NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #19/NN_1992_19.iso/spool/alt/support/bigfolk/227

Text File | 1992-08-28 | 3.9 KB | 82 lines

Newsgroups: alt.support.big-folks
Path: sparky!uunet!news.univie.ac.at!hp4at!rcvie!cc_paul
From: [e-mail] (Wolf Paul)
Subject: Re: CHOOSING to be attracted to someone
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (Wolf N. Paul)
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Wolf N. Paul)
Organization: Alcatel Austria - Elin Research Center, Vienna
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 08:52:19 GMT
Lines: 69

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Libbie Counselman) writes:
>People have MUCH more control over what attracts them than they
>often realize!  They can talk themselves into or out of being attracted
>to all different types of people.  Look at how popular fat people were
>just a century or two ago, and look at how unpopular they (we) are now!
>And I find I am much more desireable to the men in cultures where "thin
>is NOT in" than here in the US.
>
>So why do some people continue to limit themselves to a certain
>physical type?  I can understand limiting oneself to characteristics
>that have to do with how smoothly the relationship goes - the kinds of
>things that have to do with common values, such as religion (if that's
>important to you), intelligence and/or education (again, if that's
>important to you), desire or lack thereof for family, common goals,
>etc.  However, I cannot understand why physical appearance would be so
>important that one would use is as an eliminator, since the
>unattracted person can change their feelings, and the "attractive"
>person's appearance could change over time.  Is that really MORE
>important than these other characteristics?  And if not, then should
>one use it as the deciding factor BEFORE one even finds out about the
>more important things?  I think not.

Well, this sounds all very good and true, but it's not the way people
function.

My Dad was an outdoors person, hiking and mountain climbing mostly,
and to him the fact that my mother's interest in sports decreased and
her girth increased in the course of bearing six children was a major
problem. He was committed to the ideal of marriage till death, so
divorce never was considered, but it certainly affected the quality
of their relationship.

I can understand someone who has experienced this sort of scenario to
consider physical compatibility (and I don't here mean "sexual
compatibility") just as important as mental, ideological or religious
compatibility.

The other consideration, even though I also experience pain when
people snicker because of my size, is that I don't think anyone
is obligated to be attracted to me, and it doesn't really matter why
they aren't. Attraction between people is a very personal thing,
and I get very uneasy when anyone seems to try and regulate it, even
with the aim of correcting what I agree is less than ideal.

One can try and regulate/legislate ACTIONS, as long as they come
properly under the jurisdiction of some public agency, but it is
useless to try and regulate ATTITUDES, and that's the heading under
which personal attraction belongs.

>
>I'd like to think that as people realize that they *can* change what
>attracts them, that they would keep the door open to get to know people
>for whom they do not have an immediate attraction.  This at least gives
>both people the opportunity to *develop* an attraction, and see what
>happens.  To reject someone solely because of their appearance means *two*
>people may miss out on something good.
>
>
>-Libbie C.
>
>


--
            V
+-----------------------+  Wolf N. Paul, Computer Center         [e-mail]
|  A  L  C  A  T  E  L  |  Alcatel-Elin Research Center     [phone] (w)
+-----------------------+  Ruthnergasse 1-7                   [phone] (fax)
      ELIN RESEARCH        A-1210 Vienna-Austria/Europe        [phone] (h)