From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V15 #91 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Tuesday, April 25 2006 Volume 15 : Number 091 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: I love people ["Brian Nupp" ] Re: I love people [2fs ] Re: I love people [wojizzle forizzle ] Re: I love people ["Spotted Eagle Ray" ] Re: The *Other* National Anthem ["Spotted Eagle Ray" ] Re: I love people [Benjamin Lukoff ] Re: I love people [Benjamin Lukoff ] Re: I love people [2fs ] RE: I love people ["Michael Wells" ] Re: I love people [The Great Quail ] Re: I love people [Jeff Dwarf ] Re: I love people [Aaron Mandel ] Re: I love people [Capuchin ] Re: I love people ["Spotted Eagle Ray" ] Re: I love people ["Spotted Eagle Ray" ] Re: I love people ["Sarah Jones" ] Re: I love people [2fs ] Re: I love people [2fs ] Re: I love people [Eb ] Re: I love people [2fs ] Re: I love people [Eb ] RE: I love people ["Bachman, Michael" ] Re: I love people ["Spotted Eagle Ray" ] Re: I love people [Tom Clark ] Re: I love people ["Spotted Eagle Ray" ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 13:03:36 -0400 From: "Brian Nupp" Subject: Re: I love people Quail writes: >For example, I like Irish red-heads, and I generally am not >romantically/sexually attracted to Chinese women. You and I are complete opposites! - -Nuppy ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 12:08:50 -0500 From: 2fs Subject: Re: I love people On 4/25/06, Brian Nupp wrote: > Quail writes: > >For example, I like Irish red-heads, and I generally am not > >romantically/sexually attracted to Chinese women. > > You and I are complete opposites! I like Irish wolfhounds. - -- ...Jeff Norman The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 13:11:50 -0400 From: wojizzle forizzle Subject: Re: I love people one time at band camp, 2fs (jeffreyw2fs.j@gmail.com) said: >If I'd known my comment was going to launch dissertations, I would have >phrased my ideas with greater precision. this should be one of the axioms of the internet. +w ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 10:25:43 -0700 From: "Spotted Eagle Ray" Subject: Re: I love people On 4/25/06, 2fs wrote: > > > Not to mention, being all idealistic here, don't you find that > fascinating, interesting women (others: substitute as appropriate) > become more attractive as you get to know them, because of that > interestingness etc., whereas annoying, obnoxious, or just plain dull > women, however initially attractive, are less so the more they're > dull, annoying, etc.? Yes. But somehow you have to figure out who you're going to get to know well enough to find out. Depending on one's age and lifestyle, personal ads might be the only viable way to go, other than just lucking into a relationship socially (that is, "waiting around"). I mean, you could go hang out at bars, but who the hell wants to meet someone who spends a lot of time hanging out at bars, really? So then you have the personal ad form there in front of you: what indeed do you put down? Alternately, you're looking at someone else's ad: what are you looking for? (I think that's where some of the autopilot boilerplate self-descriptions come in. People do try to get creative, but more often than not it's embarrassing.) Oh, and I considered asking this a while ago but thought better of it, but since the topic is at hand: when your e-mail addy gets out on a dating site or two, other organizations will spam you for these services. Some of them are "adult dating sites". One can't help but look at these out of curiosity, but they're far too creepy to take more than the glance required to answer the question you just have to ask, so can someone tell me for certain: are all of those women hookers? It's an odd world out there. - -Rx ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 10:52:09 -0700 From: "Spotted Eagle Ray" Subject: Re: The *Other* National Anthem On 4/25/06, Eb wrote: > > > > I heard Richard Wright is singing "Arnold Layne" as part of the set? > That surprised me. And Crosby & Nash doing "Find the Cost of Freedom" is a little odd, too (although maybe that's selected dates only). > I'm going to let Jeme's Eminem insult pass, because someone thinks > I've been too mean on the list lately. Erm... letting something pass generally entails not mentioning or otherwise drawing attention to it. - -Rx ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 13:30:54 -0500 From: "Michael Wells" Subject: RE: The *Other* National Anthem > > I heard Richard Wright is singing "Arnold Layne" as part of the set? > > That surprised me. > > And Crosby & Nash doing "Find the Cost of Freedom" is a little odd, too > (although maybe that's selected dates only). The latter seemed to be site-specific to NYC, and "Arnold Layne" must have been added after they left here. To be honest, I was rather put off by the whole affair and stopped checking the boards for the nightly set list after it rolled out of town. For those with any interest, here are a few random thoughts on the gig. Set one was his new ON AN ISLAND straight through, track for track. Combined with the solo piano etudes playing on the PA before the show and a rather over-warm hall, this nearly had me asleep ten minutes in. David is clearly creating music for a different time and place; perhaps a seaside retirement home, one where he can get lots of meandering solos. Honestly, I don't get this new material. Judging from the emotions of those spending set 1 outside in the lobby (ranging from bemusement to outright anger), I wasn't alone. This was a *very* expensive ticket. The second set was better. Over the years I'd given up expecting to ever hear songs like "Wot's Uh...the Deal" or "Fat Old Sun" live, which were definite highlights, and "Shine on you Crazy Diamond" was touching though David suffered from some bad pitching problems. Unfortunately there was an annoying tendency to play a couple of classics then drop in 10 minutes of anemic DIVISION BELL material; get everyone excited, and then stop it dead cold. Even with "Breathe" and "Time" included, many of the choices DG made that night seemed incredibly self-aggrandizing (like playing a poor tenor sax solo, when he had one of the world's best sax players in the band). That all being said, there was an epic, full twenty-five minute roof-raising "Echoes" (!), plus the obligatory "WYWH" and "Comfy Numb" to close the show, which I skipped out on to beat the traffic. It was good to see Wright and Manzanara (who looked good), and the band as a whole was in good form. Now if he'd played only about half the new album, thrown in a few more of his other solo songs, and maybe another Floyd tune... Michael "and oh by the way...which one's Pink?" Wells ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 11:49:15 -0700 (PDT) From: Benjamin Lukoff Subject: Re: I love people On Tue, 25 Apr 2006, 2fs wrote: > But yeah: the fact that personal ads generally specify race is > irritating - I mean, I'm sure most people who do so do it out of habit > and convention ("all the other ads say 'SWM'") but it's rather > obnoxious when you think about what it implies: that there's some > essential something about a person of whatever race that overrules all > other traits for consideration as short- or long-term partner. What about basic attractiveness? Some people find blondes generally more attractive than brunettes and redheads, other people the other way around. Some people feel the same way about body shape, breast size, a host of other things--including skin tone and other "racial" features. (Personally, extremely pale skin rather turns me off.) I suppose one could say that's ALL obnoxious, but is expressing a preference for, say, a black partner any more obnoxious than expressing a preference for, say, anything else? ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 11:50:58 -0700 (PDT) From: Benjamin Lukoff Subject: Re: I love people On Tue, 25 Apr 2006, Spotted Eagle Ray wrote: > My gut reaction to such racial profiling is just as dim as Jeff's, but > certainly some people really are wired up to only like certain physical > types-- I can't relate since I don't seem to have a favored "type", but > certainly it's common and observable enough, from weird fetishism to just > plain preferences for people of a certain height. That's not as viscerally > offensive to me as the three-letter racial requirement, but admittedly I > couldn't articulate why. 'Cause we're taught that any discrimination of any sort on the basis of race is worse than a sin, but we're not taught the same regarding discrimination on other grounds..? ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 11:59:00 -0700 (PDT) From: Benjamin Lukoff Subject: Re: I love people On Tue, 25 Apr 2006, 2fs wrote: > I'm trying to figure out how one could have a preference for > "Irish"ness (unless you mean actual Irish, as in from Ireland, not > just "of Irish descent") - since at least for me, such ethnic traits > are only dubiously and unreliably apparent. I mean, sure, there are > some people who look extremely Irish (and may be so), but plenty of > Irish who don't, and plenty of non-Irish who look Irish. Substitute > French, German, Italian, Jewish, etc. for all the above. > I mean, if you met a woman who looked like that Irish red-haired woman > you describe, and then you found out she's actually Cornish, what, you > call the whole thing off? Surely what was meant was a preference for *stereotypical* Irish redheadedness--hence he would be all over that Cornishwoman. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 14:01:02 -0500 From: 2fs Subject: Re: I love people On 4/25/06, Benjamin Lukoff wrote: > On Tue, 25 Apr 2006, 2fs wrote: > > > But yeah: the fact that personal ads generally specify race is > > irritating - I mean, I'm sure most people who do so do it out of habit > > and convention ("all the other ads say 'SWM'") but it's rather > > obnoxious when you think about what it implies: that there's some > > essential something about a person of whatever race that overrules all > > other traits for consideration as short- or long-term partner. > > What about basic attractiveness? Some people find blondes generally more > attractive than brunettes and redheads, other people the other way around. > Some people feel the same way about body shape, breast size, a host of > other things--including skin tone and other "racial" features. > (Personally, extremely pale skin rather turns me off.) I suppose one could > say that's ALL obnoxious, but is expressing a preference for, say, a black > partner any more obnoxious than expressing a preference for, say, anything > else? I don't know. All I said was (a) I found it slightly irritating, in the abstract, and (b) it's a mild variety of racism, of making assumptions/distinctions that give priority to supposed racial or ethnic traits over and above whatever characteristics an individual might have. I mean, there's a huge range of skin tones within people of any given "race" - so perhaps "I like skin the color of cocoa powder" would do you better. I mean, there's only so much one can glean about a person in 25 words or whatever. But one thing "seeking SWM" doesn't say is whether that preference is merely a mild *preference* (as you describe) or whether you can expect the second conversation to be all about how the damned blacks and Mexicans are screwing everything up. (Sorry: I met a woman once - not a date - who seemed very nice and sweet, until alla sudden she was "you're not Jewish are you? I hate Jews"... As it happens, I'm not Jewish - not that that mattered: she wasn't anything close to nice and sweet for me after that.) WHereas a statement that race/ethnicity is unimportant would make that second conversation a lot less likely. Were I choosing, I know which I'd choose. It seems uncontroversial to observe that expecting some particular something based solely on a racial descriptor might be described as racist in some definitions of the term. Apparently not. - -- ...Jeff Norman The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 14:06:39 -0500 From: "Michael Wells" Subject: RE: I love people > What about basic attractiveness? Some people find blondes generally more > attractive than brunettes and redheads, other people the other way around. > Some people feel the same way about body shape, breast size, a host of > other things--including skin tone and other "racial" features. I hear Tom Clark likes boobs, in a non-pejorative sense of course. Me, I like that little pointed bit at the top of the ears. Michael ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 14:01:22 -0400 From: The Great Quail Subject: Re: I love people > One can't help but look at these out of > curiosity, but they're far too creepy to take more than the glance required > to answer the question you just have to ask, so can someone tell me for > certain: are all of those women hookers? So what you are saying is, one of *us* out here may be creepy enough to do your dirty work for you? - --Quail PS: Yes, they are all hookers. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 12:10:09 -0700 (PDT) From: Jeff Dwarf Subject: Re: I love people Brian Nupp wrote: > Quail writes: >> For example, I like Irish red-heads, and I >> generally am not romantically/sexually attracted >> to Chinese women. > You and I are complete opposites! You could always split the difference and date Chinese redheads.... "A severed foot is the ultimate stocking stuffer." -- Mitch Hedberg . Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 15:12:00 -0400 (EDT) From: Aaron Mandel Subject: Re: I love people On Tue, 25 Apr 2006, Benjamin Lukoff wrote: > What about basic attractiveness? Some people find blondes generally more > attractive than brunettes and redheads, other people the other way > around. Some people feel the same way about body shape, breast size, a > host of other things--including skin tone and other "racial" features. Of all the friends I've had who tried personal ads, I think only one was so swamped with responses that they would want to use heuristics at this level of vagueness. I mean, if you find blondes 10% cuter on average than brunettes, is that a reason to flatly turn down someone who otherwise sounds compatible with you and whom you'd have time to go out with. If you're completely unwilling to date someone with blonde hair, then sure, rule people out on that basis. I don't think most people who include race in their personal ad have preferences that strong, though. The point is moot with most online services, which offer enough data to obviate the telegraphic style of newspaper ads anyway. a ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 12:12:51 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: I love people On Tue, 25 Apr 2006, Benjamin Lukoff wrote: > > What about basic attractiveness? Some people find blondes generally more > attractive than brunettes and redheads, other people the other way > around. Some people feel the same way about body shape, breast size, a > host of other things--including skin tone and other "racial" features. If it's some specific superficial features, say so. You like dark skin? Write that you like dark skin. You like big noses? Write that you like big noses. > (Personally, extremely pale skin rather turns me off.) I suppose one > could say that's ALL obnoxious, but is expressing a preference for, say, > a black partner any more obnoxious than expressing a preference for, > say, anything else? Yes, because there are no black people. There are people of all kinds of shade of creamy brown (and a few people that are genuinely pink). The results of the HGP are in and they tell us unequivocally that there is no such thing as race as a biological category. Race is a social construct and membership comes from self-identification more than anything else. And if you're really worried about physical attraction, just require a picture. Takes care of the whole mess right up front without publicly legitimizing your prejudices. Sheesh. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin _______________________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 12:14:06 -0700 From: "Spotted Eagle Ray" Subject: Re: I love people On 4/25/06, Benjamin Lukoff wrote: > > > 'Cause we're taught that any discrimination of any sort on the basis of > race is worse than a sin, but we're not taught the same regarding > discrimination on other grounds..? I'd say that that is indeed part of the cultural background noise, yes. Which is to say that I'll cop to some subsconscious white liberal guilt, but not without noting that as a people we've gotten into bigger trouble because of racial discrimination than "No Fat Chicks" bumper stickers or our general inalienable disdain for the ugly, the smelly, and the socially inept among us. You know what's cool? Raising butterflies with your kids and releasing them with hundreds of other ones. We can all get behind that, right? - -Rx ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 12:26:03 -0700 From: "Spotted Eagle Ray" Subject: Re: I love people On 4/25/06, The Great Quail wrote: > > > One can't help but look at these out of > > curiosity, but they're far too creepy to take more than the glance > required > > to answer the question you just have to ask, so can someone tell me for > > certain: are all of those women hookers? > > So what you are saying is, one of *us* out here may be creepy enough to do > your dirty work for you? > > --Quail > > PS: Yes, they are all hookers. Post Of The Month. We can all stop worrying about trying to be funny until next Monday. - -Rx ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 15:35:07 -0400 From: "Sarah Jones" Subject: Re: I love people It may have runied the hookers weekend ........... >From: "Spotted Eagle Ray" >Reply-To: "Spotted Eagle Ray" >To: "The Great Quail" >CC: Fegmaniax! >Subject: Re: I love people >Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 12:26:03 -0700 > >On 4/25/06, The Great Quail wrote: > > > > > One can't help but look at these out of > > > curiosity, but they're far too creepy to take more than the glance > > required > > > to answer the question you just have to ask, so can someone tell me >for > > > certain: are all of those women hookers? > > > > So what you are saying is, one of *us* out here may be creepy enough to >do > > your dirty work for you? > > > > --Quail > > > > PS: Yes, they are all hookers. > > >Post Of The Month. We can all stop worrying about trying to be funny until >next Monday. > >-Rx _________________________________________________________________ Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 14:40:32 -0500 From: 2fs Subject: Re: I love people On 4/25/06, Benjamin Lukoff wrote: > On Tue, 25 Apr 2006, Spotted Eagle Ray wrote: > > > My gut reaction to such racial profiling is just as dim as Jeff's, but > > certainly some people really are wired up to only like certain physical > > types-- I can't relate since I don't seem to have a favored "type", but > > certainly it's common and observable enough, from weird fetishism to just > > plain preferences for people of a certain height. That's not as viscerally > > offensive to me as the three-letter racial requirement, but admittedly I > > couldn't articulate why. > > 'Cause we're taught that any discrimination of any sort on the basis of > race is worse than a sin, but we're not taught the same regarding > discrimination on other grounds..? Race is permanent. Hair color, etc. are not. Race is powerful: a vector of culture, discrimination, etc. Hair color, etc., are not. Etc. There's a reason there's no such word as "haircolorism" or "antilongwalksonthebeachism": most people don't care enough, and so such feelings insofar as they exist have no real effects. So yeah: expressing a preference re race *is* a lot more meaning-bearing than expressing a preference re if-I-see-one-of-those-damned-magnetic-ribbons-on-your-car-I'm-out-of-here. No one is demanding that you *be* attracted to something you're not attracted to. I'm stating that I'm dubious that specifying a racial abbreviation will do