How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 Philosophy 101
 Are You More Willing?   [ Page: 1  2  3  ]
 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

Are You More Willing?

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


0 posted 12-06-2008 01:21 AM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

Are you more willing to do something if a beautiful woman is involved?

[This message has been edited by Essorant (12-08-2008 11:10 PM).]

SEA
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 01-18-2000
Posts 24152
with you


1 posted 12-06-2008 01:30 AM       View Profile for SEA   Email SEA   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for SEA

no
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


2 posted 12-06-2008 04:04 AM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch

No, but Iíd probably enjoy it more.

Fortunately my definition of a beautiful woman is fairly wide in scope:

Born female and breathing usually covers it.
moonbeam
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 12-24-2005
Posts 2038


3 posted 12-06-2008 05:09 AM       View Profile for moonbeam   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for moonbeam

For me the adjective is irrelevant, and it would depend considerably upon what the "something" was.

Chivalry is important to me which would, say, make me more likely to help a woman being attacked by a passing dragon or with a broken down car or a heavy shopping bag than a man.

Was the "beautiful" important in the question?
rwood
Member Elite
since 02-29-2000
Posts 3797
Tennessee


4 posted 12-06-2008 07:33 AM       View Profile for rwood   Email rwood   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for rwood

Beautiful in wit and mental capacity, beautiful in heart and benevolence,
beautiful in strength of spirit and integrity
beautiful in soulful and gifted expression,
beautiful by example and success of their endeavors,

Sure!

I've not met many women that are the complete reverse of those things, which shine for me well above "outward appearance" if that's what you're focusing on. So yeah, I'm willing and able to offer a hand or at least provide support if they are in need.

Everyone needs help sometimes, especially those that are mean and vile and wretched from the inside out.

But say... would I help Angelina Jolie over Martha Stewart? Depends. I'd prolly help Angie round up her kids while I get Martha to bake us all some COOKIES!!

and I'd keep me eyes peeled for Brad. LOLOL.
Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


5 posted 12-06-2008 03:34 PM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

Yes.
serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 02-02-2000
Posts 28839


6 posted 12-06-2008 08:58 PM       View Profile for serenity blaze   Email serenity blaze   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for serenity blaze

No. But I'd be more willing to watch.



Seriously though, "do something" is rather vague. As is "involved".
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


7 posted 12-06-2008 09:20 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

How is this philosophical?

Stephen
Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


8 posted 12-06-2008 11:32 PM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

It is philosophical by dealing with it philosophically.
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


9 posted 12-07-2008 12:24 AM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

nice suggestion.  Care to try?



Stephen
moonbeam
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 12-24-2005
Posts 2038


10 posted 12-07-2008 06:20 AM       View Profile for moonbeam   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for moonbeam

Ess's question is of course really:

"Can we invoke the theory of Darwinian natural selection as a legitimate defence when we choose to neglect the moral imperative to assist the ugly, infirm and helpless in favour of infatuation with the strong, healthy and beautiful?  Our modern day celebrity worship culture?"
Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


11 posted 12-07-2008 02:29 PM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

The philosophical consideration is how far we go and what we overlook for women's beauty.   One does not need to go far to see much foolish behaviour on behalf of being attractive or being attracted, how people treat themselves, how they treat others, what they wear, what they watch, whom they hire, etc.  We may find examples of it almost anywhere.  

I know all of these things may apply to men being attractive as well.  But I find that the behaviours toward women's beauty and "allure" are taken much further.  


  
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


12 posted 12-07-2008 05:57 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

A pretty face has been known to make traffic tickets disappear.
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


13 posted 12-07-2008 06:19 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Moonbeam,

It's hard to dismiss altruism even in a Darwinian scheme, since it has existed (in some measure) throughout recorded human history, and in the animal world as well.  So Darwinism would have to give it some kind of survival value.  Of course a mere "survival of the fittest" scheme cannot explain altruism at all, making Darwinism an unlikely candidate to many ... especially "social darwinism".  

But I'm with you on the moral dimension of Essorant's question.     I'm not sure that's where he was heading though.

Stephen  
Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


14 posted 12-08-2008 12:57 AM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

When I said "beautiful" I was not implying anything moral, for there is nothing morally good or evil about being a beautiful woman.  But there are important moral aspects about how people behave about it.  

serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 02-02-2000
Posts 28839


15 posted 12-08-2008 01:47 AM       View Profile for serenity blaze   Email serenity blaze   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for serenity blaze

But for the purpose of your argument, we'd have to define "beautiful".

And that we cannot do.

We're all personally imprinted and programmed as to regards of what is considered beauty, or even "pleasant"--as well as the opposites of "ugly" or "unpleasurable".

When my daughter was a wee lass, I did advise her to not put too much importance on the opinions of others for her self-worth.

Pretty people are picked to make pretty pictures. We are inundated with constant standards of beauty, air-brushed after silicone, to please our appraising eye.

I advised my daughter that there will be people who won't like her, anyway. And that fact might not have a thing to do with her.

