No, but the minority gets this :ladysman:Quote:
Originally Posted by Delta40
so heh! :ciappa:
Printable View
No, but the minority gets this :ladysman:Quote:
Originally Posted by Delta40
so heh! :ciappa:
good point haha.Quote:
Originally Posted by shug
Ok here is athought.
you meet someone over the internet you chat over the phone for days on ends and you exchange 'photos of your youth' pretending to be that same look and attractiveness.
you carry on chatting you get on really really well and you might even fall in love and one day you decide and have to meet.
the day arrives you show up and low and behold shock to the system one of you is not as attractive as the photo showed.
a) do you fall out of love?
b) you stick with it because looks are not important
c) you are heat broken and you do not know what to do.
please select which applies or add something else.
If you think you're in love with someone over the internet and then you find they're unattractive when you finally meet to the point where it bothers you and you're "heartbroken" then you were never really in love to begin with.Quote:
Originally Posted by cacian
Not to mention I would think true love takes time to develop.
Exactly. I think if you truly love someone what you are in fact loving is not their body but their mind, their soul. They could lose limbs and be scarred all over and though it would pain you and cause endless awful grief, if you do in fact truly love them, you will stick by their side. That's the point of marriage. The point is the vow before God. If you take that vow you better damn mean it. That is my opinion, at least. Annoyingly its an opinion propagated by many but followed by few.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drkshadow03
so what you are saying is that it is not possible to have true feelings via the internet. If you cannot see the person then everytime an illusion and a disapointing one may be or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darcy88
It is possible to love and be still in love with someibe even after they have suddenly lost a limb that is because both have been together and got to know each other and so love is stronger then looks in this instance.
About the vow before God it sounds rather heavy to me because whilst one takes the vow one does not get a vow back from God and so how do I know that the vow I took was an acceptable one or not.
I am the ype of person whon needs a kind of proof/reassurance that what I have vowed has been accepted and until then I have no guarantee. so I would much rather take no vows at all but instead take an easier route and that is to go with the flow and see what happens. No promises no hearbreaks and no tears.
I could take the vow for me for my partner but again a divorce is always round the corner and so breaking it is not going to look very good on me or on others.
Having considered both sides I think muc ratherf stick with I will go with the flow and see what happens.
That is life and that is how I see it.
That is all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cacian
humm, I don't really believe in love over the internet but I guess I would be a little bit mad because I have been lied to. Not that looks are that important just that the other person felt like they had to deceive me to keep me interested.
I have never been in love so I don't know how to describe my actions if I was.
you have never been in love?Quote:
Originally Posted by Helga
how do you know?
Now that is a hard question.... I have been in three relationships, when they ended I have never been heartbroken. I was sad when my second boyfriend broke up with me but just for a few minuets. I was never in love with my ex but I lived with him for 5 years. I cared about him and I told myself that he is a good guy but he annoyed me most of the time.Quote:
Originally Posted by cacian
I at least hope that love is more than what I have felt in my past relationships.
The easier route of go with the flow - no promises, no heartbreak, no tears? I don't think so Cacian. Going with the flow, being with someone, trusting them completely till they turn around and tell you it's over and then walk out the door is not an easy route to me (unless they mean zilch to you)Quote:
Originally Posted by cacian
Alot of people don't agree with the go with flow concept because they feel it's the try before you buy bull which to them is devaluing because if it doesn't work, they're left with absolutely nothing but a broken heart and tears and so they place a greater worth upon themselves. A vow.
I personally don't subscribe to de-facto relationships myself. I value my own space and privacy. That doesn't mean I'm unavailable but it does mean I won't be moving in with anyone to go with the flow and see what happens and if I do everything that a committed wife would (fingers crossed) he might consider me good enough to marry. I've had my share and I deserve better than that, especially after building my own life from scratch.
If two people love each other from their own respective places and wish to join in a union at some point, then tell me, why not make that comittment?