much, one way or another, to work with whatever that attraction/repulsion is - unless the attraction or repulsion is to whatever signifies the race itself. And (one more time, this time following a drumroll) there's a word for that. Yeesh: if I'd said that expressing a preference regarding Pop Tart flavors said something about one's feeling about Pop Tarts, would that have caused so much controversy? No? Attach that answer to the first few paragraphs about why the race thing is more irksome in this context than most other things. Maybe I should say this: if people just aren't attracted to (say) Chinese-looking people, unless they expect to be utterly overwhelmed with responses, perhaps they should just silently apply that criterion when they actually meet someone who has Chinese looks? Compare: maybe they just really aren't attracted to overweight people - fine - but putting "no piggy-pig fatsos need apply" in the ad is hostility in advance. (The lurking contradiction here is that if I'm arguing that race is a culturally powerful variable, and hence has more effect on people than some other factors, then it would follow that it might *also* have more effect on people's personalities than those other factors. That might be true, as a matter of culture. But I'd argue that as a matter of principal, one shouldn't encourage acting on such possibilities but should actively work in ways that allow them to be superceded. And maybe that's what's bugging me: the easy acceptance of racial specifications here passively allows racial preconceptions to continue unchallenged...since those people who might challenge them, if they were met, will not meet the folks who place such ads. And that's especially a problem since most people specifying SWM and the like, whether for themselves or the people they want to meet, are not KKK-style racists: they're probably people who would, if they'd allow themselves to do so, be likely to realize that whatever assumption underlies their "seeking SWF" might be a false one.) - -- ...Jeff Norman The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 14:45:20 -0500 From: 2fs Subject: Re: I love people On 4/25/06, Spotted Eagle Ray wrote: > You know what's cool? Raising butterflies with your kids and releasing them > with hundreds of other ones. We can all get behind that, right? These weren't butterflies all of one color, were they? And you weren't standing anywhere near a jet engine or anything? - -- ...Jeff Norman The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 12:58:59 -0700 From: Eb Subject: Re: I love people 2fs wrote: > There's a reason there's no such word as "haircolorism" or > "antilongwalksonthebeachism": most people don't care enough, and so > such feelings insofar as they exist have no real effects. Oh, come on. Surely, there can't be a better reason to skip a personal ad than a mention of "long walks on the beach." Eb PS Gilmour played "Wot's...Uh, the Deal"? Whoa. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 15:13:53 -0500 From: 2fs Subject: Re: I love people On 4/25/06, Eb wrote: > 2fs wrote: > > There's a reason there's no such word as "haircolorism" or > > "antilongwalksonthebeachism": most people don't care enough, and so > > such feelings insofar as they exist have no real effects. > > Oh, come on. Surely, there can't be a better reason to skip a > personal ad than a mention of "long walks on the beach." Even if they live in Nebraska? And the next phrase is "in search of short piers"? (Yes probably so.) - -- ...Jeff Norman The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 13:35:25 -0700 From: Eb Subject: Re: I love people 2fs wrote: >> > There's a reason there's no such word as "haircolorism" or >> > "antilongwalksonthebeachism": most people don't care enough, and so >> > such feelings insofar as they exist have no real effects. >> >> Oh, come on. Surely, there can't be a better reason to skip a >> personal ad than a mention of "long walks on the beach." > > Even if they live in Nebraska? Oof. You have no idea what you just said. Eb ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 16:53:26 -0400 From: "Bachman, Michael" Subject: RE: I love people 2fs wrote: >> > There's a reason there's no such word as "haircolorism" or >> > "antilongwalksonthebeachism": most people don't care enough, and so >> > such feelings insofar as they exist have no real effects. >> >> Oh, come on. Surely, there can't be a better reason to skip a >> personal ad than a mention of "long walks on the beach." > > Even if they live in Nebraska? "There is no punk rock in Nebraska!" Dead Kennedy's from Urgh! A Music War ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 13:57:03 -0700 From: "Spotted Eagle Ray" Subject: Re: I love people On 4/25/06, 2fs wrote: > > But I'd argue that as a matter > of principal, one shouldn't encourage acting on such possibilities but > should actively work in ways that allow them to be superceded. And > maybe that's what's bugging me: the easy acceptance of racial > specifications here passively allows