what attracts you first?

[cacian]

to the opposite or same sex?

usually we know straight away when we see the person that we like them because something physically or maybe something else did it for us.

[Emil Miller]

to the opposite or same sex?

usually we know straight away when we see the person that we like them because something physically or maybe something else did it for us.

Petiteness, if there is such a word. In a world that seems dedicated to the survival of the fattest, small is indeed beautiful.

[Helga]

I'm not original at all and it may sound like a cliche but I notice eyes first.

[JuniperWoolf]

I think there are different types of people, like combinations of traits that re-occur fairly often. One specific trait isn't really enough to base attraction on. For males, I noticed I especially gravitate towards:

1. Messy-brown-hair-with-glasses types
2. Pale-skin-black-hair-and-blue-eyes types

This is all initial physical stuff though because that's what the OP asked, there's a lot more to attraction than that.

For girls that I find especially aesthetically pleasing, it's cutesy-types with red or blonde hair.

An example of "cutesy":

http://4minuten.eu/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Deborah-Ann-Woll-008-500x666.jpg

[PoeticPassions]

Totally off topic,but I have been meaning to say this for a while:Juniper, the text/quote in your signature is so great. Every time I read it, I somehow feel wiser and astounded.

As for the question in the thread-- I would also agree with Juniper about a combination of traits, though there are generally physical traits in men that I tend to consciously or subconsciously find attractive (e.g. a strong jaw line, high cheekbones, light eyes and/or long lashes)... but as far as attraction goes, for me it is usually something inexplicable... just a certain chemistry or spark. I think it has a lot to do with smell (love is half in smells) and possibly hormones, but I always know if there is a potential for something with someone within the first few minutes of talking to them. Or sometimes even before talking... I need to feel chemistry, otherwise no amount of good looks or even great conversation will make me feel (sexually and romantically) attracted to a person.

[JuniperWoolf]

Totally off topic,but I have been meaning to say this for a while:Juniper, the text/quote in your signature is so great. Every time I read it, I somehow feel wiser and astounded.

:yesnod: You can thank Darren Aronofsky for that one.

[paradoxical]

If she's crazy, I'm usually attracted to her. I'm always drawn to the crazy ones. I don't know why.

[Lokasenna]

Evidence of a brain..?

Perhaps that's a little harsh, but I am attracted to intelligence above all else. The most gorgeous woman in the world wouldn't much interest me if she couldn't support a decent conversation.

[cacian]

Evidence of a brain..?

Perhaps that's a little harsh, but I am attracted to intelligence above all else. The most gorgeous woman in the world wouldn't much interest me if she couldn't support a decent conversation.

Haha everyone has a brain so it is a bit difficult so what do you actually mean by a decent conversation?

[stlukesguild]

Now Emil... haven't we had this discussion before somewhere? I still suspect you are drawn toward those diminutive Asian women who are faithful, devoted and compliant. I've always leaned toward the other side of the spectrum. Not exactly being small, I've always preferred "voluptuous":

http://www.quick-gossip.com/images/scarlett/scarlett-johansson-1.jpg

http://www.ruedechic.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Christina-Hendricks-in-Johanna-Johnson.jpg

Must be why I love Rubens so much:

http://okno.mk/sites/default/files/images/Rubens_-_Judgement_of_Paris.jpg

Luckily... in spite of the fact that my wife stands a foot shorter than be, she most certainly is voluptuous.

As for Lokasenna's comment... well it certainly seems the right thing to say. We can't go about admitting that we are just attracted to another human being based upon something as shallow as appearances now can we?:nono:

I do agree that in the long run other elements come into play... such as intelligence, personality, and even shared interests.

Interestingly enough, my wife's area of expertise (nursing) is quite removed from my own. We're actually quite different in many ways... but she is supportive of my interests and I of hers... and so far it's worked out.

[Lokasenna]

Haha everyone has a brain so it is a bit difficult so what do you actually mean by a decent conversation?

Well, you know, someone who is both interesting and interested. Someone who feels easy talking about things that matter. Someone who's abiding characteristic is curiousity. Someone who looks at the world and really thinks about it, and is happy to talk it through.

[Jack of Hearts]

Evidence of a brain..?

Perhaps that's a little harsh, but I am attracted to intelligence above all else. The most gorgeous woman in the world wouldn't much interest me if she couldn't support a decent conversation.

Dear Loka,

Agreed, intelligence is like gas on the fire, but what about the first ten seconds' impression of someone? You must've felt that. How could you think anybody was smart within the first ten seconds? Maybe poise?






J


EDIT: And also lol at stlukes

[Emil Miller]

Now Emil... haven't we had this discussion before somewhere? I still suspect you are drawn toward those diminutive Asian women who are faithful, devoted and compliant. I've always leaned toward the other side of the spectrum. Not exactly being small, I've always preferred "voluptuous":




OK then have this one on me.


http://img406.imageshack.us/img406/2761/746438.jpg

[Alexander III]

1)Small, brown hair, delicately roundish, small nose, large eyes, little lips of red, milky breasts, small and gentle hands and feet, satin skin of either arabian olive or northern pale snow or sun ripened blonde. That is what inspires love.

2) Voluptuous and older and brown haired. That is what inspires the great lust.

3) Brains are always secondary to Character. To alter an Oscar Wilde epigram - "there is no such thing as an intelligent or a stupid woman, there only exist dull women and fascinating women"

[ClaesGefvenberg]

usually we know straight away when we see the person that we like them because something physically or maybe something else did it for us.

Thus far, we have...

Petiteness
Eyes
Cutesy
Messy-brown-hair-with-glasses types
Pale-skin-black-hair-and-blue-eyes types
Crazy
Evidence of a brain
Rubens
and so on....

...but I would like to add something that can be spotted before all of those, from a hundred yards away: Graceful movement. That alone can spark your interest, and then, if you like what you see when you get closer, those other traits can do their job.

/Claes

[Emil Miller]

Thus far, we have...

Petiteness
Eyes
Cutesy
Messy-brown-hair-with-glasses types
Pale-skin-black-hair-and-blue-eyes types
Crazy
Evidence of a brain
Rubens
and so on....

...but I would like to add something that can be spotted before all of those, from a hundred yards away: Graceful movement. That alone can spark your interest, and then, if you like what you see when you get closer, those other traits can do their job.

/Claes

This is difficult to disagree with but circumstances do not always allow for graceful movement. When I was seventeen (yes I still can remember those days) I was crazy, but totally crazy, about a girl who was a year younger. We were both at school although not in the same establishment. The English school uniform for girls is specifically designed to make them as unattractive as possible but when she changed into tennis shorts and a sweater she was beauty incarnate; it was a pity that she was already taken by someone else but her graceful movements when playing tennis have stayed with me to this day.

[Lokasenna]

Dear Loka,

Agreed, intelligence is like gas on the fire, but what about the first ten seconds' impression of someone? You must've felt that. How could you think anybody was smart within the first ten seconds? Maybe poise?






J


EDIT: And also lol at stlukes

Maybe it's just me, but I've usually formed a pretty good impression of someone's intelligence within 10 seconds of meeting them!

[Helga]

Maybe it's just me, but I've usually formed a pretty good impression of someone's intelligence within 10 seconds of meeting them!

I get so nervous around men I sound like an idiot and a jerk so I hope most men stay for more than ten seconds. A cute doctor once walked away cause I said I can't stand people who put milk in their coffee. What is that!

I said eyes are what I notice first and that is true about both men and women, but I can't look cute guys in the eye, so maybe toes.

[stlukesguild]

Lokasenna has moved beyond the mere attractions of the flesh that continue to seduce the rest of us. His ideal woman can weigh in at 375 pounds, have a wart at the end of her nose, a fake leg, and buck-teeth... but he looks beyond all that to the "inner-beauty" of her intellect.


To suggest otherwise would be to admit that Alex was right... and something as shallow as appearances count. :D

[mortalterror]

Haha everyone has a brain so it is a bit difficult so what do you actually mean by a decent conversation?

Agreed, this is the same as when women say that they want a man with a sense of humor, but in reality if they find a man they are attracted to they will consider him funny. We tend to project attributes we like onto the people we like.

For me, I would have to say proportion above all else, especially how a girl looks from behind.

[stlukesguild]

Ah... so Mortal's an a**-man. :devil:

Now, now Emil... there's a difference between "voluptuous" and obese... just as there's a difference between "petite" and anorexic:

http://ehgazette.blogs.brynmawr.edu/files/2010/01/anorexia1206lindsay-lohan.jpg

[Scheherazade]

Maybe it's just me, but I've usually formed a pretty good impression of someone's intelligence within 10 seconds of meeting them!I often think that too, Loka. Wonder if that assumption says something about our intelligence ;)

For me, it is the "quiet confidence"... Not to be confused with "arrogance". That is, after cleanliness and general tidiness as hair or eye colour and such do not play a big determining role.

[Sancho]

I want a girl with a short skirt and a long...jacket

I don't know why that popped into my head:

Cake: http://youtu.be/u7aDstrDMf0

By the way, Luke and Emil, I like 'em all from Long Tall Sally to Short Fat Fanny, but you guys are definitely pressing the outside of the envelope.

[Jack of Hearts]

Maybe it's just me, but I've usually formed a pretty good impression of someone's intelligence within 10 seconds of meeting them!

This reader has been bitten in the butt too many times by snap judgments (or even being judgmental in general, but that's another topic). Lost a lot of time with great girls that way. The right kind of girls, even.


I often think that too, Loka. Wonder if that assumption says something about our intelligence ;)

For me, it is the "quiet confidence"... Not to be confused with "arrogance". That is, after cleanliness and general tidiness as hair or eye colour and such do not play a big determining role.

Probably all smart people who have some strong grasp of inductive reasoning do it. This reader has challenged himself to be less judgmental and more open.

There is something to be said for 'quiet confidence,' Scher. Especially in women. Genuine confidence, not the ostentatious fake-ish kind, is so rare that it feels special when this reader meets anybody who has it.







J

[prendrelemick]

1)Small, brown hair, delicately roundish, small nose, large eyes, little lips of red, milky breasts, small and gentle hands and feet, satin skin of either arabian olive or northern pale snow or sun ripened blonde. That is what inspires love.

"


^Sorry Alexander, she's mine.


I was irst attracted to Mrs P by her aura o untouchability. Later I ound our skins matched.

[Jack of Hearts]

^Sorry Alexander, she's mine.


I was irst attracted to Mrs P by her aura o untouchability. Later I ound our skins matched.

Do a blog about it, mick. That's an incredible story... you've got like two generations going because you fell in love with a girl. That could be a story it'd be good for a lot of people to hear.


(This reader does remember you mentioning something about it in one of your blogs a while back- something about puking with her after drinking whiskey? And then later you abandoned her in a snowstorm!)







J


EDIT: And also buy a USB keyboard or something.

[Emil Miller]

Now Emil... haven't we had this discussion before somewhere? I still suspect you are drawn toward those diminutive Asian women who are faithful, devoted and compliant.

Unlike the West, the the beauties of the East are limitless and, although one is often spoilt for choice, I'll settle for this one.

http://img805.imageshack.us/img805/8533/7350046470e8c9bcdd55o.jpg

[Scheherazade]

Good old adage, "women should be seen but not heard", comes to mind...




There is something to be said for 'quiet confidence,' Scher. Especially in women. Genuine confidence, not the ostentatious fake-ish kind, is so rare that it feels special when this reader meets anybody who has it.
It is rare not only in women but especially in men.

[cacian]

Interesting posts but it has to be said I never settle for a look because I never know I have seen it. I do a have however a soft spot for the for longish hair look ...I guess that is one starting point.
Then I think wit and cooleness is important after the look bit.

[Emil Miller]

Maybe it's just me, but I've usually formed a pretty good impression of someone's intelligence within 10 seconds of meeting them!

I know what you mean.


http://img705.imageshack.us/img705/3713/dumbfoolishwoman.jpg

[TurquoiseSunset]

Maybe it's just me, but I've usually formed a pretty good impression of someone's intelligence within 10 seconds of meeting them!

I hope that's rare among the general populace. Helga mentioned being awkward around men, but I'm awkward around EVERYONE, even online, where anonymity is supposed to help with those things. I always have been and I don't know why that is. I don't get nervous and it's not about impressing them... I don't know.

Anyway, what I have noticed is that when I see a very handsome guy and he says something stupid or arrogant or anything that reflects negatively on his personality or intelligence, I don't find him as good looking anymore after that.

Overall I try to be open minded, because I know how difficult is to try and get the 'real me' across, heh.

[PoeticPassions]

Good old adage, "women should be seen but not heard", comes to mind...

It is rare not only in women but especially in men.

I quite agree. But it is definitely attractive and something that I notice as well...

[Lokasenna]

Lokasenna has moved beyond the mere attractions of the flesh that continue to seduce the rest of us. His ideal woman can weigh in at 375 pounds, have a wart at the end of her nose, a fake leg, and buck-teeth... but he looks beyond all that to the "inner-beauty" of her intellect.

For what it's worth, I harboured a fairly long crush on a girl who was damn near twice my weight. Looks are a bonus, sure, but I'm far more interested in abstract matters.


I hope that's rare among the general populace. Helga mentioned being awkward around men, but I'm awkward around EVERYONE, even online, where anonymity is supposed to help with those things. I always have been and I don't know why that is. I don't get nervous and it's not about impressing them... I don't know.

People can be awkward (I know I certainly am!), but that really is a completely different thing from having a quick mind. I don't know how, but somehow a person's intelligence communicates itself to me very quickly, sometimes before they've even opened their mouths. I'm not usually wrong, either.

[Sancho]

Depending on which theory you believe, there are a lot of different types of intelligence 7, 9, 12, who knows what they’re up to now. A snap judgment on somebody’s intelligence may (I’m using may because I really don’t know) be a reflection of your own intellectual strengths (and weaknesses). By and large, I do think we tend to prefer the company of others who think like us, but that’s getting a little off-topicy.

[tonywalt]

I think some of us - and I'm guilty of it as well - are attracted to our own kind of intelligence and outlook. Kindness to animals and children are a plus as well. Girls who dislike children are noticed by myself.

Also, I like girls who are washed and scrubbed before being brought to me - joking, kind of...

[Emil Miller]

I think some of us - and I'm guilty of it as well - are attracted to our own kind of intelligence and outlook. Kindness to animals and children are a plus as well. Girls who dislike children are noticed by myself.

Also, I like girls who are washed and scrubbed before being brought to me - joking, kind of...

You mean they are actually brought to you? Well I know there's a lot of wealth stashed away there but I didn't think that harems existed in the havens of shady money or niches fiscales as the French so delicately refer to them.

[MANICHAEAN]

West Indian mix up / mix up women that are a genetic cocktail of; African, Chinese, Indian & Europen. Unbelievable combinations!

[JuniperWoolf]

Agreed, this is the same as when women say that they want a man with a sense of humor, but in reality if they find a man they are attracted to they will consider him funny.

As a fan of both men and comedy, I can tell you that's not true at all. Most attractive men are as funny as taxes.


For me, it is the "quiet confidence"... Not to be confused with "arrogance".

Me, I love arrogance. Everyone else seems to hate conciet but I have no idea why. It's interesting, way more intersting than self-deprication.

[tonywalt]

West Indian mix up / mix up women that are a genetic cocktail of; African, Chinese, Indian & Europen. Unbelievable combinations!

True! One of the things I like here are the Europeans, mainly British, but other parts of the continent as well.

[Varenne Rodin]

Intelligence. I'm with Loka on this one. I can tell right away.

That being said, for me, the intelligence has to include an awareness of hygiene and composure. I would not be physically attracted to an obese person. I tend to like tall, slender guys. If a guy looks like a live version of Spike Spiegel, chances are I will think he's good looking. My preference here also comes from shorter guys expressing that they don't like that I'm taller than them (5'8"). I'm not interested in people who feel less confident when they stand next to me, and I like to wear heels.

I like women who are similar to me. Intelligent, beautiful, pretty lips, excellent breasts, feminine.

