🚀 go-pugleaf

Jim Titus wrote:
> 
> scsmith@ix.netcom.com (Stranger) wrote:
> >On Wed, 18 Dec 1996 20:30:11 -0500, Dan Scheraga
> ><scheraga@webspan.net> wrote:
> >
> >>Tommy the Tourist wrote:
> >>>
> >>> In article <57od8p$8k4$1@info1.fnal.gov>,
> >>> Robert Kutschke <kutschke@fnpspa.fnal.gov> wrote:
> >>> >          33 specified a minimum height of 5'7'' or more
> >>> >           3 specified a minimum height of 5'5'' or 5'6''
> >>> >           4 specified no minimum height
> >>>
>  to be tall.
> >>>
> >>> This is a bummer for short men.  We are all born into this world with
> >>> various gifts and various difficulties.
> >>>
> >>
> >>Bummer is an understatement.
> >>But I...and most every other guy I know tall or short, require women to be slim, or at least not
> >>obese...when us short guys who know damn well what it's like to be ignored for such a
> >>superficial reason keep physical requirements for our mates, it's hypocrisy.
> 
> >There's any number of things that make people attractive to one
> >another.  Physical appearance is just the most immediate, superficial
> >thing.  It's also the thing that ultimately means the LEAST, precisely
> >BECAUSE of its superficiality.
> >
> >If people aren't willing to look beneath skin-deep appearances, they
> >aren't IMO worth getting to know.
> 
> Are we talking about ISOs or about one's ultimate criteria.  Physical
> characteristics are, at least, specifications that can be written in an ad
> and understood by the reader; and if the responder ignores one's wishes,
> his or her noncooperation is palpable.  So even if height or weight have
> less substantive importance than other matters, they may still be worth
> including in an ISO.  Trying to tell people that what they care about is
> all wrong, is a nonstarter.  People should view ISOs as a mechanism for
> classifying people into categories that can be easily classified with a
> minimum potential for cheating.  The things that really matter will be
> dealt with face to face

I don't think it's honest to act like physical appearance is not
important b/c one's own appearance may be lacking in some aspect.  I
believe that women place less emphasis on superficial appearance than
men -- but certainly more emphasis than they once did (or at least are
more open about it). I'm not very detached or objective about this
subject  myself, being congenitally short (but meeting the 5'7" minimum
standard above! hah) and intermittently (and currently) fat.  I often
feel women reject me out of hand b/c of my appearance and feel resentful
and critical of those women who would so reject me for such superficial
qualities when, if they only got to know me better, could detect more
enduring personality flaws about myself for which they could reject me.