell you this but brain scans clearly show that love and lust are to seperate things. interestingly the areas or the brain that are involved in love are the same areas that are involved in adiction.

Evidence?

Kenneth,
I know I wasn't going to get involved, but ...

What/who have you read about the nature of love? (no porn titles, please ) I know you haven't personally been in a love relationship and at your age, your "observations" have probably been fairly limited, so who/what have you read?

Thanks.

I have read a bit in psychology books, little of any of which had contradicted my own observations about love.

I can make my own observations about love because I consider myself to be objective towards it, reacting to it from how I can seen it affect others and how they act and treat people.

LFTKBS

27th October 2003, 03:28 PM

Yes, but which is the main one?

I don't know. I would imagine that it depends on the individuals involved.

Just because a behavior is natural does not make it right. Humans are instinctually violent creatures, should beating someone because we don't like them be allowable?

That's a pretty crappy analogy, LK; I'm disappointed. A successful pair bond does not have a victim or victims the way assault does. That is why it's not unethical.

Loving someone for their physical appearance is not looked down upon."

Um, okay. I don't love my S.O. just because she's tall and thin and superhot. I love her because she's smart and generous and nice to animals and children and etc etc etc. I like to - you know, do stuff - because she's attractive. It would be weird if I sought out someone I subconciously felt was of poor genetic stock.

No, loving someone alone is unethical because most of that love is based on how they physically look. If your love suddenly turned into a dog (but retained her thoughts and personality) could you still love her?

If this is the hypothetical situation you're resorting to, LK, your arguments are worse than I initally thought. If she were burned, I would love her; if she got fat, i would love her; if she lost a limb, I would love her. If she turned into a dog, I'd be instantly crazy and require sedatives and straightjackets. I know that I would love her because I imagine horrible things happening all the time.

Love is like aggressive violence-- it helped us get to where we are now but we must dispose it for both our own good and intellectual prosperity.

Okay, you do that. I like waking up next to somebody I care about and who cares about me. It's even fun to screw things up together. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=27732&highlight=cookies) I'm doing just fine, thanks.

TruthSeeker

27th October 2003, 03:29 PM

Originally posted by Lord Kenneth

Evidence?

I have read a bit in psychology books, little of any of which had contradicted my own observations about love.

I can make my own observations about love because I consider myself to be objective towards it, reacting to it from how I can seen it affect others and how they act and treat people.

I would submit that you are unable to be objective as you have a clear negative bias about love. You are perhaps one of the least neutral people when it comes to this subject.

Perhaps some of us should pull together a reading list for you. For instance, the data from brain imaging mentioned above as well as the neurohormonal work is fascinating.

This will have to wait as I am off to have dinner with my beloved and my parents, all of whom I love. How ethically repugnant of me! :)

geni

27th October 2003, 03:40 PM

Originally posted by Lord Kenneth

Evidence?

weak evidence (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/820857.stm)

there has been an update involing married couples since this rather poor study was done but the only place I know it was published was in the new scientist and I don't have acess to back coppies from where I'm posting.

geni

27th October 2003, 03:43 PM

Originally posted by Lord Kenneth

I have read a bit in psychology books, little of any of which had contradicted my own observations about love.

Try reading some neurology books. htye should give some different (and perhaps useful information)

Whomp

27th October 2003, 03:59 PM

Originally posted by Lord Kenneth
What do I propose people do? To force themselves not to allow themselves to treat people different based upon how they look. It's an instinct we must fight... we must fight to be unbiased to factors that don't involve how someone acts.
Why???

Marquis de Carabas

27th October 2003, 04:07 PM

All right...let's grant, just for the sake of argument, that lust and physical appearance and attraction or the main component of love and all relationships...

If we take that to be true...um, so?

Lord Kenneth

27th October 2003, 04:17 PM

Originally posted by Marquis de Carabas
All right...let's grant, just for the sake of argument, that lust and physical appearance and attraction or the main component of love and all relationships...

If we take that to be true...um, so?

What does that mean for unattractive people?

LFTKBS

27th October 2003, 04:18 PM

LK, I hate to imply anything here, but have you ever been in a sexual or romantic relationship? Do you think that other people think you are attractive or unattractive?

I ask because a close friend of mine who used to be very overweight and unattractive had horrible and bizarre ideas about women and relationships; now that he is in phenomenal shape, he slightly less negative about the whole thing.

billydkid

27th October 2003, 04:19 PM

Originally posted by Beleth
And a rock feels no pain.

And an island never cries.

Funny stuff Belle

Lord Kenneth

27th October 2003, 04:22 PM

Originally posted by Whomp

Why???

Because one bases their opinion on how one looks.

The Hen

27th October 2003, 04:26 PM

Originally posted by Lord Kenneth

Because one bases their opinion on how one looks.

No. You do, and possibly the majority of people that you currently associate with.

It changes.

Faithkills

27th October 2003, 04:27 PM

Lord Kenneth, you aren't taking it far enough actually.

You say it's basically wrong to judge people on how they look. And people have pointed out there are other ways that people judge other than looks, which you must accept.

But unless you are suggesting some magical way of seeing and judging a person's "soul" the only way you have to judge are based on crass perception. Be it how they smell, how they look, how they treat you, what they say, etc.

So which criteria is the "correct" one in your view? Or are all bogus because they are, ultimately, "superficial"?

One has only so much time to spend on people. One must choose whom to spend it on some basis.

I can tell you unless you think sex is bad, if you want sex to be a part of your relationship it is far better to have someone who you find attractive.

I can also tell you it is FAR easier to destroy desire than to create it. So we are somewhat at the mercy of our evolutionary legacy in this regard. It's very difficult to make yourself desire someone you don't naturally desire, over the long term.

So as everything we know about another person is the result of sensation, what is the "ethically correct" sense we should depend upon to judge?

FK

Lord Kenneth

27th October 2003, 04:33 PM

Originally posted by LFTKBS
LK, I hate to imply anything here, but have you ever been in a sexual or romantic relationship? Do you think that other people think you are attractive or unattractive?

I ask because a close friend of mine who used to be very overweight and unattractive had horrible and bizarre ideas about women and relationships; now that he is in phenomenal shape, he slightly less negative about the whole thing.

No, I (fortunantly) have never been in a relationship. My mind is not clouded by the crappy-happy feelings that it causes.

People generally find me unattractive, as well. That is not their fault. How they let it affect how they treat me, however, may be in some way.

I have gone through life always trying to figure out just WHY people didn't like me the way they didn't like other kids. It wasn't that I was mean-- I was a lot nicer and more sensitive than those brats.

A good portion of my life I thought it was because I didn't play sports. However, now I know that is only partly true-- I know it is because I wasn't aggressive, wasn't commanding, wasn't strong, wasn't charismatic or attractive.

Now that I know just why people treat me differently (and other similar people) it's really changed my outlook on life and on people. I'm conflicted-- I can't hate them, as hating the bastards has led me to react in ways which caused me big trouble. But I find it difficult to pity them because I feel anger towards them even though it might not be entirely their fault.

They do not examine their actions like I do. I realize what I feel, what I feel, and why I feel it, which has led to my disgust of these emotions. My own emotions, coupled with how I have seen adults and teenagers (and children) act alike, is where I get all my data from.

Thank you for helping me confirm my point of view: now that the man is "in phenomenal shape" it appears that people treat him better. Haha! Just goes to show how great and wonderful the human race inherently is, huh?

LFTKBS

27th October 2003, 04:39 PM

Originally posted by Lord Kenneth
What does that mean for unattractive people?

It means that life is tough; get over it. Though all men and women are created morally equivalent, not all men and women are created equal. There will be people who are stronger or smarter or better looking than you or all three. This is the nature of being human. I am neither the strongest nor the smartest nor the best looking guy in the world. Turns out I'm not even close on any of those, but I do fine. (Okay, I'm pretty handsome, and the NSA wants me to work for them, and I can overhead press a Lincoln Towncar, but enough about me.)

Look, I'm nice to people I personally don't want to mate with, but if you think I'm going to date someone who's (ugly & stupid) as sin, you've got another thing coming.

Marquis de Carabas

27th October 2003, 04:40 PM

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Marquis de Carabas
All right...let's grant, just for the sake of argument, that lust and physical appearance and attraction or the main component of love and all relationships...

If we take that to be true...um, so?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What does that mean for unattractive people?
There's probably someone who'll find most anyone attractive, but I suppose we can take it as given that there exists at least one person that is so repulsive no-one will want to partner with them.

And I still say...um, so?

Lord Kenneth

27th October 2003, 04:41 PM

Originally posted by Faithkills
Lord Kenneth, you aren't taking it far enough actually.

You say it's basically wrong to judge people on how they look. And people have pointed out there are other ways that people judge other than looks, which you must accept.

But people are far more willing to touch, to interact with, to.. LOVE people who are more attractive (physically). You can't touch or kiss someone's thoughts (well, their brain, sure, but that's not the same thing.

But unless you are suggesting some magical way of seeing and judging a person's "soul" the only way you have to judge are based on crass perception. Be it how they smell, how they look, how they treat you, what they say, etc.

Think of it this way:

Imagine a person and a computer.

The person could be very beautiful but not be very smart. Similarly, a computer may look very nice (the case, that is) but may be a slow, crappy machine. Sure, ultimately it's all physical, but the brain or processor is what influences how the rest of the system acts (for the most part, of course).

We should not judge computers or buy them simply by how well-designed the case is.

So which criteria is the "correct" one in your view? Or are all bogus because they are, ultimately, "superficial"?

Romantic love, being based on what most would call "lust", makes it superficial.

One has only so much time to spend on people. One must choose whom to spend it on some basis.

I can tell you unless you think sex is bad, if you want sex to be a part of your relationship it is far better to have someone who you find attractive.

Yes, reproduction, choosing an ATTRACTIVE mate simply BECAUSE OF HOW THEY LOOK, with less emphasis on HOW THEY THINK.

I can also tell you it is FAR easier to destroy desire than to create it. So we are somewhat at the mercy of our evolutionary legacy in this regard. It's very difficult to make yourself desire someone you don't naturally desire, over the long term.

So as everything we know about another person is the result of sensation, what is the "ethically correct" sense we should depend upon to judge?

FK

Yes, we are at the mercy of our evolutionary legacy, however, that doesn't mean we can't or shouldn't do our best to stop it.

Some day, when people advance enough to be able to engineer their own children, love will be extinct.

We should judge a person by how they act and think-- just like we should judge a computer by how well it operates.

Lord Kenneth

27th October 2003, 04:42 PM

Originally posted by LFTKBS

It means that life is tough; get over it. Though all men and women are created morally equivalent, not all men and women are created equal. There will be people who are stronger or smarter or better looking than you or all three. This is the nature of being human. I am neither the strongest nor the smartest nor the best looking guy in the world. Turns out I'm not even close on any of those, but I do fine. (Okay, I'm pretty handsome, and the NSA wants me to work for them, and I can overhead press a Lincoln Towncar, but enough about me.)

Look, I'm nice to people I personally don't want to mate with, but if you think I'm going to date someone who's (ugly & stupid) as sin, you've got another thing coming.

What about intelligent but "ugly as sin"?

Lord Kenneth

27th October 2003, 04:45 PM

Originally posted by Marquis de Carabas

There's probably someone who'll find most anyone attractive, but I suppose we can take it as given that there exists at least one person that is so repulsive no-one will want to partner with them.

And I still say...um, so?

Ugly people, like everyone else, usually have a similar idea of "attractive" as everyone else. That being, of course, it does not wildly vary as much as some would like me to think.

Ugly people pursue the attractive people, attractive pursue the attractive, that leaves ugly people to pursue someone who'll never love them, and the attractive to hold each other in their arms, staring into each other's eyes, blah blah... And so ugly people may find the "leftovers" and bond to them, perhaps without feeling real attraction to them but needing someone to talk to.

I find the whole system revolting.

LFTKBS

27th October 2003, 04:50 PM

Originally posted by Lord Kenneth
Thank you for helping me confirm my point of view: now that the man is "in phenomenal shape" it appears that people treat him better.

Actually, no. He still gets turned down for dates. Twice just recently. But the real difference is that he feels better about himself regardless of whether or not girls like his body, and he's a lot more fun to be around as a result of that. And as a result of that, he's more attractive.

Originally posted by Lord Kenneth
Just goes to show how great and wonderful the human race inherently is, huh?

Well, whose side are you on? Do you want humanity to die out? Because if you don't, that means we need to keep producing more humans. We usually do that by having sex.

And if you don't give a whit about homo sapiens, why are you still around?

geni

27th October 2003, 04:51 PM

Originally posted by Lord Kenneth

No, I (fortunantly) have never been in a relationship. My mind is not clouded by the crappy-happy feelings that it causes.

No you are on the biggest hormone load of your life (I should know for me 15/16 was not that long ago) so if you think other peoples thoughs are bing messed up by lust/love you should try and objectivly analise your own thoughts.

People generally find me unattractive, as well. That is not their fault. How they let it affect how they treat me, however, may be in some way.

I have gone through life always trying to figure out just WHY people didn't like me the way they didn't like other kids. It wasn't that I was mean-- I was a lot nicer and more sensitive than those brats.

A good portion of my life I thought it was because I didn't play sports. However, now I know that is only partly true-- I know it is because I wasn't aggressive, wasn't commanding, wasn't strong, wasn't charismatic or attractive.

Now that I know just why people treat me differently (and other similar people) it's really changed my outlook on life and on people. I'm conflicted-- I can't hate them, as hating the bastards has led me to react in ways which caused me big trouble. But I find it difficult to pity them because I feel anger towards them even though it might not be entirely their fault.

They do not examine their actions like I do. I realize what I feel, what I feel, and why I feel it, which has led to my disgust of these emotions. My own emotions, coupled with how I have seen adults and teenagers (and children) act alike, is where I get all my data from.

try and rember you are limited in what you observe. Also there is no such thing as a truly impartial observer

Thank you for helping me confirm my point of view: now that the man is "in phenomenal shape" it appears that people treat him better. Haha! Just goes to show how great and wonderful the human race inherently is, huh?

So fitting in with the group makes life easyer? Well I can't arge with that.

Perhaps I this case the best course of action would be to weight untill the neurogist have worked out what chemichal processes cause love and then we can debate from a postion of knowlage.

Marquis de Carabas

27th October 2003, 04:53 PM

I find the eating of bull's testicles revolting. That does not lead me to label the practice unethical, however. If all you wish to do is state that you find love repulsive, state it. I fail to understand how any of your points add up to saying anything about how ethical love is.

Are you suggesting that people have an ethical responsibility to ensure that everyone gets to mate?

wayrad

27th October 2003, 05:03 PM

Originally posted by Lord Kenneth

What about intelligent but "ugly as sin"? Eminently dateable. Assuming they're intelligent, nice and "ugly as sin".:D

DangerousBeliefs

27th October 2003, 05:04 PM

Looking at it from a genetic standpoint, love is advantageous over emotionless procreation.

Love:

1) Creates communal bonds
2) Provides long-term mate availability
3) Endows parent-child bonds beyond basic instincts
4) Reduces overall sexual stress
5) Provides for greater genetic diversity (as opposed to the domain male getting most the action)

I would even go so far as to say that certain animals experience emotions like love.

If you're interested, consider reading about Bonobo sociology.

Humanity would be a VERY different animal if he had descended from a Bonobo-like creature. Instead, we're more like chimpanzees.

Yahweh

27th October 2003, 05:10 PM

Kenny, just quit'cher bitchin.

No one cares about your inane ranting about the "burden of relationships".

I could care less if you never get a girlfriend (or boyfriend?), but really, just quit'cher bitchin.

I dont understand what you have against "love", what you have against "beauty", what you have again "admiring beauty". I dont understand what compells you to rant and rave about the gift you give yourself: Desire.

Yes, I'm fully aware that you can lust after a person who would never lust in return (its that winning personality of yours why the women just cant help but throw themself at you :rolleyes: ).

You know, if you never find that special lady to have and hold, consider it evolution in action, survival of the fittest. And guess what, its going to be all the preps, all the goths, all the people you hate (everyone actually) who will populate the world, but I'm sure you've already come to that realization.

No, Kenny, if you ever attempted to debate "love is poison", you will be on the losing end. Your reasons for despising compassion are insane and clearly not the earmark of an intellectual.

As far as love being instinctual, I'll educate you. Humans these days are no longer under the pressure to reproduce (unless 6 billion of us die tommorrow, or a rapture occurs, we are under no threat of extinction), "love" is better described by social psychology rather than instincts. Hell, even penguins fall in love.

(And yes, I could probably name dozens of women who's beauty I admire, lust is nice, love is better...)

Lord Kenneth

27th October 2003, 05:18 PM

Originally posted by LFTKBS

Well, whose side are you on? Do you want humanity to die out? Because if you don't, that means we need to keep producing more humans. We usually do that by having sex.

And if you don't give a whit about homo sapiens, why are you still around?

I just think most people have crappy personalities There's nothing I enjoy more than a nice, intelligent conversation, which it seems I can only have online.

I'm not on "any side", and I don't necessarily want humanity to die out, I just want humanity's ignorance and susceptibity to emotion to die out.

I find the eating of bull's testicles revolting. That does not lead me to label the practice unethical, however. If all you wish to do is state that you find love repulsive, state it. I fail to understand how any of your points add up to saying anything about how ethical love is. Are you suggesting that people have an ethical responsibility to ensure that everyone gets to mate?

The difference is that people instinctually give attractive people priority over the unattractive, they treat them better, they are nicer to them, and they fall in love with them. People SHOULD, in a perfect world, not care about physical appearence, but that's not how we are wired to work. If we can't love someone because they are ugly, we shouldn't love anyone at all.

Eminently dateable. Assuming they're intelligent, nice and "ugly as sin".

Dateable, yes, but could you love them? That must be put to the test.

Marquis de Carabas

27th October 2003, 05:25 PM

There's nothing I enjoy more than a nice, intelligent conversation, which it seems I can only have online.
So you enjoy people with one trait (the ability to hold an intelligent conversation) more than those that lack that trait, or hold it to a lesser degree? How does that sit with your ethics?

If we can't talk someone because they are stupid, we shouldn't talk to anyone at all.

Lord Kenneth

27th October 2003, 05:29 PM

Originally posted by Marquis de Carabas

So you enjoy people with one trait (the ability to hold an intelligent conversation) more than those that lack that trait, or hold it to a lesser degree? How does that sit with your ethics?

If we can't talk someone because they are stupid, we shouldn't talk to anyone at all.

Oh, please, you know what I'm talking about, in reference to intelligence.

Quit the strawmen.