Oh, and I don't care about hair color, eye color or race. Why limit myself?

[qimissung]

I hope that's rare among the general populace. Helga mentioned being awkward around men, but I'm awkward around EVERYONE, even online, where anonymity is supposed to help with those things. I always have been and I don't know why that is. I don't get nervous and it's not about impressing them... I don't know.

Anyway, what I have noticed is that when I see a very handsome guy and he says something stupid or arrogant or anything that reflects negatively on his personality or intelligence, I don't find him as good looking anymore after that.

Overall I try to be open minded, because I know how difficult is to try and get the 'real me' across, heh.

This could have been written by me, TurquoiseSunset! I, too, try not to be judgemental because it takes awhile for people to know or understand me. Which is fine. I know me. :D

As far as men are concerned, theoretically the physical descriptions that Juniper mentioned I also find attractive. Beauty in it's abstract form is always appealing. In real life, the eyes have it, and after that, of course, character. Someone who's kind, thoughtful, intelligent, funny. Kind and funny go a long, long way with me. And it's a rarer combination than you might think.

[Buh4Bee]

A sense of humor, kindness, and tolerance for my inability to control myself. Intelligence is also necessary factor.

[Helga]

I hope that's rare among the general populace. Helga mentioned being awkward around men, but I'm awkward around EVERYONE, even online, where anonymity is supposed to help with those things. I always have been and I don't know why that is. I don't get nervous and it's not about impressing them... I don't know.

Anyway, what I have noticed is that when I see a very handsome guy and he says something stupid or arrogant or anything that reflects negatively on his personality or intelligence, I don't find him as good looking anymore after that.

Overall I try to be open minded, because I know how difficult is to try and get the 'real me' across, heh.



In general this is true about me too, but the thing is I avoid people and don't really talk to women or men, but if a man strikes up a conversation I get very nervous and awkward. Women never talk to me unless I know them so that isn't really a problem. I can't even order a pizza I get so nervous over the phone and just babble something.

I also agree with you that if a guy says something stupid he doesn't seem that attractive anymore. It also bugs me if they think they are sooo cool.

I don't really have a type anyway, I would just want someone with similar interests and thought on life. So a cool t-shirt is something that attracts my attention, a star trek or star wars quote, very cool.

[tonywalt]

Anyway, what I have noticed is that when I see a very handsome guy and he says something stupid or arrogant or anything that reflects negatively on his personality or intelligence, I don't find him as good looking anymore after that.


But look at it from the guys perspective. We kind of know we have to a 3 to 4 minute window and cannot say anything "stupid" or lame- in order to move past the introduction phase.(OK, it's my theory, but based on umpteen years of experience).

Even for confident guys, you can and will drop the ball and then BAM - you're out. Soooo, I'm not *****in about the laws of attraction- just leave a little wiggle room in the event the guy fumbles. It could just have been slip

[Buh4Bee]

Haha! This is why the bar scene sucks! I think the best way to "meet" someone is to just be able to have time with them as friends- then they'll get to know you whether or not you like it. Either it is or it isn't. Why try to hide the defects? Be with someone who is forgiving and accepts what you are in all your colors? No?

[stlukesguild]

I like women who are similar to me. Intelligent, beautiful, pretty lips, excellent breasts...

OK, Varene... you have my attention.:devil:

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

When it comes to looks, the face is always the most important attribute, to me.

[Emil Miller]

I like women who are similar to me. Intelligent, beautiful, pretty lips, excellent breasts...

OK, Varene... you have my attention.:devil:

Now now StLukes, aren't you being a little unkind? Shouldn't that read ..." my undivided attention?"

[stlukesguild]

That's what I meant.:nod:

[Emil Miller]

That's what I meant.:nod:

I should have guessed. :D

[LitNetIsGreat]

Ha, I've missed this excellent thread! I love the image banter and Alex's phrase 'milky breasts' in particular.

For me? Oh I don't know, maybe a woman that doesn't talk a lot and leaves me in peace. Attractiveness for me equals a women that doesn't nag or spend excessive amounts of beer money on clothes. I realise this discounts ALL women and that one is living in dream world, but one can fantasize...

[Jack of Hearts]

... just leave a little wiggle room in the event the guy fumbles. It could just have been slip

Yeah, cut a guy a break!







J

[Varenne Rodin]

I like women who are similar to me. Intelligent, beautiful, pretty lips, excellent breasts...

OK, Varene... you have my attention.:devil:

Haha. I like the little devil face. Naughty.

[Charles Darnay]

My preference here also comes from shorter guys expressing that they don't like that I'm taller than them (5'8"). I'm not interested in people who feel less confident when they stand next to me, and I like to wear heels.


Short guys do get the short end of the stick. Short women tend to prefer taller guys (not sure why) and tall women don't seem to like being much taller, if at all, than their boyfriend.

[OrphanPip]

1. Nice hair.
2. Shorter than me, or roughly the same height.
3. Functional genitalia.

Anything else is open to negotiation.

[Varenne Rodin]

Short guys do get the short end of the stick. Short women tend to prefer taller guys (not sure why) and tall women don't seem to like being much taller, if at all, than their boyfriend.

Good points, Charles. After thinking the matter over, there are some hot short guys. Michael J. Fox, Seth Green, Peter Dinklage. Short guys need love too.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Tell me about it. I'm 5'3".

[stlukesguild]

Damn!

[JuniperWoolf]

Kind and funny go a long, long way with me.

I don't dislike kindness (I don't remember ever having been attracted to it specifically though, unless it's that helpless-first-time-out-of-my-parents'-house-never-had-a-real-job-before type of "nice" that could be called "innocence," I'm into that for some reason), but I dislike fake kindness which is what you often see. You can always tell when people are hiding their true selves as you hang out with that person, if thier true self isn't "nice" then I'd like them much better if they didn't pretend to be, so I'll try to coax them to just ease up, relax.


I can't even order a pizza I get so nervous over the phone and just babble something.

Haha, that sounds like my boyfriend. Social awkwardness abounds especially on the phone, and if he screws up once he just spins his tires and gets even more tongue-tied. More than once he's just turned bright red, handed me the phone and stiffly walked away (with me and the person on the other line laughing at him profusely).


When it comes to looks, the face is always the most important attribute, to me.

Welcome back.



3. Functional genitalia.

Haha, yeah, that's non-negotiable, can't believe I forgot that.

[cacian]

does flirt count in all of these? apperently some people are attracted to a good flirt haha not that I am saying that I am or that I am one LOL

[Emil Miller]

Tell me about it. I'm 5'3".

Well some women go for the short guys. Look at Alan Ladd and James Cagney for example they were both about your height . And then there was that photograph of Mickey Rooney dancing with Raquel Welch. You couldn't see his face but I think he was smiling.

[Helga]

Good points, Charles. After thinking the matter over, there are some hot short guys. Michael J. Fox, Seth Green, Peter Dinklage. Short guys need love too.

Oh you just stole the words out of my head. When I was a teen I had a huge crush on Michael J. Fox and Seth Green is THE hottest nerd around, now Dinklage is a recent addition, in Thrones nobody is as hot as he his.

[prendrelemick]

[QUOTE=Varenne Rodin;1148686] Intelligent, beautiful, pretty lips, excellent breasts, feminine.

QUOTE]



Well yes, those too. Goes without saying.

[JuniperWoolf]

Oh you just stole the words out of my head. When I was a teen I had a huge crush on Michael J. Fox and Seth Green is THE hottest nerd around, now Dinklage is a recent addition, in Thrones nobody is as hot as he his.

:yesnod: Nerds are cute, that's the messy-brown-hair-with-glasses type I mentioned earlier.

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lok6jxqcJX1qaye4so1_500.jpg

[Alexander III]

3. Functional genitalia.


http://chzmemeafterdark.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/naughty-memes-untitled21.jpg

[cacian]

http://chzmemeafterdark.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/naughty-memes-untitled21.jpg

LOL that is crude:p

[stlukesguild]

http://chzmemeafterdark.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/naughty-memes-untitled21.jpg

:devil::nono::rofl::thumbs_up:hand::hurray::D:smil ewinkgrin::blush2::cornut::shocked::iamwithstupid: :lol:

[Varenne Rodin]

:yesnod: Nerds are cute, that's the messy-brown-hair-with-glasses type I mentioned earlier.

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lok6jxqcJX1qaye4so1_500.jpg

Wow. I love Brick. J.G.L. ftw!

[JuniperWoolf]

http://chzmemeafterdark.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/naughty-memes-untitled21.jpg

Hah!


Wow. I love Brick. J.G.L. ftw!

*drool* I know, I don't know what it is about him but he's got to be one of the most enamouring humans I've ever seen. Also, he's got to be shorter than 5'10, so he's not tall either.

[cacian]

sorry I have to say I do not get the scruffy look. what does it mean in general apart from looking rushed and scruffy?

[tonywalt]

sorry I have to say I do not get the scruffy look. what does it mean in general apart from looking rushed and scruffy?


.....cuz some women like a bit of scruff and rush:p

[Alexander III]

You don't see many people in london anymore with the scruffy look, everyone in london seems to have the short and neat and badass haircuts from the 1930's.

In paris and Italy you still have remnants of scruffy but it is dying out there too. Especially amongst the lower-middleclass, for some reason they love the scruffy look.

Spain's always been amazing bohemian, all over.

I have no idea how America is, but it must differ I expect a lot from region to region.

[Varenne Rodin]

America has everything. All walks of life.

[Calidore]

Tell me about it. I'm 5'3".

5'3" and under guys who haven't had trouble:

Malcolm and Angus Young of AC/DC (both 5'2")
Paul Simon (married Edie Brickell!)
All three Stooges (especially Curly, in his pre-Stooge days--he had long, curly hair and a waxed mustache and was quite the ladies' man)

Moral: If you're interesting, nobody gives a damn. Especially if you can play music or make them laugh.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

America has everything. All walks of life.

This.

[Emil Miller]

You don't see many people in london anymore with the scruffy look, everyone in london seems to have the short and neat and badass haircuts from the 1930's.

Really? I suggest a journey on the London underground will reveal a very different state of affairs. Shaven heads and tattoos abound, even among the women, and ridiculous 50-year-old teenagers are usually the only ones to be found with the scruffy long hair of their youth protruding from beneath the ubiquitous baseball cap, occasionally accompanied by an 'Elvis Lives' Tee-shirt. Jeans and trainers are still de rigueur for all occasions but among those of the 20-40 age group the woolly hat has replaced the baseball cap and the unshaven look is still in vogue. While the uglification proceeds apace, it is still possible to see well turned out people if one tries hard enough but they are increasingly difficult to detect.

[Alexander III]

Really? I suggest a journey on the London underground will reveal a very different state of affairs. Shaven heads and tattoos abound, even among the women, and ridiculous 50-year-old teenagers are usually the only ones to be found with the scruffy long hair of their youth protruding from beneath the ubiquitous baseball cap, occasionally accompanied by an 'Elvis Lives' Tee-shirt. Jeans and trainers are still de rigueur for all occasions but among those of the 20-40 age group the woolly hat has replaced the baseball cap and the unshaven look is still in vogue. While the uglification proceeds apace, it is still possible to see well turned out people if one tries hard enough but they are increasingly difficult to detect.

Ok fair enough London is big, and the London I know is very small, I don't really frequent the same zones as you most likley. When I go to clubs at night like Jalouse or China White or Madox or Bugis all the 20 somethings have the neat and elegant 1930's hair and they are all in well-cut blazers and suits, and no one ever wears sneakers.

And during the day time I frequent Kensington or Notting Hill as that is wear my friends live, and in the casinos's it the same.

And yes you are right on the tube you see lot's of ugliness but the poor have always been ugly, there has never been a time when they have been beautiful so moot point.

[Darcy88]

Hair, eyes, openness, body, voice, confidence, easygoing-ness. All of these.

[KCurtis]

Ok fair enough London is big, and the London I know is very small, I don't really frequent the same zones as you most likley. When I go to clubs at night like Jalouse or China White or Madox or Bugis all the 20 somethings have the neat and elegant 1930's hair and they are all in well-cut blazers and suits, and no one ever wears sneakers.


Boring-nice and seedy is better.

[/QUOTE]
And yes you are right on the tube you see lot's of ugliness but the poor have always been ugly, there has never been a time when they have been beautiful so moot point.[/QUOTE]

You are kidding, right?

[Emil Miller]

Ok fair enough London is big, and the London I know is very small, I don't really frequent the same zones as you most likley. When I go to clubs at night like Jalouse or China White or Madox or Bugis all the 20 somethings have the neat and elegant 1930's hair and they are all in well-cut blazers and suits, and no one ever wears sneakers.

I'm glad to hear it but will it start to set the trend of well dressed persons that went out of the window with the media manufactured style of the 1960s i.e long hair, tee shirt, jeans and trainers that disfigured the landscape until the much-needed economic crash of 2008 ? I say much-needed because a measure of self-respect is a necessary requirement for a civilized existence, and funny money is the death of civilisation.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

And yes you are right on the tube you see lot's of ugliness but the poor have always been ugly, there has never been a time when they have been beautiful so moot point.

You are kidding, right?

Why would he be kidding? He's right. Maybe it's different in other countries, but here, when the news does a story and it's from a poor area, the people aren't particularly attractive. Even if the person has the potential to be good looking, it's usually squandered by bad teeth, dirty clothes, bad grammar, etc.

And, Emil, I'm curious, how old are you? I'm 25.

[OrphanPip]

Why would he be kidding? He's right. Maybe it's different in other countries, but here, when the news does a story and it's from a poor area, the people aren't particularly attractive. Even if the person has the potential to be good looking, it's usually squandered by bad teeth, dirty clothes, bad grammar, etc.

And, Emil, I'm curious, how old are you? I'm 25.

That depends on whom you're defining as poor. Are they crack heads or are they lower working class? Because most of the people I grew up around had good teeth and weren't particularly unattractive. Then again, dental care for people on welfare and children is free in Quebec.

[paradoxical]

I'm glad to hear it but will it start to set the trend of well dressed persons that went out of the window with the media manufactured style of the 1960s i.e long hair, tee shirt, jeans and trainers that disfigured the landscape until the much-needed economic crash of 2008 ?

Well, that wasn't manufactured by the media but was in fact actual youth rebellion. It is only after a real social movement that those in marketing attempt to catch up and make money off something they don't understand, just like grunge in America. As always, the media, advertising, and others who don't get it are too late.

I'm trying to understand what you meant regarding the economic crash of 2008. Surely you're not saying that was a good thing?


When I go to clubs at night like Jalouse or China White or Madox or Bugis all the 20 somethings have the neat and elegant 1930's hair and they are all in well-cut blazers and suits, and no one ever wears sneakers.

I wonder if you're not actually working class yourself but trying to come across as some upper crust scion who stands to inherit a small fortune when Mummy and Daddy are gone.


And yes you are right on the tube you see lot's of ugliness but the poor have always been ugly...

There are only two or three people on this site who say things like this, and I wonder if they don't do it to get a rise out of people. It also strikes me that they are all probably quite young. Wish I could tell you exactly what I'd like to say.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

That depends on whom you're defining as poor. Are they crack heads or are they lower working class? Because most of the people I grew up around had good teeth and weren't particularly unattractive. Then again, dental care for people on welfare and children is free in Quebec.

I'm talking poor poor, like the ghettos, people on crack, etc. Heck, where I live, there're plenty of areas where people just choose to look like trailer park trash. So, I guess you're right, most people choose to look the way they do, though I think there's still a correlation. I'm not trying to demean anyone here, I'm just commenting on what I've observed.

[Varenne Rodin]

So, horribly far gone drug addicts are ugly. It has nothing to do with being poor. In California, a poor person can live relatively similarly to a wealthy person. I grew up below the poverty line. I worked and studied my way out of it. I have always been clean, well mannered, sophisticated and healthy with a carefully cultivated physical appearance. Let's not rush to judge people who are born into a battle with class systems.

So many extremely attractive pop stars and actors were plucked out of ghettos. Tennessee is one of the poorest states in our nation, with Memphis being largely ignored in the state's budget plans, and it seems to consistently produce some of the most attractive people I have ever seen. Seth Green's wife Clare Grant is a terrific example.

In contrast, there are so many ugly wealthy people. All of the money in the world can't make them pretty. Donald Trump. Rush Limbaugh. Penny Marshall. Rosie O'Donnell.

This is obvious, right?

[qimissung]

I work with a lot of kids who are considered low socio-economic, and they are generally quite beautiful. But I do know what you mean, Alexander. Their parent's hard lives are stamped on their faces.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I guess you're right. Ugly people are everywhere. Still, I've never encountered an attractive street bum. Ever.

[Varenne Rodin]

Some people think Jewel is attractive, some people don't. She was homeless for years, playing folk music for coins downtown San Diego. She would sometimes sleep at a shelter my friend worked at. Eventually she slept in a van. Michael J. Fox was also homeless when he landed his role on Family Ties. At some point he started renting a shabby apartment. He had no phone. He had to wait next to a pay phone all day every day to find out important job related info.

[Alexander III]

I'm glad to hear it but will it start to set the trend of well dressed persons that went out of the window with the media manufactured style of the 1960s i.e long hair, tee shirt, jeans and trainers that disfigured the landscape until the much-needed economic crash of 2008 ? I say much-needed because a measure of self-respect is a necessary requirement for a civilized existence, and funny money is the death of civilisation.

I have good new for you, there is a huge reversal going on right now. For instance at university we have plenty of funny scenarios were in most lectures the lecturers and dressed in jeans and a polo shirt and sneakers and plenty of the student are in blazers and slacks and nice shoes. There is a rise in elegance, just as in the 60's there was a clothing rebellion against the standard order of conformity, now there is the same thing happening again, except the uniform of conformity is now t-shirt, jeans, and sneakers.

At uni plenty of guys I know buy blazers and sport coats and go to tailors to get them adjusted, and this is a new practice as I was talking to some of my cousins who went to university in the 90's both in Italy and in england and they all told me the standard was t-shirt and jeans, but now wandering the universities and the people of english and Italian universities there is a re-emergance of beautiful dress. Just look at Hollywood, has anyone else noticed that there has started to grow an obsession with the sartorially beautiful which was non-existant 20 years ago.


Why would he be kidding? He's right. Maybe it's different in other countries, but here, when the news does a story and it's from a poor area, the people aren't particularly attractive. Even if the person has the potential to be good looking, it's usually squandered by bad teeth, dirty clothes, bad grammar, etc.

And, Emil, I'm curious, how old are you? I'm 25.

I didn't think I was going to spark up a debate, because it seemed obvious to me. Besides considering me and emil were talking not about facial features but about manners of dress and cleanliness and hair, it is obvious that I was talking about beauty in that sense. A man who can barley reach the end of the month and have enough money left for food is not going to have beautiful clothes for him and his children, he is not going to take them to salons to get their hair cut, he is not going to give a **** about many affectations which people with more money and more leisure time devote themselves too.

Surely one must have a very distorted perception of reality to assume that the poor are just as beautiful as the middle and higher classes. The latter have leisure time and money to devote themselves to pursuing beauty, and higher standards are expected of them socially, while for the poor there are no high social expectations, it is normal being obese and having Walmart clothes.

Im 19, 20 in a few months - and I believe Emil is double my age.


That depends on whom you're defining as poor. Are they crack heads or are they lower working class? Because most of the people I grew up around had good teeth and weren't particularly unattractive. Then again, dental care for people on welfare and children is free in Quebec.

Free health care in normal in every civilized nation except the US and now Greece. Besides statistically poverty=obesity in the first world. Also I was not talking about beauty of facial features which one is born with. A bum can have amazing facial features.



I'm trying to understand what you meant regarding the economic crash of 2008. Surely you're not saying that was a good thing?



I wonder if you're not actually working class yourself but trying to come across as some upper crust scion who stands to inherit a small fortune when Mummy and Daddy are gone.



There are only two or three people on this site who say things like this, and I wonder if they don't do it to get a rise out of people. It also strikes me that they are all probably quite young. Wish I could tell you exactly what I'd like to say.

1) he meant the economic crash has a positive aspect of sobering us up, we in the west have been essentially living in a fantasy land for the last 60 years and the crash woke us up to reality.

2) Sure why not, I could be working class, I have several working class friends.

3) nothing I said was radical, in fact the opposite believe of what I said seems very radical and detached from reality. You surly can't think we live in a world were money doesn't matter and we all live happy and equal holding hands and skipping along as the billionaire and the Mcdonald's empty lead the same lives.


I work with a lot of kids who are considered low socio-economic, and they are generally quite beautiful. But I do know what you mean, Alexander. Their parent's hard lives are stamped on their faces.

I was never talking about facial features, that is determined by birth, I was talking about everything determined post-birth, and yes I think you are quite right, having parents under constant stress because they can't pay the bills or growing up in an environment of leisure and serenity have drastic differences for a child.

[Alexander III]

I guess you're right. Ugly people are everywhere. Still, I've never encountered an attractive street bum. Ever.

That is true, the old proverb you can lead a donkey to water but you can't make it drink. Many people have the water but don't wish to drink.

[JuniperWoolf]

That depends on whom you're defining as poor. Are they crack heads or are they lower working class? Because most of the people I grew up around had good teeth and weren't particularly unattractive. Then again, dental care for people on welfare and children is free in Quebec.

Yeah, I don't think rural Alberta even has poor people who aren't crack heads, or otherwise ****ed up. There's really only one class of people here, it's really very different from the cities. Aside from the punk crowd, there's very little variation here. In terms of fashion, all you see in GC is big expensive trucks, black hoodies when not wearing bright orange or blue overalls, and toques... toques everywhere...



I wonder if you're not actually working class yourself but trying to come across as some upper crust scion who stands to inherit a small fortune when Mummy and Daddy are gone.

No, he really is a fancy partyboy Oxford student as he appears to be, I facebook stalked him once.

[paradoxical]

I have good new for you, there is a huge reversal going on right now. For instance at university we have plenty of funny scenarios were in most lectures the lecturers and dressed in jeans and a polo shirt and sneakers and plenty of the student are in blazers and slacks and nice shoes. There is a rise in elegance, just as in the 60's there was a clothing rebellion against the standard order of conformity, now there is the same thing happening again, except the uniform of conformity is now t-shirt, jeans, and sneakers.

We saw the same thing in the US during the 1980's with the whole preppy look. It was lame then and it's lame now. It's certainly not rebellion, but rather the very definition of conformity. Dressing conservatively with neat short hair and showing your support of the status quo is the easiest thing to do. It sounds like the professors at your school are way cooler then the students and are probably ordinary, everyday people that others can relate to. I wonder how they view you and your rich friends?


I didn't think I was going to spark up a debate, because it seemed obvious to me. Besides considering me and emil were talking not about facial features but about manners of dress and cleanliness and hair, it is obvious that I was talking about beauty in that sense. A man who can barley reach the end of the month and have enough money left for food is not going to have beautiful clothes for him and his children, he is not going to take them to salons to get their hair cut, he is not going to give a **** about many affectations which people with more money and more leisure time devote themselves too.

Working people sacrifice to dress their kids properly and do whatever they can to give their children every advantage and compete with those who have already had everything handed to them in life. You know full well that you were referring to facial features and you knew that you would spark a debate and derail the thread like you have done in the past. It's your attitude and the way that you say things. It gets under peoples skin.


Surely one must have a very distorted perception of reality to assume that the poor are just as beautiful as the middle and higher classes. The latter have leisure time and money to devote themselves to pursuing beauty, and higher standards are expected of them socially, while for the poor there are no high social expectations, it is normal being obese and having Walmart clothes.

I think it is you who has a very distorted perception of reality. Beauty is found among the poor just as often, if not more often, as the wealthy. You can dress an upper class sociopath up in the finest clothes, give him or her spa treatments and $100 haircuts, etc, but they are still a heartless, narcissistic individual who is very ugly on the inside. We see a lot of that in America.



Free health care in normal in every civilized nation except the US and now Greece. Besides statistically poverty=obesity in the first world. Also I was not talking about beauty of facial features which one is born with. A bum can have amazing facial features.

Other nations are civilized besides First World nations. The so-called Third World countries often have a much older and developed civilization then the plastic, materialistic countries in the West. Why is everything you say so abrasive?

And like your comment about obesity and Wal-Mart clothes, the reason many impoverished people are obese has everything to do with the fact that they are impoverished and cannot afford anything else but high fat, unhealthy food. It is much more expensive to eat healthy compared to the dollar menu at a fast food restaurant. You really do have a lot to learn about the world.


1) he meant the economic crash has a positive aspect of sobering us up, we in the west have been essentially living in a fantasy land for the last 60 years and the crash woke us up to reality.

What fantasy? Having to endure decades of conservative, right-wing economic policy forced on us by the kind of people you admire? That's what led to the crash and you seem to favor a return to the Gilded Age.


2) Sure why not, I could be working class, I have several working class friends.

If that's true, then you need to stop acting like a total ****. And I doubt if you have any working class friends.


In contrast, there are so many ugly wealthy people. All of the money in the world can't make them pretty. Donald Trump. Rush Limbaugh. Penny Marshall. Rosie O'Donnell.

This is obvious, right?

That was so good. I agree, many wealthy people do seem ugly. Trump and Rush Limbaugh are perfect examples. Not to mention the atrocious behavior of so many wealthy people. Rush getting caught trying to enter the Dominican Republic with a suitcase full of Viagra and condoms, for instance.

I also liked what you said about Jewel and Michael J Fox. Many people don't realize what it's like to live in a place that has almost no social safety net. Almost anyone can go straight to the bottom if they don't have friends or family to help them out.

[stlukesguild]

We saw the same thing in the US during the 1980's with the whole preppy look. It was lame then and it's lame now. It's certainly not rebellion, but rather the very definition of conformity. Dressing conservatively with neat short hair and showing your support of the status quo is the easiest thing to do. It sounds like the professors at your school are way cooler then the students and are probably ordinary, everyday people that others can relate to. I wonder how they view you and your rich friends?

There is no set permanent standard of "conservative dress". In all reality it is likely that the professors Alex speaks of are just as "conservative" as the students in that both are attempting to conform with the culture that they associate themselves with. Your assumption that the professors are everyday, ordinary people that one might easily relate to (as opposed to the students) is every bit as snobbish as Alex' assertion that the students have a greater sense of taste than their elders.

Working people sacrifice to dress their kids properly and do whatever they can to give their children every advantage and compete with those who have already had everything handed to them in life.

Is that a fact? You know this from experience with the working class... to say nothing of the "poor" who don't work? I have no doubt that many working class parents do indeed struggle to give their children every advantage... however, having spent some 15 years teaching children who live beneath the poverty-line I ca assure you that a good many of such parents are of the opposite mind. They use assistance money to pay for expensive hairstyles, manicures, pedicures, and cars while their children often wear clothes that haven't been washed in a week.

You know full well that you were referring to facial features and you knew that you would spark a debate and derail the thread like you have done in the past. It's your attitude and the way that you say things. It gets under peoples skin.

Alex has his moments, but I must say that again you are making some rather questionable assumptions about what he intended. Some time back Alex started a large (and often heated) thread touching upon the issue of fashion or dress and how it impacts our initial perceptions of another person. I must fully agree with him; the wealthy have the advantage of being able to purchase expensive clothing... and have these properly tailored to suit their body. They can afford the time and the expense of a gym, healthy food, top quality hair-stylists and cosmetics, etc... One need only think of the average Hollywood actor/actress or even the Playboy centerfold and imagine how much more "average" they would appear without all the advantages of proper cosmetics, clothing, etc... You must also consider the issue of education. How many of the working poor or those living in poverty are well-educated?

Beyond protection from the elements it should be obvious that one of the primary fictions of fashion is "illusion"... to create the "illusion" of wealth, or health, or taste, or the identification with a given social group. One need only think how one dresses when going out on a "big date" or a big job application as opposed to day to day dress.

I think it is you who has a very distorted perception of reality. Beauty is found among the poor just as often, if not more often, as the wealthy. You can dress an upper class sociopath up in the finest clothes, give him or her spa treatments and $100 haircuts, etc, but they are still a heartless, narcissistic individual who is very ugly on the inside. We see a lot of that in America.

I don't think Alex is in any way asserting a moral superiority of the wealthy. He is simply stating the fact that those with wealth have the advantage of the time and excess wealth needed to dress fine. That is reality. Honestly, your assumptions about the rich are just as snobbish as anything Alex has suggested.

Other nations are civilized besides First World nations. The so-called Third World countries often have a much older and developed civilization then the plastic, materialistic countries in the West. Why is everything you say so abrasive?

You have to be 19, right. It's only naive college kids reiterating everything that their Marxist professors have taught them that buy into this notion that the West is this great materialistic and spiritually bankrupt culture as opposed to who? China? India? Japan?

And like your comment about obesity and Wal-Mart clothes, the reason many impoverished people are obese has everything to do with the fact that they are impoverished and cannot afford anything else but high fat, unhealthy food. It is much more expensive to eat healthy compared to the dollar menu at a fast food restaurant. You really do have a lot to learn about the world.

I thought Alex had suggested as much when he stated: "A man who can barely reach the end of the month and have enough money left for food is not going to have beautiful clothes for him and his children, he is not going to take them to salons to get their hair cut, he is not going to give a **** about many affectations which people with more money and more leisure time devote themselves too."

What fantasy? Having to endure decades of conservative, right-wing economic policy forced on us by the kind of people you admire? That's what led to the crash and you seem to favor a return to the Gilded Age.

While I probably lean far further to the left than Alex... and certainly than Emil... I wouldn't lay this economic debacle solely upon Conservatives or Liberals... Republicans or Democrats. There's more than enough blame to go around to all parties concerned.

[Emil Miller]

Rush getting caught trying to enter the Dominican Republic with a suitcase full of Viagra and condoms, for instance.

So the guy likes to have a good time on holiday.

[prendrelemick]

I have noticed girls from sink estates who would be beautiful but for a hardness in their face. It is like they are marked with poverty.

[OrphanPip]

Idk, poor people can often pull off an appearance of authenticity that is, at least for me, far more appealing than the deliberately constructed pretensions of the upper classes.

I've mingled with the poor and rich from the worst public schools to one of the best private schools and Uni in the country, and I have to say there is very little to like about rich people, no matter how nice their clothes look, especially since the fashion is nothing more than a symbol of class inclusion.\

Edit: I should maybe amend that to be the "children of rich people."

[Emil Miller]

Idk, poor people can often pull off an appearance of authenticity that is, at least for me, far more appealing than the deliberately constructed pretensions of the upper classes.

I've mingled with the poor and rich from the worst public schools to one of the best private schools and Uni in the country, and I have to say there is very little to like about rich people, no matter how nice their clothes look, especially since the fashion is nothing more than a symbol of class inclusion.\

Edit: I should maybe amend that to be the "children of rich people."

This is a purely subjective opinion and that's fine, for it is usually better to rely on one's own observations, rather than those of statisticians. However, if it is based on a relatively short timeline and formed on observation of a very small population relative to the size of the country concerned, its value in relation to the original post is bound to be limited.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

What does it matter if Pip would rather hang out with poor people than rich people? I agree with him. Rich people are often all around unpleasant company. The only reason they have company is because they have money, nine times out of ten.

[paradoxical]

This is a purely subjective opinion and that's fine, for it is usually better to rely on one's own observations, rather than those of statisticians. However, if it is based on a relatively short timeline and formed on observation of a very small population relative to the size of the country concerned, its value in relation to the original post is bound to be limited.

