Young Writers Society

I have a different view on this. Let's see how well I can explain it. I read through a few of the posts but not all.
The original post:

How important do you think it is to be good looking? Do you think you have to be fairly attractive to succeed in life? And what, do you think, is the difference between being good looking and attractive?- personally, I think that those two things are really rather unrelated.

First, I do not give a rats ass, what people think of me, lol. So no, I don't think its important to look like a swim suit model. While I believe society's rules state that if you look like you crawled out of bed, then no, you will remain unemployed.

However a lot of the posts I'm reading is related to relationships and such and how 'looks' revolved around that. But what if you meet someone off the street that their 'looks' aren't exactly what society would call normal? What if that person was missing an arm, or say a nose? What if the person crawled on their hands because they were incapable of walking upright? Would it be wise to condemn them?

I have met such a person; a man actually. He lives in my city and his only mobility is his hands(feet in this case) and a special bike he pumps the wheels with his hand. I guess the best way to describe him is that he walks on all fours. He is extremely outgoing, insightful and friendly. Looks are only a mental barrier that our society has filled our head with; in short - brainwashed. So no, there is no difference between good-looking and attractive. You're only limited to what your brain signals to you. And it is quite a shame too because many people judge before knowing someone and therefore you've missed your shot from a possible great friend.

Bobo wrote:dress like you don't care

What does that actually mean? That is a style you know. Not sharp or classy, more of a casual throw-on/I just woke up attitude. As a guy that follows fashion more or less, I know that dressing without a care or without thinking too hard makes for more interesting outfits. My friend from Tennesssee got a mustard yellow blazer and just chucked it on. With a shirt you could find anywhere without 'caring' and you got your first date. I mean gosh, my white American Olympic Coke jacket (warm-up) from the 60s goes smashingly with any shirt underneath, a pair of lazy jeans and a pair of converse. Snap on that dog tag, you got what I wore yesterday. Don't care about the gel, at that time, and bed-head taking over.

zel wrote:Beauty is not everything but it is alto. Yes, you may get ugly but when you do so does everyone else, the more attractive people are the better start they have on being less ugly than the crowd. I think eventually ugliness will die out or possible the ugly people will only be able find only ugly mates, causing a new hideous race of people. Being attractive has no impact on your ability to get a job (if two men with identical credentials applied for a job but one had twenty chins while the other had one, who would more likely get picked?), nor does it make you shallow. I know I would not marry a pretty face with nothing behind it, yet nor would i marry a horrible face with a sparkling personality.

Sorry, you slaughter the English language to the point I don't know how to respond.

Sponson Light wrote:Well duh, your an ---------- if you think looks have absolutly nothing to do with anything at all.

Go ask a homeless shoddy unbathed person out on a date to get to know them. I mean its the personality right?
Vision is the first form of "filter".
Im sure you know that pimply dude in the corner with his friends has a great personality.

Secondly, your hormones and your brain will subconsciously choose "the mate with the best genes".
The ability to nurse children for the female and the ability to protect the family for the male.

That means women in shape, not over weight or under weight.

For men, it could mean their strength and work, but nowadays it could mean "nerds" (used loosly) who can earn a ton of money.

So try as you might, unless your blind looks do matter, to an extent.

I have to disagree with some of your points. Bringing up the homeless gentleman has no place in your post, mainly because it is the fact that he has no stability in the first place to guarantee a successful relationship. I could tell you right now I will not touch a homeless girl for the object of 'soul-mate' in mind because I already know before hand that they are in poverty and make up part of society that I wish not to take part in, WITHOUT having to look at her. Since this topic is focusing on looks specifically, I think you should save o'Ben for another day. By the way, I would gladly help homeless to fix and change their lives, I just don't plan on searching for a partner in such a system.

I don't understand your second point about hormones or the brain 'choosing' its own mate subconsciously because of genes. Is it the fact that people as an individual seek genes to benefit from these relations, or is it the possibility that you are speaking from a point of view as a population? It seems when you put in quotes that phrase, that you may be referring to a scientific personnel of research status to back up this point of yours. Is it Darwin, Mendel, or Watson/Crick you speak of? Because either way, they mainly address organism population behaviors. So to speak, you may have heard the 'Survival of the Fittest' and 'Natural Selection', which all together target a whole different topic. Watson and Crick actually have no place in this, I don't know why I said their names. By the way, I would like to know which part of the brain, and the hormones taking place in this determination; I would like to continue your steps in understanding...

About the ability to nurse children: I have to make a statement. What happens to the girl that cannot have babies? Or the guy that cannot produce an effective amount of sperm? This is just to focus the point that society now days has shifted from these primitive values/selection to a more individualized and 'filtered' sense of selecting mates. Society has made it possible for all types men and women to reach a mature level that can actually improve the population without their primitive ways of survival. Is it the confidence in general that makes it appealing for women to choose that man? But. How does this man eventually find a woman? If his confidence prevents him from establishing a true relationship, does that mean the one he has now is not established enough for the population's expectancies? Is this the source of so many divorces in America? Just something to keep in mind.
_________________________________________________

Okay, now we are hitting the subject of personality... What does this actually mean? To what extend is a personality bad or good? I'd say a 'good personality' would be 'pretty good' in just about all values in life to make a good and charming personality. Am I wrong? Hygiene would be solved, so we have no homeless man stink. Work would be solved (financially stable) because he has the organized mind set of a normal human being that comes with a good personality, and so uses it to find work. If you have proof of sanity, you can work. He would have a consistent feel for his image and would be moderately confident in his ways of life. Is this the personality of balance and goodness? What is it that makes an attractive personality? Since no longer are we exactly following nature's principles of life, what changes in the selection of personality has occurred? ---This is just my way of finding out to cheat all of you ladies how work my charm around your sweet little mind---

~Z

fishr wrote:I have a different view on this. Let's see how well I can explain it. I read through a few of the posts but not all.
The original post:

How important do you think it is to be good looking? Do you think you have to be fairly attractive to succeed in life? And what, do you think, is the difference between being good looking and attractive?- personally, I think that those two things are really rather unrelated.

First, I do not give a rats ass, what people think of me, lol. So no, I don't think its important to look like a swim suit model. While I believe society's rules state that if you look like you crawled out of bed, then no, you will remain unemployed.

However a lot of the posts I'm reading is related to relationships and such and how 'looks' revolved around that. But what if you meet someone off the street that their 'looks' aren't exactly what society would call normal? What if that person was missing an arm, or say a nose? What if the person crawled on their hands because they were incapable of walking upright? Would it be wise to condemn them?

I have met such a person; a man actually. He lives in my city and his only mobility is his hands(feet in this case) and a special bike he pumps the wheels with his hand. I guess the best way to describe him is that he walks on all fours. He is extremely outgoing, insightful and friendly. Looks are only a mental barrier that our society has filled our head with; in short - brainwashed. So no, there is no difference between good-looking and attractive. You're only limited to what your brain signals to you. And it is quite a shame too because many people judge before knowing someone and therefore you've missed your shot from a possible great friend.

I wish you posted before me... So I could have done this in one round.

That is a style!!! Coming out of bed is a style. While I may not dress it all the time, it is a tune that society pipes upon it's manipulating lips...

You speak of physical inability. The situations that were neutralized in the holocaust because they were unfit to properly display the human race in perfection. Now why do you think even society wanes its gaze upon these ill-privileged individuals? Mainly because they cannot be compatible with all tasks given to them. They simply are out performed by the grateful beings. But you have to keep thinking, individuals like the disabled would normally be easily disposed of if we talk primitively. So if Sponson Light here presents effective facts about subconscious behaviors we can establish a reasonable conclusion or argument to your belief.

~Z

There is an important difference between the getting out of bed and actually getting out of bed and doing nothing to look better. Some people, I admit, can just get out of bed and look okay, but most of us just look horrible. By not caring, I mean it looks like you're wearing clothes that haven't been washed for quite a while, with food stains on everything, maybe it's all threadbare or tattered, with no sense of matching or anything. Some people have a knack for dressing somewhat stylishly, but other people just look like they went dumpster diving and put on whatever they found. That's the way that you can dress if you want people to not like you very much.

Looks are everything.

I have a theory. There are three levels of attraction: Mental, Spiritual, and Physical.

Without physical attraction, there can be no lust. Without lust, there cannot be a true romantic relationship.

A purely intellectual relationship ends up with the involved being freinds.

A purely spiritual relationship ends up with the involved being somewhat like family.

A purely physical relationship ends up as nothing more than a bed buddy.

A combination of intellectual and spiritual attraction results in a kinship.

A combination of spiritual and physical attraction results in a close, sexual relationship that is likely to fail because of a lack of compatibility in relating to one another's thought process.

A combination of intellectual and physical attraction results in a close, sexual relationship that is likely to fail because of a lack of compatibility in emotions/ emotional stability.

A combination of all three results in what many call true love, where those involved connect on all three levels of attraction.