Marquis de Carabas

27th October 2003, 05:35 PM

There is no strawman. You assert that the whole business of love is unethical because it picks a trait of an individual (in this case, beauty) and offers that up as a basis for discrimination.

How is that different from your apparent practice of choosing to spend time in conversation with people you find more intellectually stimulating? You are still focusing on a trait of an individual as a means of discrimination. You are more willing to spend time in conversation with poeple you deem intelligent. Most people are more willing to spend time in bed with people they deem to be attractive.

Makes sense to me...

Yahweh

27th October 2003, 05:39 PM

Originally posted by Lord Kenneth

Oh, please, you know what I'm talking about, in reference to intelligence.

Quit the strawmen.
What Would Kenneth Do... for a Klondike bar?

Marquis de Carabas

27th October 2003, 05:49 PM

I don't know, but he should be willing to do just as much for a Heath bar, even if he prefers the taste of Klondike.

ImpyTimpy

27th October 2003, 06:03 PM

This should be labelled as the most pointless thread ever. A statement is made. The statement is shot down with evidence and supportive arguments. The evidence and arguments are ignored and more rambling follows disguised as intellectually stimulating conversation.... More evidence/arguments are presented which are ignored only to be replaced by more pseudo intellectual rambling and "woe is me" crap.

And so the thread goes on, round and round...

TruthSeeker

27th October 2003, 06:22 PM

Originally posted by ImpyTimpy
This should be labelled as the most pointless thread ever. A statement is made. The statement is shot down with evidence and supportive arguments. The evidence and arguments are ignored and more rambling follows disguised as intellectually stimulating conversation.... More evidence/arguments are presented which are ignored only to be replaced by more pseudo intellectual rambling and "woe is me" crap.

And so the thread goes on, round and round...

ImpyTimpy is right. We've had this discussion before many times and each time, you ignore everything everyone says. Last time, I withdrew because you were being so stubborn about predicting the future.

Tonight, I'm wondering, what triggered this? Did something happen today to get you off on this topic again?

Are you feeling particularly insecure? It seems that every couple of weeks you need someone to tell you the following:

Love is possible.
You are not ugly.
Even if you are ugly, love is still possible.
It'll happen for you one day. Be patient.
There is nothing wrong with you.
You are lovable.

wayrad

27th October 2003, 06:24 PM

Originally posted by Lord Kenneth

Dateable, yes, but could you love them? That must be put to the test. Far be it from me to stand in the path of science, but what precisely do you have in mind?:wink8:

Terry

27th October 2003, 06:26 PM

Originally posted by Beleth
And a rock feels no pain.

And an island never cries.

nah, I thought "behind blue eyes", myself...

--Terry.

Foodbunny

27th October 2003, 06:39 PM

I have rarely dated men I consider physically attractive. My current boyfriend, while not a hideous monster, does not live up to the "ideal" in my mind. But I was already well on my way towards loving him before I even saw him, thanks to my being a big nerd and him being so damnably smart.

Not only attractive people find love, and yes, even burn victims find people to spend the rest of their lives with. Attraction works differently for all people, while most start from physical attraction, many do not. The premise that love starts from lust and lust starts from physical attraction is thus flawed.

Calling relationships built only on mutual admiration for each other's bodies superficial is one thing. Saying all relationships are unethical is another.

Lord Kenneth

27th October 2003, 06:39 PM

Originally posted by TruthSeeker

ImpyTimpy is right. We've had this discussion before many times and each time, you ignore everything everyone says. Last time, I withdrew because you were being so stubborn about predicting the future.

Tonight, I'm wondering, what triggered this? Did something happen today to get you off on this topic again?

Are you feeling particularly insecure? It seems that every couple of weeks you need someone to tell you the following:

Love is possible.
You are not ugly.
Even if you are ugly, love is still possible.
It'll happen for you one day. Be patient.
There is nothing wrong with you.
You are lovable.

That's not what I want, so why are you trying to make me angry? I decided to make a topic on this. I don't want to be told any of the above, because I know the answers. I'm arguing because people disagree with me.

Luciana

27th October 2003, 06:40 PM

Originally posted by Lord Kenneth
We are hard-wired for love-- people still think that just because we are love is ethically acceptable. Last time I checked, liking someone for their physical appearence (oh, please, if you have loved ones you know you probably wouldn't love them if they were burn victims).

Discussing this topic with you is tiresome, LK. I've given up already.

I just wanted to point out how just a few days ago I told you the story of how I was attracted to a guy who was a burn victim, with 10+ reconstructive surgeries. So I'm very surprised the way you repeat the example of burn victims who can't be loved. What gives??

Lord Kenneth

27th October 2003, 06:40 PM

Originally posted by Foodbunny
I have rarely dated men I consider physically attractive. My current boyfriend, while not a hideous monster, does not live up to the "ideal" in my mind. But I was already well on my way towards loving him before I even saw him, thanks to my being a big nerd and him being so damnably smart.

Not only attractive people find love, and yes, even burn victims find people to spend the rest of their lives with. Attraction works differently for all people, while most start from physical attraction, many do not. The premise that love starts from lust and lust starts from physical attraction is thus flawed.

Calling relationships built only on mutual admiration for each other's bodies superficial is one thing. Saying all relationships are unethical is another.

So physical attraction is not a factor for you?

I just can't believe that.

Yahweh

27th October 2003, 06:43 PM

Originally posted by Lord Kenneth

So physical attraction is not a factor for you?

I just can't believe that.
What kind of ego-centric are you?

Believe it or not, Kenny, people can and do fall in love with others who have beautiful minds, please understand that.

Lord Kenneth

27th October 2003, 06:46 PM

Originally posted by Luciana Nery

Discussing this topic with you is tiresome, LK. I've given up already.

I just wanted to point out how just a few days ago I told you the story of how I was attracted to a guy who was a burn victim, with 10+ reconstructive surgeries. So I'm very surprised the way you repeat the example of burn victims who can't be loved. What gives??

I was thinking about burn victims that are burned beyond recognition. I think you know what I mean...

Anyway, I use the example because few people have a "burn victim" fetish.

Foodbunny

27th October 2003, 06:47 PM

An aspect of physical attractiveness is a factor for me: hygene. As long as the person showers when they are stinky and makes and effort to keep their hair and clothes under control then I am perfectly happy. Comely people are nice to look at, but I'd always choose the smart, ugly guy than the hot, brainless one.

TruthSeeker

27th October 2003, 06:47 PM

Originally posted by Lord Kenneth

That's not what I want, so why are you trying to make me angry? I decided to make a topic on this. I don't want to be told any of the above, because I know the answers. I'm arguing because people disagree with me.

Kenneth,
I'm not trying to make you angry. I will back off. However, it seems to me that there might be something in your argument: "I am unattractive. As a result, nobody will ever love me. That's fine because I don't want love anyway." that might lead one to the interpretation I offered in my previous post.

As for arguing, others are presenting interesting bits of data and you are dismissing them out of hand. Why not familiarize yourself with the arguments they are making instead of assuming that everyone but you is wrong about the nature of love?

If I started a thread arguing "X = Y"
and several people said "well, actually, there is evidence that X = A, B, maybe C but not Y", and I responded (without reviewing the evidence) "X=Y", what would you say?

What if X=John Edward, Y=genuine medium (or whatever he calls himself), A= cold reading, B= chance, C= hot reading?

Lord Kenneth

27th October 2003, 06:51 PM

Originally posted by Foodbunny
An aspect of physical attractiveness is a factor for me: hygene. As long as the person showers when they are stinky and makes and effort to keep their hair and clothes under control then I am perfectly happy. Comely people are nice to look at, but I'd always choose the smart, ugly guy than the hot, brainless one.

Do you honestly feel infatuation, or is it more of a friendship?

Lord Kenneth

27th October 2003, 06:54 PM

Originally posted by TruthSeeker

Kenneth,
I'm not trying to make you angry. I will back off. However, it seems to me that there might be something in your argument: "I am unattractive. As a result, nobody will ever love me. That's fine because I don't want love anyway." that might lead one to the interpretation I offered in my previous post.

As for arguing, others are presenting interesting bits of data and you are dismissing them out of hand. Why not familiarize yourself with the arguments they are making instead of assuming that everyone but you is wrong about the nature of love?

If I started a thread arguing "X = Y"
and several people said "well, actually, there is evidence that X = A, B, maybe C but not Y", and I responded (without reviewing the evidence) "X=Y", what would you say?

What if X=John Edward, Y=genuine medium (or whatever he calls himself), A= cold reading, B= chance, C= hot reading?

Actually, I said "most likely no one will love me", as you noted I'm perfectly fine with and in fact hope that's the case.

I'm not dismissing anyone out of hand. It's just difficult because we are, partly, debating subjective experience.

Foodbunny

27th October 2003, 07:00 PM

Absolute infatuation. Looking at a cute guy is nice, but only a good conversation can get me blushing and flirting.

I'm intellectually vain. I couldn't stand dating someone I didn't respect on that level because it would feel to me that I was settling, or worse, so desperate as to lower my standards. So when I am looking for a boyfriend, that's exactly what I'm looking for, someone who can challenge me, who I will always be learning from and with. Nothing has ever made my heart pound more than being able to talk on the same level with someone, to see that they understand what I'm getting at and can hold their own.

Lord Kenneth

27th October 2003, 07:03 PM

Originally posted by Foodbunny
Absolute infatuation. Looking at a cute guy is nice, but only a good conversation can get me blushing and flirting.

I'm intellectually vain. I couldn't stand dating someone I didn't respect on that level because it would feel to me that I was settling, or worse, so desperate as to lower my standards. So when I am looking for a boyfriend, that's exactly what I'm looking for, someone who can challenge me, who I will always be learning from and with. Nothing has ever made my heart pound more than being able to talk on the same level with someone, to see that they understand what I'm getting at and can hold their own.

Interesting. You must be in a small minority. I haven't met anyone like that.

Of course, attraction may work differently based on gender.

TruthSeeker

27th October 2003, 07:04 PM

Originally posted by Lord Kenneth

Actually, I said "most likely no one will love me", as you noted I'm perfectly fine with and in fact hope that's the case.

I'm not dismissing anyone out of hand. It's just difficult because we are, partly, debating subjective experience.

But there is research on this topic as well. Perhaps a google search of terms like "attachment" "neurobiology" will be useful.

You are confusing attraction/lust with attachment/love. These are different things.

I'm too busy to do the search for you, but let us know what you find.

I think we can have an intellectual discussion of this topic but only if you leave your own situation out of it. When you don't, it comes off sounding like you are looking for reassurance.

Lord Kenneth

27th October 2003, 07:07 PM

Originally posted by TruthSeeker

But there is research on this topic as well. Perhaps a google search of terms like "attachment" "neurobiology" will be useful.

You are confusing attraction/lust with attachment/love. These are different things.

I'm too busy to do the search for you, but let us know what you find.

I think we can have an intellectual discussion of this topic but only if you leave your own situation out of it. When you don't, it comes off sounding like you are looking for reassurance.

Whoa, whoa, whoa...! YOU are the one dragging my situation in this. NOT me. That's some very crooked tactics you're employing here. :mad:

TruthSeeker

27th October 2003, 07:13 PM

Originally posted by Lord Kenneth

Whoa, whoa, whoa...! YOU are the one dragging my situation in this. NOT me. That's some very crooked tactics you're employing here. :mad:

Oh Kenneth, I'm not going to scroll back etc. etc. and get caught up in some silly little fight with you. We both know this is the continuation of a conversation you've had on this board many times.

Doesn't matter because it seems we are agreed. You will review the evidence and we will discuss it in an impersonal and scholarly way. Yes?

Lord Kenneth

27th October 2003, 07:13 PM

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/scitech/Holiday/scienceoflove010214.html

As most know, however, the rush people feel from new love usually doesn't last forever. And Fisher is also interested in understanding the biological stimulants and anthropological explanations for all phases of love. She argues that there are three main stages to a love relationship: lust, romantic love and attachment.

The first, she says, is "to get you looking for anything at all" and is driven by hormones like testosterone. The romantic love phase, which creates the brain chemical reactions described by the London researchers, serves to "force you to focus your mating energy on one person at a time." And the final, less steamy stage of attachment is to ensure that any children produced by a love match has parents at least through its early years.

Suggestologist

27th October 2003, 07:15 PM

Originally posted by Lord Kenneth
It makes people feel good, but that does not change the fact that love is an instinctual desire to reproduce based on impression, mostly physical attraction.

I'll debate on this. I chose this board because I am unsure of where to put it.

We are hard-wired for love-- people still think that just because we are love is ethically acceptable. Last time I checked, liking someone for their physical appearence (oh, please, if you have loved ones you know you probably wouldn't love them if they were burn victims).

It is instinctual but ethically repugnant.

Physical attraction is important. You seem to be saying that "one shouldn't judge a book by it's cover" -- but evolution has taught the species that you can and should. Humans, of course, transcend evolution. But that does not mean that the way a person looks and the information we gain from watching them behave has no value to our judgement of how they would make us feel as a partner.

Women do not really care about "physical attractiveness" of their partner as much as Men do. They care more about how the guy makes her feel -- and unlike men, women do not derive the majority of this feeling from the raw physical appearance of their guy.

I'm a guy. The physical attractiveness of the girl is a prerequisite for my finding out more about her. But if she turns out to be stupid, or loopy, or has a horrible screechy voice -- those are extremely unattractive to me. If she can have an intelligent discussion and understand my interests, and if she has a great energy about her own future plans and life, and has a great sense of humor, a person you can just laugh and laugh with about the little nothings of life -- that is extremely attractive; it can make a very average looking girl become extremely attractive to me.

Additionally, just because a girl looks pretty, doesn't mean she knows how to turn a guy on. The way she makes you feel, in the end, determines real attraction (whether derived from her looks or from the connection she can develop with you by talking to you).

Being a great looking guy can get girls to start talking to you, but if you can't back it up with personality, they just won't find that extremely physically attractive guy as attractive as a physically ugly guy with a strong attractive personality.

How did someone as ugly as Dennis Rodman get Madonna into bed?

rachaella

27th October 2003, 07:16 PM

This entire rant about love and lust being evil because they involve physical attraction all sounds very similar to some teachings of christianity. I think Paul and Lord Kenneth might get along very well!

Lord Kenneth

27th October 2003, 07:19 PM

Originally posted by Suggestologist

Physical attraction is important. You seem to be saying that "one shouldn't judge a book by it's cover" -- but evolution has taught the species that you can and should. Humans, of course, transcend evolution. But that does not mean that the way a person looks and the information we gain from watching them behave has no value to our judgement of how they would make us feel as a partner.

Ah, I say one shouldn't judge a book by our cover, but evolution has made us to!

That still, however, does not make it right!

Women do not really care about "physical attractiveness" of their partner as much as Men do. They care more about how the guy makes her feel -- and unlike men, women do not derive the majority of this feeling from the raw physical appearance of their guy.

That's possible, of course, if it's true it says a lot about the majority of females I've had the displeasure to come across (not saying all females are bad)...

I'm a guy. The physical attractiveness of the girl is a prerequisite for my finding out more about her. But if she turns out to be stupid, or loopy, or has a horrible screechy voice -- those are extremely unattractive to me. If she can have an intelligent discussion and understand my interests, and if she has a great energy about her own future plans and life, and has a great sense of humor, a person you can just laugh and laugh with about the little nothings of life -- that is extremely attractive; it can make a very average looking girl become extremely attractive to me.

Additionally, just because a girl looks pretty, doesn't mean she knows how to turn a guy on. The way she makes you feel, in the end, determines real attraction (whether derived from her looks or from the connection she can develop with you by talking to you).

Being a great looking guy can get girls to start talking to you, but if you can't back it up with personality, they just won't find that extremely physically attractive guy as attractive as a physically ugly guy with a strong attractive personality.

I agree TOTALLY, the difference is I interpret this and feel differently about it than you do.

How did someone as ugly as Dennis Rodman get Madonna into bed?

She was attracted to his personality, obviously. :rolleyes:

Yahweh

27th October 2003, 07:22 PM

Originally posted by rachaella
This entire rant about love and lust being evil because they involve physical attraction all sounds very similar to some teachings of christianity. I think Paul and Lord Kenneth might get along very well!
I disagree, the reason why this all sounds familiar is because Lord Kenneth's "I hate love/pity me/people are stupid" themed threads have a tendency of popping every few weeks or so. This topic has been discussed dozens of times, the same monotonous <s>arguements</s> rantings everytime.

rachaella

27th October 2003, 07:27 PM

Originally posted by Yahweh

I disagree, the reason why this all sounds familiar is because Lord Kenneth's "I hate love/pity me/people are stupid" themed threads have a tendency of popping every few weeks or so. This topic has been discussed dozens of times, the same monotonous <s>arguements</s> rantings everytime.

Thats true, however I recently picked up Bertrand Russel's Marriage and Morals and this attitude sounds very similar to that attitude taken particularly by the early Christian Church. Although I suppose Paul took issue not with love itself, but with lust. However, in general, it was seen as the weak who married and procreated and the strong who remained celibate.

Lord Kenneth

27th October 2003, 07:30 PM

http://psychology.about.com/library/weekly/aa021502a.htm

- Both sexes placed significant importance on physical attractiveness. There was a very high correlation (0.78) between how attractive male participants found their date and how much they liked her, and a slightly lower correlation (0.69) for women.

- While the researchers had, to some extent, anticipated the importance of physical attractiveness, it was surprising to them that other factors, which they considered important as well, mattered so little. Examples include:

(1) The experimenters know the subjects' rank in high school, which was viewed as a measure of intelligence. Although students typically say that they want their dates to be intelligent, this measure didn't correlate at all with liking.
(2) It is commonly believed that an introverted personality would negatively correlated to being liked as a date. As it turned out in the "computer dance" experiment, that didn't matter either.
(3) Research has indicated that in brief dating relationships, even attitude similarity does not matter. Furthermore, people tend to assume that physically attractive people are more similar to them in attitudes and personality than are physically less attractive people.

Indeed, in the "computer dance" experiment, the only thing that the experimenters could detect that did matter was physical attractiveness.

Luciana

27th October 2003, 07:33 PM

Originally posted by Lord Kenneth

I was thinking about burn victims that are burned beyond recognition. I think you know what I mean...

Anyway, I use the example because few people have a "burn victim" fetish.

If they're burned beyond recognition, they can wear masks or its euphemism - face prosthetics. So, the "yuck" factor isn't there, not really. And even Hawkings got married, didn't he...

(oh, please, if you have loved ones you know you probably wouldn't love them if they were burn victims).