Nothing wrong with supermodels. I just like to harp on the traditional issue of supermodels presenting to women unrealistic ideas about body image. It messes with women's self esteem and habits. The airbrushed toothpick has been presented as the feminine physical ideal for too long now. There are plenty of healthy looking supermodels but there is still a large percentage of them who appear inhumanly and unhealthily skinny.
What is interesting is that women's unrealistic ideal body image is based largely upon images from women's magazines that promote a body type that is quite removed from the actual ideal body according to men:
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8028/7...75229538_m.jpg
According to a poll of men and women, the girl on the left matches women's ideal of the female body. The girl in the middle matches men's ideal of the female body, and the girl on the right matches the national average.
It is interesting, although perhaps not surprising, that the male ideal is quite a bit "curvier" than what women imagine as being their ideal. Glancing at the more curvaceous women in men's magazines one cannot help wonder what is the thinking behind the toothpick-thin fashion models in women's magazines. It has been repeatedly pointed out that the large percentage of homosexual males involved in the fashion industry has led to a demand for a boyish as opposed to a womanly figure... but I suspect that only goes so far. Perhaps it is simply imagined that clothes hang better on a rail-thin body.
While I think the middle woman is the best looking, I think the woman on the right is way more attractive than the woman on the left. The curves of the female body are what makes it beautiful. As Elaine from Seinfeld says, when discussing the difference between a female and male body:
"The female body is a work of art. The male body is utilitarian. It's for gettin' around. It's like a Jeep."
When women do the whole stick-thin look, they don't look like women so much as gangly boys. It counteracts what makes a woman beautiful.
The one on the right is what I like, maybe a tiny bit skinnier but only a tiny bit. It is close to Botticelli's Venus. Our instincts regard women as baby machines and pregnancy requires a lot of calories and a woman who has no fat is going to appear before our instinctual judgement as one who is not ideally suited for child bearing.
In the end it really does not matter. You love a person not for their body. The obsession with one's partner's body is the result not of love but of lust. If you love someone then the average about them becomes exceptional in a positive, highly positive way. If you fall in love with someone who has an objectively amazing body then that is simply good luck, an added bonus, but looks cannot be the foundation nor even a major component of one's love for another person. Its like the deeper the relationship progresses the less it becomes about looks, about superficials. Like how many women are absolutely bent on never letting you see them once they get out of the shower or in the early morning because they think themselves hideous at these times. After a while they don't care. Time together proves the feelings are there for real. Once the heart is involved, once its about the personality and the habits and the passions of the other then looks are nothing. Its like buying a car. It wears down over time, breaks down, spews emissions and steam and suffers leaks. It was perfect when you bought it but you don't go and exchange it right away when these things happen. You fix it, you continue to drive it.
Unless you're rich. Then you can afford a new mercedes each year in addition to a harem abundantly stocked with 20 year old beauties from all continents.
Edit: Actually it does matter more than I made it out to in that paragraph. Its about health. If one's partner is unhealthy then this lack of health will like a thorn in the side of the relationship. The standard should be slightly better than the average. Perfection is no goal to strive for. Slightly in better shape than the average, that is what I would want my partner to be.
Now that is a bummer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darcy88
I agree....Quote:
Originally Posted by Darcy88
It is sad, isn't it? I kind of liked those Dove soap ads where they showed "real women," and not models. I remember reading an editorial that disparaged those ads-it was written by a woman, btw-and she claimed that we all understood the artifice behind most advertising and that showing real women in ads simply wasn't necessary.
I beg to differ. I think models and advertising are hugely influential. And it's too bad. Here's a news clip about it:
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=2503529n
I was speaking specifically of obesity and anorexia. I said body type does not matter but if one's partner is too small or large to a very unhealthy degree then this will cause problems. In other situations ill health is not that big a deal. Ill health is a part of life and people understand this. My ADHD does make relationships really hard, but it only gets the ball of disaster rolling and my personality takes care of the rest, of killing the relationship, like infantry finishing off an enemy already crushed by a fatal cavalry strike.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandis