Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: $Revision: 1.6.2.13 $; site iuvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!mgnetp!ihnp4!inuxc!iuvax!dsaker
From: dsaker@iuvax.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.singles
Subject: Re: Packages and more
Message-ID: <1900007@iuvax.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 12-Jul-84 12:38:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: iuvax.1900007
Posted: Thu Jul 12 12:38:00 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 13-Jul-84 23:42:09 EDT
References: <464@ubc-visi.UUCP>
Lines: 29
Nf-ID: #R:ubc-visi:-46400:iuvax:1900007:000:1462
Nf-From: iuvax!dsaker    Jul 12 11:38:00 1984


[]
A number of people on this net (seem to me to) write as if "looks" don't
matter at all in an SO.  I have great difficulty believing this.
I need "looks" AND "personality" in an SO.  Sure, I can be flexible about the
amounts in the combination, but I do need BOTH.  Do any of you phantoms out 
there on the net really look ONLY for "personality"?

Beauty and attractiveness change and fade with time.  But why miss out 
entirely on the enjoyment of them?  Why ignore the joy one can find in them?

Personality also changes with time.  In my experience of relationships, the 
personality of my companion changed much more than their appearance did.
(I mean "personality" in the sense of "what I perceived from what was shown
by the other of their personality".  I am not trying to talk about the
"underlying personality".  After all, it is the "perceived personality" that
we are talking about when we say that we love our SO for their personality.)

I am not saying that divine thighs compensate for a lack of tender feelings
in an SO.  I am not saying that one can trade "looks" for "personality";
nor am I saying the reverse.  I am saying that "looks" and "personality" are
important.  

Perhaps my requirement for "looks" is higher than many people's.  I don't 
know.  BTW, this requirement for "looks" is not a decision that I have made.
It is just there, inside of me.  It is just an aspect of my personality.

Daryel Akerlind
...ihnp4!inuxc!iuvax!dsaker