From: avery@netcom.com (Avery Ray Colter)
Subject: Re: CHOOSING to be attracted to someone
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 92 01:57:33 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

libbie@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Libbie Counselman) writes:

>>Sheryl Coppenger writes:
>>
>>If it's learned behavior, it can be changed.  Why would learned behavior
>>confer a reproductive advantage?  Also, standards of beauty in one place
>>and time don't necessarily apply in another place and time.  

>Exactly!  This is precisely what I was trying to express!  Thanks,
>Sheryl!  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.  

Social standards change. That just means that a different group is allowed
to freely express their intrinsic tastes and a different group is brainwashed
into suppressing theirs.

Just where would I learn to be attracted to fat women? Certainly not by
most of the popular media, nor most of my peers in school - they were
patently against or at least not enthusiastic about the idea.

Control over what attracts me? I can affect such a control, but then what
will show? My honest, core feelings? Or an intellectual facade in which I
lie both to others and to myself? Would being a liar make me a better
participant in a relationship?

Some people can talk themselves into or out of just about anything.
They're called "yes-people" I believe. They're liberal when it seems
expedient to be liberal, and they instantly turn fascist the moment it
becomes expedient to be fascist. Their attitudes about beauty are just
as flexible - I've met men who seemed inimical to fat women, who when
they heard a few anecdotes from me, went from there to curiosity veiled
by rough humor, to more detailed questions, and finally with some to at
least some understanding of what some men see in the larger figure.

For better or for worse, some individuals are not quite that malleable.
They get into certain patterns and pretty much stick with them. Why?
Because they work, period. Disadvantages are the limitations of which
you speak. Advantages are paying enough attention to these limited areas
to develop something more than vague familiarity.

Every war and every political election campaign is a story of small
factions deep in their convictions, each attempting to be the one to
get the most neutral individuals to go with their philosophy.

>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.  

Well, again, I can't give an absolute answer, because I'm not one who
claims to be always and only attracted to fat women. To me, "fat" is
less a size range and more a shape and texture. Thus, some women who are
technically neutralweight or close to it, but who have the "soft look",
the tender texture and curvature (remember, physicality is not only
visual, but tactile), will strike me as very attractive. The plain fact is,
that look doesn't present in very many thin women, whereas it appears in
most women in the range from buxome up. The plain fact also is, that from
what I see, fat women's apperances may change over time, but they seem to
change fairly slowly. Collagen and liposome based cosmetics are really only
necessary (if one even credits such a necessity) for women who don't already
possess like substances by nature. It seems to me really ironic that anyone
would equate fatness and aging, since in my experience, especially with women,
fat women seem almost always to look in their 20s when really in their 30s,
and in their late 30s when really in their 50s.

For whatever reason, men who declare specific attractions to fat women
seem to stay married pretty happily to the women who catch their eye,
and I can't help thinking the sex lives within these marriages are a lot
more fun than those in which physical attraction is given short shrift.

>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.

Why is there no provision for an even playing field?
Is it really necessary to heirarchize characteristics?

The other question is, what the goal is of a relationship you're persuing.
If sexual interaction is low on the list, then indeed the whole physical
characteristic can be tossed to the wind. If it's high on the list, then how
does such a person ignore what their mind's eye sees when they ask themselves
what physical characteristics, what kind of body mechanics, are sexy to them?
Can that vision really be changed?

>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.

So those who persecute, say, homosexuals, may be given carte blanche for
their actions - after all, "they really COULD change if they wanted to".

Are you saying to yourself, "But this is different"? If so, please explain how,
because from my side of the fence I feel, like many homosexuals do of their
gender orientation, that there may be a genetic influence skewing me toward
certain body types. Possibly I could change my taste by moving against this
influence - but asking me to do this sounds like the analog of asking you
to lose weight: possible, but of questionable worth given the effort required.

>-Libbie C.
>  

-- 
Avery Ray Colter ("Elfcat") - 	avery@netcom.netcom.com (IP 192.100.81.100)
(510) 656-1902          	"A R Colter" on America Online
"Heaviness is the root of lightness; calmness is the controller of haste"
Newsgroups: alt.support.big-folks