Sarah answers her critics... OJAR-Sarah:
Well, it seems as if my latest article has hit a few nerves and a few points as well. There have been many responses to my latest article, and I want to thank you all for that. Here's my take on the entire list of responses, and I can summarize this into three groups.
Group A thinks that looks matter just as much, if not more than other aspects of a person.
Quote from: Kinn
"Of course looks matter. You don't try to hook up with someone or flirt with them because you find them repulsive….. And I do believe looks matter for the long hall. When someone in a relationship decides to let themselves go, trouble is a foot because your partner at some point will no longer be physically attracted to you."
Personally, I don't see this as shallow. I see this as someone who knows what attracts him, and is honest about it.
Group B thinks looks don’t matter at all, and fall in love with the person for their "personality".
Quote from: torn-n-2
"Looks don't mean anything to me, honest. One of my x's was NOT physically attractive to me in the least. I remember dating him because he was so much fun and made me laugh till my sides hurt thinking the whole time."
Although, I can agree to this to a certain extent, I don't agree that looks don't really matter at all. We, as humans, need a physical attraction, and if there is none, chances of this really working is slim... especially if you "see" something better.
Group C thinks looks matter to a certain point, but that a person's personality can lead into someone beautiful.
Quote from: tweety
"I think looks matter but I also think everyone is attractive in their own way. The more you get to know the person, like their personality...the better looking they become to you…. I actually developed feelings for one of the guys that was so not attractive to me at first but the more I came to know him the more attracted I became."
This, I see, is a good and healthy balance, and is something we all essentially look for when dating. The best of both worlds. ;)
So, as you can see, everyone has their own range on what matters to them in a relationship, and I personally don’t see anything wrong with knowing what you want. After reading this week’s take on my “shallowness”, have any of you changed your mind?
Oh, and for the record, I, Sarah, am for real, and I’m not Michael. ;)
Again, thank you all for your excellent feedback!
~ Sarah
Re: Sarah answers her critics... trapped: [quote author=OJAR-Sarah link=topic=36568.msg389378#msg389378 date=1161666711">
Oh, and for the record, I, Sarah, am for real, and I’m not Michael. ;)
[/quote">
LOL paranoid group here! I suspect you were playing Devils Advocate just to get a debate going....I hope! ;)
Post even more scandalicious ones again!! Debate is good...and it keep us from dwelling on all of our conflama, even if its just for a moment. :-\
Re: Sarah answers her critics... Spectrum: So, how many more "canned" threads can we expect where Sara drops a bomb and then leaves the room?
The concept of picking hot-button issues and writing comprehensive "starter" posts to get the conversation going is nice, but don't you think you should at least *try* to make it look like Sara is really part of the actual conversation?
And posting a couple days later with a summary of what everyone else posted doesn't exactly count.
Spectrum.
Re: Sarah answers her critics... pluscachange: While the threads you start are thought provoking, the image of you as a behind the scenes "Mike" might be dispelled if you could manage to post more than the original piece and then never answer anybody on the thread thereafter. Just a thought.
Re: Sarah answers her critics... smokin: oink oink. or do guinee pigs go oink?
Click More for the next page.