What OrphanPip said is true. That's why it bothers you, and you know it. You can say that his opinion is purely subjective, but what about you and Alexander III? Are we to believe your views are based on objective data and not your own snobbish attitudes toward the poor? You act as though you have conducted sociological research when all you ever mention in the thread was being upset because people don't dress "appropriately" on the London Underground. And as far as its value in relation to the original post, the entire thread has already been completed derailed and no longer has anything to do with the original topic.

[MystyrMystyry]

Me, I love arrogance. Everyone else seems to hate conciet but I have no idea why. It's interesting, way more intersting than self-deprication.

Why, thankyou Juniper ;)

This poor/wealthy thing - I've been dirt poor (try 200 bucks beneath the poverty line and living in a tent for six months, not by choice), and I still managed to eat well and shower, though clothing was a matter of luck (if an opshop had something nice for a bargain price).

It seems a lot of this discussion seems to forget the luck element in a person's life - who they do and don't know, what their family is able to teach them, and so forth.

There are 'ugly' actors who are generally just normal people having a bit of fun and maybe a bit of earning. I remember one character actor who kept appearing as the bad guy in tv shows, his face badly acne scarred and the lighting always accentuated the bass-relief. I saw an interview with him once and his personality blew my misconceptions out of the water. He was side-splittingly hysterical as a person, and I doubt that it was a matter of compensation because there was nothing forced about it. He'd just dealt with the hand that was ah dealt to him. It must take a lot of self-confidence to try to enter the preserve of the so-called beautiful people. But again, perhaps he was initially plucked off the street to purpose play a villain, and just happened to be a natural at acting (which face it, isn't that difficult with the right director), but equally he may have gone through juliard thingy. I wish I knew his name to put up a photo - I'll do it if I remember

But maybe that's what it is - people respect self-confidence, and success stories forget that half of their success they owe to blind luck.

[stlukesguild]

...poor people can often pull off an appearance of authenticity that is, at least for me, far more appealing than the deliberately constructed pretensions of the upper classes.

So you are trying to suggest that the ghetto "hood" look cultivated among rappers (and my students) and based upon the "style" of urban gangs is more "authentic" and less about aspiring to associate oneself with a certain social caste? You really believe that?

http://vinnykumar.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/l_d76b164058e4f6c8df4fb68fae61bbfd.jpg

And it's far more "appealing" as well. No doubt this is an equally "appealing" fashion statement:

http://localism.com/image_store/uploads/4/3/1/6/5/ar120593348256134.jpg

Or this:

http://www.metalrulesmagazine.com/pictures/640_avulsed_2006_foto01_400.jpg

Unless an individual gives no thought to how he or she dresses... I would say that it doesn't matter whether one is poor or rich... fashion choices make a clear statement about the aspirations of the individual and which social groups he or she wishes to associate with.

I've mingled with the poor and rich from the worst public schools to one of the best private schools and Uni in the country, and I have to say there is very little to like about rich people, no matter how nice their clothes look, especially since the fashion is nothing more than a symbol of class inclusion.

C'mon Pip... fashion is a symbol of class inclusion regardless of class. Honestly, I have been around rich and poor and found an equal share of jerks in either class.

[stlukesguild]

There are 'ugly' actors who are generally just normal people having a bit of fun and maybe a bit of earning. I remember one character actor who kept appearing as the bad guy in tv shows, his face badly acne scarred and the lighting always accentuated the bass-relief. I saw an interview with him once and his personality blew my misconceptions out of the water. He was side-splittingly hysterical as a person, and I doubt that it was a matter of compensation because there was nothing forced about it. He'd just dealt with the hand that was ah dealt to him.

C'mon.... Karl Malden was one of the greatest actors:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/93/Karl_Malden_in_I_Confess_trailer.jpg

Willem Dafoe?

http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV5BMTkwMjg4NzQ4NV5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwOTQ1ODQ3MQ@@._ V1._SY314_CR6,0,214,314_.jpg

Vincent Schiavelli?

http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV5BMTc5MzA5OTY2M15BMl5BanBnXkFtZTYwODMwMjk1._V1._ SX214_CR0,0,214,314_.jpg

Steve Buscemi? How's this for a high-school photo?

http://i2.listal.com/image/1532222/600full-steve-buscemi.jpg

Ron Perlman?

http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV5BMjEyMDMzOTE0Ml5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwNDY5NjUzMw@@._ V1._SY314_CR2,0,214,314_.jpg

Danny Trejo?

http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV5BMTYzMTc5MzQ4Ml5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwNDkzMTkxNw@@._ V1._SY314_CR9,0,214,314_.jpg

Bette Davis? Even the finest Hollywood makeup and camera-work could only go so far:

http://www.findadeath.com/Deceased/d/Bette%20Davis/bette%20davis%20portrait.jpg

And what about Ernest Borgnine?

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_bE7Mw-gkKG4/TGwGBUBy42I/AAAAAAAAD-M/hKldf5J_51s/s640/J2KTD00Z.jpeg

Tilda Swinton?

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Film/Pix/pictures/2011/10/11/1318353659021/Tilda-Swinton-007.jpg

Kathy Kinney (ack!!!)

http://whatever.losito.net/images/mimi.jpg

[Varenne Rodin]

My point has pretty much been made for me. Being rich doesn't make people beautiful. Being poor doesn't make them ugly. Poor choices and socio-cultural traditions? Sure.

[JuniperWoolf]

We saw the same thing in the US during the 1980's with the whole preppy look. It was lame then and it's lame now. It's certainly not rebellion, but rather the very definition of conformity.

Not really. It's more like a pendulum of reacting against one's parents. You can trace it through history, the 20th being a good example because it was most recent. Wild flappers, then prissy pinched-weist housewives, then dirty hippies, then upscale yuppies, then grunge, and now we're getting back to dressing fancy (polo shirts as far as the eye can see). Back and forth, from well-groomed and conservatively dressed to sloppy and scandalous. It doesn't have anything to do with "conformity," and it's all pretty predictable.


It's your attitude and the way that you say things. It gets under peoples skin.

Alex has a brusque and honest way about him, not everyone can have the same personality (thankfully). If he gets under your skin that's your problem, you're going to get our thread closed if you start getting personal.



Working people sacrifice to dress their kids properly and do whatever they can to give their children every advantage and compete with those who have already had everything handed to them in life.

Yes, those "working people" are sweethearts, aren't they? Why, I've never once met a labourer who was a sh*thead.

Oh wait, there are good people and sh*theads from every walk of life and making automatic judgements about people's moral values and work ethic based on their social class is ridiculous.

I come from a "working class" town, and I think there are some people in this thread operating under strong misconceptions who have very limited exposure to actual "working class" life. "Working class" doesn't mean "struggling." My town has 3200 people, all of whom are dependant on the oil patch, the coal mine, or the lumber mill - and we have four spas, two gyms and three high-end clothing stores where you can't buy a wristband for under $100. Having a job pulling minerals out of the ground or operating a machine doesn't exclude you from having manicured nails and a $400 trip to the hair salon every two weeks, or having a $200,000 home (the average in GC), or having two or more vehicles and going on out-of-country vacations. This is a description of what I've come to see as normal life in my location, so could we please stop talking about the "working class" like they're a bunch of underpriveledged, simpleton ditch diggers with good ol' down home country values? This isn't the ****ing Grapes of Wrath. They have the wiggle-room and resources available to afford and persue their own interests and develop individual personalities, like human beings and not like stock characters in a Dickens novel. *mom-ish fingerwag* You're stereotyping.

[prendrelemick]

Mmm nice rant Juniper. Can I just say the following is an outrageous generalisation formed from limited contact with those I am about to praise and traduce. Also please remember this thread is about attraction, which is not a moral concept. I was brought up as one of seven children on Family Allowance, free school dinners and clothing coupons. BUT the home was stable loving and rural.

Rich girls, or well brought up girls, are open and entitled, they are used to getting what they want, they are confident of success and are prepared to work hard for it. they know what possibilities are out there. They expect to have their share. They can retain a youthful niavety for longer, they seem vibrant and attractive.

Those who have a bad upbringing in a poor souless place, expect to be kicked back, they grow up being given no respect and so don't expect any. They develop a shell, a defence mechanism of not caring, they may put on a front of aggression, they always seem guarded. They are said to have "attitude" (the bad sort.) It all shows in their faces. They are defeated before they start. I find them less attractive. but don't like myself for finding them so.

[Emil Miller]

What OrphanPip said is true. That's why it bothers you, and you know it. You can say that his opinion is purely subjective, but what about you and Alexander III? Are we to believe your views are based on objective data and not your own snobbish attitudes toward the poor? You act as though you have conducted sociological research when all you ever mention in the thread was being upset because people don't dress "appropriately" on the London Underground. And as far as its value in relation to the original post, the entire thread has already been completed derailed and no longer has anything to do with the original topic.

What anyone says on the forum doesn't bother me unless it's unwarranted personalisation of a thread. As I have said, I don't believe his point of view to be correct because it's based on a questionable sample. Living in one of the most densely populated cities on earth my contact with people on a daily basis allows for a wider observation of people's appearance and it's one that has been carried out over a long period of time. On this basis it is not difficult to see that people's attitude to their personal appearance has been stood on its head. The conformism of a time when people took pride in their appearance actually upheld a standard that was a necessary part of social cohesion, and the result of its abandonment can be seen by anyone who is old enough to make the comparison.

[Alexander III]

Being a man of the 21st century, I am fond of expressing myself trough pictures just as much as with words.

http://i.imgur.com/9oA22.jpg

http://360jokes.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/men-what-the-hell-happened.jpg

http://www.aksworld.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Black-men-2.jpg

http://data.whicdn.com/images/17855449/3582f8_large.jpg


also read this article, all of you, I think it is excellently written and demonstrates the true value of appearance.

http://artofmanliness.com/2010/11/12/7-lessons-appearance-marine-corps/

[PoeticPassions]

You know what I find attractive?

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-4Z2y7r4LcAk/T9OSEa5CSkI/AAAAAAAAAgw/5qgUCN2i3J8/s1600/tysonbeckford1.jpg


or

http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS-x4MBL997GhKNtsHBGGERDWiGcjgyxG594LRw_KRKUqWVRAZXHA&t=1

or

http://images5.fanpop.com/image/photos/26700000/Henry-Cavill-henry-cavill-26796791-700-507.jpg

or

http://www.ducati.ms/forums/attachments/sport-classic/83839d1296260843-oil-chain-monica_bellucci_323.jpg



There are so many... But I also really like butts. A nice butt can go a long way. Or abs. nice abs are always good. But generally I think curvier women are more attractive, and darker men... though I like the blonde and blue eyed types too. I don't discriminate.

Intelligence, wit, confidence and humor can make someone much more attractive... but let's face it, if Monica Bellucci walked into a bar, I'm sure your first thought wouldn't be, 'Gosh, I wonder what her favorite book is...' :D

Anyway, just puttin this thread back on track...

[MystyrMystyry]

I have a nice suit - in mothballs. Give me bluejeans, hiking boots, and a tee for my rough and tumble lifestyle any day. The rare occasions that I dress formal never sit well with me and I avoid them as much as possible, even if it's my own exhibition opening, though I might wear the jacket if it's cold.

[Scheherazade]

R e m i n d e r

Please note that as of today, only images post as thumbnails will be allowed in the discussion threads.

The pictures posted in the Photo Album (http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=12486) or Pictures Taken By You (http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=20158) threads can be posted in their original sizes as usual.

Posts containing such images will be removed without further notice.
http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1094776&postcount=58

[JuniperWoolf]

Please note that as of today, only images post as thumbnails will be allowed in the discussion threads.

Well that sucks, especially for those who like reading stlukes artsy posts. Also, this thread suddenly contains nipples.

[PoeticPassions]

R e m i n d e r

Please note that as of today, only images post as thumbnails will be allowed in the discussion threads.

The pictures posted in the Photo Album (http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=12486) or Pictures Taken By You (http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=20158) threads can be posted in their original sizes as usual.

Posts containing such images will be removed without further notice.
http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1094776&postcount=58

Oh sorry, I didn't know of this change... duly noted.

[JuniperWoolf]

But generally I think curvier women are more attractive, and darker men... though I like the blonde and blue eyed types too. I don't discriminate.

A friend of mine once asked me "why is it that every girl you've ever liked has looked like the product of a six-generation eugenics experiment?" *shrug* That's just how it is. You shouldn't feel bad if you're particularly fond of dark guys, physical attraction can't be overridden by notions of political correctness.

[paradoxical]

Not really. It's more like a pendulum of reacting against one's parents. You can trace it through history, the 20th being a good example because it was most recent. Wild flappers, then prissy pinched-weist housewives, then dirty hippies, then upscale yuppies, then grunge, and now we're getting back to dressing fancy (polo shirts as far as the eye can see). Back and forth, from well-groomed and conservatively dressed to sloppy and scandalous. It doesn't have anything to do with "conformity," and it's all pretty predictable.

Sorry, but you're wrong. America has always been a conservative nation and you are expected to dress appropriately. This is determined by the business world and it's supposed to mean that you are an upstanding citizen. Someone a company can hire. An obedient person who will not question authority. All conservatives celebrate this sentiment to this day. Fashion comes and goes, of course, but it was never OK to be a "dirty hippy," even during the '60's. People had to fight to express themselves the way they wanted, and many paid a heavy price. Beatings, losing your job, being kicked out of your parent's house, etc, were all common. Eventually, the Establishment gave up to some degree but most people are conservative and there is still a deep seated hatred among the population against those who dress and believe differently. The '80's saw a great resurgence in conservatism, but along came punk rockers and then goths, then grunge, etc. It is still a bitter pill for many to swallow, and I'm not just talking about our leaders. I'm talking about ordinary citizens. In places like Mexico--which is a very conservative country--and throughout the Middle-East, many young people are being killed and in some cases tortured for dressing emo or goth. There is a counter culture in every country and a respected way of dress in every country. It has nothing to do with fashion but is instead a struggle of those who upheld the system and those who want change. Like I said, most are conservative and want everything to stay the same. Just look at some of the comments in this thread.


Alex has a brusque and honest way about him, not everyone can have the same personality (thankfully). If he gets under your skin that's your problem, you're going to get our thread closed if you start getting personal.

I'm going to get the thread closed? Alexander III was the one who derailed things with his insensitive, hate-filled comments. And what do you mean "our" thread. It's my thread just as much as yours. I'm still a member in good standing and I contributed to the thread long before these recent comments. Why is it that he is allowed to say things like "all poor people are ugly?" You don't think that's going to offend someone? Others get away with saying that all poor people have a "mark on their face" and use their government benefits to buy themselves fancy cars and manicures, etc instead of using it for their children. Or StLukesGuild saying that I must be 19 years old and under the influence of Marxist professors. Now that's getting personal. But I didn't respond. I wasn't even going to return to this thread but others continue to make inflammatory statements and, after awhile, you feel like you have to stand up and say something.


I come from a "working class" town, and I think there are some people in this thread operating under strong misconceptions who have very limited exposure to actual "working class" life. "Working class" doesn't mean "struggling." My town has 3200 people, all of whom are dependant on the oil patch, the coal mine, or the lumber mill - and we have four spas, two gyms and three high-end clothing stores where you can't buy a wristband for under $100. Having a job pulling minerals out of the ground or operating a machine doesn't exclude you from having manicured nails and a $400 trip to the hair salon every two weeks, or having a $200,000 home (the average in GC), or having two or more vehicles and going on out-of-country vacations. This is a description of what I've come to see as normal life in my location, so could we please stop talking about the "working class" like they're a bunch of underpriveledged, simpleton ditch diggers with good ol' down home country values? This isn't the ****ing Grapes of Wrath. They have the wiggle-room and resources available to afford and persue their own interests and develop individual personalities, like human beings and not like stock characters in a Dickens novel. *mom-ish fingerwag* You're stereotyping.

