Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site randvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!hplabs!sdcrdcf!randvax!edhall
From: edhall@randvax.UUCP (Ed Hall)
Newsgroups: net.singles
Subject: Re: What people look for in MOTAS
Message-ID: <2489@randvax.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 21-May-85 01:22:20 EDT
Article-I.D.: randvax.2489
Posted: Tue May 21 01:22:20 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 25-May-85 07:15:41 EDT
References: <147@unc.UUCP> <rocheste.9484>, <158@unc.UUCP> <158@nvuxb.UUCP> <928@peora.UUCP>
Organization: Rand Corp., Santa Monica
Lines: 29

> eopd@nvuxb.UUCP (Patty J Carstensen) at Bell Communications Research,
> Piscataway, NJ, writes:
> 
> > I suspect that is one reason that I care less about "classically
> > good-looking" and more about "nice eyes" and overall "happy
> > aspect"....
> 
> But, interestingly, perhaps this is just the female-equivalent of the male
> body-evaluation method of judging attractiveness.  I recall reading somewhere
> one of those numerous surveys, asking what men vs. women find attractive;
> whereas men listed various body parts at the top of the list, women listed
> "eyes". (Not that eyes are necessarily not more effective in evaluating some
> other personal aspect than are the other items listed...)
> -- 
> Full-Name:  J. Eric Roskos

There is a bit of a difference, here.  There is a great deal of richness
in the different ways people use their eyes.  A lot of their personality
shows in them--often things about them it takes a long time to get in
contact with any other way.  If I had to boil down my impressions of a
person's personality to a single physical feature, it would be my
impression of their eyes.

So I doubt that the attractiveness of someone's eyes is just another
method of ``body-evaluation''--as you mention, they are effective in
``evaluating some other personal aspect.''

		-Ed Hall
		decvax!randvax!edhall