Of course I am visually drawn to physically attractive people and yes, style
can help in this field of view,
however it is Truly Sexy when encountering someone with great intellect. For
example, if Feynman and Einstein were still alive, I'd, well... you can
imagine. If I saw these guys (and some others I am thinking that are alive)
on the street and had no knowledge of their accomplishments I would most
likely not be stimulated. But because of this intellect, I am.
My fantasies do not include Tom Sellec or Patrick Swayze. This is not to
say that I haven't been reeled in by good looks, but it takes more than that
to keep me around and titilate my mind. Some people after you know them can
change your preception in both ways, someone may be attractive and have a
banal personality, while some one who may not be so "pretty" can have a
mysterious or alluring personality.
I do not find myself attracted to different types during different times of
the month, nor do I place one aspect above the other. It's the situation as
a whole that attributes to the end result and all experiences with people
are different. (as individual as we all are) I as a person am not so cut and
dry to say one thing in particular gets me interested or does not. I also am
not the type of person who dictates a specific type to myself. (I do not
prefer blondes to brunettes or anything so exact)
I am a very open person, and see variations of beauty in most all people.
Gina "Nanogirl" Miller
Nanotechnology Industries
Web:
http://www.nanoindustries.com
E-mail:
nanogirl@halcyon.com
Alternate E-mail
echoz@hotmail.com
"Nanotechnology: solutions for the future."
>> Which category is that, Spike? Mr. Celibate?
>
>Oops I realized after the fact that I could have accidentally
>caused a misunderstanding. Natasha did not write the above
>line, I did. I was attempting a little self-deprecating humor. {8^D
>Had she wrote it, I would have laughed, but she is more serious
>minded than that I fear.
>
>Thats my problem: I dont care if people are laughing with me
>or laughing at me, so long as they laugh.
>
>Natasha Vita-More wrote:
>
>> 1) Poor Sap: ...a sex coach, etc. could turn this type into a new
category...
>
>A sex coach? Seriously? I have never heard of such a thing. {8^D
>
>> ...Self-improvement is very extropian, and if it is sex you want...
>
>Well, actually it was an academic interest. I would like to see
>Mr. Brains produce far more offspring, however, for the sake
>of the human and transhuman kind.
>
>> then become a visual enticement. I might add here that most women
>> are far more attracted to someone who has style than a pretty face.
>
>Uh oh. {8-[ Im on caloric restriction and consequently Im cold
>all the time, even in a 74F room. So, I wear wool business suits.
>Always. Its not a pretty sight... {8-[
>
>> Regardless, I get what you are saying and I'd add another
>> type which would be Mr. Caring-&-Generous. He would get the gal.
>
>I put Caring&Generous in the brains category. {8-] spike
>