I think you're stereotyping. I come from a working class area myself and I would bet that it's far more working class then where you come from in Canada. I also know that most of the working class people here do whatever they can to not appear working class. Tucked in polo shirts and pressed pants, etc. They are deathly afraid of being seen as poor, and many of them are very well-paid. I know all about the $200,000 homes of well-paid oil workers and their $40,000 bass boats. This area also depends on oil and gas as its main source of income and I've seen the terrible impact that has had on the environment. It's destroying our coast and poisoning our lakes and rivers. I know you said you were studying ecology in the the thread on environmentalism--the thread where you ridiculed me for saying that the Earth is in serious trouble due to human activity. I thought that was strange for an ecology major. Now I think I understand.

[PoeticPassions]

A friend of mine once asked me "why is it that every girl you've ever liked has looked like the product of a six-generation eugenics experiment?" *shrug* That's just how it is. You shouldn't feel bad if you're particularly fond of dark guys, physical attraction can't be overridden by notions of political correctness.

Yeah, of course, you can't really control who you are attracted to. Though I would say that one of the most attractive people to me is Brad Pitt, and he doesn't fit my general mold. That's why I say I don't discriminate in the sense that I don't really have a type, and find men and women of all races, ethnicities and such attractive... but preferences exist, of course. I've never found Chinese of Japanese people as attractive as, say, Europeans or mixed-race individuals...

[Calidore]

R e m i n d e r

Please note that as of today, only images post as thumbnails will be allowed in the discussion threads.





Well that sucks, especially for those who like reading stlukes artsy posts. Also, this thread suddenly contains nipples.

I would like to ask that an exception be made for nipples.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I too hope exceptions can be made with the thumbnail rule for the art threads/posts.

Anyways, I was watching the news and saw a story involving a really nice, upper-class neighborhood. Everyone they talked to we're fat slobs, albeit wealthy fat slobs.

So, I've changed my mind: ugly people are everywhere, in every class, just as jerks are. I'm so glad I'm enlightened.

[Scheherazade]

I would like to ask that an exception be made for nipples.Male or female?

[KCurtis]

So, horribly far gone drug addicts are ugly. It has nothing to do with being poor. In California, a poor person can live relatively similarly to a wealthy person. I grew up below the poverty line. I worked and studied my way out of it. I have always been clean, well mannered, sophisticated and healthy with a carefully cultivated physical appearance. Let's not rush to judge people who are born into a battle with class systems.


Yep-being poor doesn't mean one has bad teeth, is fat and unkempt, etc. Poor people have dignity-most of them.

[/QUOTE]
In contrast, there are so many ugly wealthy people. All of the money in the world can't make them pretty. Donald Trump. Rush Limbaugh. Penny Marshall. Rosie O'Donnell.

This is obvious, right?[/QUOTE]

You are so right. It is very annoying when people judge others on how much wealth they have, like it matters at all. It doesn't- It also doesn't make people any more attractive either. Snobbishness and conceit about one's own wealth makes one look rather ugly, I think.

[Calidore]

Male or female?

Gotta be fair to everyone.

[stlukesguild]

Sorry, but you're wrong.

Now that is debate at its finest. How can you possibly come back from that, Juniper?:skep:

America has always been a conservative nation...

Is that so? Perhaps you might make some effort to prove your sweeping statements... otherwise someone might just assume your making this up as you go along.

...you are expected to dress appropriately...

Nearly all walks of life... all social groups... and certainly a majority of careers have established expectations as to how an individual is to dress. You're not going to make it far as a lawyer or a businessman or a classroom teacher dressed like this:

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7085/7398211772_50afc49b12_t.jpg

By the same token... you are not going to make it in the factory or the oil fields dressed like this:

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8027/7398240444_10bae40f56_t.jpg

Fashion is all about aspiring to associate oneself with a given group... whether one is aspiring to be part of the corporate world, academia, the art world, bikers, head-bangers, gang-bangers, etc...

This is determined by the business world and it's supposed to mean that you are an upstanding citizen. Someone a company can hire. An obedient person who will not question authority. All conservatives celebrate this sentiment to this day.

Really... your rant has little to do with fashion and everything to do with politics and your preconceived notion of everybody different from yourself.

Fashion comes and goes, of course, but it was never OK to be a "dirty hippy," even during the '60's. People had to fight to express themselves the way they wanted, and many paid a heavy price.

Fighting to "express themselves". You really believe this? As if the generation of well-to-do kids who modeled their dress after their heroes... mostly rock stars... were designing their own clothes rather than simply following the latest fashions as worn by those they admired.

Beatings, losing your job, being kicked out of your parent's house, etc, were all common.

Oh please! certainly being dressed in the wrong manner in the wrong setting can be dangerous. It still is. It wouldn't be wise to stroll through certain urban neighborhoods dressed in a three-piece suit or enter a biker bar dressed as a drag queen.

Eventually, the Establishment gave up to some degree but most people are conservative and there is still a deep seated hatred among the population against those who dress and believe differently.

The "Establishment"?? A "deep seated hatred among the population..."?? Again, this has nothing to do with fashion or appearances and everything to do with what appears to be a personal hatred of those different from yourself. You bristle at Alex painting "the poor" with a broad brush-stroke, but seem ready to stereotype everyone else in a negative manner: "The Establishment" the "conservative population" with its "deep seated hatred of those who dress or believe differently."

The '80's saw a great resurgence in conservatism, but along came punk rockers and then goths, then grunge, etc. It is still a bitter pill for many to swallow, and I'm not just talking about our leaders. I'm talking about ordinary citizens.

What bitter pill? Do you honestly think the average person cares in the least whether you wish to go about in punk attire with a leather jacket and lots of studs and a blue Mohawk... or dress as a Goth... or in Steampunk fashion?

In places like Mexico--which is a very conservative country--and throughout the Middle-East, many young people are being killed and in some cases tortured for dressing emo or goth.

Documentation, please... otherwise you are again talking out the wazoo.

There is a counter culture in every country and a respected way of dress in every country. It has nothing to do with fashion but is instead a struggle of those who upheld the system and those who want change.

Oh give me a break, You cannot really be that naive. Or if you aren't so naive, then you are certainly rather prejudicial. You jump all over Alex for making judgments based upon the way a person dresses... and then you turn about and to the exact same thing in spades. Those who dress in Manner A all presumed to all be political conservatives in support of the system (whatever that "system" may be) while those who dress in Manner B are heroic revolutionaries struggling against the system.

Revolutionaries in their Struggle for Change against the Establishment:

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7089/7398418314_88f7eb988d_t.jpg

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7229/7398417854_31658a7a1d_t.jpg

http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5155/7398417922_0a7a01c169_t.jpg

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8150/7398418078_c25906e41d_t.jpg

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8156/7398418122_52c11b0a10_t.jpg

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7096/7398417784_1070c18529_t.jpg

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7087/7398418182_aeaaea7655_t.jpg

Like I said, most are conservative and want everything to stay the same. Just look at some of the comments in this thread.

:sosp:

OK, Sher... how do we create thumbnails that link to the larger photo?

[OrphanPip]

So you are trying to suggest that the ghetto "hood" look cultivated among rappers (and my students) and based upon the "style" of urban gangs is more "authentic" and less about aspiring to associate oneself with a certain social caste? You really believe that?

No, but I was trying to be deliberately contentious. The point is that the idea of an objectively more appealing or better style of dress is arbitrary, because I am quite able to prefer certain styles associated with lower classes than others. The statements of superior or inferior forms of dress are nothing more than attempts at asserting class privilege, not simply class association, but the idea that certain forms of dress are inherently superior. It then becomes part of a system of exclusion that I have no interests in associating myself with.



Unless an individual gives no thought to how he or she dresses... I would say that it doesn't matter whether one is poor or rich... fashion choices make a clear statement about the aspirations of the individual and which social groups he or she wishes to associate with.

Certainly, but not all aspirations and social groups are equivalent. I no more approve of dressing to signal one's association with criminality than I approve of one dressing to broadcast one's social position.



C'mon Pip... fashion is a symbol of class inclusion regardless of class. Honestly, I have been around rich and poor and found an equal share of jerks in either class.

Oh I had enough experience with the country club crowd at college to know that I don't much like them, the most boring group of vacuous, useless human beings I have ever had the displeasure to socialize with.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Well, I must say this thumbnail thing is quite annoying. I can barely see anything. Aren't they supposed to get bigger when you tap them? I seriously don't see what was wrong with the old system. Did someone actually complain? If so, maybe they should get rid of the dial up and move into the year 2004.




Like I said, most are conservative and want everything to stay the same. Just look at some of the comments in this thread.

:sosp:
To be fair, Emil expressed those exact sentiments, wanting things to go back to the old days because they were so much better, for whatever reason he thinks the past was somehow better:


What anyone says on the forum doesn't bother me unless it's unwarranted personalisation of a thread. As I have said, I don't believe his point of view to be correct because it's based on a questionable sample. Living in one of the most densely populated cities on earth my contact with people on a daily basis allows for a wider observation of people's appearance and it's one that has been carried out over a long period of time. On this basis it is not difficult to see that people's attitude to their personal appearance has been stood on its head. The conformism of a time when people took pride in their appearance actually upheld a standard that was a necessary part of social cohesion, and the result of its abandonment can be seen by anyone who is old enough to make the comparison.

It's hardly the first time he's done his "in my day" rant.

[qimissung]

Quite honestly it's been my experience that rich people are annoying. They prefer to be exclusive. And I've found "poor" people, on the whole, to be much more inclusive, or at least willing to be. It that's stereotypical, so be it.

As far what attracts me, I've noticed that I may make a list or set parameters, but in actualityI tend to be drawn to people that meet certain psychological perogitives, of which I'm never aware of until it's too late (or that's been the case so far!.) :D

[stlukesguild]

No, but I was trying to be deliberately contentious. The point is that the idea of an objectively more appealing or better style of dress is arbitrary, because I am quite able to prefer certain styles associated with lower classes than others. The statements of superior or inferior forms of dress are nothing more than attempts at asserting class privilege, not simply class association, but the idea that certain forms of dress are inherently superior. It then becomes part of a system of exclusion that I have no interests in associating myself with.

That sounds noble enough... until you make similar assumptions about the superiority of one musicians or artist or writer over another. And surely none of us would dare make such assumptions now would we?:hand:

Well, I must say this thumbnail thing is quite annoying. I can barely see anything. Aren't they supposed to get bigger when you tap them? I seriously don't see what was wrong with the old system. Did someone actually complain? If so, maybe they should get rid of the dial up and move into the year 2004.

My thoughts exactly... and I can probably see even less that you as I've misplaced by glasses somewhere in the house... :incazzato:... but then perhaps we are both being judgmental about those individuals too poor to move to DSL or Cable. I bet they dress crappy too. :ihih::biggrinjester:

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Well, around here at least, no one is too poor to get a nice cellphone with a good internet connection. They literally hand them out to poor people, whether they need them or not,


Quite honestly it's been my experience that rich people are annoying. They prefer to be exclusive. And I've found "poor" people, on the whole, to be much more inclusive, or at least willing to be. It that's stereotypical, so be it.



That has been my experience, also. I was watching golf over the weekend, and when it gets on the pro-level, I can't think of any more exclusive, pompous, fop-laden group of people on the planet, aside from rich bankers. I bet their lavish club houses are filled with the sounds of racist and homophobic epithets, unless that a-hole Tiger Woods is around, of course.

[stlukesguild]

I bet their lavish club houses are filled with the sounds of racist and homophobic epithets, unless that a-hole Tiger Woods is around, of course.

Of course the poor that I have known have never been known to be racist or homophobic...:sosp:

[OrphanPip]

That sounds noble enough... until you make similar assumptions about the superiority of one musicians or artist or writer over another. And surely none of us would dare make such assumptions now would we?:hand:

It would only be analogous if such assumptions about art were to be based on class association. The analogy would be that one should associate themselves with Joyce because of some social caché rather than an aesthetic argument. I wouldn't want to be associated with people who claim to like x or y artists because of how trendy they are either.

[stlukesguild]

Well, around here at least, no one is too poor to get a nice cellphone with a good internet connection. They literally hand them out to poor people, whether they need them or not...

And I am absolutely thrilled to pay that $5 or $7 a month for the Universal Access Fee so that the little hoods I teach can surf the web for free porno.:sosp:

My gas company has the audacity to ask me (this is printed on each monthly statement) how much I'd like to donate to offset the costs of those who don't pay their bills (This is beyond the fee already charged to cover utilities for those beneath the Federal Poverty Rate). I'd like to ask them if I might join those who don't pay their bills... but somehow I think things would get quite cold around here if I did that.

It would only be analogous if such assumptions about art were to be based on class association. The analogy would be that one should associate themselves with Joyce because of some social caché rather than an aesthetic argument. I wouldn't want to be associated with people who claim to like x or y artists because of how trendy they are either.

So there are no assumption about "class" or "wealth" associated with art? I wonder what the percentage of the audience attending the symphony or the opera are beneath the poverty line.

I wouldn't want to be associated with people who claim to like x or y artists because of how trendy they are either.

This has been the reality for who knows how long. Super-Rich Collector X picks up a Warhol at auction for X-millions of dollars (a number sure to make the press). He then holds a dinner party where he can show off his latest acquisition to his wealthy friends... effectively proving his wealth, taste... and foresight.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I bet their lavish club houses are filled with the sounds of racist and homophobic epithets, unless that a-hole Tiger Woods is around, of course.

Of course the poor that I have known have never been known to be racist or homophobic...:sosp:

Yeah, but still, doesn't it pisses me off more when rich people act in that way. The poor are usually uneducated and uninfluential. One can't say the same about rich jerks--whereas the poor are racist out of ignorance, the rich are racist out of meanness and prejudice. Plus, the upper class are supposed to be more classy, no?

I don't care, I'll just say it: I don't like or trust most rich people. Not all of them are bad, but I find most to be greedy, egotistical, uncompassionate jerks. I guess I'm prejudiced against rich people. Oh well! It's not going to keep me up at night.

[OrphanPip]

So there are no assumption about "class" or "wealth" associated with art? I wonder what the percentage of the audience attending the symphony or the opera are beneath the poverty line.

No, but I'm not one of those who goes around saying that the musical taste of the general public are degenerate and inferior either.

It is irrelevant if one can correlate the consumption of certain artistic products with class groups. It has no bearing on the idea that the tastes of the upper classes are inherently superior merely on the basis that they are associated with the upper classes. It is entirely possible for something which is genuinely good to be correlated with the consumption habits of the upper classes. My point was entirely that there was little difference in terms of aesthetic worth between some fashions lower and middle classes and some fashions of those of the upper classes, other than the display of class exclusion. If fashion is primarily a display of group inclusion, is it at all analogous to artistic choices? I think it is more comparable to political alignments.



This has been the reality for who knows how long. Super-Rich Collector X picks up a Warhol at auction for X-millions of dollars (a number sure to make the press). He then holds a dinner party where he can show off his latest acquisition to his wealthy friends... effectively proving his wealth, taste... and foresight.

I don't get the point of this response. You're essentially responding to me saying I don't like this behavior, by saying that the behavior exists? Of course it exists, that is assumed in my statement of dislike towards the practice.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I think how one chooses art and clothes can be the same. Sometimes one will choose the clothes they wear because it is what's fashionable, not because it's what they really like. The same could be said of art, like the example stlukes gave with a rich guy buying a Warhol piece. Though I think it's definitely more preventative when people are buying clothes, the idea of a poseur is definitely not exclusive to one thing rather than another--there can be a pompous attitude taken towards anything within that thing's context. Unfortunately, if that rich guy is a true Warhol fan and just wants to share a piece of great art with his friends, he's going to have a hard time convincing people of that.

[stlukesguild]

I don't get the point of this response. You're essentially responding to me saying I don't like this behavior, by saying that the behavior exists? Of course it exists, that is assumed in my statement of dislike towards the practice.

It's a reality that most artists have to face... moreso in the visual arts than in literature and music. Like it or not, most works of what we term "fine art" are essentially luxury items... far beyond the price range of the middle-class... let alone the poor. If I spend three months on a painting, a $5000 price tag is not much to ask... indeed, its rather selling the work at a bargain basement price. Yet how many here can afford to spend $5000 on a painting? I spent $5000 on a painting once. Both my wife and I were working overtime and we were able to purchase the painting through monthly installments. We both loved the painting and knew the artist personally... and we recognized that the work would become the visual centerpiece of our home. But now... I couldn't even afford my own paintings.:sosp:

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

We've talked to artists at art fairs who've said the same thing--they can't afford their own work (which I assume means they couldn't take the loss if they decided not to sell it), which is simultaneously funny and sad. And ironic.

I've never bought an original piece of art. Just can't afford it, or bring myself to pay that much for it. I have plenty of prints, though.

[qimissung]

Yeah, but still, doesn't it pisses me off more when rich people act in that way. The poor are usually uneducated and uninfluential. One can't say the same about rich jerks--whereas the poor are racist out of ignorance, the rich are racist out of meanness and prejudice. Plus, the upper class are supposed to be more classy, no?

I don't care, I'll just say it: I don't like or trust most rich people. Not all of them are bad, but I find most to be greedy, egotistical, uncompassionate jerks. I guess I'm prejudiced against rich people. Oh well! It's not going to keep me up at night.

lol, my feelings, exactly! In fact I said that to one of my sons recently when we were discussing racism. When I said that he looked a little startled, then countered, "But they work hard for their money." (my apologies to Donna Summer) And I said it didn't matter, that they were jerks. I do realize that it's a prejudice. I like to think I'm open-minded enough to give someone the benefit of the doubt when I meet them. Unfortunately, I have rarely had to change my mind.

[Emil Miller]

I guess I'm prejudiced against rich people. Oh well! It's not going to keep me up at night.

You can be sure that it won't keep them up at night either.

[Alexander III]

I always assumed it to be natural that the masses don't like the rich, it has been that way since the dawn of civilization. I suppose it is that way for the same reason that all the little germanic tribes hated Rome. And those barbarian plebeians which finaly were able to sack and conquer Rome were the ancestors of those men who would later claim to be kings and found the European royal houses. History is funny that way.

But on a more on-topic note, The way people dress is not some constraint created by some establishment to create conformity and oppress. That sounds just as ridiculous as when a 17 year old comes on the forums and says meter and rhyme and metaphors in poetry are constraints created by the establishment to oppress, and then they show us their free and amazingly radical work which makes Wolf Larsens poesy seems conventional.

Clothes like art are following a tradition, and you can choose to work without knowledge of the tradition and not caring to be part of the tradition, but that which works within the tradition will always be superior, because it has thousands of years of history and genius upon which it is building. So no, Jeans and a baggy t-shirt and a getho hoodie are not just as valid and aesthetically pleasing, they are about as aesthetically good as the amateur to poetry thinks that Eminem lyrics are just as good and equal poetry to Robert Frost.

Please don't be alarmingly ignorant in public, it is contagious and other people might just get it.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

You can be sure that it won't keep them up at night either.
Oh man, thanks for letting me know, because I totally thought it did!


I always assumed it to be natural that the masses don't like the rich, it has been that way since the dawn of civilization. I suppose it is that way for the same reason that all the little germanic tribes hated Rome. And those barbarian plebeians which finaly were able to sack and conquer Rome were the ancestors of those men who would later claim to be kings and found the European royal houses. History is funny that way.

But on a more on-topic note, The way people dress is not some constraint created by some establishment to create conformity and oppress. That sounds just as ridiculous as when a 17 year old comes on the forums and says meter and rhyme and metaphors in poetry are constraints created by the establishment to oppress, and then they show us their free and amazingly radical work which makes Wolf Larsens poesy seems conventional.

Clothes like art are following a tradition, and you can choose to work without knowledge of the tradition and not caring to be part of the tradition, but that which works within the tradition will always be superior, because it has thousands of years of history and genius upon which it is building. So no, Jeans and a baggy t-shirt and a getho hoodie are not just as valid and aesthetically pleasing, they are about as aesthetically good as the amateur to poetry thinks that Eminem lyrics are just as good and equal poetry to Robert Frost.

Please don't be alarmingly ignorant in public, it is contagious and other people might just get it.
Well, that doesn't change that some actually do find Eminem more aesthetically pleasing than Robert Frost, now matter how backwards we may think that is. One's opinion of clothes is the same as art: it's subjective. It's one thing to point to an Armani suit and some jeans and a t-shirt and point out which is superior in terms of style, craftsmanship, and quality; it's quite another to choose which one someone would rather wear, or think looks better.

Plus, we're just talking clothes. I don't think one can put clothes on the same artistic playing field with things such as art, literature, or even film. It's a necessity. As Oscar Wilde says, all art is quite useless. Clothes aren't useless.

[Emil Miller]

Oh man, thanks for letting me know, because I totally thought it did!

Don't mention it dear boy.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

"Dear boy"? That sounds creepy.

[qimissung]

I always assumed it to be natural that the masses don't like the rich, it has been that way since the dawn of civilization. I suppose it is that way for the same reason that all the little germanic tribes hated Rome. And those barbarian plebeians which finaly were able to sack and conquer Rome were the ancestors of those men who would later claim to be kings and found the European royal houses. History is funny that way.

But on a more on-topic note, The way people dress is not some constraint created by some establishment to create conformity and oppress. That sounds just as ridiculous as when a 17 year old comes on the forums and says meter and rhyme and metaphors in poetry are constraints created by the establishment to oppress, and then they show us their free and amazingly radical work which makes Wolf Larsens poesy seems conventional.

Clothes like art are following a tradition, and you can choose to work without knowledge of the tradition and not caring to be part of the tradition, but that which works within the tradition will always be superior, because it has thousands of years of history and genius upon which it is building. So no, Jeans and a baggy t-shirt and a getho hoodie are not just as valid and aesthetically pleasing, they are about as aesthetically good as the amateur to poetry thinks that Eminem lyrics are just as good and equal poetry to Robert Frost.

Please don't be alarmingly ignorant in public, it is contagious and other people might just get it.


I guess the Roman rulers should have been nicer then, lol.

Yes, it's a decent analogy, but it doesn't quite hold up. I disagree that knowledge of the tradition and working within it are superior. I think it works, though, more along the lines of the Latin saying "Vestis verim reddit," which means "The clothes make the man." Clothing can be art. I think haute couture is art. But clothing is mostly a marker of a person's place in society and also their outlook. Artists themselves often wear clothing that is more casual, or bohemian, the very definition of which is:


a person, as an artist or writer, who lives and acts free of regard for conventional rules and practices.


So yes, baggy jeans (here it's baggy jeans more than a baggy t-shirt), a t-shirt, and a hoodie, are aesthetically pleasing,at least to the person wearing them,and who else matters?

[stlukesguild]

I disagree that knowledge of the tradition and working within it are superior.

Another statement of opinion sans any examples to support said opinion. Every naive teenager scribbling what he or she imagines to be "poetry" or scribbling what he or she imagines to be "art" embraces this notion when confronted by any criticism. The reality is that the greatest revolutionaries in art have rarely been iconoclasts ignorant of the tradition that they are working in... or against, but rather, they more likely are those with the deepest and most profound understanding and respect... even love... for the tradition. Cervantes shook off the limitations of the European Romance narratives of the Middle Ages and the Renaissance... and in the process invented the European novel. But he did this will a full grasp and love of the very Romance narratives. Manet and Degas were both profoundly knowledgeable in the history of art. Both brought to their knowledge a love of art that had long been ignored in the dominant tradition of European painting. Manet "re-discovered" Spanish art... especially Velazquez... as well as Vermeer. Degas discovered photography and Japanese art. In the process these two artists form the basis of Impressionism... and Modernism as a whole. It should be just common sense to recognize that an individual largely ignorant of a given discipline is far less likely to discover or create something likely to shake up that discipline than an individual well versed in the history and tradition of the same discipline.

...we're just talking clothes. I don't think one can put clothes on the same artistic playing field with things such as art, literature, or even film. It's a necessity. As Oscar Wilde says, all art is quite useless. Clothes aren't useless.

Clothes are a necessity as a protection against the elements. Quite honestly... at today's heat and humidity anything beyond a pair of shoes to protect my feet is something more than a necessity. Indeed, in the studio I wore little else than a pair of thread-bare shorts... and I only NEED these to wipe my brushes on.:sosp:

Returning to your argument, where does this leave Architecture? Most courses on Art History spend the majority of the time studying Painting, Sculpture, and Architecture. But Art also includes tapestries, carpets, armor, ceramics, metals and enamels, book arts, posters, furniture... and yes... fashion. It was the rejection of Oscar Wilde's (and Pater's and Gautier's and Baudelaire's, etc...) concept of "art for art's sake" and the Modernist notion that placed personal expression above form and any concepts of "beauty" that led to the notion of the separation of "fine art" vs "decorative art".

Interestingly enough, the concept of a division between decorative and utilitarian art forms (LOW) and art as "self expression" (HIGH) is foreign in many Eastern cultures. The ornate patterns of Islamic art or the elegant calligraphic writings of Iran, India, Japan, or China are in no way though as inferior to painting or sculpture.

It shouldn't come as a surprise that fashion is still revered as an art form in such cultures:




Note: Scher... I'll gladly post these as thumbnails once you post a thread giving a tutorial as to how to upload a thumbnail that links to a larger image.

[Varenne Rodin]

I'm pretty tired of people fixating on any excuse to hate other people.

Some people have pretty eyes, or warm smiles. Isn't that nice?

This may sound weird, coming from an atheist, but some of us could benefit from watching Christmas movies.

[Gilliatt Gurgle]

Note: Scher... I'll gladly post these as thumbnails once you post a thread giving a tutorial as to how to upload a thumbnail that links to a larger image.

St Lukes and others who are curious.
Your image hosting site should offer a "thumbnail" code as an option along with IMG, "direct link", HTML, etc.


I happen to use Photobucket for example. When I place my cursor over an image, a list of available image sharing codes will expand below the image (including thumbnail). Move the cursor down to the option you want and click. Clicking copies the code to your clipboard allowing you to paste it in your Forums post.
However, this does mean you will have to first load images into your image hosting site.
You could create a "junk" folder to hold Forums post images temporarily.

http://i963.photobucket.com/albums/ae114/tabuka1/Art%20and%20Architecture/th_MysteryPortrait.jpg (http://s963.photobucket.com/albums/ae114/tabuka1/Art%20and%20Architecture/?action=view&current=MysteryPortrait.jpg)

[JuniperWoolf]

I think it might also work if you wrap link tags around the img tags, hold on I'll check...

http://files.softicons.com/download/object-icons/richs-misc-icons-by-rich-d/png/128/Pikachu%201.png (http://files.softicons.com/download/object-icons/richs-misc-icons-by-rich-d/png/128/Pikachu%201.png)

Yep it works. So, you don't have to wait for it to upload to an image hosting site, you can still just use google images.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

It's still a pain in the *** to click every individual thumbnail when StLukes posts an epic art lesson.

Anywho...


I disagree that knowledge of the tradition and working within it are superior.

Another statement of opinion sans any examples to support said opinion. Every naive teenager scribbling what he or she imagines to be "poetry" or scribbling what he or she imagines to be "art" embraces this notion when confronted by any criticism. The reality is that the greatest revolutionaries in art have rarely been iconoclasts ignorant of the tradition that they are working in... or against, but rather, they more likely are those with the deepest and most profound understanding and respect... even love... for the tradition. Cervantes shook off the limitations of the European Romance narratives of the Middle Ages and the Renaissance... and in the process invented the European novel. But he did this will a full grasp and love of the very Romance narratives. Manet and Degas were both profoundly knowledgeable in the history of art. Both brought to their knowledge a love of art that had long been ignored in the dominant tradition of European painting. Manet "re-discovered" Spanish art... especially Velazquez... as well as Vermeer. Degas discovered photography and Japanese art. In the process these two artists form the basis of Impressionism... and Modernism as a whole. It should be just common sense to recognize that an individual largely ignorant of a given discipline is far less likely to discover or create something likely to shake up that discipline than an individual well versed in the history and tradition of the same discipline.
That's all good, and I don't disagree with any of it, really, but unless I'm mistaken, we're talking about clothes wearers, not clothes designers, so the analogy of teen artists and Cervantes doesn't really work in Qimi's context. I agree with her in the context of wearing clothes. One doesn't need to know the history of clothes design to make informed choices. Just turn on The "Learning" Channel for a few minutes and you're golden.

...we're just talking clothes. I don't think one can put clothes on the same artistic playing field with things such as art, literature, or even film. It's a necessity. As Oscar Wilde says, all art is quite useless. Clothes aren't useless.

Clothes are a necessity as a protection against the elements. Quite honestly... at today's heat and humidity anything beyond a pair of shoes to protect my feet is something more than a necessity. Indeed, in the studio I wore little else than a pair of thread-bare shorts... and I only NEED these to wipe my brushes on.:sosp:
I'm not quite sure people in the great white north would agree. :D


Returning to your argument, where does this leave Architecture? Most courses on Art History spend the majority of the time studying Painting, Sculpture, and Architecture. But Art also includes tapestries, carpets, armor, ceramics, metals and enamels, book arts, posters, furniture... and yes... fashion. It was the rejection of Oscar Wilde's (and Pater's and Gautier's and Baudelaire's, etc...) concept of "art for art's sake" and the Modernist notion that placed personal expression above form and any concepts of "beauty" that led to the notion of the separation of "fine art" vs "decorative art".
I'm not saying that fashion isn't art, just that it isn't art in its purest sense. It's art in the sense that it can be art, but it isn't always. And aside from those ridiculously lavish dresses seen in fashion shows that no one would even wear in public, all clothes serve a practical purpose.

I do put architecture in the same category, though it's definitely on a grander scale. Buildings serve a practical purpose. The Notre Dame de Paris was probably the single greatest piece of art/artistic thing I've ever seen, but that doesn't change the fact that it was built to be used for a certain, applicable purpose. One can't say the same for a painting hanging on the wall, nor should one have to.

I'm not saying that clothes are a less of an art form just because they serve a purpose (though, honestly, I've never seen clothing as high art, but that's just my purely subjective opinion), just that the fact that they do serve a purpose puts them in a different category. I would out architecture in a whole other category sense it involves so much math and science.

And, really, even the most practical of things can be art if one wants to make it so. There are bookmarks with fancy designs, ornately crafted boxes, video games, clocks, pens and pencils, even doorknobs; and that's just from looking around my room.

[stlukesguild]

Uploading an image to a photo-hosting site isn't the issue. I have used FlickR for years. Nor is reducing the image to a thumbnail. I already did that in the earlier post. FlickR, like PhotoBucket, alows you to choose what size image to share. What I want is a thumbnail that serves as a link to the full-sized image... without spending hours writing code. Juniper's solution turns the thumbnail into a link... but it only links to the same image in thumbnail format. I think it only fair if Scher is going to request we change how we post images, that we be given a decent tutorial as to just how to go about doing that.

...we're just talking clothes. I don't think one can put clothes on the same artistic playing field with things such as art, literature, or even film. It's a necessity. As Oscar Wilde says, all art is quite useless. Clothes aren't useless.

Clothes are a necessity as a protection against the elements. Quite honestly... at today's heat and humidity anything beyond a pair of shoes to protect my feet is something more than a necessity. Indeed, in the studio I wore little else than a pair of thread-bare shorts... and I only NEED these to wipe my brushes on.

I'm not quite sure people in the great white north would agree.

Well... I doubt they're facing temperatures in the mid-90s with all the humidity that Lake Erie can throw up at you when you're sitting right on her shores. I gotta get the A/C out of the attic tomorrow.

I'm not saying that fashion isn't art, just that it isn't art in its purest sense.

What I am suggesting is that this concept of a separation between "Fine Art" and Decorative or Applied Arts is a rather recent concept growing out of the writings of Kant, Hermann Broch, Adolf Loos, the Bloomsbury School, and a good many Modernists. This "exclusive" notion of what "Art" is goes against everything understood by Renaissance and Medieval artists, many involved with the art pour l'art movement, the Arts and Crafts Movement, the Bauhaus, etc...

