Intelligence VS Beauty

ChuckRich

Experimental Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2006
Posts
319
Media
0
Likes
15
Points
163
Location
SC, USA
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
Well, I'm gonna speak up for those who like cute and dumb. Specifically, the endearing naivete that makes a cute person even cuter. Like Cher from Clueless. She wouldn't have been half as adorable if she wasn't so vapid.
 

D_Elijah_MorganWood

Expert Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Posts
5,220
Media
0
Likes
127
Points
193
I spent 5 years with a hot looking guy who could mentally wrestle me to the mat on just about any occasion. As much of a turn-on as it was to be with someone with big brains, he had a gift for seeking my weak spots and exploiting them in front of others. After it was over with him, I prayed for a gorgeous, stupid stud and found one. What a fucking bore. The worst part was his proclivity for discussing things of which he had absolutely no knowledge. It was truly embarrassing. When this happened, I did my best to focus on his sizzling looks, great body and big dick. Believe me, the latter wore thin quickly. I longed to have an intelligent conversation with my BF but learned that would require a new one. It's not easy for me to find them, I tend to scare the shit out of men. I started speaking to guy number 1 again and a funny thing happened...I discovered they key to keeping up with him had nothing to do with a shortcoming of my own intelligence but a lack of self-confidence. After proving to him (and mostly to myself) that I had the goods to pin his big brain to the mat, I threw his number out. My BF now is the total package, he's handsome, intelligent and has enough dick to make any whore happy. The best part about him is his humility.

For me the moral of the story was this: looks alone are a bore and wear thin quickly and misused intelligence can cause a great deal of damage.
 

windtalkerways

Experimental Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2006
Posts
2,057
Media
0
Likes
12
Points
183
Location
Canada
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Female
Sorcerer said:
I spent 5 years with a hot looking guy who could mentally wrestle me to the mat on just about any occasion. As much of a turn-on as it was to be with someone with big brains, he had a gift for seeking my weak spots and exploiting them in front of others. After it was over with him, I prayed for a gorgeous, stupid stud and found one. What a fucking bore. The worst part was his proclivity for discussing things of which he had absolutely no knowledge. It was truly embarrassing. When this happened, I did my best to focus on his sizzling looks, great body and big dick. Believe me, the latter wore thin quickly. I longed to have an intelligent conversation with my BF but learned that would require a new one. It's not easy for me to find them, I tend to scare the shit out of men. I started speaking to guy number 1 again and a funny thing happened...I discovered they key to keeping up with him wasn't a shortcoming of my own intelligence but a lack of self-confidence. After proving to him (and mostly to myself) that I had the goods to pin his big brain to the mat, I threw his number out. My BF now is the total package, he's handsome, intelligent and has enough dick to make any whore happy. The best part about him is his humility.

For me the moral of the story was this: looks alone are a bore and wear thin quickly and misused intelligence can cause a great deal of damage.

Great story, Sorc...and I agree...the best
relationship is where you have a nice
balance of what is important to you.

And an intelligent man, who has it going
on in the sex department, with the same
high sex drive too is the biggest turn on.

That way your brain is always engaged
both in and out of bed and what could
possibly be better?
 

B_DWTS00

1st Like
Joined
Jan 24, 2006
Posts
121
Media
0
Likes
1
Points
161
Gender
Male
Sorcerer said:
For me the moral of the story was this: looks alone are a bore and wear thin quickly and misused intelligence can cause a great deal of damage.

Thats why you leave em and start fucking someone else, again and again and again and again....:biggrin1:
 

Webster

Just Browsing
Joined
Jan 21, 2006
Posts
686
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
161
Sexuality
No Response
EnglishGentleman said:
True physical beauty requires nothing more than soap, water and a comb. How much work is that?
___________________________
That's true.
Give Donald Trump a bath and a big comb over
and ain't he pretty!
 

EnglishGentleman

Experimental Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2006
Posts
341
Media
1
Likes
2
Points
161
Location
England UK
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
LittleKitten said:
Ok, I will try and explain it more clearly for you......

Anyway, I’ve just showered and as this thread is getting pretty inbred and ugly I’m off to bed…. nite everyone.

Until you posted the above, I was beginning to admire your courage and determination in this debate, but then you let yourself down by attempting to be patronising and glib. I learned to flex my intellectual muscles by "boxing above my weight" too, but I also quickly learned how to have my misconceptions corrected with grace and humility. In order to be right, one must also know when one is wrong.

I must also thank you for the compliment you paid me in PM wherein you described me as being "5 years older than (you) but sound like your Grandad". Whilst I'm sure it was not your intention, you very kindly took nearly a decade off my age which is always nice to hear... and I'd much rather sound like your Grandad than the "Ska8erboi's at college" you say I resemble.

Back to the debate...


Your points regarding the attractiveness of the "average" multicultural face and the associated research into facial symmetry published by Langlois and Roggmann and the many supportive studies are all correct however irrelevant to the point you are arguing.