And what if they became burn victims?? Out of the blue, an accident. Loved one is now a burn victim. It's tough, but it's not as if you ceased to love them just like that. Most likely, not.

Lord Kenneth

27th October 2003, 07:36 PM

More from the last link I posted:

Attractiveness and Same-Gender Relationships

Researchers Krebs and Adinolfi found that in one-gender dorms, the most attractive people (both men and women) were the most likely to be rejected by their dorm-mates; slightly less attractive ones were most likely to be accepted; the least attractive ones were neither liked nor disliked by their dorm-mates, they were ignored and isolated.

I don't know about "most attractive", but the least attractive part sure rings a bell in my life and the lives of others I did not personally know but saw them to be physically unattractive.

College Students vs. More Mature Couples

There has long been a debate about the validity of generalizing findings from psychology studies with college students. In this case, the question is that to which degree the behavior of college students in a brief dating scenario can represent couples in the general population? Studies conducted with long-term couples have shown a rough matching in physical attractiveness between established couples. People seem to have an adequate idea of how high to aim and if they don't, they would usually quickly learn their lesson through rejection.

This all matches exactly with what I've been saying! My observations ARE accurate! I'm both impressed with myself and not suprised!

rachaella

27th October 2003, 07:40 PM

Originally posted by Luciana Nery

If they're burned beyond recognition, they can wear masks or its euphemism - face prosthetics. So, the "yuck" factor isn't there, not really. And even Hawkings got married, didn't he...

And what if they became burn victims?? Out of the blue, an accident. Loved one is now a burn victim. It's tough, but it's not as if you ceased to love them just like that. Most likely, not.

I think that one thing needs to be clarified here: The definition of love. In psychology, there tend to be many different theories that separate a much too broad term love into different types of love. So what type of love are you talking about Kenneth? Not all love is even remotely related to physical attraction.

Yahweh

27th October 2003, 07:43 PM

Originally posted by Lord Kenneth
-----------------------------------------------------
People seem to have an adequate idea of how high to aim and if they don't, they would usually quickly learn their lesson through rejection.
-----------------------------------------------------

This all matches exactly with what I've been saying! My observations ARE accurate! I'm both impressed with myself and not suprised!
The title of your thread is:
Love is poison disguised as candy.

Bwahahahahahahaaa!

:dl:

As far as the "people seem to have an adequate idea of how high to aim" quote, congratulations, its not a new idea (anyone could have told you that), and your observations seem to reflect a gross ignorance of context of that quote.

TruthSeeker

27th October 2003, 07:43 PM

This is an interesting start about attraction in undergrads ~ try to get more about attachment, Kenneth, and attachment theory and predictors of marital satisfaction and relationship longevity. Get away from the undergrads and "simulated" situations. Many of the findings with undergrads don't generalize, picking out one that does is a wee bit selective, and as several have noted attraction does not equal love. (It might be interesting to use the word love in your search)

The dorm findings are interesting but not surprising. People who are attractive carry a "halo effect" (another good search) but if they are too attractive, it works against them (this is especially true for women). This has a name too but it escapes me this moment.

Also, don't forget about the neurobiology stuff...

Until tomorrow,
TS

Lord Kenneth

27th October 2003, 07:48 PM

Originally posted by TruthSeeker
This is an interesting start about attraction in undergrads ~ try to get more about attachment, Kenneth, and attachment theory and predictors of marital satisfaction and relationship longevity. Get away from the undergrads and "simulated" situations. Many of the findings with undergrads don't generalize, picking out one that does is a wee bit selective, and as several have noted attraction does not equal love. (It might be interesting to use the word love in your search)

Sure.

Physically Attractiveness in Marriages

Does physically attractiveness continue to matter in marriages? Are people married to attractive people happier? Psychologists Murstein and Christy (1976) found a modest correlation between husbands' satisfaction with their marriage and their perception of their wives' attractiveness, and with their perception of how attractive their wives found them. But wives' satisfaction was unrelated to their perception of their husbands' attractiveness or their perception of how attractive their husbands found them.

TwoShanks

27th October 2003, 07:58 PM

Here's a lovely bit of anecdotal evidence for you:

The first (and to date only) time I have been in love (in the romantic sense), was with someone that I didn't even meet or see a picture of until we had been in love for several months. As it turned out, she's extremely beautiful, but I'd have loved her no matter what she looked like.

TwoShanks

27th October 2003, 07:59 PM

curses, double posted.

rachaella

27th October 2003, 07:59 PM

Originally posted by Lord Kenneth

Sure.

"Physical attractiveness seems to play the most important role in the early stages of a relationship. As researchers Elton McNeil and Zick Rubin conclude, "It seems likely that as the relationship progressesm the impact of physical attractiveness tends to recede in importance. And we often perceive people whom we love as being beautiful, regardless of what anyone else might think." Furthermore, both sexes consider qualities exhibited by their mates such as kindness, understanding, and intelligence to be more important than physical attractiveness in long-term relationships (Buss, 1989; Buss and Barnes, 1986).) - Our Sexuality , 8th Edition, Roberts Crooks and Karla Baur

Clearly, there is research out that that flat-out contradicts your highly biased opinions on love, particularly as it pertains to long-term relationships.

Yahweh

27th October 2003, 08:01 PM

From Kenneth's source:
Psychologists Murstein and Christy (1976) found a modest correlation between husbands' satisfaction with their marriage and their perception of their wives' attractiveness, and with their perception of how attractive their wives found them. But wives' satisfaction was unrelated to their perception of their husbands' attractiveness or their perception of how attractive their husbands found them.

Here's a startling new concept, Kenneth:
Men find women attractive, its part of the male psyche.

Here's another startling new concept:
Physical Attraction neither makes nor breaks "true love", welcome to Humanity, we hope you like it here.

Physical Attraction != Love

ImpyTimpy

27th October 2003, 08:01 PM

When posting evidence to back up your point first ensure that the evidence actually supports your assertions. If you do not you'll end up looking.. well... odd.

The most obvious question is, does the evidence presented here represented the viewpoint that love is nothing but physical attraction?

Short answer is no.

Long answer is:

The experiment is actually quiet flawed. The experiment is conducted in a very limited social structure:

664 students at a large Midwestern university.

"computer dance" at which they were to be matched by computer with a partner for the evening.

The sample is only looking at students in a very specific situation. I don't think I need to remind people that students do not represent majority population at all. Even so, the situation presented to the students has no bearing on the love question - it only has bearing on who you would want to be seeing with if you were a student at a party and whether that person looked good or not!

Originally posted by Lord Kenneth
http://psychology.about.com/library/weekly/aa021502a.htm

Luciana

27th October 2003, 08:19 PM

Originally posted by rachaella

*snip* And we often perceive people whom we love as being beautiful, regardless of what anyone else might think." *snip*

Absolutely. The person becomes beautiful, even if, rationally, you know all too well that the person is not the standard ideal of beauty. But if you love someone, to see this person's face first thing in the morning is extremely pleasing - and think of all of those puffy faces! :D

TruthSeeker

27th October 2003, 08:19 PM

Psychologists Murstein and Christy (1976) found a modest correlation between husbands' satisfaction with their marriage and their perception of their wives' attractiveness

a wee bit of stats before I go to bed (I had a strange sleep paralysis thing last night and find now I'm avoiding going to sleep!)

Anyway: Modest correlation. What does this mean? The magnitude of a correlation varies from -1 to +1. Since the two factors are positively related (more satisfaction with more attractiveness and vice versa), we can assume the correlation if positive.

Let's be really generous and say that the modest correlation was around .50 (although I bet then they'd call it moderate).

This means that attractiveness "explains" or "contributes" about (.50X.50 = .25)or 25% of the variance in satisfaction scores (and we are being generous). So, that means there is another 75% of the variance in satisfaction that is NOT about attractiveness of the spouse. That's an awful lot.

And, remember, correlation does not imply causation. So, they are not satisfied because their wive's are attractive. It could be the other way around (as rachaella suggests) or it could be that a third factor underlies the relationship...

So, be careful in your interpretation of correlations.

c4ts

27th October 2003, 09:16 PM

Marquis de Carabas

27th October 2003, 09:25 PM

After some reflection, I see I should've just stuck with my "um, so?" position, for all the good reasoning seems to do.

LFTKBS

27th October 2003, 10:09 PM

Originally posted by TruthSeeker
People who are attractive carry a "halo effect" (another good search) but if they are too attractive, it works against them (this is especially true for women). This has a name too but it escapes me this moment.

You might be referring to Actaeonizing beauty, first mentioned by this name in David Foster Wallace's Infinite Jest. The myth of Actaeon is available here. (http://www.loggia.com/myth/actaeon.html)

Faithkills

27th October 2003, 11:15 PM

Well it's silly to argue looks don't matter. Attractive people earn more, get promoted faster, and for men are assumed to be more intelligent, etc, etc.

It's a fact of life.

But this has nothing to do with love, per se.

However I don't really see why it's ok to judge someone on their mind and not their body. Some people are born with weak minds.. some people are born with plain looks. Life isn't fair.

Further people with a lot of positive qualities will want a mate with lots of positive qualities, in general. It's universally understood, but discussing it honestly is frowned upon.

But the truth is Liv Tyler would never date me and I would never date Janet Reno;O

Minds also matter, but as they are not as readily judged usually that comes second. And people judge each other there also. And just as harshly.

But I don't think judging on one is more tenable than the other.

To you it seems unfair that people judge on looks, but I can assure you the cute but abysmally dull girl thinks it's unfair men sleep with her but never stay with her because she's stupid.

Moreover you can fix your looks. In many ways, if you choose to.. and the technology to do so advances yearly. But you can't do a hell of a lot about your basic processor. And technology won't fix that nearly as fast.

In 100 years the issue will probably be totally turned around. Everyone will look great and only the dumb people will feel unjustly judged.

But all this doesn't have much to do with love. LK I think you should define your term. What do you think love is?

FK

Some Friggin Guy

28th October 2003, 02:47 AM

I'm posting in this because I'm curiousasto how LK woulduse his definition in my situation.

My wife and I met on the internet. I did what, probably, most people would never dream of doing:

I proposed to her before I ever actually saw her face.(Okay, maybe not the most romantic way of doing it, but I did it and I don't regret it.)

She accepted without ever seeing mine. We've been married for 5 years and we are happy.

Admittedly, this is a little different than the "Traditional" way of doing things, but I never had a problem with it.

The Hen

28th October 2003, 03:46 AM

I have had an almost identical experience Some Friggin Guy, except my proposal was in person during my trip to visit him in Cornwell from Oz.

Looks were not an issue from the word go.

Lord Kenneth

28th October 2003, 04:53 AM

It's sad how people so blindly defend love just because it "feels good".

At least THINK about what you are doing! :eek:

Lord Kenneth

28th October 2003, 04:54 AM

Originally posted by Some Friggin Guy
I'm posting in this because I'm curiousasto how LK woulduse his definition in my situation.

My wife and I met on the internet. I did what, probably, most people would never dream of doing:

I proposed to her before I ever actually saw her face.(Okay, maybe not the most romantic way of doing it, but I did it and I don't regret it.)

She accepted without ever seeing mine. We've been married for 5 years and we are happy.

Admittedly, this is a little different than the "Traditional" way of doing things, but I never had a problem with it.

Very foolish, she could have been a big hairy "he" or something. I doubt you could fall in love with internet text from IM or e-mail or whatever.

Lord Kenneth

28th October 2003, 04:56 AM

Originally posted by rachaella

"Physical attractiveness seems to play the most important role in the early stages of a relationship. As researchers Elton McNeil and Zick Rubin conclude, "It seems likely that as the relationship progressesm the impact of physical attractiveness tends to recede in importance. And we often perceive people whom we love as being beautiful, regardless of what anyone else might think." Furthermore, both sexes consider qualities exhibited by their mates such as kindness, understanding, and intelligence to be more important than physical attractiveness in long-term relationships (Buss, 1989; Buss and Barnes, 1986).) - Our Sexuality , 8th Edition, Roberts Crooks and Karla Baur

Clearly, there is research out that that flat-out contradicts your highly biased opinions on love, particularly as it pertains to long-term relationships.

I see no contradiction, and "true love" usually contains commitment. I do not insist that people do not stop loving if the other person becomes less attractive, although it is likely for it to happen.

Lord Kenneth

28th October 2003, 04:57 AM

Originally posted by Marquis de Carabas
After some reflection, I see I should've just stuck with my "um, so?" position, for all the good reasoning seems to do.

Oh, you're right, it's perfectly reasonable to treat ugly people differently than attractive people!

Some Friggin Guy

28th October 2003, 05:11 AM

Originally posted by Lord Kenneth

Very foolish, she could have been a big hairy "he" or something. I doubt you could fall in love with internet text from IM or e-mail or whatever.

Never underestimate the power of the phone, Kenny.

LFTKBS

28th October 2003, 06:16 AM

Originally posted by Lord Kenneth
It's sad how people so blindly defend love just because it "feels good".At least THINK about what you are doing! :eek:

Kenneth, it appears that you have no interest in actually discussing the topic. Why are you getting all T'ai Chi on us?

I never defended love because it "feels good." I defended it because it is part of our nature, and a healthy part at that. Compassion and altruism would be rather more difficult if we were not social animals. Successful pair bonds are beneficial to both the individuals involved and the society in which they live.

Faithkills pointed out correctly that some people are born with a less than optimal intelligence, yet we don't hear you bemoaning the fate of the pretty yet dumb women who can get one-night stands but can't maintain a relationship because of that flaw.

Further, you seem to think you have some mysterious knowledge of what love really is. I think that's as specious as a Christian telling me that I'm not truly happy without Jesus in my life.

Look, I know that certain aspects of the human psyche when it comes to this sort of thing are flawed. Those women with uh, impressively large mammary glands are not neccessarily better breastfeeders than small or medium breasted women, yet many males find it quite attractive. Similarly, the peahen finds the peacock's large plume attractive because it's a liability. Nature has a weird way of doing things. Looks are an indicator of good health and good genes. So is intelligence. But it's real freaking tough to know if someone's smart just by looking at them, so we go to the default.

This is The Way It Is. If you have a problem, I suggest you call up the Universe and register a complaint.

28th October 2003, 07:20 AM

Originally posted by Lord Kenneth

What do I propose people do? To force themselves not to allow themselves to treat people different based upon how they look. This pretty much means no romantic relationships ...

I have posted this once before but since you didn't comment it in any way I'll post this again.

You claim that love is irrational, but that term has several different definitions. In decision theory, an action is rational if it maximises the expected utility of the results. The utility of a result is defined using the utility function of the decision maker, so two different agents may have different rational choises in the same situation if their functions are different.

The desire to feel love is hard-wired in human brain. It is a part of your own very personal utility function. You can assign yourself other goals that you want to fulfill and make them part of that function, but you can't remove the desire to love from it.

In your absolute refusal of love, you are acting against that hard-wired part of the utility function. I find that highly irrational.

And as for physical attractiviness, I have to admit that I probably wouldn't fall in love with someone who is not attractive in my eyes. However, luckily to me, my notion of attractiviness is so wide that to this day I've met only one woman of roughly my own age who didn't have anything attractive in her physical shape.

28th October 2003, 07:21 AM

Originally posted by Lord Kenneth

Oh, you're right, it's perfectly reasonable to treat ugly people differently than attractive people!

... or intelligent differently than stupid ...

Nyarlathotep

28th October 2003, 07:39 AM

This whole argument is silly. For one thing yes people do treat people differently based on their looks, but so what? They also treat each other diferently based on income, on hygiene, on profession, on age, on gender, and on a million other things. we are never going to eliminate all differneces between people and it wouldn't be a desirable thing to do anyway. We all play the cards we are dealt.

And the argument that unattractive people can never be loved is also ridculous. I have been 300+ pounds my entire adult life. Fat is not considered an attractive thing in our society and I am very fat. However the only times I have lacked for female companionship have been those times when I didn't make the effort to go and find it. I have other things that women like (and no, I am not rich by any stretch of the imagination) Could I have any woman I wanted? No, of course not, no one can. Rejection is just something you have to deal with and you keep looking until you find someone you like who happens to appreciate whatever you bring to the table.

As for love emotionally based and not rational. Well again so what. Plain tasteless water is the only liquid anyone truly needs to avoid dying of thirst, yet most people (and I would suspect that you would be included in this) drink an occasional soda, or glass of wine, or beer or whatever for no reason other than the fact that they enjoy it. That enjoyment is also purely emotional and is not based on need of any kind. Yet I don't see you advocating the elimination of soda pop, beer, wine, kool-aid, etc. or saying that drinking them is "ethically repugnant"

Ipecac

28th October 2003, 08:59 AM

Teen angst. Sheesh.

Anyone else get the feeling that Kenneth posted this on the off-chance that some skepchick would decide to set him straight and show up in person at his house to "demonstrate" that even the unattractive can get some? :D

komencanto

28th October 2003, 09:02 AM

See if this rings any bells LK:

Racism is wrong because it is judging people and effecting their lives based on a tribute over which they have no control (their skin color or race).
Likewise, love is wrong, because it is based on judging people based on their appearance (in a large majority of cases), something which ugly people have little to no control over.

You see, we believe that it is not fair to discriminate against people over something which a person is born with. It´s all about choice. If I choose to be a prat to everyone, I deserve what I get, but I can´t choose to be beautiful or ugly, so it´s not fair that it should effect my life.

There are many potential objections, such as:
The world is not fair, and we all have our faults and must live with them.
Skin color does not effect anything, whereas being ugly amkes it more difficult for people to enjoy being around you.
And more.

Faithkills

28th October 2003, 10:58 AM

I think it also bears reiterating that if we are only to judge based on things people can control then looks do indeed fall into this category.

To whit I do know many thin people who (among themselves) talk about how fat people are lazy people.

And in some sense they are correct. MOST could excercise or have surgery.

If you are ugly no doubt this can be improved by plastic surgery.

A man can buy a extravagant car. A woman can have a tit job. Cliche, but we all know both are effective.

Short children can be given HGH.. short adults can have bone stretching procedures.

So you can use your intellect to gain capital to improve your looks.

Cry then for the stupid AND ugly. Because for anyone else.. it's just crying in your beer because you are too lazy to do something about your situation.

Do you think it's part of "being you" to be ugly? That's preposterous. The beautiful age and become ugly. Wealthy children are not universally born attractive but manage in general to become so by the time it's time to mate. So your looks are not a part of you that has any real meaning other than its a fact you have to deal with, or not, as you choose.

Not having the benefit of free resources doesn't mean you cannot accomplish the same thing with effort.