First of all, does all of that make sense? Second of all, questions, comments, flames? Go for it. Should I make my own thread for this?

Vary astute, Dono. I can see no flaw in that thinking there.

Looks aren't everything. I mean if you are trying to empress someone or get a job somewhere then it is necessary to look nice, but looks don't define a person. Everyone is beautiful if they believe they are. It shouldn't matter about how you look because your looks don't define who you are, but the you on the inside.

You speak of physical inability. The situations that were neutralized in the holocaust because they were unfit to properly display the human race in perfection. So if Sponson Light here presents effective facts about subconscious behaviors we can establish a reasonable conclusion or argument to your belief.

Partly, yes. My main point was if someone appears 'different' from a glance, they shouldn't be ignored. But rather have the privilege of a conversation before a judgment is passed. I referred to a disability of a gentleman because on a first glance I guess he does seem out of sorts. So in retrospect, looks aren't everything in my humble opinion.

Now, as far as your example with the Holocaust, that one confuses me a bit. Although, I kinda see your point, but why bring up ancient history? If you're trying to compare the victims of the Holocaust to my friends inability to walk on his feet, that is a poor example, again in my opinion. There was nothing physically wrong with the Jewish people, until they were placed into concentration camps; suffering from inhumane situations.

Now why do you think even society wanes its gaze upon these ill-privileged individuals? Mainly because they cannot be compatible with all tasks given to them. They simply are out performed by the grateful beings. But you have to keep thinking, individuals like the disabled would normally be easily disposed of if we talk primitively.

I believe society turns a blind eye because it could largely be how a person was reared. Though I have no significant proof of this; only what I have personally observed. However, who's to say someone isn't capable of any tasks given to them? Most people learn how to overcome obstacles. This is getting off track but a boy my mom used to babysit was missing one hand, yet he learned how to use that same arm and hold objects. He was certainly not out preformed by any means. He learned to adapt.

Looks aren't everything. I mean if you are trying to empress someone or get a job somewhere then it is necessary to look nice, but looks don't define a person. Everyone is beautiful if they believe they are. It shouldn't matter about how you look because your looks don't define who you are, but the you on the inside.

There; someone summed up my whole long winded speech in a few sentences, lol. Again, my point is if we all could glance past unusual appearances, and except people for who they are then I feel this world would be a better place.

You are right; I was referring to the Holocaust in bad manner. I was trying to make the connection that, that is what society does to these individuals at some point on a level, while it may not be as nearly severe as 'the purging and purification process' in history. Quite simply, we ignore these individuals or even feel uncomfortable around them because of their disability. More so, society just dumps them in with all the lot of mentally and physically challenged individuals. I'm sorry to say, but I think that is true. It's not fair of course, but it's what I see. They are immediately judged first hand because of this difference; it's automatic. Look at most of the movies and you see physical disability as a poor and merciful condition. There! That is your judgement; that is your process of first impressions like how Ari said; that is our primitive nature.

Oh quite so he is out performed. Take an office situation. The positional experiment is focused on the manager that has to respond to a fire an employee caused, something about Office Space triggered this idea. We have two different scenerios: one being the manager with both legs, and the other with only one leg. Both are great workers, and both effectively fill their position perfectly (almost). But. Who will be better at responding to the fire? I very much say that the man with both legs will be a more secure choice. If you say people with disabilities are well enough to adapt to their condition and just as effectively respond, then why is this even a consideration for debate? They are equally treated; what is there to talk about? It's the fact that they aren't equally judged like the guy next to me. They are not able to do all the things they should be able to do, even with the plasticity of the human brain. And they are not fully treated with respect they should be given.

~Z

I have a theory. There are three levels of attraction: Mental, Spiritual, and Physical.

Without physical attraction, there can be no lust. Without lust, there cannot be a true romantic relationship.

A purely intellectual relationship ends up with the involved being freinds.

A purely spiritual relationship ends up with the involved being somewhat like family.

A purely physical relationship ends up as nothing more than a bed buddy.

A combination of intellectual and spiritual attraction results in a kinship.

A combination of spiritual and physical attraction results in a close, sexual relationship that is likely to fail because of a lack of compatibility in relating to one another's thought process.

A combination of intellectual and physical attraction results in a close, sexual relationship that is likely to fail because of a lack of compatibility in emotions/ emotional stability.

A combination of all three results in what many call true love, where those involved connect on all three levels of attraction.


First of all, does all of that make sense? Second of all, questions, comments, flames? Go for it. Should I make my own thread for this?

Dono, I think that's already a theory in psychology, with different names for each one, but the same ideas ...

A little tidbit of information: genes DO play a part in choosing ones mate, a study was conducted and it was found that people could not smell (or even found it good smelling) the armpit stank of people who have immune systems that would help there children in other words immune systems unlike there own, that is making healthier stinger generations.

Kay Kay wrote: Everyone is beautiful if they believe they are. It shouldn't matter about how you look because your looks don't define who you are, but the you on the inside.

Sorry, but it does matter. Believing your beautiful won't make you a model, although people should feel they are attractive either way.

Also i know society says some people are great looking but i don't always agree, it is more a matter of personal opinion. I know a kid i would say is hotter than brad Pitt but, society would not agree. Normality is not relevant.

Shoot! i forgot the last thing
Well anyway Zap, i would like to very nicely say that was uncalled for, you did not respond to everyone personally but you chose me simply to say i have horrendous grammar. I really don't care what you think, but you probably just said that to push my buttons
*Zap pushes Zel's button who giggles "that tickles!" rhyme.

If you're 13, strangely, the worth of your opinion does not extend much beyond the recognition of a lack of good grammar.

Looks aren't the underlying value in a relationship, but lets face it, most people would rather look at a picture of Brad Pitt than Jack Nicholson. Unfortunately, women are usually expected to live up to higher expectations, often expectations set by other women.

Firestarter wrote:
Dono, I think that's already a theory in psychology, with different names for each one, but the same ideas ...

*shrugs*

oh well, not everything can be original. *I* thought I had something new, but I guess not.

You are right; I was referring to the Holocaust in bad manner. I was trying to make the connection that, that is what society does to these individuals at some point on a level, while it may not be as nearly severe as 'the purging and purification process' in history. Quite simply, we ignore these individuals or even feel uncomfortable around them because of their disability. More so, society just dumps them in with all the lot of mentally and physically challenged individuals. I'm sorry to say, but I think that is true. It's not fair of course, but it's what I see. They are immediately judged first hand because of this difference; it's automatic. Look at most of the movies and you see physical disability as a poor and merciful condition. There! That is your judgement; that is your process of first impressions like how Ari said; that is our primitive nature.

Oh quite so he is out performed. Take an office situation. The positional experiment is focused on the manager that has to respond to a fire an employee caused, something about Office Space triggered this idea. We have two different scenerios: one being the manager with both legs, and the other with only one leg. Both are great workers, and both effectively fill their position perfectly (almost). But. Who will be better at responding to the fire? I very much say that the man with both legs will be a more secure choice. If you say people with disabilities are well enough to adapt to their condition and just as effectively respond, then why is this even a consideration for debate? They are equally treated; what is there to talk about? It's the fact that they aren't equally judged like the guy next to me. They are not able to do all the things they should be able to do, even with the plasticity of the human brain. And they are not fully treated with respect they should be given.

Ah, I understand now why you refered to the Holocaust. And I have to admit, your logic does make alot of sense. The office example is quite good. Even someone as stubborn as I, can't deny that fact. In a a business type, I agree looks mean a lot. But on the street? I am not so sure it's an automatic response...I still believe its how someone is raised that draws them to turn a blind eye in some respect.

Yes it is survival of the fittest, you select the person who will have the best genes.

Walk into a store looking like a theif and ganster, Im sure looks wont matter at all.
Looks may not matter to YOU but it matters to EVERYONE else.

I could tell you right now I will not touch a homeless girl for the object of 'soul-mate' in mind because I already know before hand that they are in poverty and make up part of society that I wish not to take part in, WITHOUT having to look at her.

If you saw a person with a massacred face, skars, burns, scabs, and dead tissue for a face. Would you think twice about getting to know him/her?

You stated you did not wish to take part with a person who is homeless. Well this masscred faced person is quite wealthy after winning a lawsuit against the person who did this to him/her and he/she has a good personality.
=========================================
So by these few points, looks do matter, because if they didnt matter then these wouldnt exist.
And until you remove the ability to have an opinion, it will continue to matter.

If you're 13, strangely, the worth of your opinion does not extend much beyond the recognition of a lack of good grammar.

Right there, dismissing something due to age is the same as dismissing something because of color, looks, smell...etc.
Im sure you'll dismiss me because of my age.

hell, even by comparing people with disabilities already makes it apparent that they are already recognized by their disability.

Looks do matter, though they arent EVERYTHING (obviously), he could be having a bad day, and by judging everything on them by that one day is very stupid.
Its quite apparent.