Firstly, the topic at hand is beauty, which is a superlative, not a merely nominative term. An "average" face, however attractive is not beautiful by definition. Beauty is a concept applied to something which is exceptionally attractive, not merely average.

Secondly, the work you refer to, and your own hypothesis regarding the blending of races has no bearing on the process of natural selection, and effectively puts you in the position of arguing against your own professed opinion. You are describing the homogenisation of human DNA into more standard, less diverse information which is the very enemy of evolution. The homogenisation you describe reduces the number of variations available within the gene pool, the more we become alike. It is little more than a subtler form of the "inbreeding" you suggest it negates.

Do not confuse homogenisation with evolution. The two are mutually exclusive.

Evolution relies on diversity and mutation away from the norm and would be hampered by the trends you describe. Many have argued that globalisation and medicine are slowing down human evolution, so that when the next global change occurs (many would argue it is already upon us), we may all be so universally adapted to our standardised environments that we will lack the necessary variations to continue the species. The mechanism of natural selection is death, not just birth. Those ill adapted die, leaving those better suited to live on and reproduce.

I'd recommend you read the classic work "The Selfish Gene" by Professor Richard Dawkins which will help you to understand the mechanics of evolution and genetic propagation better. I would also suggest "The Red Queen" by Matt Ridley which is not only very entertaining, but clearly explains the theory of the title, wherein evolution is shown to be a never ending process of selection, named after Lewis Carroll's character who had to keep running to stay in the same place.
 

LittleKitten

Experimental Member
Joined
Nov 13, 2005
Posts
119
Media
2
Likes
8
Points
163
Location
Bristol/Bath, United Kingdom
Sexuality
80% Straight, 20% Gay
Gender
Female
EnglishGentleman said:
Until you posted the above, I was beginning to admire your courage and determination in this debate, but then you let yourself down by attempting to be patronising and glib.
I can't really say it any better than you have here sweetie... but if you want to box above your weight you are going to need bigger gloves... :tongue:

LK
x
p.s. I'm flattered you've taken the trouble to read something before making this post though... it's an improvement over your "beautiful dead nudes" theory, or was that an hypothesis? I never can remember... :smile:
 

LittleKitten

Experimental Member
Joined
Nov 13, 2005
Posts
119
Media
2
Likes
8
Points
163
Location
Bristol/Bath, United Kingdom
Sexuality
80% Straight, 20% Gay
Gender
Female
EnglishGentleman said:
LK I've not the time for such triviality. You clearly can't support your point so you descend to petty schoolyard jibes. What a waste of your potential.

Say… are you flirting with me? lol :smile:

It isn’t really helpful to define the concept of beauty as “something exceptionally attractive”… well you can, but it’s a subjective tautology. You might as well say, in describing an egg, that it’s “very egg-shaped.” The objective definition (Langlois and Roggmann) is that it is a composite of averages. It might be you are defining "average" subjectively too, sorry.

So, anyway, once again… mating from a small genetic group (inbreeding) ultimately produces asymmetrical features, mental disorders and infertility. These offspring do not tend to survive. :eek: Mating from a large genetic group produces average features and healthy offspring. These do tend to survive. :smile: I think it’s called “survival of the fittest.” :rolleyes: Eventually the dominance of the successful genes (represented by those individuals with average features) produced “homogenisation” of a wide gene pool, later classed as broad types: Caucasian, Negroid, etc., but within which there are many minor sub-divisions. Each have their own definition of beauty, but broadly speaking each definition is still an average of genetic features for that group. As a species we haven’t evolved for a long time because any minor mutations haven’t found sufficient advantage to outnumber the dominant gene pool. Do you see? It’s quite simple really.

As Langlois and Roggmann illustrated, the more average the features, the more attractive the individual becomes. Beauty is not just skin deep, it’s about good genes, in other words: our concept of beauty has evolved from a system for regulating genetic pairing. This is why we are all mysteriously drawn to mate with what we perceive as "beautiful". It's actually quite profound.

Sorry I haven’t written as much as you, but I think I answered all your points? If you want to go another round I’ll put my gloves on… :tongue:

LK
xox
 

EnglishGentleman

Experimental Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2006
Posts
341
Media
1
Likes
2
Points
161
Location
England UK
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
LittleKitten said:
Say… are you flirting with me? lol :smile:

It isn’t really helpful to define the concept of beauty as “something exceptionally attractive”… well you can, but it’s a subjective tautology. You might as well say, in describing an egg, that it’s “very egg-shaped.” The objective definition (Langlois and Roggmann) is that it is a composite of averages. It might be you are defining "average" subjectively too, sorry.