So perhaps rather than crusading to discredit the concept of love, (to which many of us are attached;) perhaps you could just go get some liposuction, some face work, and start running regularly?:)

I can promise you your happiness will be greater doing this than crusading to destroy a pleasant tho relatively harmless delusion most of us have, called love.

And most of us impute more to the term love than you do however.

For myself love is the embodiment of the irrational. It is exemplified by acting in anothers interest counter to your own, a la Sydney Carton. Acting in their best interests that do not counter your own may, or may not, result from love, but being the good skeptic I don't take for granted love exists without such proof;)

This is the standard to which I hold myself anyway.

FK

28th October 2003, 11:14 AM

Originally posted by Faithkills

A man can buy a extravagant car. A woman can have a tit job. Cliche, but we all know both are effective.

Yes and no. I probably wouldn't fall in love with a woman who would be attracted to me because of my car. We probably wouldn't have much in common.

Faithkills

28th October 2003, 11:30 AM

Silly.

She'd may be charming and atractive and you'd never know if or how much of a factor it played. Maybe it was your attire. Maybe it was your new haircut. We do these things to be attractive. Like it or not, because other people WILL do them and if we don't make ourselves stand out no one will cry but us.

You'd enjoy better results. You'd never know why unless she was so stupid that she let on this was a factor. In which case you would judge HER unworthy due to her being a dolt.

The fact of the matter is if you are looking for a mate at all you want the best one according to whatever standards you have. I suspect if one say looks don't figure into this in any way that one is a lier, and maybe even a lier to his/her self.

FK

28th October 2003, 12:00 PM

Originally posted by Faithkills

You'd enjoy better results. You'd never know why unless she was so stupid that she let on this was a factor. In which case you would judge HER unworthy due to her being a dolt.

I think you misunderstood my post a bit. To me, the most important characteristic in a potential mate is compatible personality. Good looks would be nice but not essential (as I wrote previously, I find that most women are attractive in their own ways).

I don't pay much attention to clothes or hairstyles, or stuff like that. [I once didn't notice that my girlfried had changed her hair color until she told it two weeks later. To my defence, the change was minor. But then again, she doesn't notice when I shave (even after suggesting doing so) so I think that it evens out.]

If the type of my car is important to a woman, I believe that she probably doesn't have a personality that will make me fall in love with her. Sure, there may be (and probably are) many exceptions, but my general experience is that women who give much attention to the outside are not of my type.

Lord Kenneth

28th October 2003, 12:25 PM

Originally posted by LFTKBS

Kenneth, it appears that you have no interest in actually discussing the topic. Why are you getting all T'ai Chi on us?

I never defended love because it "feels good." I defended it because it is part of our nature, and a healthy part at that. Compassion and altruism would be rather more difficult if we were not social animals. Successful pair bonds are beneficial to both the individuals involved and the society in which they live.

I don't care if it's good for us or is part of our nature. Violence is part of our nature, you know. Love wouldn't be so bad if physical appearence wasn't the determining factor.

Faithkills pointed out correctly that some people are born with a less than optimal intelligence, yet we don't hear you bemoaning the fate of the pretty yet dumb women who can get one-night stands but can't maintain a relationship because of that flaw.

She still gets loved-- perhaps for a short period of time, but people are very much attracted to her.

Further, you seem to think you have some mysterious knowledge of what love really is. I think that's as specious as a Christian telling me that I'm not truly happy without Jesus in my life.

Hmmm? How is there a dispute over what love is? We know what is it- an emotion, a feeling, and instinct produced by our body and brain.

Look, I know that certain aspects of the human psyche when it comes to this sort of thing are flawed. Those women with uh, impressively large mammary glands are not neccessarily better breastfeeders than small or medium breasted women, yet many males find it quite attractive. Similarly, the peahen finds the peacock's large plume attractive because it's a liability. Nature has a weird way of doing things. Looks are an indicator of good health and good genes. So is intelligence. But it's real freaking tough to know if someone's smart just by looking at them, so we go to the default.

I've heard large breasts are attractive because they may be a sign of higher estrogen and thus more "fertile". Of course, that's not what people think but that's how we've come to find that attractive.

This is The Way It Is. If you have a problem, I suggest you call up the Universe and register a complaint.

Yes, I have a problem, and I am doing my part to fix it. You all can "love", but I'll have the satisfaction of NOT loving and knowing I am not a selfish bastard who blindly follows emotions just because they make one happy.

Marquis de Carabas

28th October 2003, 12:27 PM

Oh, you're right, it's perfectly reasonable to treat ugly people differently than attractive people!
You're right. It is perfectly reasonable, dependent upon the reason for which one is judging. If I'm judging people's attractiveness to try to find a mate, it makes perfect sense to find someone whose looks I find aesthetically pleasing. Surely you're not suggesting that people should pick mates they wouldn't enjoy looking at?

Of course, I would be judging on countless other factors as well, at the same time...intelligence, sense of humour, table manners, responsibility, faithfulness... Is it wrong to want a mate that has these qualities? If so, why? If not, then why is it wrong to wish for attractiveness as well?

Lord Kenneth

28th October 2003, 12:27 PM

Originally posted by Ipecac
Teen angst. Sheesh.

Anyone else get the feeling that Kenneth posted this on the off-chance that some skepchick would decide to set him straight and show up in person at his house to "demonstrate" that even the unattractive can get some? :D

This is ridiculous. Just because I find a certain behavior and emotion to be horrible that others happen to find "happy" doesn't mean I want such a horrible thing to happen to me. I am no hypocrite. This is truly what I think, this is how I think, and what I am advocating is what I do myself.

Ipecac

28th October 2003, 12:31 PM

Originally posted by Lord Kenneth
This is ridiculous. Just because I find a certain behavior and emotion to be horrible that others happen to find "happy" doesn't mean I want such a horrible thing to happen to me. I am no hypocrite. This is truly what I think, this is how I think, and what I am advocating is what I do myself.

Kenneth, I don't doubt that's what you believe. But take a hint from those who have some experience in these matters. As soon as you meet someone you find attractive and she returns the favor, all of this will go out the window.

Lord Kenneth

28th October 2003, 12:31 PM

Originally posted by LW

I have posted this once before but since you didn't comment it in any way I'll post this again.

You claim that love is irrational, but that term has several different definitions. In decision theory, an action is rational if it maximises the expected utility of the results. The utility of a result is defined using the utility function of the decision maker, so two different agents may have different rational choises in the same situation if their functions are different.

I have already stated that love is NOT irrational on an evolutionary scale.

The desire to feel love is hard-wired in human brain. It is a part of your own very personal utility function. You can assign yourself other goals that you want to fulfill and make them part of that function, but you can't remove the desire to love from it.

I can't remove the desire but I can do my best to how I react to such desires.

In your absolute refusal of love, you are acting against that hard-wired part of the utility function. I find that highly irrational.

I am doing what I feel is right and fair. Have you not felt a surge of anger where you had to stop yourself from hitting someone or something? I could say the same about that violence. Neither not allowing yourself to be in a relationship nor stopping yourself from commiting the violence you want to commit are irrational.

And as for physical attractiviness, I have to admit that I probably wouldn't fall in love with someone who is not attractive in my eyes. However, luckily to me, my notion of attractiviness is so wide that to this day I've met only one woman of roughly my own age who didn't have anything attractive in her physical shape.

Face. For some reason which I admit I don't know we concentrate mostly on one's face.

Lord Kenneth

28th October 2003, 12:35 PM

Originally posted by Ipecac

Kenneth, I don't doubt that's what you believe. But take a hint from those who have some experience in these matters. As soon as you meet someone you find attractive and she returns the favor, all of this will go out the window.

I've considered that possibility. I admit, you could be right. How I react may change, true, but I don't think I'll think I was wrong about everything.

Who knows, I could reject them as well. I find that to be a more likely possibility if it indeed happened.

Oh, and I keep my infatuations under control, doing my best to basically destroy them. I think (and hope!) my willpower is strong enough.

Lord Kenneth

28th October 2003, 12:39 PM

Originally posted by Marquis de Carabas
You're right. It is perfectly reasonable, dependent upon the reason for which one is judging. If I'm judging people's attractiveness to try to find a mate, it makes perfect sense to find someone whose looks I find aesthetically pleasing. Surely you're not suggesting that people should pick mates they wouldn't enjoy looking at?

I'm suggesting one, who wishes to be fair and thoughtful about this subject, picks no one as a mate.

Of course, I would be judging on countless other factors as well, at the same time...intelligence, sense of humour, table manners, responsibility, faithfulness... Is it wrong to want a mate that has these qualities? If so, why? If not, then why is it wrong to wish for attractiveness as well? [/B]

Those qualities reflect personality. How one looks physically and how one acts ARE connected, from what I've seen, but that's because of how people give them a lot more attention because of the way they look.

Marquis de Carabas

28th October 2003, 12:42 PM

Why is it OK to judge based on personality, but not on looks? Why is attractiveness taboo?

Lord Kenneth

28th October 2003, 12:54 PM

Originally posted by Marquis de Carabas
Why is it OK to judge based on personality, but not on looks? Why is attractiveness taboo?

Personality and intelligence are how the person acts/thinks. Looks is simply how they look. Intelligence builds bridges, progresses humanity, produces stories. All beauty gives us is sexual desire and porn.

geni

28th October 2003, 01:00 PM

Originally posted by Lord Kenneth

Personality and intelligence are how the person acts/thinks. Looks is simply how they look. Intelligence builds bridges, progresses humanity, produces stories. All beauty gives us is sexual desire and porn.

Looks can often be the result of how peole behave. The guy who spend 12 hours in the gym is going to be rather more muclar than the guy who spends all day reading. Secondy are you claiming that inteligence has no gentic componete?

LFTKBS

28th October 2003, 01:06 PM

I have determined that Lord Kenneth is clearly confused about the difference between love and lust; until there is a change in his understanding, I can't post to this topic again.

Good luck , everyone. :rolleyes:

Marquis de Carabas

28th October 2003, 01:06 PM

Intelligence builds bridges, progresses humanity, produces stories. All beauty gives us is sexual desire and porn
What does one's ability to build bridges have to do with love? I know of many criteria people use to judge a potential mate...bridge building isn't one of them.

And I'd love to see how far humanity progressed without sexual desire.

Marquis de Carabas

28th October 2003, 01:08 PM

<waves> bye LFTKBS. I'll let ya know if anything changes.

TruthSeeker

28th October 2003, 01:14 PM

Kenneth,
I guess you gave up on the scientific approach to this topic after you were shown that the studies you posted did not actually support your position.

That's really too bad. I had thought there might be some room for progress.

If you want to get back to the science of it, let me know.

TS

Faithkills

28th October 2003, 01:27 PM

Don't you be harshing on porn now! Them's fightin words!;)

"Looks is simply how they look" - LK

And personality is simply how they act.

Intellect is simply how they think.

"Intelligence builds bridges, progresses humanity, produces stories." - LK

Hmm .. if we are to believe the evidence of this thread intelligence mostly produces hyperationalized whining;)

To the extent that it does build bridges, it also builds concentration camps.. so I don't think we can go by intellect alone.

Beauty also accomplishes things by motivating men to concentrate power. Some of those things are good and some bad.. no different than raw intellect.

Because you happen to not be beautiful is I suspect at the heart of your prejudice.

As pointed out your philosophy would evaporate the moment a beautiful woman fell in love with the "inner you". Although, given your philosphy this seems unlikely to happen. People don't generally find cynicism terribly atttractive. Or self delusion.

Until you know what it's like not to be unnattractive you will always have an element of ignorance in your argument about a certain point. What it feels like to be attractive. That knowlege is hard to convey second hand.

So I suggest to you, remedy it. It is mere looks. It is not fundamental to you. It can be remedied to an extent. And clothes figure far more in attraction for women so may be able to substitute style for surgery. Losing weight is either a matter of capital or discipline, surely you can muster one of those.

Consider the beautiful woman who is nice to everyone. They do exist I assure you. And she has less attractive male friends. However she must make a choice in mates. Is she wrong for being a mere loyal and steadfast friend to a less attractive male friend but never a lover? If so.. why?

And this example goes both ways. I know from personal experience. The cute but dim girl was an example from my life. In the final analysis she was not the LEAST comforted by the fact she had enjoyed my attentions but never a long term relationship with me, although she had stated she WOULD be fine with it (merely sexual relationship) before the fact. Having learned that lesson, there have been far more who I was simply loyal friends to, but who nevertheless harbored resentment that my standards of whom I chose to be in a relationship didn't include them. The truth was I WOULD have slept with them, but I didn't because I hoped to keep the friendships and had learned having sex with them would likely ruin it. Ultimately however I have found the majority harbor resentment, no matter how nice you are to them, simply because you don't want to be intimately involved with them.

So I have sufferred from losing friends, merely because they wanted intimate relationships with me and I did not. I never was mean or disloyal in any way. I was sensitive and thoughtful. Nevertheless the relationships generally turned sour. Despite ME BEING A GOOD AND LOYAL FRIEND TO THEM.

Will you cry for me for suffering because I am attractive? Because I was judged for my looks and not my deeds? :P

FK

TwoShanks

28th October 2003, 01:38 PM

This topic appears to be little more than teen angst, amounting to LK telling everyone "nobody loves me because i'm ugly and i don't want anyone to love me anyway so there."

Reminds me of how I thought when I was about 14.

Marquis de Carabas

28th October 2003, 01:38 PM

How dare you be attractive FK! Shame on you! You should go scar up your face so people will judge you on your personality instead. :D

Nyarlathotep

28th October 2003, 02:20 PM

Reading LK's posts I couldn't help but think of a science fiction story I read a long time ago where all inequality in the world was eliminated by such methods as forcing everyone to wear identical masks (to equalize looks), forcing more athletic types to wear heavy weights at all times (to equalize physical ability) and forcing intelligent people to wear helmets that slightly disoriented their thinking processes (to equalize intellect)

This society is LK's 'philosophy' taken to it's logical extreme.

Faithkills

28th October 2003, 02:59 PM

"You should go scar up your face so people will judge you on your personality instead."

Yes I live i shame;P

Anyway I'm no adonis. But being employed, and not overweight seems to go a long way with women. Toss in you don't smoke and you don't have kids and own your own home and you are a CATCH;P I could add more about me but I don't want to turn this into a personals ad;) Besides I'm attached. At least I think I am.

FK

Suggestologist

28th October 2003, 03:02 PM

Originally posted by Lord Kenneth
Yes, I have a problem, and I am doing my part to fix it. You all can "love", but I'll have the satisfaction of NOT loving and knowing I am not a selfish bastard who blindly follows emotions just because they make one happy.

Yah! Who needs happiness in their lives when they can have the satisfaction of feeling good about themselves because they avoided happiness....

Suggestologist

28th October 2003, 03:07 PM

Suggestologist

28th October 2003, 03:15 PM

Originally posted by Faithkills

Consider the beautiful woman who is nice to everyone. They do exist I assure you. And she has less attractive male friends. However she must make a choice in mates. Is she wrong for being a mere loyal and steadfast friend to a less attractive male friend but never a lover? If so.. why?

You're saying that she couldn't possibly even hope to sleep with the thousands of guys who have hit on her in the course of her life, right?

And this example goes both ways. I know from personal experience. The cute but dim girl was an example from my life. In the final analysis she was not the LEAST comforted by the fact she had enjoyed my attentions but never a long term relationship with me, although she had stated she WOULD be fine with it (merely sexual relationship) before the fact. Having learned that lesson, there have been far more who I was simply loyal friends to, but who nevertheless harbored resentment that my standards of whom I chose to be in a relationship didn't include them.

Maybe you just never learned how to manage "friends with benefits" relationships well?

The truth was I WOULD have slept with them, but I didn't because I hoped to keep the friendships and had learned having sex with them would likely ruin it. Ultimately however I have found the majority harbor resentment, no matter how nice you are to them, simply because you don't want to be intimately involved with them.

So I have sufferred from losing friends, merely because they wanted intimate relationships with me and I did not. I never was mean or disloyal in any way. I was sensitive and thoughtful. Nevertheless the relationships generally turned sour. Despite ME BEING A GOOD AND LOYAL FRIEND TO THEM.

Will you cry for me for suffering because I am attractive? Because I was judged for my looks and not my deeds? :P

FK

I'm crying. If you knew what you were doing, you could have slept with 'em all...

Suggestologist

28th October 2003, 03:27 PM

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep
Reading LK's posts I couldn't help but think of a science fiction story I read a long time ago where all inequality in the world was eliminated by such methods as forcing everyone to wear identical masks (to equalize looks), forcing more athletic types to wear heavy weights at all times (to equalize physical ability) and forcing intelligent people to wear helmets that slightly disoriented their thinking processes (to equalize intellect)

This society is LK's 'philosophy' taken to it's logical extreme.

Yah. Life is unfair. And that is WONDERFUL! Because it means we have the ability to make it better.

Lord Kenneth

28th October 2003, 03:29 PM

Originally posted by TruthSeeker
Kenneth,
I guess you gave up on the scientific approach to this topic after you were shown that the studies you posted did not actually support your position.

That's really too bad. I had thought there might be some room for progress.

If you want to get back to the science of it, let me know.

TS

I was shown no such thing.

Lord Kenneth

28th October 2003, 03:33 PM

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep
Reading LK's posts I couldn't help but think of a science fiction story I read a long time ago where all inequality in the world was eliminated by such methods as forcing everyone to wear identical masks (to equalize looks), forcing more athletic types to wear heavy weights at all times (to equalize physical ability) and forcing intelligent people to wear helmets that slightly disoriented their thinking processes (to equalize intellect)

This society is LK's 'philosophy' taken to it's logical extreme.

I know what story you are talking about, and I disagree.

I simply think that the attractiveness of a person's face is a poor indication of what kind of person they are.

Lord Kenneth

28th October 2003, 03:35 PM

Originally posted by Marquis de Carabas

What does one's ability to build bridges have to do with love? I know of many criteria people use to judge a potential mate...bridge building isn't one of them.

And I'd love to see how far humanity progressed without sexual desire.

Oh, please, intellect and personality are who we really are, how we operate. A person's face is just something we find subjectively attractive.

Intellect exists outside of our own brains. Beauty, however, is not objective.

Oh, and just because humans progressed with sexual desire doesn't mean we should give in to it.

It's unfair to ugly people.

Nyarlathotep

28th October 2003, 03:50 PM

Originally posted by Lord Kenneth

I know what story you are talking about, and I disagree.

I simply think that the attractiveness of a person's face is a poor indication of what kind of person they are.

I won't disagree with that point.

However that point is a far cry from the generalization you were making that "Love is 'ethically repugnant' because many people choose who they love solely on their looks".

While it is true that many people DO choose their mates entirely by looks, it is usually because that person is a shallow individual. This is especially true among younger people, such as the people in high school, like you deal with every day. The ability to judge people on criteria other than appearance comes with maturity. In fact, I think it is one of the hallmarks of maturity.

As I pointed out before, I am a case in point. Likely, no woman has ever looked at me and said 'WOW! Is that guy a Chippendale dancer?!?" and I am not rich. Yet several women have fallen in love with me over the years. Mostly because once they knew me they decided they liked other things about me. While I would never argue that looks wouldn't have attracted MORE women to me, but I think it does show that they are not the be all and end all.

Faithkills

28th October 2003, 03:57 PM

"It's unfair to ugly people." - LK

And? Never making any money and having short lifespans is unfair to stupid people?

And is it fair to the attractive person that they should have to date ugly people?

They certainly don't think so. And so they don't.

"I'm crying. If you knew what you were doing, you could have slept with 'em all..." -Suggestologist

Well at that point in time I wanted the friendships more than the sex.. sex I already had. I just didn't have sex in my friendship pool. And didn't keep friends in my sex pool. No pool mixing:)

However in retrospect most of my female friends never lasted so I probably should have.

But the fact of the matter is it gets messy when you do that. Especially if there are multiple female friends who might want the "benefits". I don't know how you manage it. Maybe if you were just brutally honest, it might work. But I don't trust women to be that practical at least in that matter. Not anymore. Lest some accuse me of sexism there are areas where women are generally more practical. But actually having no strings sex and not developing attachments isn't one of those areas.

FK

sorgoth

28th October 2003, 04:02 PM

Originally posted by Lord Kenneth

Now, if you have a romantic partner, you might insist that you'll love her (assuming most readers are males) no matter what happens to her. I doubt that, but think of it this way-- would you love them if magically they turned into the opposite sex overnight? If physical characteristics aren't a factor, then why aren't we all bisexual? Clearly, our selection is already limited (for most of us, anyway) by gender.

Hmm...You make a good point there.

I'm not saying physical characteristics are the only factor, but they are the main one by a large margin.

A truly ethical person would realize that while love *feels* good, it is still judging people mostly by physical characteristics. "Beauty is only skin deep", while a popular adage isn't (and can't be!) appreciated by a vast majority of people.

Physical characteristics are the main factor for STARTING a romantic relationship. I think the vast majority of couples who marry for looks divorce.

What do I propose people do? To force themselves not to allow themselves to treat people different based upon how they look. This pretty much means no romantic relationships and doing the best they can to be sociable with everyone equally (by this I mean talking to someone just because you find them attractive, admit it men, you feel the desire to talk to a female because she has a nice face). It's an instinct we must fight... we must fight to be unbiased to factors that don't involve how someone acts.
[/B]

Romantic interest is something both people involved enjoy.

Now, I don't want to sound like your peers you seem to detest so, but I bet you wouldn't be saying that if you got any romantic relationships. What does that have to do with anything, you may ask? Well, it's not your (Or anyone else's) right to stop people from enjoying themselves, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else.

Lord Kenneth

28th October 2003, 04:08 PM

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep

I won't disagree with that point.

However that point is a far cry from the generalization you were making that "Love is 'ethically repugnant' because many people choose who they love solely on their looks".

While it is true that many people DO choose their mates entirely by looks, it is usually because that person is a shallow individual. This is especially true among younger people, such as the people in high school, like you deal with every day. The ability to judge people on criteria other than appearance comes with maturity. In fact, I think it is one of the hallmarks of maturity.

As I pointed out before, I am a case in point. Likely, no woman has ever looked at me and said 'WOW! Is that guy a Chippendale dancer?!?" and I am not rich. Yet several women have fallen in love with me over the years. Mostly because once they knew me they decided they liked other things about me. While I would never argue that looks wouldn't have attracted MORE women to me, but I think it does show that they are not the be all and end all.

I'm not saying they only concentrate on looks. I'm saying people MOSTLY concentrate on looks... probably usually around 75% or so.

If your "partner" suddenly, magically turned into a man, would you still love them? Provided they had the same intellect and personality, of course.

Nyarlathotep

28th October 2003, 04:20 PM

Originally posted by Lord Kenneth

I'm not saying they only concentrate on looks. I'm saying people MOSTLY concentrate on looks... probably usually around 75% or so.

If your "partner" suddenly, magically turned into a man, would you still love them? Provided they had the same intellect and personality, of course.

I don't have time to comment on this in depth right now. But Gender and looks are two different things. I won't say that there isn't a biological component to love because it is all biology. That biology would prevent me from desiring to have sex with a man. However, we are in charge of our own minds to a degree and we can decide to a point WHAT we find attractive within certain limits, i.e. a hetreosexual is not going to find a man sexually attractive. However some people can and do decide (even if on a subconsciouis level) that they prefer intellect, character, humor or whatever. Some people choose to concentrate on looks, some do not.

Generalizations are usually a bad thing to make.

Marquis de Carabas

28th October 2003, 04:32 PM

Oh, please, intellect and personality are who we really are, how we operate. A person's face is just something we find subjectively attractive.
Without getting into the subjectivity/objectivity of beauty, you still haven't shown me why intellect or personality is an acceptable means of discrimination, while beauty is not. Saying that the former traits are "who we really are" doesn't clarify things at all.

Intelligence and personality are two traits that contribute to someone's "mental attractiveness." Smarter and nicer people will tend, on average, to win in the love game. Facial symmetry, hygeine, and bodily form are traits that contribute to "physical attractiveness." Better-looking people will tend, on average, to win in the love game.

One of the above (mental attractiveness) does not seem to bother you much at all, while the other (physical) seems to be a constant thorn in your side. Really, though, what's the difference?

If your "partner" suddenly, magically turned into a man, would you still love them? Provided they had the same intellect and personality, of course.
A change in sex would represent not only a change in appearance, but a change in (to put it delicately) functionality. Therefore, anyone who would leave a partner whose sex had changed could not necessarily be accused of judging said partner on appearance.

Faithkills

28th October 2003, 07:31 PM

I think he could indeed be accused of such.

And the accusation would be valid.

What part of the functionality do you think a man lacks? Sexually a woman changed into a man would probably be quite able to do "the job" and in fact based on her past experience and her newfound perspective might be quite exceptional in this regard.

If you have a strict desire for procreation that does not include any technology or adoption that could be an issue... but even then.. what if his (erstwhile) identical twin sister were willing to sub in for that one purpose?

Ok, if you still say no, what if (s)he loved you so much he was willing to undergo all possible surgery .. to the extent that he was basically "corrected" except for the matter of a chromosome here or there?

Is that ok? Is that not ok? Either way you are in trouble from an "appearance shouldn't matter" standpoint.

As an organism evolved to trust it's vision for over 80% of the information it parses it's silly to say looks don't or shouldn't matter. But more than silly, it's appallingly futile.

Tell a dolphin not to judge it's mate by what it hears.

The equity of the matter is a different issue. However as has been demonstrated no one is immune to appearance. Even the blind are concerned with someone's looks. Blind or sighted it makes a difference if the woman on your arm when you walk into a function is attractive or not. Whether he can directly appreciate it or not. A blind man with a gorgeous wife is pitied less and respected more.

I for one do not want to live in a world where we all look alike or are all blind. And nothing else would change our behavior, at least until we can gengineer such backwards traits as love out of ourselves;)

FK

Disco

28th October 2003, 07:59 PM

I've followed this for a while. Many views I agree with, some I don't. I get the feeling many posters have a few years of experience to catch up with me.

When I was a teen, I was attracted to certain types. They didn't always conform to the norm. Some guys I dated were attractive physically, but once I talked with them I realized that I was not interested in a relationship.

Others that I went out with were not the "ideal" beauty that society (i.e. media) promoted. They were: shorter than I was, not "clean-cut" athletic youth, not religious zombies. These were the guys I ended up dating for the long-term. I even fell for one or two.

The main reason I loved these guys is because they were interested in me. They talked to me, they paid attention to my hobbies & opinions, we did things together. Also, I learned a great deal from them & their view points.

For those who say that they are rejected only because they think that girls find them "ugly', I suggest maybe the girls think their personalities or demeanor are "ugly." Showing interest & an open mind can be very attractive to intelligent women.

MHB

a_unique_person

28th October 2003, 08:19 PM

Don't tell me, you are suffering from unrequited love. It has been medically shown to be as painful as a broken leg. You will have to get the hots for someone else who does like you to cure it.

Disco

28th October 2003, 08:25 PM

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Don't tell me, you are suffering from unrequited love. It has been medically shown to be as painful as a broken leg. You will have to get the hots for someone else who does like you to cure it.

Hope that wasn't posted to me, AUP. I've been happily married for 20+ years. I was relating my teenaged years. Check out my profile for my age.

:roll:

MHB

TwoShanks

28th October 2003, 08:27 PM

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Don't tell me, you are suffering from unrequited love. It has been medically shown to be as painful as a broken leg. You will have to get the hots for someone else who does like you to cure it.

Sounds about right, that used to happen to me a lot. Apart from the bit about getting the hots for someone who does like me. Now I've settled into a comfortable routine of not getting close to anyone and being painfully awkward in social situations. It's fun for the whole family.

Marquis de Carabas

29th October 2003, 12:19 AM

a_unique_person

29th October 2003, 04:05 AM

Originally posted by ooh_child

Hope that wasn't posted to me, AUP. I've been happily married for 20+ years. I was relating my teenaged years. Check out my profile for my age.

:roll:

MHB

Sorry, I was playing the JREF drinking game.

Someone makes a post in reference to the topic or an early post, many pages on and confuses the hell out of everyone. Take a sip.

Lord Kenneth

29th October 2003, 05:03 AM

Originally posted by Marquis de Carabas

The part of the functionality I think a man lacks is, in a word, a vagina. Assuming we were talking about a sexual relationship, a change of one partner's sex changes the relationship in many ways that do not have merely to do with the appearance of the partner. If one were to leave such a partner, it is possible that looks might have something to do with it. It's far more likely that sexual persuasion or (in the case of many) religious beliefs would be the true reason behind the split.

If we were to assume that by "magically turned into a man," LK meant that the partner looked like a man, but retained the sexual organs of a woman, then anyone leaving such a partner could be accused of leaving based on appearance. As it stands, however, leaving a man when you were in a realtionship with a woman is not a decision based on appearance alone.

So sex is such a major factor that you would leave them in such an instance? Isn't that admitting that looks ARE the main part of a relationship?

Lord Kenneth

29th October 2003, 05:04 AM

Originally posted by Faithkills
I think he could indeed be accused of such.

And the accusation would be valid.

What part of the functionality do you think a man lacks? Sexually a woman changed into a man would probably be quite able to do "the job" and in fact based on her past experience and her newfound perspective might be quite exceptional in this regard.

If you have a strict desire for procreation that does not include any technology or adoption that could be an issue... but even then.. what if his (erstwhile) identical twin sister were willing to sub in for that one purpose?

Ok, if you still say no, what if (s)he loved you so much he was willing to undergo all possible surgery .. to the extent that he was basically "corrected" except for the matter of a chromosome here or there?

Is that ok? Is that not ok? Either way you are in trouble from an "appearance shouldn't matter" standpoint.

As an organism evolved to trust it's vision for over 80% of the information it parses it's silly to say looks don't or shouldn't matter. But more than silly, it's appallingly futile.

Tell a dolphin not to judge it's mate by what it hears.

The equity of the matter is a different issue. However as has been demonstrated no one is immune to appearance. Even the blind are concerned with someone's looks. Blind or sighted it makes a difference if the woman on your arm when you walk into a function is attractive or not. Whether he can directly appreciate it or not. A blind man with a gorgeous wife is pitied less and respected more.

I for one do not want to live in a world where we all look alike or are all blind. And nothing else would change our behavior, at least until we can gengineer such backwards traits as love out of ourselves;)

FK

Just because we naturally act that way does not mean we shouldn't do our best to repress it.

VicDaring

29th October 2003, 07:29 AM

Originally posted by Lord Kenneth
Just because we naturally act that way does not mean we shouldn't do our best to repress it.

Geez kid, that sounds like a fundie argument.

As to the "Harrison Bergeron" discussion earlier in the thread, well of course you wouldn't see the parallel. In Vonnegut's story, people had their intellect artificially limited too. That would be taking away your advantage, and that just wouldn't be right, now, would it?

I've said this before to you Ken (even though I'm a relative newbie), and I say it again now: Spend some time away from the computer. Go out and live. Have fun. Get dirty. Get your heart broken. Break someone else's (it happens by accident sometimes). It's not as bad as you think. And sometimes it's even worse than you think. And it's worth every moment.

Faithkills

29th October 2003, 08:22 AM

"Just because we naturally act that way does not mean we shouldn't do our best to repress it." - LK

Possibly, but you haven't made this case.

It's very apparent you think this, it's not apparent why anyone else should. Despite the fact that what you want will never happen, I am ready to concede the point that perhaps it SHOULD if you can make some solid case for it. I'm fond of equity.

FK

Keneke

29th October 2003, 08:30 AM

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Don't tell me, you are suffering from unrequited love. It has been medically shown to be as painful as a broken leg.

How is that so? ::listens intently::

Marquis de Carabas

29th October 2003, 10:26 AM

So sex is such a major factor that you would leave them in such an instance? Isn't that admitting that looks ARE the main part of a relationship?
Sex is such a major factor in many relationships that it would not surprise me if a partner left after such a magical alteration. How is that admitting that looks are the main part of a relationship? Please tell me you don't believe the only difference between a penis and a vagina is appearance.

Lord Kenneth

29th October 2003, 12:44 PM

Originally posted by Faithkills
"Just because we naturally act that way does not mean we shouldn't do our best to repress it." - LK

Possibly, but you haven't made this case.

It's very apparent you think this, it's not apparent why anyone else should. Despite the fact that what you want will never happen, I am ready to concede the point that perhaps it SHOULD if you can make some solid case for it. I'm fond of equity.

FK

I can't think of why one should judge on appearence alone. Now, I understand race may indicate how they are raised (for example, black people tend to act more "gangsta" and stuff, especially in their teens, for socially influenced), but I can't see how looks make someone a better person.

You can control how you act, not whether you are attractive or not (for the most part).

Lord Kenneth

29th October 2003, 12:47 PM

Originally posted by Marquis de Carabas

Sex is such a major factor in many relationships that it would not surprise me if a partner left after such a magical alteration. How is that admitting that looks are the main part of a relationship? Please tell me you don't believe the only difference between a penis and a vagina is appearance.

1. Some couples remain celibate for whatever reasons they have.

2. The difference is physical. If such a difference is a large factor then something other than personality and intelligence guides attraction.

Lord Kenneth

29th October 2003, 12:53 PM

Originally posted by VicDaring

Geez kid, that sounds like a fundie argument.

As to the "Harrison Bergeron" discussion earlier in the thread, well of course you wouldn't see the parallel. In Vonnegut's story, people had their intellect artificially limited too. That would be taking away your advantage, and that just wouldn't be right, now, would it?

I've said this before to you Ken (even though I'm a relative newbie), and I say it again now: Spend some time away from the computer. Go out and live. Have fun. Get dirty. Get your heart broken. Break someone else's (it happens by accident sometimes). It's not as bad as you think. And sometimes it's even worse than you think. And it's worth every moment.

First of all, I'm not talking about limiting beauty or intelligence. Beauty would be fine if it wasn't a factor of what people think of other people.

My argument is no fundie argument. I would say the same about murder, you know.

Also, your last paragraph made me very, very angry. No, IT IS NOT WORTH ANY MOMENTS, AND IT IS AS BAD AS I THINK, BECAUSE ALL I NEED TO DO IS SIT BACK AND WATCH PEOPLE TO REALIZE HOW FUTILE AND FOOLISH THEIR ACTIONS ARE.

I do NOT LIKE the average teenager. You insult my intelligence greatly.

sorgoth

29th October 2003, 01:17 PM

Originally posted by Lord Kenneth

Oh, please, intellect and personality are who we really are, how we operate. A person's face is just something we find subjectively attractive.

Intellect exists outside of our own brains. Beauty, however, is not objective.

Oh, and just because humans progressed with sexual desire doesn't mean we should give in to it.

It's unfair to ugly people.

And most really well-paying jobs are unfair to stupid people. Of course it's unfair. Get over it.

29th October 2003, 01:17 PM

Originally posted by Lord Kenneth

I can't remove the desire but I can do my best to how I react to such desires.

And by trying to repress them you are making your life unhappier than it would otherwise be.

There are people who have naturally much lower need to have a relationship than most people have. I know personally a few of them. They are happy living alone.

By your posts you seem not to be one of them. They don't go around shouting how they detest love, it is a non-issue for them. You, on the other hand, are deliberately choosing to be unhappy. That is not rational.

Have you not felt a surge of anger where you had to stop yourself from hitting someone or something?

Actually, no. I'm not naturally violent and in addition being the weakest boy in the class for ten years does wonders to self control.

Neither not allowing yourself to be in a relationship nor stopping yourself from commiting the violence you want to commit are irrational.

Violence and love are two rather different things. For one, punching someone has usually rather more negative consequences than kissing a willing partner. Of course, there are also situations when it is better to repress amorous feelings, for example, when you get a quick crush on some pretty girl while at the same time having a girlfriend who you love.

Face. For some reason which I admit I don't know we concentrate mostly on one's face.

Funny. My girlfriend has a very beautiful body (though she might look even better with a few more kgs of weight) but has a plain face. She looks beautiful when you look at her from the right direction (especially in candlelight) but if you took her picture with you and asked random people in the street whether she is beautiful or not, the vast majority would say not. But anyway, her looks are not the most important thing about her. Her personality is.

29th October 2003, 01:31 PM

Originally posted by Lord Kenneth

I can't think of why one should judge on appearence alone.

There it is again: on appearance alone. How many times you have to be told that appearance is not the only criterion in attraction.

You can control how you act, not whether you are attractive or not (for the most part).

Being attractive is not solely about being good looking. How you act makes a large part of your attractivines.

I, for example, know two women who are very beautiful in the classical sense but I definitely wouldn't ask them out even if I was single. The reason: their personalities make them totally unattractive to me. I don't go into details but their characters are so different from mine that any possible relationship would have the life expectancy of a snowman in a sauna.

On the other hand, there's one woman I would go out with (supposing that both of us were single) even though she is very far from the classical beauty ideals.

a_unique_person

29th October 2003, 02:18 PM

Originally posted by Keneke

How is that so? ::listens intently::

I was reading in the newspaper the other day (therefore it must be true), that medical scientists used MRI to see the brain activity of those suffering pain. A broken heart ranks up there with a broken leg. I am sorry, but I am not going to try to find the link for it, you will have to google it yourself.

Suggestologist

29th October 2003, 02:30 PM

Originally posted by Lord Kenneth

Just because we naturally act that way does not mean we shouldn't do our best to repress it.

Just because parents (often) naturally love their children does not mean we shouldn't do our best to repress it? Even though their love is basically based on brain chemistry. More directly, the mother gets an increase in her natural oxytocin or something like that, after/during the birth.

Marquis de Carabas

29th October 2003, 02:37 PM

1. Some couples remain celibate for whatever reasons they have.

2. The difference is physical. If such a difference is a large factor then something other than personality and intelligence guides attraction.
1. Some couples do, in fact, remain celibate. You will notice, however, that I was talking specifically about relationships where this was not the case. Please note that I never said no-one who would leave their partner over a miraculous sex change would do so for reasons of appearance. I only said that you could not say that everyone who would leave left for that reason.

2. Something other than personality and intelligence is involved in attraction. I've never denied that. I only ask, why should anyone care? How is it wrong to want a partner that you feel physically, as well as mentally, attracted to?

VicDaring

29th October 2003, 04:42 PM

Originally posted by Lord Kenneth

Also, your last paragraph made me very, very angry. No, IT IS NOT WORTH ANY MOMENTS, AND IT IS AS BAD AS I THINK, BECAUSE ALL I NEED TO DO IS SIT BACK AND WATCH PEOPLE TO REALIZE HOW FUTILE AND FOOLISH THEIR ACTIONS ARE.

I do NOT LIKE the average teenager. You insult my intelligence greatly.

But it is worth it, Ken. Worth every single heart pounding, soul shaking moment.

And surely you're not suggesting that observing a thing is the same as experiencing it. The perception becomes completely different.

I don't mean to make you mad, that's not what I'm trying to do. I'm trying to talk you into living. I suspect better people than I (smarter, more eloquent...better looking) have already tried and given up, but what the hey. I'll take my turn in the batter's box.

Lord Kenneth

29th October 2003, 05:08 PM

The kind of life you want me to lead is only for the average, aggressive, extrovertive good-looking teenager.

VicDaring

29th October 2003, 05:21 PM

Life (I mean real, flesh-and-blood LIFE) and intellect don't have to be mutually exclusive.

There's a lot of grey area in there. Go explore it.

TwoShanks

29th October 2003, 06:22 PM

Originally posted by Lord Kenneth
The kind of life you want me to lead is only for the average, aggressive, extrovertive good-looking teenager.

LK, no matter how much you want to believe it, and no matter how hard it is for you to accept, you are not that different from other people. You appear to be in the midst of some kind of existential teenage angst (patronising though that phrase may be), which I can identify with since I felt much the same when I was younger. You also appear to be obsessed with your own perceived lack of good-looks, and fancy yourself to be above your peers.

Leading a life as a non-average, non-aggressive, introverted, and not particularly attractive person in no way exempts you from being loved or falling in love.

As many other people here have tried to point out to you, someone who is attractive to you in a mental sense will appear as physically attractive. The two are intertwined.

Lord Kenneth

29th October 2003, 06:30 PM

Originally posted by TwoShanks

LK, no matter how much you want to believe it, and no matter how hard it is for you to accept, you are not that different from other people. You appear to be in the midst of some kind of existential teenage angst (patronising though that phrase may be), which I can identify with since I felt much the same when I was younger. You also appear to be obsessed with your own perceived lack of good-looks, and fancy yourself to be above your peers.

Leading a life as a non-average, non-aggressive, introverted, and not particularly attractive person in no way exempts you from being loved or falling in love.

As many other people here have tried to point out to you, someone who is attractive to you in a mental sense will appear as physically attractive. The two are intertwined.

But I am above my peers. I'm always laughing at their stereotypical behavior. They act like characters on a television show.

Suggestologist

29th October 2003, 06:36 PM

Originally posted by Lord Kenneth

But I am above my peers. I'm always laughing at their stereotypical behavior. They act like characters on a television show.

The laugh's on you. They'll have memories a life lived. What will you have?

TwoShanks

29th October 2003, 06:42 PM

Kenneth, you evidently aren't aware of this, but you are also playing a role. This entire topic conforms spectacularly to the stereotypical "angst-filled teenager" role. You are, fairly obviously, covering up your lack of self-esteem with a facade of bitterness and superiority. Now I had hoped you might have realised this yourself, but conforming to a different stereotype doesn't make you better than your more "average" peers.

Lord Kenneth

29th October 2003, 06:50 PM

Angst? Stereotype? I seriously don't like love form what I have observed of why people love, their criteria, and how they act in love.

I do think of myself better than most teenagers because I've heard most of them speak.

"Hur hur like I got soooo drunk on Friday!"

"Like Oh My Gawd, that dress, is like soooo sexy!"

Honestly, if you act like a character on a show on the Disney Channel.... well...

I certainly am more intelligent than a vast majority of them.

c4ts

29th October 2003, 07:03 PM

Originally posted by Suggestologist

The laugh's on you. They'll have memories a life lived. What will you have?

Quite possibly a decent future if he can free himself from the bonds of high school.

Lord Kenneth

29th October 2003, 07:31 PM

Originally posted by c4ts

Quite possibly a decent future if he can free himself from the bonds of high school.

:D

Clancie

29th October 2003, 07:50 PM

I think a lot of LK's generalizations are coming from observing and spending lots of time with teenagers who say they are in "love".

Most of us are basing our generalizations on observing and spending time with (or as) adults who are in love.

I'm sure some teenagers -do- have deep and mature and complex feelings that go beyond attraction and hormones. HOWEVER, there's often a lot of immaturity there, too.

I think the point we all keep trying (futilely, it seems) to get across is that love between adults can be very different than it seems between teenagers in high school.

I hope that doesn't sound snobbish or condescending, but there really are -some- benefits to getting older. :) Maturing in areas related to love, imo, is one of them.

Suggestologist

29th October 2003, 07:54 PM

Originally posted by c4ts

Quite possibly a decent future if he can free himself from the bonds of high school.

He just needs to stay involved with friends -- friends who will help him live rather than having to have sat on the sidelines observing others living.

Marquis de Carabas

29th October 2003, 07:55 PM

So LK's problem, in a nutshell, is that he is in love, after all. He is in love with his own "individuality." I hope it keeps him warm at night.

Suggestologist

29th October 2003, 07:59 PM

Originally posted by Lord Kenneth
Angst? Stereotype? I seriously don't like love form what I have observed of why people love, their criteria, and how they act in love.

I do think of myself better than most teenagers because I've heard most of them speak.

Oh, ov curse, how well you speak determines how much better you are.

"Hur hur like I got soooo drunk on Friday!"

"Like Oh My Gawd, that dress, is like soooo sexy!"

Honestly, if you act like a character on a show on the Disney Channel.... well...

then at least you experienced life. You weren't the one watching the Disney Channel and wishing you had had some of those experiences and not others.

I certainly am more intelligent than a vast majority of them.

So what? Intelligence won't automagically make you happy.

Kilted_Canuck

29th October 2003, 08:45 PM

Well, LK, I think you really need to get to know people from your own age group. All you see is the facade they put up while amonst their peers. Not everyone is as shallow as they may seem. You're basing all your observations on what YOU'VE seen, personally, at one school, rather than looking at specific people.

Yeah, I'm 'going out' with a girl right now. We were good friends for the last two years, and decided that we'd give a shot at fulfilling the gf/bf rolls. I care about her, I like her, but I wouldn't say I love her; at least not yet. We still have much to learn, love isn't something that always happens in an instant. I may have fallen for those "crappy-happy" feelings, but that just it, it feels good. It may be the hormones, but even then I feel happy. What's wrong with feeling happy for knowing you care about someone and someone cares about you?

LK, you have a major superiority complex, you may be into philosopy, science, and skepticism, but that doesn't make all other people your age complete idots either.

Faithkills

29th October 2003, 10:38 PM

"The part of the functionality I think a man lacks is, in a word, a vagina" - MdC

Well the man has an orifice that seems to do the job as well or better. ROFL. How many females have asked the question.. "hey I have a perfectly functional vagina.. what are you doing back there?" :)

"I can't think of why one should judge on appearence alone." - LK

Well lot's of people can. And the vast majority of people can think of reasons to at least factor appearance into their judgement. You need to do more than an admission that you cannot think of something:)

"You can control how you act.." - LK

True.

"not whether you are attractive or not (for the most part)" - LK

Not true (for the most part). In fact females especially spend a tremendous amount of time trying to make themselves look better. And certainly manage it as evidenced by the occasional morning screams of terror from males which have been with us since the invention of makeup:) Levity aside, cosmetic surgery is an effective reality, and getting more effective every day. The fact is, if you want to, you CAN drastically change your appearance and desireability as a mate. Some people have to work harder to look good, or stay thin, but they CAN do it.

Just as the dull have to study harder to get a good GPA, or maintain job skills, or even have fodder for good conversation.

Only the very extremely ugly or extremely stupid can never overcome their disadvantage.

Fk

30th October 2003, 06:33 AM

Originally posted by Faithkills
And certainly manage it as evidenced by the occasional morning screams of terror from males which have been with us since the invention of makeup.

I'd suggest you substitute"beer goggles" for "makeup" here.

Faithkills

30th October 2003, 09:06 AM

I'll bear it in mind for future debate:)

FK

Yahzi

30th October 2003, 11:19 AM

Originally posted by Lord Kenneth
It makes people feel good, but that does not change the fact that love is an instinctual desire to reproduce based on impression, mostly physical attraction.
That's only half right, Kenneth. Men make judgements based on physical attraction: but women make judgements based on how much money you have.

This is a good thing (for men), because it means no matter how ugly you are, you can get a hot babe if you just make enough money.

And how much money you make is something you can do something about. If the system is unfair, it's unfair to women, who are just stuck with what they were born with.

:arrow:

More seriously, love isn't really about those things. It's about the revelation of the self. Once you've opened all your hidden doors, and revealed all your inner self to another person, what they look like or how much money they have doesn't really matter. Infatuation is based on your trivial issues, and it's true that many people never get past infatuation, but if you look closely you'll see that is because they never reveal their true inner selves. Probably because they don't know their own selves, but there you go.

Yahzi

30th October 2003, 11:21 AM

Originally posted by Lord Kenneth
Angst? Stereotype? I seriously don't like love form what I have observed of why people love, their criteria, and how they act in love.
Perhaps your sample set is non-representative.

LawnOven

30th October 2003, 11:59 AM

why does this thread have 181 replys (oops 182)?

seriously

Nyarlathotep

30th October 2003, 12:46 PM

Originally posted by LawnOven
why does this thread have 181 replys (oops 182)?

seriously

I have an opinion on that. I have noticed that the posts that get the most responses are the ones that provoke an emotional response from people. What that emotion is is irrelevant, it could be warm fuzzy's, it could be boiling anger, it doesn't matter. I think that this thread, intentionally or not, provokes an emoptional response. Thus 182 responses (183 now)

Melissa Johnson

30th October 2003, 12:51 PM

Just like to stir the pot a little by saying today's mine & my husband's ninth wedding anniversary.

Ah, there's no poison like love poison :D

Walter Wayne

30th October 2003, 01:24 PM

The few studies I have looked at concluded that singles have a higher mortality rate than married, divorced or widowed people. Poison indeed.

Walt

Lord Kenneth

30th October 2003, 01:29 PM

Originally posted by Kilted_Canuck
Well, LK, I think you really need to get to know people from your own age group. All you see is the facade they put up while amonst their peers. Not everyone is as shallow as they may seem. You're basing all your observations on what YOU'VE seen, personally, at one school, rather than looking at specific people.

Yeah, I'm 'going out' with a girl right now. We were good friends for the last two years, and decided that we'd give a shot at fulfilling the gf/bf rolls. I care about her, I like her, but I wouldn't say I love her; at least not yet. We still have much to learn, love isn't something that always happens in an instant. I may have fallen for those "crappy-happy" feelings, but that just it, it feels good. It may be the hormones, but even then I feel happy. What's wrong with feeling happy for knowing you care about someone and someone cares about you?

LK, you have a major superiority complex, you may be into philosopy, science, and skepticism, but that doesn't make all other people your age complete idots either.

I have no reason to believe you (in reference to other teens being "worthwhile people", and I really have no desire to be friends with them.

Lord Kenneth

30th October 2003, 01:39 PM

30th October 2003, 01:59 PM

Originally posted by Lord Kenneth

I have no reason to believe you (in reference to other teens being "worthwhile people",

So, are you basically arguing that on the whole wide planet Earth there is only one teen who is "worthwhile" ? (Supposing of course that you meet your own standards.)

and I really have no desire to be friends with them.

Your loss.

Melissa Johnson

30th October 2003, 02:26 PM

THE TRIPLE FOOL.
by John Donne

I am two fools, I know,
For loving, and for saying so
In whining poetry ;
But where's that wise man, that would not be I,
If she would not deny ?
Then as th' earth's inward narrow crooked lanes
Do purge sea water's fretful salt away,
I thought, if I could draw my pains
Through rhyme's vexation, I should them allay.
Grief brought to numbers cannot be so fierce,
For he tames it, that fetters it in verse.
But when I have done so,
Some man, his art and voice to show,
Doth set and sing my pain ;
And, by delighting many, frees again
Grief, which verse did restrain.
To love and grief tribute of verse belongs,
But not of such as pleases when 'tis read.
Both are increasèd by such songs,
For both their triumphs so are published,
And I, which was two fools, do so grow three.
Who are a little wise, the best fools be.

***

Ah, what pretty poison...I do love Donne...

;)

Lord Kenneth

30th October 2003, 04:01 PM

Originally posted by LW

So, are you basically arguing that on the whole wide planet Earth there is only one teen who is "worthwhile" ? (Supposing of course that you meet your own standards.)

Your loss.

No, the vast, vast majority of teenagers are worthless, stupid, emotional idiots.

My loss? I prefer to think of it as a "gain". The more I isolate myself from these people the happier I tend to be.

Nyarlathotep

30th October 2003, 04:08 PM

Originally posted by Lord Kenneth

No, the vast, vast majority of teenagers are worthless, stupid, emotional idiots.

My loss? I prefer to think of it as a "gain". The more I isolate myself from these people the happier I tend to be.

That is your perception and I will not dispute it. However you must realize that "the vast majority"<>"all"

Disco

30th October 2003, 09:25 PM

I've been reading this thread & thinking "this is very familiar."

Then I remembered a thread in another forum a few months ago.

Very much the same in tone, & that other poster felt the same isolation & distain of the "beautiful people" - i.e. popular teenagers of his school.

Then, he disappeared from that thread. He posted as Dark Cobra, do you think LK & DC could be...............nah...........

Nevermind.

:con2:

MHB

Lord Kenneth

31st October 2003, 04:25 AM

Originally posted by ooh_child
I've been reading this thread & thinking "this is very familiar."

Then I remembered a thread in another forum a few months ago.

Very much the same in tone, & that other poster felt the same isolation & distain of the "beautiful people" - i.e. popular teenagers of his school.

Then, he disappeared from that thread. He posted as Dark Cobra, do you think LK & DC could be...............nah...........

Nevermind.

:con2:

MHB

Actually, yes, most people here know I am Dark Cobra.

Yahzi

31st October 2003, 07:32 PM

Originally posted by Melissa Johnson
Just like to stir the pot a little by saying today's mine & my husband's ninth wedding anniversary.
Grats!

:wow2:

Ratman_tf

1st November 2003, 08:54 AM

I once felt as you do Lord Kenneth. I was distainful of my peer in high school. I was (and probably still am. :p ) unattractive. A 'geek'. I had few friends, and liked to think of myself as better than those around me because I was smarter and they led shallow lives.

Then something happened. I grew up. I dropped out of high school, got my GED and started living my life.

I realized, and am still realizing, that there is a lot of wisdom out there to be learned by me. I wasn't as deep, and those I looked down on in high school weren't as shallow as I once thought. I realized that people do the things they do for various reasons, not always apparent. And that all of that has been gone through by other people long before I got onto the scene. It's humbling, and I don't make as many authoritative statments about anything anymore.

I was so damn judgemental, I treated a friend of my sister's like a piece of s**t because she slept around and partied and I felt she was immature and shallow.
Now, in hindsight, yeah I was a bit jealous and she had personal problems that contributed to her ways, and later had physical problems from having promiscuous sex.
After my aforementioned 'growing up' (Which I'll point out again is an ongoing process.) I treated her better and found out she was a human being the same as me. I still didn't agree with some of the things she did, but I didn't let that stop me from treating her with a little common courtesy and decency.

I know this is falling on deaf ears. You know everything in high school. I sure felt like I did. :D

Lord Kenneth

1st November 2003, 01:10 PM

I never said I know everything. I certainly don't. You just want to throw that strawman out to discredit me. It won't work. You know damn well that I don't think I know everything, or close to everything.

I still think my peers are stupid, worthless sheep, who react almost only on emotion and don't have a rational brain cell in their head.

I have no reason to think otherwise, after all, that's certainly what they come across.

Love is mostly for those stupid, worthless, emotional sheep. Being attractive, they are liked by near everyone and people want to know them and hang around them. They get through life easily, with a lot less problems people not nearly treated as well go through. All because they have a nice face.

Of course, this makes them intellectually lazy because thinking just isn't something they have to do. Thus, they become stupid, are really are worthless.

Yahzi

1st November 2003, 02:34 PM

Originally posted by Lord Kenneth
Love is mostly for those stupid, worthless, emotional sheep. Being attractive, they are liked by near everyone and people want to know them and hang around them. They get through life easily, with a lot less problems people not nearly treated as well go through. All because they have a nice face.
Well, the latter point is true: attractive people really do get treated differently. So do tall people. On the other hand, no matter how ugly you are, you are male. And (I assume, although I couldn't explain why) you are white and heterosexual. So, I'd like to relay a message from all the ugly black Jewish lesbians of the world: STOP WHINING. You got it easy, chump.

Also, consider that you have never actually seen two people in love. High school lust hardly counts, and your parents (IIRC) are divorced, so you just don't have any good examples. I assure you that real love, not mere hormonal attraction, is an entirely different affair. True love is about revelation of the self.

So stop feeling sorry for yourself. Get good grades, join a gym, excersize, go to college, make a lot of money, become physically adept at everything by getting a black belt... and you'll be me. :)
And you should see the hottie I married. Not only is she gorgeous, but she's brilliant, an atheist, and likes computer games.