racial preconceptions to continue > unchallenged...since those people who might challenge them, if they > were met, will not meet the folks who place such ads. For better or for worse, this is an arena into which ideals about the betterment of the race (the human, or as we have seen per the HGP, the only one) just can't be dragged. People just aren't going to seek out romantic partners for any reasons other than wanting romantic partners, and wanting the kind of partners that they want. So while the whole thing kinda squicks me out, it kind of is what it is. I mean, above all people shouldn't partner up with partners they don't like. It's not healthy for anyone to have a partner they dislike for whatever reason, and frankly, it's not healthy for anyone to want to be with someone who, for whatever reason, doesn't feel the same way. So if someone doesn't dig your skin color, then that really isn't someone you should pine after anyway. If it bugs you that someone is selective based on race even if their preferred race is your own, then that's also a reason to cross them off your list. You get the heads up to move along and not waste your time... you could do worse than that. When selecting mates, people really have every right to be more selective than they would be about even, say, their friends, and at the same time, they really shouldn't pretend to be any more noble or evolved than they are... otherwise the partner who falls for their slight of hand will inevitably be disappointed. That's my take on it, anyway. - -Rx ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 14:36:08 -0700 From: Tom Clark Subject: Re: I love people On Apr 25, 2006, at 12:06 PM, Michael Wells wrote: > I hear Tom Clark likes boobs, in a non-pejorative sense of course. > > Me, I like that little pointed bit at the top of the ears. I dig it all, baby. But boobs are like the carnival barker: they entice you to explore the wild, wonderful and forbidden treats that lay within. Oh crap, now I'm all horny at work. - -t 'again' c [demime 0.97c-p1 removed an attachment of type application/pkcs7-signature which had a name of smime.p7s] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 15:42:02 -0700 From: "Spotted Eagle Ray" Subject: Re: I love people On 4/25/06, 2fs wrote: > > > I think you misunderstand me. I mean: leave the door open to whatever > individual person might walk in, and evaluate that person. I don't > mean: be Perry Farrell and go "ever since the riots I've wanted a > black girlfriend." I think I get it, but I'm making an additional assumption here... to wit: > > I guess I think people can't (as in: "do not ultimately have the > ability to") predict in advance whom they'll be attracted to. They can > maybe predict who they're less *likely* to be attracted to...but the > world is full of people who end up with "types" they thought they'd > ruled out - because the individual person transcends what they thought > about the "type." Which is all totally true and fine and well for the "wait for someone to come along and see what happens" school of thought. But. Anyone either placing a personal ad or reading one with an eye towards responding is already being more proactive than that. And they *have* to either describe themselves with some kind of shorthand, or use the descriptions in the ads to gauge potential interest-- they're engaging in this process because they're not meeting anyone in any other way, figuring they're not only not ending up with someone of their "type", they're just plain not ending up with *anyone*. Because they're not in college anymore and sleeping with your co-workers is not always the greatest idea. That's not to say that listing one's race or racial preference is a good thing, but it is to say that I don't think you can stand out by saying "you never know if you might be wrong about your type so try me whether or not I fit your ideal". You certainly can say in your personal ad "I don't have a preferred physical type". I did that a few times. Still, the fact remains, if a woman doesn't want a white dude, I can't make her and I'd be smart to steer clear. > Of course, the above rests on the assumption that most people who > specify race aren't really specifying race - they're just following > the convention that specifies race, without really thinking about it > or having a preference. It's probably more about presumed shared background based on race, which might work, sometimes. But maybe not; a good friend of mine is of a different race from me but shares enough specifics of background (raised in the South by educators) that I certainly have more in common with her than some of the women I dated last year... not that any of them were specifically looking for a SWM, which would've mooted my initial interest anyhow. In the online dating arena a lot of folks seem to thing that shared musical taste is the end-all and be-all. We should all be laughing pretty hard about that. - -SER ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V15 #91 *******************************