It's art in the sense that it can be art, but it isn't always.

But this, it can be argued, is equally true of any art form. Ultimately, an artifact becomes ART when it is recognized as such by the audience most involved with art. The medieval craftsman who decorated a copy of the Psalms purely as a means of praise to God, never thought of himself as an "artist" in any way approaching our concept of what an "artist" is. But his creation became ART when the art audience deemed it to be so. The vast majority of black velvet paintings (of Jesus or Elvis or a large boobed woman in leopard-skin... or ideally all three at once) or pretty floral paintings by weekend painters are "paintings"... but will probably never be recognized as art for they'll never enter into the context of the art gallery or magazine where their merit will be open to debate.

Personally, I'm a painter... and I value "paintings"... images on a flat surface... above all other art forms. Yet over the last few years I have attended an exhibition of Kimonos that left me absolutely stunned as well as a brilliant show of quilts by the women of Gee's Bend.

And aside from those ridiculously lavish dresses seen in fashion shows that no one would even wear in public, all clothes serve a practical purpose.

Again... one can say this of almost any work of architecture, as well as many other art forms. The "Art" lies in that which goes beyond the mere necessity.

The Notre Dame de Paris was probably the single greatest piece of art/artistic thing I've ever seen, but that doesn't change the fact that it was built to be used for a certain, applicable purpose. One can't say the same for a painting hanging on the wall, nor should one have to.

Arguably, a great deal of painting did/does have a practical purpose. Portraits were clearly a means of remembering an individual before photography. A great many paintings were intended as a means of conveying a narrative to a largely illiterate audience. In other words, it acted as PR for the Church and the Aristocracy. You admit to your own awe in the experience of Notre Dame. Imagine the awe of the Medieval peasant coming to that same church when it stood as the single largest building for miles around... the largest he had ever seen. Imagine the impact of the scale and splendour... the colors streaming through the stained glass, the incredible statuary, all the gold leaf... and the music and the incense. He would have been so completely overwhelmed as to put aside any doubts that this indeed was the house of God on earth. One of the orders given by the Catholic Church following the Reformation (as part of the efforts of the Counter-Reformation) was that all the Arts should be employed as a form of theater to attract the faithful. It is this power... this seductiveness of the visual image that all iconoclasts have feared... even until the present.

I'm not saying that clothes are a less of an art form just because they serve a purpose (though, honestly, I've never seen clothing as high art, but that's just my purely subjective opinion), just that the fact that they do serve a purpose puts them in a different category.

Again... what I am saying is that this very notion of a division is rather new... and it is something many Post-Modernists have begun to question. Kant and many of his Modernist followers argued that "true art"... "fine art" strives toward "self-expression" and "originality"... as well as to communicate good moral or ethical concepts. They argued that conversely that which speaks directly to the senses and strives for "beauty" is "kitsch"... and kitsch is amoral (as Oscar Wilde's quotes suggest) or even immoral... in that it acts in support of the conservative desires of the audience.

Personally, I find the whole dichotomy to be pure BS... but such thinking has had a profound impact on the last 100 years of art. Artists' such as Bonnard... or even Matisse were criticized because their art was too "beautiful"... "decorative"... This idea eventually merged with good old American Puritanism and the belief that if something tastes good or feels good or looks good... it can't be any good for you. Thus we got critics championing the good morally upstanding rigor of the Minimalism of paintings of all one color with a single thin pencil line drawn with a ruler or the Conceptualism of galleries filled with nothing but grainy photographs, a scratch tape recording of some inane repetitive voice intoning some nonsense, or vials of AIDS_infected blood and used condoms. At the same time, such critics would begin to foam at the mouth in a rage if exposed to anything approaching the truly "beautiful"... such as the paintings of Robert Kushner:



I would out architecture in a whole other category sense it involves so much math and science.

You would be surprised at how much math my paintings involve. And we shouldn't need to even bring up Leonardo and Michelangelo and their studies of anatomy, physiology, botany, etc... Any traditional art school training involves a great deal of time spent on optics and color theory, perspective, geometry, anatomy, physiology, etc...

And, really, even the most practical of things can be art if one wants to make it so. There are bookmarks with fancy designs, ornately crafted boxes, video games, clocks, pens and pencils, even doorknobs; and that's just from looking around my room.

The artists of the Arts and Crafts movement, William Morris or the PreRaphaelites, and many others starting back with William Blake argued that the Modern Industrial world which left the individual living in a world without "beauty" impacted the individual morally and emotionally. Wilde argued that you should not own anything that you do not find of utilitarian worth or find beautiful. Of course few of us can aspire to Wilde's aestheticism... let alone that of Huysman's... but they do present an ideal of beauty set against a Modernist, practical, pragmatic world of "planned obsolescence":Chevy_anim: in which, as Mallarme noted... the most useful room in our homes is the toilet.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Good points all, StLukes. I can't really rebut, because I don't really disagree with anything you said. I get where you're coming from.

[Scheherazade]

I think it only fair if Scher is going to request we change how we post images, that we be given a decent tutorial as to just how to go about doing that.It is not my responsibility to run tutorials as it is not a Literature Network Forums site function. There are many tutorials available on the net if you care to ask Google.


Regarding the rich/poor debate: It is not only the people but also nations can be "rich" and show all the characteristics that are listed above as unpleased or undesirable.

English is not a first language for more than half of the regulars of this Forum so it is safe to assume that at least some come from countries and locations where internet access is not as generously offered as it is in the USA, Canada or the UK, where they hand out phones for free, and having multiple images on the same page makes it very hard viewing/downloading.


PS: Where can I get one of those freely handed out phones? Still paying £30 a month for mine.

[cacian]

St Lukes and others who are curious.
Your image hosting site should offer a "thumbnail" code as an option along with IMG, "direct link", HTML, etc.


I happen to use Photobucket for example. When I place my cursor over an image, a list of available image sharing codes will expand below the image (including thumbnail). Move the cursor down to the option you want and click. Clicking copies the code to your clipboard allowing you to paste it in your Forums post.
However, this does mean you will have to first load images into your image hosting site.
You could create a "junk" folder to hold Forums post images temporarily.

http://i963.photobucket.com/albums/ae114/tabuka1/Art%20and%20Architecture/th_MysteryPortrait.jpg (http://s963.photobucket.com/albums/ae114/tabuka1/Art%20and%20Architecture/?action=view&current=MysteryPortrait.jpg)

Gilliat that is an interesting portrait picture. Who is it supposed to be if you do not mind me asking?

[Gilliatt Gurgle]

Uploading an image to a photo-hosting site isn't the issue. I have used FlickR for years. Nor is reducing the image to a thumbnail. I already did that in the earlier post. FlickR, like PhotoBucket, alows you to choose what size image to share. What I want is a thumbnail that serves as a link to the full-sized image... without spending hours writing code.

Juniper's solution turns the thumbnail into a link... but it only links to the same image in thumbnail format. I think it only fair if Scher is going to request we change how we post images, that we be given a decent tutorial as to just how to go about doing that...

My example above accomplishes exactly what you are wanting to do. If you click on my thumbnail, it will take you directly to the full size image in my PB album. Within your host site you can then determine/set how large you want that fullsize image to appear.
Does that help?

Juniper's solution actually sounded simple, maybe she can present an example.

Anyhow this digresses from the premise of the thread.


Gilliat that is an interesting portrait picture. Who is it supposed to be if you do not mind me asking?

I'll respond on your profile page.

.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Well, I'm definitely not going through all the trouble of saving every image I want to post and then uploading it to potobucket. What a pain.


It is not my responsibility to run tutorials as it is not a Literature Network Forums site function. There are many tutorials available on the net if you care to ask Google.
Well, if it's not even a function of the site, the mighty forum creators must not think it's that big of a deal.

[Scheherazade]

Well, I'm definitely not going through all the trouble of saving every image I want to post and then uploading it to potobucket. What a pain.In that case, you will not post any images on the site, I presume.

Well, if it's not even a function of the site, the mighty forum creators must not think it's that big of a deal.Apparently they do.

I think this discussion has lasted long enough. This is not a newly introduced rule. Nor is it applied strictly unless images are posted in excessive numbers.

Now, the original topic of the thread:


usually we know straight away when we see the person that we like them because something physically or maybe something else did it for us.Off-topic posts wiil be removed without further notice.

[Domer121]

His Eyes :)

[tonywalt]

A girl who drinks beer (at least with me). Says alot.

[stlukesguild]

A girl who drinks beer (at least with me). Says alot.

This was the second thing that immediately caught my attention with my wife (The first being that I first ran into her at a book store perusing a copy of Dante's Comedia:drool5:). She was able to keep up with me beer for beer. :cheers2:

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

So, can we continue the conversation on clothes as art, or is that off topic? It seems to be one of the more interesting conversations in a long time.

[tonywalt]

I have never met a girl in a bookstore, but nice find a book reading (Dante at that) beer drinking lass - how cool.

[Alexander III]

Is it uncommon for Girls not to drink beer? maybe it is a generation thing but all of my female friends drink beer. (That awkward moment when you realize how hard it is to express the notion, of a friend who is a girl, in the english language without it being highly affected.)

[tonywalt]

I think it's common for girls to drink beer, but not the rule. Mixed drinks are more common this side of the world from my observation-for everyone.

In the UK I usually get a thimble of spirits (painfully measured with the stern eye of bartender) when ordering a mixed drink. But I love lager and Bitter, and lots more...

[Basil]

Idril drinks beer; I prefer Zima.

[Calidore]

Idril drinks beer; I prefer Zima.

Does Zima still exist? I thought it was gone. That was tasty stuff.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

White Russians for me. (the thread is even more off-topic now :thumbs_up)

[JuniperWoolf]

Juniper's solution actually sounded simple, maybe she can present an example.

No, I just realized that if you want to do it my way you've got to have a link to a thumnail and a large-scale photo and that's still a bit of work. But, say you've got both thumbnail and large-scale link, the first thing you'd do is copy and paste the thumbnail .jpg into the box that pops up when you click the images icon in 'advanced post,' (the tiny little picture of a mountain range), then you'd highlight the whole resulting code that comes up. Now you click the little hyperlink icon (the globe with the chain) with the code still highlighted and post the .jpg of the large version into the window that pops up. Basically, you're wrapping the URL tags around the IMG tags. It'll look like this, but without the spaces (and with your own .jpg instead of this one, obviously):

[ URL="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5e/Bruegel,_Pieter_de_Oude_-_De_val_van_icarus_-_hi_res.jpg/370px-Bruegel,_Pieter_de_Oude_-_De_val_van_icarus_-_hi_res.jpg" ][ IMG ]http://img.freebase.com/api/trans/image_thumb/en/landscape_with_the_fall_of_icarus?pad=1&errorid=%2Ffreebase%2Fno_image_png&maxheight=64&mode=fillcropmid&maxwidth=64[ /IMG ][ /URL ]

Resulting in this:

http://img.freebase.com/api/trans/image_thumb/en/landscape_with_the_fall_of_icarus?pad=1&errorid=%2Ffreebase%2Fno_image_png&maxheight=64&mode=fillcropmid&maxwidth=64 (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5e/Bruegel,_Pieter_de_Oude_-_De_val_van_icarus_-_hi_res.jpg/370px-Bruegel,_Pieter_de_Oude_-_De_val_van_icarus_-_hi_res.jpg)


I have never met a girl in a bookstore, but nice find a book reading (Dante at that) beer drinking lass - how cool.

Someone once developed a crush on me because they saw me reading Dante in a country bar. I was drinking a strawberry shortcake smoothie, though. :p

[Alexander III]

I think it's common for girls to drink beer, but not the rule. Mixed drinks are more common this side of the world from my observation-for everyone.

In the UK I usually get a thimble of spirits (painfully measured with the stern eye of bartender) when ordering a mixed drink. But I love lager and Bitter, and lots more...

Oh I always assumed it was:

Beer with lunch, or white wine with summer luncheon

Red wine with dinner, or white wine in summer and eating fish

and in the evenings mixers/cocktails

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Most Americans it's just soda all day and then beer. Or no beer and just stick with soda. Or beer all day. Of course, most Americans are stuffing their faces with fast food, which doesn't lend itself to wine, or little estates.

[papayahed]

I like it all. However what i drink depends on my mood/taste/and surroundings.

I'm sure not going to have a Chardonnay with my dog and nachos at the ball game but it sure as heck is an option on a date at a nice restaurant. ya know.

[Emil Miller]

Drinking beer, or indeed anything, with a female should be a normal part of social intercourse but there are few places where civilised conversation can take place because of pointless noise from loudspeakers.
In this connection, Wetherspoons music free public houses were supposed to be the answer but it didn't turn out that way as is seen from this item purloined from a website informing visitors to Britain what to expect.


WETHERSPOON'S PUBS

Pubs have long been central to the British way of life, providing a focal point for socialising in the UK. And while many individual public houses have their own parochial charms, only Wetherspoon’s pubs are zeitgeist - being both representative and symptomatic of the credit-crunched UK today.

Wetherspoon pubs are famed for their cheap booze and food, and eclectic clientele. Targeting the lower income brackets of society, it is hardly surprising, though morally questionable, that Wetherspoon’s pubs are often situated somewhere amidst clutches of social security offices, job centres and betting shops.

Although the frontages of these pubs are bland and indistinct, much like the atmosphere inside, they are generally easily found by simply looking out for the collection of derelicts that stand outside in all weathers to smoke cheap cigarettes before heading back inside to neck more cut price beer and pick the day’s losers from the racing pages of tabloids.

The same moribund people can often be seen asking passers-by how to use matches or grappling with pens stolen from turf accountants, trying to fill out ‘Happy 6th Birthday Son’ cards for daughters they had over fifteen years ago before they discovered the joys of cheap alcohol and self-destruction courtesy of J.D. Wetherspoons plc.

The pub chain has come under a lot of criticism in recent years, being partly blamed by the press for the culture of binge drinking the tabloids say the UK is in the grip of. However, Wetherspoon has defended itself by saying that its aggressive pricing policy and two for one offers on strong liquor in no way encourage people to drink excessively and subsequently vomit, fall over, fight and urinate over war memorials.

Whether you walk in or walk on by, Wetherspoons pubs are a British icon for many Brits who like to meet in them on Friday and Saturday nights to fill up with cheap booze before staggering on to more upmarket establishments where they hope to spend as little as possible while pretending to be high-rollers with the latest last year’s apparel from TK Maxx. Wetherspoon pubs are a UK institution and British icon.

[stlukesguild]

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7222/7299483452_c2cfcef426_t.jpg (http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7222/7299483452_c2cfcef426.jpg)

OK, Juniper... your approach works for Flickr which will allow me to post images that fail to meet the rules of the Disney/Sunday School Teacher censors over at Photobucket who actually deleted this image as "inappropriate":

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7258/7420366614_67f8c8ef73_t.jpg (http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7258/7420366614_67f8c8ef73_z.jpg)

It's a print by Edward Calvert, one of the members of "The Ancients"... a group of followers of William Blake... a a clear precursor to porno.:ack2:

Photobucket... however... is a hell of a lot faster for posting any imagine that involves nothing that might send a red light to the censors. Looks like I'll be keeping both accounts.

[stlukesguild]

Drinking beer, or indeed anything, with a female should be a normal part of social intercourse but there are few places where civilised conversation can take place because of pointless noise from loudspeakers.

I'll certainly agree with you here. eating out costs pretty much twice (if not more) what it would cost to fix your own meal. I eat out either because it's been a long-tiring day and neither I nor the wife is in the mood to cook and clean dishes... or I eat out simply for the social intercourse. To relax and enjoy conversation with the wife... family... friends. Too many restaurants and bars, however, have jumped to the conclusion that people cannot think for themselves or talk among themselves without the need for continual external stimuli. The majority of bars I know have the stereo blasting "classic rock" while banks of television sets are tuned in to every possible sport you can imagine. Even too many of the finer restaurants where one goes for an intimate evening of conversation and relaxation assume that you need the constant din of pop music playing in the background.

I stopped going to this one doctor's office where they had two TV sets playing two different channels at once. If I'm at the doctor, I probably don't feel well already. The last thing I want is Oprah blaring in one ear and the Weather Channel in the other.

Of course these business are only giving the moronic public what they want. The most comic example of this that I experienced was at a strip club that I was at some years ago for a friend's bachelor party. On the stage before us were a number of stunning beautiful young women... dancing sans any clothing. In the back of the room the TV set was showing the playoffs game in which our local team was involved. The majority of the patrons sat hovered around this TV... beers in hand... and shouting nearly oblivious to the girls on the stage.

Priorities of the Neanderthals?:ack2:

[tonywalt]

Drinking beer, or indeed anything, with a female should be a normal part of social intercourse but there are few places where civilised conversation can take place because of pointless noise from loudspeakers.
In this connection, Wetherspoons music free public houses were supposed to be the answer but it didn't turn out that way as is seen from this item purloined from a website informing visitors to Britain what to expect.


WETHERSPOON'S PUBS

Pubs have long been central to the British way of life, providing a focal point for socialising in the UK. And while many individual public houses have their own parochial charms, only Wetherspoon’s pubs are zeitgeist - being both representative and symptomatic of the credit-crunched UK today.

Wetherspoon pubs are famed for their cheap booze and food, and eclectic clientele. Targeting the lower income brackets of society, it is hardly surprising, though morally questionable, that Wetherspoon’s pubs are often situated somewhere amidst clutches of social security offices, job centres and betting shops.

Although the frontages of these pubs are bland and indistinct, much like the atmosphere inside, they are generally easily found by simply looking out for the collection of derelicts that stand outside in all weathers to smoke cheap cigarettes before heading back inside to neck more cut price beer and pick the day’s losers from the racing pages of tabloids.

The same moribund people can often be seen asking passers-by how to use matches or grappling with pens stolen from turf accountants, trying to fill out ‘Happy 6th Birthday Son’ cards for daughters they had over fifteen years ago before they discovered the joys of cheap alcohol and self-destruction courtesy of J.D. Wetherspoons plc.

The pub chain has come under a lot of criticism in recent years, being partly blamed by the press for the culture of binge drinking the tabloids say the UK is in the grip of. However, Wetherspoon has defended itself by saying that its aggressive pricing policy and two for one offers on strong liquor in no way encourage people to drink excessively and subsequently vomit, fall over, fight and urinate over war memorials.

Whether you walk in or walk on by, Wetherspoons pubs are a British icon for many Brits who like to meet in them on Friday and Saturday nights to fill up with cheap booze before staggering on to more upmarket establishments where they hope to spend as little as possible while pretending to be high-rollers with the latest last year’s apparel from TK Maxx. Wetherspoon pubs are a UK institution and British icon.

Thr British and their Northern European cousins have a culture of binge drinking? Shocking news! When did this start? I blame the Vikings, Angles, Saxons, and last but not least the quiet but spikey Jutes!

Happy Friday.

[Emil Miller]

Thr British and their Northern European cousins have a culture of binge drinking? Shocking news! When did this start? I blame the Vikings, Angles, Saxons, and last but not least the quiet but spikey Jutes!

Happy Friday.

I wouldn't fancy any of their chances today, one guy was actually stabbed to death in a Wetherspoon's pub in an argument over a game of dominos.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7222/7299483452_c2cfcef426_t.jpg (http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7222/7299483452_c2cfcef426.jpg)

OK, Juniper... your approach works for Flickr which will allow me to post images that fail to meet the rules of the Disney/Sunday School Teacher censors over at Photobucket who actually deleted this image as "inappropriate":

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7258/7420366614_67f8c8ef73_t.jpg (http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7258/7420366614_67f8c8ef73_z.jpg)

It's a print by Edward Calvert, one of the members of "The Ancients"... a group of followers of William Blake... a a clear precursor to porno.:ack2:

Photobucket... however... is a hell of a lot faster for posting any imagine that involves nothing that might send a red light to the censors. Looks like I'll be keeping both accounts.
Well, I for one want to thank you for going through all the trouble to keep your art postings alive, despite all these new obstacles. The site would be much lamer without them. :nod:

[Patrick_Bateman]

I don't want to sound obvious and cliché but I really do have to be attracted to the face and more specifically the eyes first. I may notice a girl's legs or behind first (especially in the summer months ;) ) but I will always fall for her based on her facial features.

[JuniperWoolf]

No one's mentioned clothes yet. There are a lot of people around with attractive faces and hair, that's all about luck - but attractive clothes, and the way you move, that's conscious and reflective of your actual self. If I had to list one single thing that attracts my attention, it would be clothes.

[Alexander III]

No one's mentioned clothes yet. There are a lot of people around with attractive faces and hair, that's all about luck - but attractive clothes, and the way you move, that's conscious and reflective of your actual self. If I had to list one single thing that attracts my attention, it would be clothes.

Grace and elegance of movement are even more important than clothes, or rather being able to wear the clothes.

Anyone can have beautiful clothes, but the mark of distinction is in knowing how to wear them, and that only a few are able to do.

[stlukesguild]

No one's mentioned clothes yet.

Go back through the post. Actually there was a lot of mention of clothing... which degenerated into accusations of "elitism": individuals admitting that something as "shallow" as fashion (or perhaps visual appearances at all) has a definite bearing upon who we are attracted to clearly being elitist snobs...

Or perhaps they're simply honest.

[Scheherazade]

Someone should go through the posts to make a list...

I still think general cleanliness and tidiness go a long way, regardless of one's clothes or appearance.

[Calidore]

Someone should go through the posts to make a list...

I'll volunteer for that. I think it's time for a poll anyway. Is there a way to do a "check all that apply" poll rather than a "pick one"?

[cacian]

no one mentioned first impression either.

[Darcy88]

Anyone can have beautiful clothes, but the mark of distinction is in knowing how to wear them, and that only a few are able to do.

Good point.

[Calidore]

Anyone can have beautiful clothes, but the mark of distinction is in knowing how to wear them, and that only a few are able to do.

I envy those guys who can style up a t-shirt and jeans, as I am among the opposite class of men who can look frumpy in a nice suit.

[Emil Miller]

I envy those guys who can style up a t-shirt and jeans, as I am among the opposite class of men who can look frumpy in a nice suit.

Nobody ever looked stylish in a t-shirt and jeans except to someone else wearing a t-shirt and jeans.

[Calidore]

Okay, I have a list. I've left out a couple of entries that won't be part of an initial impression, such as


Functional genitalia.

...and renamed a couple others to be more inclusive, thus trimming it a bit more. As it turns out, I've ended up with 16 each of tangibles (physical stuff) and intangibles (mental/psychological stuff).

I'll post the list here first, in case anyone want to make additions or clean-up suggestions. And remember, it was a woman who first mentioned breasts.

TANGIBLES

Build (slim/petite/burly/zaftig/etc.)
Breasts
Butt
Height
Body in general
Lips
Eyes
Face in general
Hair
Voice
Complexion (light/dark skin tone)
Hygiene
Grooming
Graceful movement
Clothing
Scent

INTANGIBLES

Confidence
Arrogance/conceit
Aura of untouchability
Intelligence
Kindness
Humor
Quiet
Innocence
Nerdiness
Easygoing
Crazy
Cutesy
Similar interests
Chemistry
Tolerance of others' quirks
Enjoys alcohol

[Scheherazade]

So, anything goes...

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Nobody ever looked stylish in a t-shirt and jeans except to someone else wearing a t-shirt and jeans.

It's cool how you can read the minds of everybody. I wish I could do that.

[stlukesguild]

Nobody ever looked stylish in a t-shirt and jeans except to someone else wearing a t-shirt and jeans.

http://i1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/th_x98_brando_f01pb_2007110941_00.jpg (http://s1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/?action=view&current=x98_brando_f01pb_2007110941_00.jpg)

http://i1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/th_JamesDeanMarilynMonroe.jpg (http://s1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/?action=view&current=JamesDeanMarilynMonroe.jpg)

Sometimes the jeans are even "optional".

http://i1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/th_Sexy-Woman-347x520.jpg (http://s1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/?action=view&current=Sexy-Woman-347x520.jpg)

:goof::blush:

[JuniperWoolf]

^Paul Newman and James Dean are the two that popped into my head as well, they looked their best in jeans and a t-shirt (well, if we exclude wearing nothing at all from the list).


I'll volunteer for that. I think it's time for a poll anyway. Is there a way to do a "check all that apply" poll rather than a "pick one"?

Yes there is, I don't make threads very often and when I do I usually screw up on the polls, but I've seen it before so it can be done. Must be an option somewhere.

[OrphanPip]

Okay, I have a list. I've left out a couple of entries that won't be part of an initial impression, such as


Not part of the initial impression? There are places where that particular feature will be ascertained before, if ever, names are even exchanged.

[Alexander III]

Nobody ever looked stylish in a t-shirt and jeans except to someone else wearing a t-shirt and jeans.

haha I agree, unless your name is James Dean of course...

Edit: just noticed St.lukes and Juniper said the same thing, funny how we all thought of James Dean there.

[Emil Miller]

It's cool how you can read the minds of everybody. I wish I could do that.

Pay attention to what others do and say and in due course you too will be able to do so.

[Alexander III]

I think the point Emil was making is that unless you have a beautiful body, you will look bad in a t-shirt and jeans, for people who don't look like james Dean or Paul Newman suits are more forgiving because if they are well cut, they enhance one's physique - the artificial physic created by a well cut sport coat or suit or blazer is often more beautiful in my opinion than a natural beautiful physic.


{edit}

[Patrick_Bateman]

^Paul Newman and James Dean are the two that popped into my head as well, they looked their best in jeans and a t-shirt

It's Marlon Brando not Paul Newman but yes when I think of 'cool' and jeans and t-shirt I think of them.

[Emil Miller]

I think the point Emil was making is that unless you have a beautiful body, you will look bad in a t-shirt and jeans, for people who don't look like james Dean or Paul Newman suits are more forgiving because if they are well cut, they enhance one's physique - the artificial physic created by a well cut sport coat or suit or blazer is often more beautiful in my opinion than a natural beautiful physic.


Point taken.


{edit}

[JuniperWoolf]

It's Marlon Brando not Paul Newman but yes when I think of 'cool' and jeans and t-shirt I think of them.

Oh. Damn thumbnails. Well, add Paul Newman to the list of people who look good in jeans and a t-shirt.

http://i.ebayimg.com/t/PAUL-NEWMAN-HUNKY-1950S-PORTRAIT-T-SHIRT-11X14-PHOTO-/00/s/MzgwWDMwNA==/$(KGrHqN,!lsE65gjKfC1BOw)m-ROcw~~60_39.JPG (http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_CdKESCVynAI/SbzdUk0Cz-I/AAAAAAAACTI/K9EWlJ6AYrw/s400/Paul_Newman.jpg)

[qimissung]

Good list, Calidore.

But why is it important to look stylish? I guess I'd like to look good and well-dressed, but I don't have the stylish gene, nor the money to hire a stylist. I also wouldn't mind looking cool, quirky, or , uhm, bohemian, which is how I think of myself. Alas, I just usually look kind of geeky. I'm a girl geek. Not happy about it, but there it is.

So, again, why? It all seems rather shallow to me, all this emphasis on style.

[Calidore]

Yes there is, I don't make threads very often and when I do I usually screw up on the polls, but I've seen it before so it can be done. Must be an option somewhere.

Yep, Scher pointed me to it, thanks.


Not part of the initial impression? There are places where that particular feature will be ascertained before, if ever, names are even exchanged.

Well, yeah, but those are different places and people and (and impressions) than we've been talking about.


As far as the poll goes, I'll put it up tonight to allow 24 hours for input on the lists.

[JuniperWoolf]

So, again, why? It all seems rather shallow to me, all this emphasis on style.

Well, style is a reflection of what you are inside, it's your choice. You don't consciously decide to have a strong jaw line or dimples, but you choose to wear faded jeans, or a cowboy hat, or some horn rimmed glasses, or a blazer with some casual layers underneath (I love that look, like this (http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/61fjucxytmL._SL1280_.jpg)), all depending on the way you evaluate your own personality.

So, really, style is a less shallow thing to base immediate attraction on than their physical traits.

[Sancho]

Bah. Strength of character lies in your thoughts and deeds, not your clothing – that’s fashion sense; or the cut of your jaw - that's the luck of the sperm lottery.

And James Dean was a spoiled brat who couldn’t drive*

When I was in High School, one of our teachers was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. For the most part, it was the poor kids and the misfits who visited her in the hospital, and then attended her funeral. The dandies couldn’t be bothered with either.

Whoa, enough of the preachy stuff, back on topic: What attracts me first? If a woman smiles at me, I am smitten.

*Hunter S. Thompson

[Scheherazade]

the cut of your jaw - that's the luck of the sperm lottery.

That or careless shaving in the morning.

[qimissung]

Jun and Sancho, interesting points, both of you.

[stlukesguild]

Strength of character lies in your thoughts and deeds, not your clothing

"Strength of character" is not something that can be discerned at first. Whether you wish to admit it or not, we are all visual beings. There is a reason for the old adage, "A picture is worth..." well, you all know the rest. The seductiveness of the visual is the reason for thousands of years of iconoclasts... especially among the Jews, Muslims, and Christians... the "People of the Book" who put such value in the written word. We still are faced with such iconoclasts to this day... those who recognize the power of the image... the photograph... the 30 seconds of prime-time... the Hollywood blockbuster. I greatly suspect that those who deny any interest in something as "shallow" as the visual appearance of another human being... especially a potential love interest... are simply fearful of being honest.

[Sancho]

"Strength of character" is not something that can be discerned at first. Whether you wish to admit it or not, we are all visual beings. There is a reason for the old adage, "A picture is worth..." well, you all know the rest. The seductiveness of the visual is the reason for thousands of years of iconoclasts... especially among the Jews, Muslims, and Christians... the "People of the Book" who put such value in the written word. We still are faced with such iconoclasts to this day... those who recognize the power of the image... the photograph... the 30 seconds of prime-time... the Hollywood blockbuster. I greatly suspect that those who deny any interest in something as "shallow" as the visual appearance of another human being... especially a potential love interest... are simply fearful of being honest.

Correct-a-mundo, mi amigo. Hence my qualifier:


Whoa, enough of the preachy stuff, back on topic: What attracts me first? If a woman smiles at me, I am smitten.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I'll sum it up quite succinctly.

Order of areas on women I find attractive: Face (eyes, smile, teeth, etc. all included), butt, breasts, stomach/navel, legs, hair, small of back. I don't really care what they're wearing, unless it's a Nickleback shirt. That's a deal breaker.

[OrphanPip]

are simply fearful of being honest.

Some of us are just sluts who would sleep with anyone with a pulse.

Although, I think saying one's taste do not conform to the majority opinion of beauty is not the same as saying they don't care about looks, or that one thinks looks are secondary to other features for the choosing of sexual partners is saying that looks don't matter at all. E.g. I'm probably more likely to make a pass at someone who looks ordinary but doesn't act like a tool than someone with great looks but exudes an air of douche where ever they go, and it often doesn't take more than a few sentences to determine whether you really want to be around someone much longer.

[KCurtis]

[QUOTE=stlukesguild;1149520

http://localism.com/image_store/uploads/4/3/1/6/5/ar120593348256134.jpg

I think I rode with him once

[KCurtis]

No one's mentioned clothes yet. There are a lot of people around with attractive faces and hair, that's all about luck - but attractive clothes, and the way you move, that's conscious and reflective of your actual self. If I had to list one single thing that attracts my attention, it would be clothes.
What first attracted me to my husband was his punk look, which means clothes and hair. He looked very cute. Now he (60 yrs old) wears his short sleeve t-shirts over his long sleeve t-shirts. He also loves t-shirts with pockets for pens and reading glasses.