Life really is what you make it. I know I resisted that information when I was your age, because I was starting so far behind so other many people (what with being ugly, weak, and intellectual). But after I got ahead, I noticed that everybody has their own problems. For instance, I resented people who had their college education paid for by their parents - until one of them roomed with me for the summer. The relationship this adult man had with his parents (still being financially dependent on them) was so terrible that my financial problems seemed a small price to pay.

You got a brain. A good one. That's more than you deserve, more than most people get. But instead of being thankful that you can see things others can't, you just whine because everybody else seems to have it better. Consider this: your dissatisfaction with not being attractive and popular reveals just how important they are to you.

I know, I know: I didn't get it when I was your age either. But trust me: once you figure out how things actually work, you'll see.

TwoShanks

1st November 2003, 02:58 PM

Originally posted by Lord Kenneth

I still think my peers are stupid, worthless sheep, who react almost only on emotion and don't have a rational brain cell in their head.

I have no reason to think otherwise, after all, that's certainly what they come across.

Love is mostly for those stupid, worthless, emotional sheep. Being attractive, they are liked by near everyone and people want to know them and hang around them. They get through life easily, with a lot less problems people not nearly treated as well go through. All because they have a nice face.

LK, most of what you describe is true from a purely high-school perspective, however your idea of love as being for "stupid, worthless, emotional sheep" is patently absurd and deeply irrational. I am in agreement with Ratman on this one, as you get older and continue to "grow up" (and I don't mean to sound patronising, I'm only 20 myself), you'll realise things are very different to how you think they are now. I'm another one of those people who considered themselves superior to their peers when I was at school but I've learned a lot about life since then.

Lord Kenneth

1st November 2003, 03:25 PM

Originally posted by Yahzi
Well, the latter point is true: attractive people really do get treated differently. So do tall people. On the other hand, no matter how ugly you are, you are male. And (I assume, although I couldn't explain why) you are white and heterosexual. So, I'd like to relay a message from all the ugly black Jewish lesbians of the world: STOP WHINING. You got it easy, chump.

Attractive people get treated far more nicely than ugly people; and are also given a lot more attention. Ugly people tend to be isolated and outcasted; if they really want to be "in" they have to really work and fight for it.

Also, consider that you have never actually seen two people in love. High school lust hardly counts, and your parents (IIRC) are divorced, so you just don't have any good examples. I assure you that real love, not mere hormonal attraction, is an entirely different affair. True love is about revelation of the self.

Oh, so no high schooler as ever loved another?

No high school couple has ever married and stayed married?

The chemicals make up what high schoolers "in love" feel is different from adults? Do you have evidence, scientific reports?

How do you know it's different? How is it impossible?

The truth is, it's not. Love, between adults and teenagers is the same. The only differences are social ones as teenagers in high school tend to be around a larger group of people.

So stop feeling sorry for yourself. Get good grades, join a gym, excersize, go to college, make a lot of money, become physically adept at everything by getting a black belt... and you'll be me. :)
And you should see the hottie I married. Not only is she gorgeous, but she's brilliant, an atheist, and likes computer games.

I don't feel sorry for myself. Oh, and interesting, you're so glad to be married to a "hottie", as if that's something that matters. Of course, it does, because "beauty is only skin deep" is something no one TRULY cares about.

Life really is what you make it. I know I resisted that information when I was your age, because I was starting so far behind so other many people (what with being ugly, weak, and intellectual). But after I got ahead, I noticed that everybody has their own problems. For instance, I resented people who had their college education paid for by their parents - until one of them roomed with me for the summer. The relationship this adult man had with his parents (still being financially dependent on them) was so terrible that my financial problems seemed a small price to pay.

A smart person being around stupid people tends to suffer because of the majorities' stupidity.

I am in a world where people are influenced by emotion and not reason. This results in watching the world be corrupted by ignorance, unfair political decisions, and daily decisions people with "power" over me make.

They have ignored and isolated me, forcing me to sit back and watch them from a distance ever since my early childhood. When I was, say, six, seven, I always wondered why no one cared about me and never wanted to be around me. I know why, now. It's all how one looks, it's all beauty and physical attractiveness, "good" qualities to have.

Society cares about looks. Intellect is secondary. If I could have my way, society would only care about intellect, because although we have evolved to care about looks it turns out intellect is what helps us far more.

Looks do not build spaceships, physical attraction does not build rockets or cure diseases. We should do our best to not care about something so useless and trivial.

You got a brain. A good one. That's more than you deserve, more than most people get. But instead of being thankful that you can see things others can't, you just whine because everybody else seems to have it better. Consider this: your dissatisfaction with not being attractive and popular reveals just how important they are to you.

For all I know, I'm intelligent because I have been rejected by others and have been forced to do my own thinking instead of following the masses.

I know, I know: I didn't get it when I was your age either. But trust me: once you figure out how things actually work, you'll see.

No, no, I GET IT, I get it far more than you. You are in love, it "feels good", so it MUST BE a good thing, right?

TwoShanks

1st November 2003, 03:42 PM

"They have ignored and isolated me, forcing me to sit back and watch them from a distance ever since my early childhood. When I was, say, six, seven, I always wondered why no one cared about me and never wanted to be around me. I know why, now. It's all how one looks, it's all beauty and physical attractiveness, "good" qualities to have."

LK, you're almost certainly not as ugly as you think, because nobody is. Perhaps you should consider Schopenhauer's idea of the reasons for being physically attracted to certain people (which I independently formulated at about age 15, thanks to rudimentary knowledge of genetics). Made a lot of sense to me.

I'd suggest that another error in your mindset is the belief that rational thought can, and should, suppress emotion. It can't. If you fall in love with someone, there's nothing you can do about it. No amount of rational thinking will override the emotions in a case like that.

And yes, this is based purely on personal experience and there are no scientific studies to back up my argument.

"No, no, I GET IT, I get it far more than you. You are in love, it "feels good", so it MUST BE a good thing, right?"

Yes, it does feel good. Better than anything else in fact. Frankly you come across as supremely arrogant when you claim to understand "IT" far more than anyone else, despite an acknowledged lack of even the slightest experience in the subject and a "case study" of sorts based solely on the population of your high school. Since you request scientific studies to support the views of people opposing you, perhaps you can point us in the direction of a study which proves that "love is ethically repugnant"?

Walter Wayne

1st November 2003, 08:43 PM

Originally posted by Lord Kenneth
Society cares about looks. Intellect is secondary. If I could have my way, society would only care about intellect, because although we have evolved to care about looks it turns out intellect is what helps us far more. You keep on boiling people down to looks and intellect. Where does personality fit into this? Does it not count for something?

A simple little test LK. The people on here how do not get along with you, how did they act before you posted your picture? As I recall you were not Mister popular before then. Did these people judge solely on your appearance, which they did not know.

Obviously the words you choose influence how people react as well. You live in a society where people are judged on their intelligence, personality and looks. Attitude means a lot, and you have something to learn about the way in which you present your ideas.

It is hard to just pick up a silver tongue. People who already know you at school will be suspicious of you, and your habit of directness will probably come out even if you are attempting to be diplomatic. However, once you cultivate a reputation of being personable you will get more attention, and suddenly you might believe you are more handsome than you really are, rather uglier than you are.

Walt

Lord Kenneth

1st November 2003, 09:35 PM

Originally posted by Walter Wayne
You keep on boiling people down to looks and intellect. Where does personality fit into this? Does it not count for something?

Actually, I've grouped personality and intellect together, if you've read my previous posts you might've noticed that.

A simple little test LK. The people on here how do not get along with you, how did they act before you posted your picture? As I recall you were not Mister popular before then. Did these people judge solely on your appearance, which they did not know.

As this is an internet forum, this is something entirely different. This is not like real life. We do not see, smell, feel, etc, other people, this is different than "live" social interaction.

Obviously the words you choose influence how people react as well. You live in a society where people are judged on their intelligence, personality and looks. Attitude means a lot, and you have something to learn about the way in which you present your ideas.

People are judged a lot more on looks than anything else. People may stay away from someone incredibly stupid, but people are far more lenient on stupidity if the person has a nice face.

It is hard to just pick up a silver tongue. People who already know you at school will be suspicious of you, and your habit of directness will probably come out even if you are attempting to be diplomatic. However, once you cultivate a reputation of being personable you will get more attention, and suddenly you might believe you are more handsome than you really are, rather uglier than you are.

Walt

Or, they might not speak to me in the first place because they feel no motivation to know me-- I'm not attractive. You can't honestly tell me that don't feel a much stronger desire to talk to someone attractive and practically no desire to talk to someone unattractive.

Unattractive people are isolated and ignored. That's the way of the world...

And if they so wish to judge me like that, then I don't want to know them, either. It may be instinctual but I still hate them for it.

Ratman_tf

1st November 2003, 10:06 PM

Originally posted by Lord Kenneth
I never said I know everything. I certainly don't. You just want to throw that strawman out to discredit me. It won't work. You know damn well that I don't think I know everything, or close to everything.

It's a saying, not an absolute.

I still think my peers are stupid, worthless sheep, who react almost only on emotion and don't have a rational brain cell in their head.

I have no reason to think otherwise, after all, that's certainly what they come across.

It's not their responsibility to make you think they're worthwhile. They don't answer to you.

Love is mostly for those stupid, worthless, emotional sheep. Being attractive, they are liked by near everyone and people want to know them and hang around them. They get through life easily, with a lot less problems people not nearly treated as well go through. All because they have a nice face.

I knew a lot of people like that in high school. One girl who was particulary attractive, I learned later that she was being abused by her father. We wound up in the same 'special' class where all the problem kids were put. That's where I found out.

Of course, this makes them intellectually lazy because thinking just isn't something they have to do. Thus, they become stupid, are really are worthless.

Are you making this decision on what you know of them in school? Maybe seeing them at the mall from time to time? Come on! High school is a joke! It's the last place where you should judge someone!

And even if they are shallow, what in the mighty f**** is wrong with that? We can't all be Einstein or Socrates. And a person's worth is hardly decided in the few years they spend in school.

Lord Kenneth

1st November 2003, 10:27 PM

Originally posted by Ratman_tf
[QUOTE]

It's a saying, not an absolute.

Huh?

It's not their responsibility to make you think they're worthwhile. They don't answer to you.

Of course, all I have to do is hear what comes out of their mouths and look at their personalities and see how susceptible they are to romantic feelings towards attractive people, and I have a good idea of what kind of person they are.

I knew a lot of people like that in high school. One girl who was particulary attractive, I learned later that she was being abused by her father. We wound up in the same 'special' class where all the problem kids were put. That's where I found out.

Special needs, for the stupid kids? Or what???

Anyways, I don't care how her family treats her, I care about how her PEERS treated her.

Are you making this decision on what you know of them in school? Maybe seeing them at the mall from time to time? Come on! High school is a joke! It's the last place where you should judge someone!

A person's core personality doesn't change depending on location. Again, hearing how a person talks and acts are adequate tools for judging someone.

And even if they are shallow, what in the mighty f**** is wrong with that? We can't all be Einstein or Socrates. And a person's worth is hardly decided in the few years they spend in school.

There is no excuse for "emotional ignorance". I think that term is self-explanatory.

Oh wait, there is an excuse. They're just plain stupid and only know how to react to those "happy feelings", and to not feel the "bad ones".

1st November 2003, 10:32 PM

Stop it, Kenneth!

Remember that a bunch of people as smart as you, and much more experienced, have told you you're wrong.

Keep it up, and you'll alienate the people who can help and teach you.

Lord Kenneth

1st November 2003, 10:42 PM

Originally posted by jj
Stop it, Kenneth!

Remember that a bunch of people as smart as you, and much more experienced, have told you you're wrong.

Keep it up, and you'll alienate the people who can help and teach you.

Argument from authority or argument from popular belief? You decide!

1st November 2003, 11:14 PM

Originally posted by Lord Kenneth

Argument from authority or argument from popular belief? You decide!

Argument from relevant, actual authority. In other words, rude child, an argument pointing out relevant, valid authority.

Perhaps you ought to bone up on what kind of "argument from authority" is wrong, sonny.

Walter Wayne

1st November 2003, 11:26 PM

Originally posted by Lord Kenneth
As this is an internet forum, this is something entirely different. This is not like real life. We do not see, smell, feel, etc, other people, this is different than "live" social interaction.You missed the point. People here were unable to judge on your appearance at that time. But yet, your intellect did not win everybody over.

But then you assume in real-life that it is appearance that is hampering your social-life. Obviously, there is also something else about you, that comes across in writing, that rubs many people the wrong way.You can't honestly tell me that don't feel a much stronger desire to talk to someone attractive and practically no desire to talk to someone unattractive.Yes, I can.

Ratman_tf

2nd November 2003, 12:55 AM

Originally posted by Lord Kenneth

Huh?

Oh come now. You haven't heard the saying "Kids know everything in high school."? It highlights that just as you think you've got everything figured out, you find there's so much more to it. And it usually hits after high school.

Of course, all I have to do is hear what comes out of their mouths and look at their personalities and see how susceptible they are to romantic feelings towards attractive people, and I have a good idea of what kind of person they are.

And I'm saying (In an internet message board, I don't really know you but here's my pop psych 2 cents...) that you probably really don't.

Special needs, for the stupid kids? Or what???

The troublemakers. Ones who were in danger of dropping out or were getting constantly in trouble.

Anyways, I don't care how her family treats her, I care about how her PEERS treated her.

And I'm saying that the way someone appears to be can be radically different from what they really are. I believe you're judging people on surface observations only.

A person's core personality doesn't change depending on location.

No, but time does. High school is the time where a typical person has nearly zero social skills, and so much to learn about the world.

Again, hearing how a person talks and acts are adequate tools for judging someone.

I strongly disagree with that statement. How a person talks or acts is only a part of the picture. Sometimes a big part, but sometimes a very small one.

There is no excuse for "emotional ignorance". I think that term is self-explanatory.

Pardon me for being blunt, but I think you are showing a lot of "emotional ignorance" in this thread. No insult, just the vibe I'm getting from you.

Oh wait, there is an excuse. They're just plain stupid and only know how to react to those "happy feelings", and to not feel the "bad ones".

Or they do feel the bad ones and you haven't seen them deal with it. That's one of my points. If someone is having a rough time, why should they chat about it in the halls between classes? Not the simple "I can't get a date." or "My dad sucks!" stuff, but the real problems. Those rarely get shared in such a setting.

If I were like you, I'd be tempted to say you're a bitter loser who can't get a date and so he puffs himself up by thinking he's superior to the 'popular' crowd, when deep inside, he's just jealous and trying to cover up those feelings.

But I'm not. I don't know you, and I wouldn't make those assesments. And even if they were true, it doesn't mean you're an inferior person, just another human being trying to make it through the day...

Just like those kids you say you despise.

Lord Kenneth

2nd November 2003, 10:36 AM

Originally posted by jj

Argument from relevant, actual authority. In other words, rude child, an argument pointing out relevant, valid authority.

Perhaps you ought to bone up on what kind of "argument from authority" is wrong, sonny.

Oh, so if it's someone you agree with, it's a "good" authority! Right, I see!

Lord Kenneth

2nd November 2003, 10:37 AM

Originally posted by Walter Wayne
You missed the point. People here were unable to judge on your appearance at that time. But yet, your intellect did not win everybody over.

But then you assume in real-life that it is appearance that is hampering your social-life. Obviously, there is also something else about you, that comes across in writing, that rubs many people the wrong way.Yes, I can.

Your attempts to dismiss commong knowledge supported by modern psychology is merely an attempt to belittle me, by trying to say the reason people just isolate me is my personality.

We both know that's wrong, as nobody even knows me, but that doesn't stop you from being a smartass.

Walter Wayne

2nd November 2003, 11:23 AM

Originally posted by Lord Kenneth
Your attempts to dismiss commong knowledge supported by modern psychology is merely an attempt to belittle me, by trying to say the reason people just isolate me is my personality.

We both know that's wrong, as nobody even knows me, but that doesn't stop you from being a smartassWhere did I say it was only your personality. I don't doubt that part of your being isolated has to do with the "make fun of the smart guy" policy that is pervasive in schools. But guess what, many of the geeks still have friends.

In high-school, a friend of mine made the "mistake" of continuing to take gym in grade 10 when he wasn't a jock type. In grade 10 gym is no longer required, so he was one of the few geeks in a class of jocks. Well they made fun of him for about a week, but his ability to take the jibes in a good nature manner, and his outgoing personality allowed him to win over said jocks. I would not have described this guy as a looker. The point is, it is obviously a function of many things that determine how people react to you.

I don't expect many people in high-school to pull off what he pulled off, he was extraordinarily nice and easy-going. I continued with gym and didn't really get much respect from the jocks until grade 12, when I think the gave me a little credit for sticking with gym inspite of being the worst at sports in the class, and not having any close friends who took gym.

I am not trying to belittle you in anyway. I only wish to make you realise that there are somethings you can do to ameliorate the state of affairs. I know that most of the things that went badly in my life, could have been improved by my own actions.

As for "dismissing common knowledge supported by modern psychology", since when does modern psychology show a correlation of 1 between looks and reactions by others. Since when does it say that there are no correlations between other traits and your treatment.

Walt

Lord Kenneth

2nd November 2003, 01:43 PM

Originally posted by Walter Wayne
Where did I say it was only your personality. I don't doubt that part of your being isolated has to do with the "make fun of the smart guy" policy that is pervasive in schools. But guess what, many of the geeks still have friends.

In high-school, a friend of mine made the "mistake" of continuing to take gym in grade 10 when he wasn't a jock type. In grade 10 gym is no longer required, so he was one of the few geeks in a class of jocks. Well they made fun of him for about a week, but his ability to take the jibes in a good nature manner, and his outgoing personality allowed him to win over said jocks. I would not have described this guy as a looker. The point is, it is obviously a function of many things that determine how people react to you.

I don't expect many people in high-school to pull off what he pulled off, he was extraordinarily nice and easy-going. I continued with gym and didn't really get much respect from the jocks until grade 12, when I think the gave me a little credit for sticking with gym inspite of being the worst at sports in the class, and not having any close friends who took gym.

I am not trying to belittle you in anyway. I only wish to make you realise that there are somethings you can do to ameliorate the state of affairs. I know that most of the things that went badly in my life, could have been improved by my own actions.

As for "dismissing common knowledge supported by modern psychology", since when does modern psychology show a correlation of 1 between looks and reactions by others. Since when does it say that there are no correlations between other traits and your treatment.

Walt

I'm not saying I'm hated for being smart. Quite the opposite, if anything I have earned slight respect for it on rare occasions but otherwise I am completely ignored. People don't feel compelled to talk to me. They have no reason to. They don't feel compelled to like they would if I were more attractive.

geni

2nd November 2003, 01:47 PM

Originally posted by Lord Kenneth

I'm not saying I'm hated for being smart. Quite the opposite, if anything I have earned slight respect for it on rare occasions but otherwise I am completely ignored. People don't feel compelled to talk to me. They have no reason to. They don't feel compelled to like they would if I were more attractive.

You would be amazed at how difficult people find it to talk to atractive members of the opposite sex.:D

Lord Kenneth

2nd November 2003, 01:49 PM

Originally posted by geni

You would be amazed at how difficult people find it to talk to atractive members of the opposite sex.:D

Do you deny that people are more compelled to talk to attractive people far more than they would want to talk to a normal or ugly person?

geni

2nd November 2003, 01:55 PM

Originally posted by Lord Kenneth

Do you deny that people are more compelled to talk to attractive people far more than they would want to talk to a normal or ugly person?

Ok my comic ability was worse than I thought. Seriously people will tend to talk to the person who makes themselves the most interesting.

Yahzi

2nd November 2003, 02:20 PM

Originally posted by Lord Kenneth
Attractive people get treated far more nicely than ugly people; and are also given a lot more attention. Ugly people tend to be isolated and outcasted; if they really want to be "in" they have to really work and fight for it.
Attractive people are considered smarter, and make more money too. So do tall people.

Of course, truly intelligent people don't consider being "in" worth working for.

Oh, so no high schooler as ever loved another?
You are too smart to indulge in strawmen. I didn't say that, and you know it. Yes, teenagers can be in love too. You're the one that reported nothing but infatuations: all I meant was that your sample size was inadequate.

A smart person being around stupid people tends to suffer because of the majorities' stupidity.
This is true. But as one of the smart people, I have to say that you're not really helping the cause.

For all I know, I'm intelligent because I have been rejected by others and have been forced to do my own thinking instead of following the masses.
Well, that's a nice fantasy, but it's not true. I wish it was.

No, no, I GET IT, I get it far more than you. You are in love, it "feels good", so it MUST BE a good thing, right?
Once again you betray your utter lack of expierence.

I'll say it again, although I don't think it will help: Love is about revelation of the self. When you understand that, then you will see the answer to all your previous questions.

It might not be fair that people are the way they are, but that's the way they are. Stop whining and start dealing with it. If you're so damn smart, you ought to be able to beat the system. Do you know why you can't? Do you know who the real enemy of Lord Kenneth is? I'll tell you: it's Lord Kenneth.

Your obession with obtaining other people's approval demonstrates that you don't approve of yourself. I know this for an absolute fact, sonny, because I recognize every word coming out of your mouth. I've been there. And I got to tell you, where I am at is a whole lot better place.

Yes, the world is unfair. But that's not your problem. Yes, the world sucks. But that's not your problem. Other people marginalized you, for a variety of reasons ranging from self-defense to simple cruelty. But that's not your problem. Your problem is that you internalized this marginalization. Your attempt to blame everything on looks is a way of supporting your internal worthlessness. You are, like the Christians, seeking evidence in the real world for the structure in your head. And just like the Christians, this bias blinds you to seeing the real world the way it really is.

When you decide to stop feeling worthless, then all of this will become obvious. I can't tell you how to do that: it took me 30 years and a black belt in karate. I'd like to think that some words from me on a message board could help you on that journey, but that's probably just my little fantasy.

Yahzi

2nd November 2003, 02:27 PM

Originally posted by geni
Seriously people will tend to talk to the person who makes themselves the most interesting.
One of my friends taught me a valuable lesson. People like to have fun. So if you are having fun, then people are going to be drawn to you, because they want to have fun.

Keneke

2nd November 2003, 02:36 PM

Originally posted by a_unique_person

I was reading in the newspaper the other day (therefore it must be true), that medical scientists used MRI to see the brain activity of those suffering pain. A broken heart ranks up there with a broken leg. I am sorry, but I am not going to try to find the link for it, you will have to google it yourself.

::returns from an exhausting Halloween weekend::

That should explain a lot, then. I know I'll be nicer to heartbroken people from now on. How would you like it if someone came up to you after breaking your leg and said, "Get over it!"

Lord Kenneth

2nd November 2003, 02:51 PM

Originally posted by Yahzi

Attractive people are considered smarter, and make more money too. So do tall people.

I don't consider attractive people to be more intelligent. In fact, I tend to think of them as less intelligent.

Of course, truly intelligent people don't consider being "in" worth working for.

I certainly don't try to be "in".

You are too smart to indulge in strawmen. I didn't say that, and you know it. Yes, teenagers can be in love too. You're the one that reported nothing but infatuations: all I meant was that your sample size was inadequate.

I think my sample size is adequate.

This is true. But as one of the smart people, I have to say that you're not really helping the cause.

Well, that's a nice fantasy, but it's not true. I wish it was.

And you know this, how?

Once again you betray your utter lack of expierence.

I'll say it again, although I don't think it will help: [b]Love is about revelation of the self. When you understand that, then you will see the answer to all your previous questions.

Love is an emotion/instinct felt when thinking about or being in the presence of certain individuals.

It might not be fair that people are the way they are, but that's the way they are. Stop whining and start dealing with it. If you're so damn smart, you ought to be able to beat the system. Do you know why you can't? Do you know who the real enemy of Lord Kenneth is? I'll tell you: it's Lord Kenneth.

Huh? I never said it was fair. I simply judge people for how they act, even if it's instinctual.

Your obession with obtaining other people's approval demonstrates that you don't approve of yourself. I know this for an absolute fact, sonny, because I recognize every word coming out of your mouth. I've been there. And I got to tell you, where I am at is a whole lot better place.

I am not seeking anyone's approval. Where did THAT come from?
What are you talking about?!

Yes, the world is unfair. But that's not your problem. Yes, the world sucks. But that's not your problem. Other people marginalized you, for a variety of reasons ranging from self-defense to simple cruelty. But that's not your problem. Your problem is that you internalized this marginalization. Your attempt to blame everything on looks is a way of supporting your internal worthlessness. You are, like the Christians, seeking evidence in the real world for the structure in your head. And just like the Christians, this bias blinds you to seeing the real world the way it really is.

People have ignored and isolated me-- not intentionally, they just don't think about me, they don't feel any interest with me-- they just forget me. They don't realize they feel compelled to talk to certain people or why. They have not intended to be malicious, but I hate them anyway.

When you decide to stop feeling worthless, then all of this will become obvious. I can't tell you how to do that: it took me 30 years and a black belt in karate. I'd like to think that some words from me on a message board could help you on that journey, but that's probably just my little fantasy.

I certainly do not feel worthless. What, first I'm egotistical, then I'm suddenly feeling worthless? My critics can't decide!

VicDaring

2nd November 2003, 04:15 PM

Lord Kenneth

2nd November 2003, 04:34 PM

Originally posted by VicDaring

True statement, and worth noting LK. How much fun are you to be around?

I don't know, nobody cares to be around me. It's not that they dislike me, it's just that people usually don't think about me.

Yahweh

2nd November 2003, 04:51 PM

Originally posted by Lord Kenneth
I don't consider attractive people to be more intelligent. In fact, I tend to think of them as less intelligent.
There's not a whole lot more stupider things I've ever heard in my life...

People have ignored and isolated me-- not intentionally, they just don't think about me, they don't feel any interest with me-- they just forget me. They don't realize they feel compelled to talk to certain people or why. They have not intended to be malicious, but I hate them anyway.

Quit'cher bitchin, you have nothing to bitch about, you deserve not the slightest bit of pity.

GUESS WHAT! People ignore and isolate you because not only are you a narcissistic sociopath, not only because bitch and whine and complain about things that are even less worth of pity than "I hate my parents, they grounded me", not only because you give your "intellect" more credit than it deserves, not only because you alienate yourself from others, not only because you have completely irrational ignorant "hatred" toward others, but because you make yourself into a genuinely dislikable person. AND YOU BRING IT ALL UPON YOURSELF, YOU DESERVE NO PITY.

"I hate beatiful people" is the earmark of a personality disorder, it sounds to me like jealousy has got the best of you.

I certainly do not feel worthless. What, first I'm egotistical, then I'm suddenly feeling worthless? My critics can't decide!

What people think of you is in their eyes. Some may believe you are egotistical, others think you have no self-esteem... concepts are hard, arent they?

Lord Kenneth

2nd November 2003, 05:11 PM

Good thing that Yahweh person is on my ignore list, else I'd have to deal with a whole s**tload of strawmen.

Suggestologist

2nd November 2003, 05:13 PM

Originally posted by Lord Kenneth

I don't know, nobody cares to be around me. It's not that they dislike me, it's just that people usually don't think about me.

You have to show genuine interest in them -- to them, for them to become more interested about you.

Yahweh

2nd November 2003, 05:14 PM

Originally posted by Lord Kenneth
Good thing that Yahweh person is on my ignore list, else I'd have to deal with a whole s**tload of strawmen.
I like the irony... oh the irony...

TwoShanks

2nd November 2003, 07:13 PM

Quit'cher bitchin sounds about right. LK needs to grow up and realise that any lack of interest in him shown by his peers is almost entirely down to his attitude towards them. People don't like to be around people who are so completely absorbed with self-pity, it's an unpleasant experience.

Since I think this thread has now run it's course, here is a picture of a prairie dog with a gun.

Walter Wayne

2nd November 2003, 07:23 PM

Originally posted by Yahzi
One of my friends taught me a valuable lesson. People like to have fun. So if you are having fun, then people are going to be drawn to you, because they want to have fun.

Originally posted by VicDaring
True statement, and worth noting LK. How much fun are you to be around?

Originally posted by Lord Kenneth
I don't know, nobody cares to be around me. It's not that they dislike me, it's just that people usually don't think about me. Kenneth, don't tell me that when you wrote that response you didn't see the obvious deduction.

Walt

Lord Kenneth

2nd November 2003, 07:56 PM

I knew this would turn into an LK-slanderfest yet again.

This is yet another reason I hate physical attraction-- people try to justify away why they feel compelled to like/talk to people but the truth is it's mostly looks which gets it started (again, not always, but generally...)

Of course, they want to blame it on my personality, in order to justify how THEY treat other people.

For the record, nobody knows me. Nobody thinks I'm rude or nice-- well, maybe nice, but generally people have no opinion of me (if they do it's probably something involving the word "dork" or "pansy"-- I don't care much for these people).

They simply do not start conversations with me. Don't tell me it's my personality when they don't even give me a chance to show them what I'm like.

I would say that I am a fun person to be around-- but of course, nobody cares enough to be around me to find out.

Please don't try to skirt the issue or insult me again, I think it reflects poorly on your intelligence.

hal bidlack

2nd November 2003, 07:58 PM

Ken and Yah, see my post in the now-locked "Your perception of Members, through their posts..What d'ya reckon their like for real" thread.

Lord Kenneth

2nd November 2003, 08:05 PM

Originally posted by TwoShanks
Quit'cher bitchin sounds about right. LK needs to grow up and realise that any lack of interest in him shown by his peers is almost entirely down to his attitude towards them. People don't like to be around people who are so completely absorbed with self-pity, it's an unpleasant experience.

Since I think this thread has now run it's course, here is a picture of a prairie dog with a gun.

How can they know I am "absorbed with self-pity" when I neither pity myself nor have much chances to express myself to other people?

Of course, I've said this so many times and you've failed to understand it, so I'll just assume it's beyond your intellectual capacity.

Yahweh

2nd November 2003, 08:07 PM

Originally posted by hal bidlack
Ken and Yah, see my post in the now-locked "Your perception of Members, through their posts..What d'ya reckon their like for real" thread.
I've added Kenneth to my ignore list. I value the judgement of others before my own, I'll do the smart thing and simply refuse to respond to anymore of Kenneth's posts (as I've been told by virtually everyone on the forum). I'm sorry it had to go this way.

I'll let the others here "battle" Kenneth if they feel like it, I have much better uses of my time (I dont need to hurt my image anyway).

Lord Kenneth

2nd November 2003, 08:09 PM

Originally posted by hal bidlack
Ken and Yah, see my post in the now-locked "Your perception of Members, through their posts..What d'ya reckon their like for real" thread.

I have legit reasons for hating Yahweh, whether you admit it or not. Also, I did not report Yahweh in that thread, I assume he did. It's not nice to exaggerate.

I have put him on ignore, but he is the one baiting me, as I prefer to defend myself because people are very easily influenced.

I WANT him to bug off.

hal bidlack

2nd November 2003, 08:14 PM

Originally posted by Lord Kenneth

I have legit reasons for hating Yahweh, whether you admit it or not. Also, I did not report Yahweh in that thread, I assume he did. It's not nice to exaggerate.

I have put him on ignore, but he is the one baiting me, as I prefer to defend myself because people are very easily influenced.

I WANT him to bug off.

Ken,

I am very angry at you right now. You would be very, very wise to back off. You know you have reported him many times. I am fed up with both of you. Knock it off, or say good bye to the forum. Your snotty attitude (e.g., "because people are very easily influenced") is getting very old. You clearly are suggesting I lied above. Given that my country has entrusted me with nuclear weapons, with state secrets, and with working in the White House and the Department of State, I'm guessing my honor is less in question here than is yours.

You are a smart kid, but a kid. No one on this forum has done more to try and help you than I have. And now you continue to try to burn this last bridge. I am done trying to take care of you. If you want to be treated as an adult, here's a starter for you: stop being an ass online, or you will not be allowed to post here any more? Got that? The correct response is "yes Hal" not some wiseass claim to be the victim here. I've had it with you.

Lord Kenneth

3rd November 2003, 04:35 AM

http://www.units.muohio.edu/psybersite/attraction/

Since physical attraction is an important piece of the puzzle in the attraction game, much time has been devoted to studying its impact and implications.

Robert B Cialdini, an influential psychologist, has named physical attractiveness an
important component in his weapons of influence. He noted that physically attractive people have an enormous social advantage in our culture; they are better liked, more persuasive, more frequently helped, and seen as possessing better personality traits and intellectual capabilities (Cialdini 1984).

(Ha, many told me it's the other way around. They appear to be wrong.)

Cialdini also mentioned that good-looking people are likely to receive highly favorable treatment in the legal system.

(No suprise, they ARE treated much better their entire lives.)

Another interesting theory that applies to physical attraction is the reinforcement theory. With this conditioning paradigm, when a person is paired with a stimulus that elicits a positive affect or reward, the result is increased liking of that person. You may begin to like a person that is physically attractive because it is pleasing to look at that person- your own personal reward. The attractive person may also reap the benefits of being attractive, such as assumed intelligence. Attractive people experience a halo effect; one perceived positive quality favorably influences other attributions . Once a positive reward is associated with an individual, your liking of them will increase.

(And you call this "acceptable"???)

http://www.umkc.edu/sites/hsw/other/evolution.html

It appears that this elaborate human ritual of falling in love and selecting a mate is circumscribed not merely by social patterns, but by our brains as well.

As unromantic and pragmatic as it may seem, nature's programming of our brains to select out and respond to stimuli as sexually compelling or repelling simply makes good reproductive sense. (Donahue, 1985).

Early in human history males who did not react jealously had mates who strayed, were impregnated by other males, passing on someone else's genes to future generations. Females who didn't care if the male strayed were left to raise their offspring without help. (Donahue, 1985).

(That's what "being faithful" is about? Hah.)

Geoffrey Cowley (1996) reminds us that whether fair or unfair, logical or illogical, it is old news that looking good has its advantages, not only in the marketplace of love, but in other social interactions as well.

Some object to, or even deny the existance, of such apparent superficiality in an enlightened society.

(Gee, I wonder who that could be... :rolleyes:)

Nevertheless, numerous studies have shown that beautiful people do have an advantage when competing for jobs, grades, friends, or mates; leading us to berate and shame our culture for its apparent obsession with physical attractiveness. But as Nancy Etcoff, an MIT neuroscientist tells us, obsession with beauty has existed in every culture at every point in history. Like it or not, it appears that humans, much like other animals, appear to make rapid automatic assessments of those we meet, judging whether we would want this person to contribute genes to our offspring.

It has been commonly believed that standards for physical attractiveness vary widely at different points in history and from one culture to another. Surprisingly, Cowley states that studies have found that standards of attractiveness are largely universal. People from all social classes, ages, cultures, races, and eras, share a common sense of what's attractive, and what's not. This does not mean that there are no variations in focal points of attraction. To be sure, lip plates or rolls of extra fat have be more appeal in some places or times than in others. However, when women or men from diverse cultures are asked to rate a group of men or women from other cultures, their responses were barely affected by their own backgrounds.

(So much for "it's all subjective", eh? I didn't even argue against that earlier, now I will do so more.)

Yet, in spite of our human pride in being rational, logical, and ethical in love , our behaviors are often surprisingly and disappointingly, imitative of mating behaviors of other members of the animal kingdom. Our superior cognitive abilities may present a mixed blessing, allowing us to delude ourselves by rationalizing irrational acts and choices. Attraction messages from the primitive part of our brains pushing us to pursue seemingly superficial traits and sometimes inappropriate partners often seem so right at the time.

TwoShanks

3rd November 2003, 06:36 AM

Originally posted by Lord Kenneth

How can they know I am "absorbed with self-pity" when I neither pity myself nor have much chances to express myself to other people?

Of course, I've said this so many times and you've failed to understand it, so I'll just assume it's beyond your intellectual capacity.

Yes, you've found me out now Kenneth. Just like your peers, I am clearly beneath your astonishing intellectual capacity. How can a mere mortal such as myself ever hope to comprehend the mighty mental power of a high school boy using google searches to find twenty year old psychology studies stating the obvious, while simultaneously completely failing to prove his contention that "Love is morally and ethically repugnant"? How can this poor fool, so engendered with confusion and emotion and irrationality, ever hope to even begin to fathom the hidden depths of your clear headed and purely logical thoughts, which include the perception that physically attractive people are less intelligent than unattractive people?

Please, oh Lord, though I know I can never be worthy, educate me in the wonders of the rational world which you, and you alone, can comprehend. I beseech you, oh wondrous Lord of Mind, explain to me why physically unattractive people can be observed to have relationships and friendships with others, lest I be consumed by this world of emotion, which I had not realised had any relation to evolution until this time.

Oh, and please try to dumb down your language a little, since it's beyond my intellect. For example, you might try language like "Stupid Lenny and stupid Karl won't let me in their crappy club for jerks," which I feel sums up the basics of your argument up to this point.