Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83 based; site houxz.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!mgnetp!ihnp4!houxm!houxz!disc
From: disc@houxz.UUCP (CMDR. MONTGOMERY SCOTT)
Newsgroups: net.singles
Subject: Re: Beauty & Packaging
Message-ID: <882@houxz.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 3-Jul-84 08:56:29 EDT
Article-I.D.: houxz.882
Posted: Tue Jul  3 08:56:29 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 4-Jul-84 03:28:30 EDT
References: <1900006@iuvax.UUCP>
Organization: Large
Lines: 22

It's about time *somebody* (I know, why didn't *I* speak up? :-) )
came out and expressed the desire for beauty in an SO.
ALL the arguments I've seen along the lines of "It's only
what's inside that counts" have, perhaps unintentionally,
contained the implicit assumption that to admire beauty in
a woman (my case) or a man is neccessarily shallow and callous,
and that people who feel this way are interested in ONLY beauty.
What's wrong with both?  

I admit I "look for looks" in a potential SO, and that it's even 
high on my list (though NOT number one).  I would not want 
to get "seriously" involved with an unattractive genius any more than
with a goddess having a room temperature IQ. (Or someone with no 
sense of humor, or no personality, etc.)

And before any of you turn on the "afterburners", please note that
(at least to me) "attractiveness" and "beauty" have as much to do
with the way a person carries oneself, and cares for oneself, as
it does with any genetic or "media-created" [:-)] ideal.

				Scott Berry