So, anyway, once again… mating from a small genetic group (inbreeding) ultimately produces asymmetrical features, mental disorders and infertility. These offspring do not tend to survive. :eek: Mating from a large genetic group produces average features and healthy offspring. These do tend to survive. :smile: I think it’s called “survival of the fittest.” :rolleyes: Eventually the dominance of the successful genes (represented by those individuals with average features) produced “homogenisation” of a wide gene pool, later classed as broad types: Caucasian, Negroid, etc., but within which there are many minor sub-divisions. Each have their own definition of beauty, but broadly speaking each definition is still an average of genetic features for that group. As a species we haven’t evolved for a long time because any minor mutations haven’t found sufficient advantage to outnumber the dominant gene pool. Do you see? It’s quite simple really.

As Langlois and Roggmann illustrated, the more average the features, the more attractive the individual becomes. Beauty is not just skin deep, it’s about good genes, in other words: our concept of beauty has evolved from a system for regulating genetic pairing. This is why we are all mysteriously drawn to mate with what we perceive as "beautiful". It's actually quite profound.

Sorry I haven’t written as much as you, but I think I answered all your points? If you want to go another round I’ll put my gloves on… :tongue:

LK
xox

I'm afraid you are far from addressing any points of consequence because you are still contradicting your own arguments. I'm going away on business over the weekend so I won't be here to reply, but do examine what you posted last very closely and see for yourself the glaring errors in your argument. I'm sure you'll work it out in that time and you have a chance to correct or clarify yourself. You have intelligence, and it is far more satisfying to do it yourself than to have someone point it out for you.

When in a debate like this, there are only winners, there are NO losers. If One proves a point over the other, that person may have the satisfaction of knowing they are right, however the other party has the equal satisfaction of having learned something new and worthwhile. I ask that you bear that in mind posting. If you want a popularity contest I'm afraid you picked a poor opponent, since that is a petty concern in which I have little interest.

I'll for now correct you on your mistake regarding my alleged tautology... quoted directly from the Oxford English Dictionary - world renowned for it's objectivity:

Beauty : “An outstanding or conspicuous example of that which is considered appealing, attractive or desireable”


I look forward to you expanding and correcting your argument so that we may have something to debate.

EDIT: Thanks for your apology in another thread. I appreciate it. Let's continue this discussion in an academic fashion. Ok?
 

madame_zora

Sexy Member
Joined
May 5, 2004
Posts
9,608
Media
0
Likes
51
Points
258
Location
Ohio
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
I've steered away from this thread because if it isn't a given that beauty is something exceptional, then there's really no point to the argument. Yes, we are all free to invent whatever meanings we want for the words we use, but the dictionary serves as the source for commonality that allows for meaningful communication to take place. If we don't agree in advance that words mean what they purport to mean, then any hope of valuable exchange is lost.

An interesting thing to look at, at least for me, is the word "seek". Webster's II has this to say:

Seek- 1) To try to find or discover: search for. 2) To try to obtain or reach. 3) To go to or toward.

People have devoted many lifetimes to seeking truth and/or beauty, whether it be through music, art, philosophy or any other avenue. It seems both things have a somwhat elusive nature or such searches would not be necessary. If we could just roll out of bed and instictively know the truth about everything, or appreciate the beauty in all, these lifelong searches would not exist, but it is not so.

EG, I will frequently "argue over my head" because it is worth the stretch to me to give myself an opportunity to learn, not because I think I've arrived. I have a little knowledge about a broad variety of subjects, but no exceptional knowledge of anything. That has been MY lifelong curse. Learning from people who have exceptional knowledge in a few fields is a gift, so I hope you'll continue posting your ideas, whether or not they are met with opposition. Surprisingly, the people I argue with most are often the people I hold in the highest esteem. Of course, that depends what the argument is, but I think you get the point.
 

LittleKitten

Experimental Member
Joined
Nov 13, 2005
Posts
119
Media
2
Likes
8
Points
163
Location
Bristol/Bath, United Kingdom
Sexuality
80% Straight, 20% Gay
Gender
Female
EnglishGentleman said:
Thanks for your apology in another thread. I appreciate it. Let's continue this discussion in an academic fashion. Ok?

I’ve actually really enjoyed these posts with you EGM, and because you’ve afforded me a little more respect with your most recent contribution I am happy to do the same.

However, there is no contradiction in my argument as I will prove, but for the moment I must just say that the definition you cite from the OED is still subjective. I might, for example, be prompted to tell you that the Hermes bag I saw last week was exceedingly beautiful, whereas you might just think it exceedingly expensive. A man might tell me that football is “the beautiful game” whatever that means! lol :smile: My OED, for example, gives no less than eight definitions for “beauty,” none of which have the same wording as yours, but the first says: “Such combined perfection of form and charm of colouring as affords keen pleasure to the sense of sight.” Can you tell me, perhaps, what quantitative qualities of form might be considered in a definition of perfection? I would remind you that the basis for this debate was Intelligence vs. Beauty in our respective boyfriends/girlfriends…

Anyway, you’re off for the weekend (have a nice time) and I am making my mum a mother’s day card for Sunday. Let’s get back in the ring later, hmm? Lol :smile:

LK
xox