🚀 go-pugleaf

Boris T. Dog wrote:
> 
> She-wolf wrote:
> >
> > Boris T. Dog wrote:
> > >

> > > Tom,
> > >
> > > I used to worry about being short.  Then I stopped worrying about it.
> > > Since then I have had far too many women wanting to marry me.  All
> > > heights and backgrounds.  All attractive.  All intelligent.  Remember-
> > > it's just the stupid ones who care about your height.
> >
> > I think this statement is a little rude !
> > If you just mean it's stupid to think someone's not a nice person because
> > he is short (or very tall), you're right.
> > But when it comes to falling in love with someone, I don't think it is
> > stupid to "care" about height. After all, you don't "choose" the person
> > you fall in love with your brain, it has not much to do without being
> > intelligent. An intelligent person may be capable of STOPPING himself from
> > falling in love with someone he or she is attracted to if there are rational
> > reasons against it, but you cannot force yourself to love someone who is
> > exceptionally nice but just does not have that certain something that
> > attracts you to him emotionally.
> > If someone has an ugly face, it is more difficult to find someone who falls
> > in love with him, sure - this is a "bummer" for anyone who's just born
> > unattractive. If someone is fat, maybe because he's got some disease, it's
> > also more difficult, if he is crippled, it's more difficult and so on.
> > We just can't control the way we choose the one we fall for.
> > Also, both times you talked about women in your post you talked about
> > attractive women.
> > If it was true that a person who cares about the height when choosing
> > his/her love is stupid, wouldn't that also mean that someone who cares about
> > attractiveness is stupid, too ? After all, both are just external factors
> > that are beyond our control.
> >
> > On the other hand, I wouldn't give too much about what anyone says in an
> > interview about the type of man/woman he or she prefares.
> > Most of the time, people pick partners that have little in common with
> > their ideals. If you'd ask me what kind of men I like the best, I too
> > would have to say tall, strong, dark-haired (like many women) and green-eyed
> > (that's my special preference...). But the men I have actually picked for
> > my partners did seldom match this. One was tall, but blonde, one was dark and
> > green-eyed, but short, one was even short and blonde, and none of them was
> > exactly what I described above. But I fell for them nevertheless, and loved
> > them just as much.
> >
> > >
> > > Attitude makes a big difference.  Intelligent, attractive women want a
> > > man who is witty, kind, intelligent and sure of himself.
> >
> > [I just left that in in order not to delete the second reference to
> > attractive women....]
> >
> > She-Wolf
> 
> Uh, She-Wolf,
> 
> Before you go off on a "rude" tangent:

Boris, you seem to have misunderstood almost everything I said !
The "rude" comment was related to your sentence "it's just the stupid 
one's that care about height". Everyone has the right to decide what
he cares about in his partner, and calling someone stupid just because
he cares about something YOU don't or YOU don't think he should care 
does IS rude. I'll stick to that. In the contrary, I believe generalizations
like that are stupid.

> 
> Do you know what the definition of "attractive" is?  I didn't think so.
> "Attractive" doesn't mean "What you see on popular magazine covers."
> "Attractive" means "What one finds appealing."

I know what attractive means, thanks. I never said anything about magazine
covers.
"Attractive" means different things to different people, but it always means
something external, something you can see without first getting to know the 
person very well. It might include height. Some women may find short man 
unattractive, and that is their personal right and you have no right to 
criticize it. 

> 
> I've been out with plenty of women that I've found immensely appealing,
> but other men have said were downright unattractive.  And I've been told
> I was crazy for not going out with some model-types who were wild about
> me.  Why?  Often I just didn't find them attractive in some way. (Or
> they were just a bit boring.)

Nothing to dispute here, this matches my experience.
It shows you've got your own standard of what's attractive, and this
is your personal right.

> 
> You state you have a special preference for the appearance of men,
> though your lovers don't always measure up to this.  At least you're
> flexible, but I've never understood this sort of thing.

I was just talking about an IDEAL. If I was to create a man especially
for me, he'd look like that.

> I have no set
> standards for attractiveness.  If someone is attractive to me, then
> they're attractive to me.  Saying that "attractive" means some
> particular look is downright silly.

I did never say that. Do not put words into my mouth.
Acutally, you're saying the same I tried to say in my last paragraph.
I've loved different men that apparently have nothing in common.
But I repeat that I believe "attractiveness" is mostly an external 
thing. 

> 
> I used to have a roomate who, though not exactly a Mr. Stud, wouldn't
> date any woman who wasn't a magazine-cover type.  He ended up spending a
> lot of money on a lot of women. He rarely even got a goodnight kiss from
> any of them.  He never (and, last I heard from him still hasn't) had a
> good relationship. (He also never had any sex with them, but that's
> another story.) 

I know the kind.
He's got a "special preference" for women that are "magazine cover", as you 
call it. Unlike me, he's unable to get away from this ideal and relate to 
women that do not match it. 
You mentioned earlier that you could not understand the way I AM picking men
that do not relate to my ideal. Yet here, I understand he's doing the opposite, 
and you don't understand that, too ???

> Why?  He's was witty, intelligent, not bad looking,
> etc.

Does not seem extremely intelligent to ME.

> But like you, he defined attractive as "magazine cover".

So who are you to say he cannot define "attractive" the way HE likes it ?
Again, you're judging other people because of their very own preferences.
Again, I think this is not fair.
And the "like you" again is a misinterpretation, as I never said that.

> Unlike
> you, he wouldn't settle for anything other than his ideal woman.

He'll learn. I've known guys like that (and very rarely, women too), 
and most of them seem to understand some time.

> 
> So tread lightly when using semantics to flame someone.  Not everyone
> defines looks the way you do.

I did not flame anyone. I said "a LITTLE rude", and I consider this a 
rather mild word. And I never said anyone had to define looks the same
way I do, I just said that you have no right to call anyone stupid just
because he prefers tall men.
Please read more carefully before replying.