For all she knows, she reminds someone of an unpleasant experience that they have long forgotten. I told her the laws of attraction are equally dubious. (Pheremones and such...tch.)

But you were asking a question about my own behavior, right? (In the context of a member of the general forum, I mean.)

I think I have a tendency to relate to the underdog, and I probably over-compensate as a result.

So no.

I don't think I'm more likely to "do" anything for someone more "beautiful"--but quite the opposite.

Which is still bias.
moonbeam
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 12-24-2005
Posts 2038


16 posted 12-08-2008 05:26 AM       View Profile for moonbeam   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for moonbeam

Well Stephen, when Ess uses the comparative "more willing" it invites the speculation more willing than what, which in turn suggests more willing to help a beautiful person than an ugly one.  And it's a short step from there to the question I posed, which he posed whether he knew it or not     .

And I completely agree with you.  Whether Darwin himself would have subscribed to the hardline natural selection argument which excludes altruism, I am not certain, but Dawkins et al certainly do.  They seem to try and justify it in two ways: either by contending that altruism isn't in fact altruism at all, but instead simply another mechanism for trying to perpetuate one's own genetic pattern, for instance when altruistically helping a relative; or by suggesting that altruism is no more than the evidence of the "misfiring" of the rules of natural selection.  But the ruling out of altruism, and a total reliance upon the selfish gene, leads inevitably to a logical conclusion of anarchy.  Thus the so called "misfiring" (Darwinian mistakes) becomes pivotal to the explanation of the existence of everything in life that is borne of order, compassion and poetry.

In my view, when the exception becomes almost as important as the rule it's time to question the rule.  To my mind natural selection is really only useful as an explanation of some physical aspects of human behaviour; for instance Brad's "yes" above, reflects, no doubt, the Darwinian urge to mate with the best gene pool around.  Similarly SEA's instant "no" reflects the genetic recognition of any Darwinian good arising from the coupling of two females.

So in conclusion I think you'd be on sticky moral ground to try to plead with St Peter: "It weren't me guv, it were all me genes fault", when brought to book for ignoring the old lady trying to cross the road in favour of the buxom blonde.  

[This message has been edited by moonbeam (12-08-2008 07:10 AM).]

rwood
Member Elite
since 02-29-2000
Posts 3797
Tennessee


17 posted 12-08-2008 08:43 AM       View Profile for rwood   Email rwood   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for rwood

Well I don't want to mate...with anyone...right  now. Just woke up. Guten Morgen! But natural selection is more than physical or objective gene pulling.

I listened to Sinead O'Connor's musical history last night. She has a new album out, but I was missing her older works so I listened to all I could on Youtube. That woman has a voice that is both lilting and beseeching with angst, to me, and the way she handles a hard-held note just leaves me pierced and haunted by her soulful gift. I can't help but hand her my ears for more. So that means I'm more willing to listen to her.

Even if I'd never set eyes on her, I'd find her beautiful. (Which she is an exquisite beauty who shaved her head to try to detract from that.) In all her pain, angry political outbursts, personal battles, mistakes and controversial choices, I find I have extreme admiration for her.

I'm much more "willing to become involved" with her art, than say...with Britney Spears, who is also beautiful in her way.


Live: Feel So Different

Which calls to me like a battle cry, because I've felt different all my life.

Nothing Compares to You


We all have that one in our minds and hearts who no one compares to.

Silent Night

A perfect song for Christmas Spirit.


Ciao bellas e bellos
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


18 posted 12-08-2008 01:21 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Karen:
quote:
But for the purpose of your argument, we'd have to define "beautiful".

And that we cannot do.

and...

When my daughter was a wee lass, I did advise her to not put too much importance on the opinions of others for her self-worth.

Pretty people are picked to make pretty pictures. We are inundated with constant standards of beauty, air-brushed after silicone, to please our appraising eye.

I advised my daughter that there will be people who won't like her, anyway. And that fact might not have a thing to do with her.


But doesn't your anecdote undermine your first assertion that beauty is undefinable or totally relative?  To my ears, the words you gave your daughter hint that you were really warning her against true mistakes about what is beautiful, not just offering her an equal alternative for her consideration.  Or if not warning her of out and out mistakes, at least suggesting a real aesthetic hierarchiy (exemplified in the statement that 'personal/ moral beauty is more important than physical beauty).  After all, you ended your story by assuring her that some of their opinions have nothing to do with her at all ... which says plainly enough that they misjudge.  

Though beauty has not the clearest definitions and contrasts of other abstract realities like mathematics, I still think it has quite an objective element and body of common recognition ... such that despising a sunset (or Mary Magdeline and her Alabaster) would call into question more the the observer, than the beauty of the object considered.

In other words, there's wiggle room enough in the world of beauty for us to be really individuals, and yet definition enough for us to be really mistaken or veracious.  


moonbeam
quote:
To my mind natural selection is really only useful as an explanation of some physical aspects of human behaviour; for instance Brad's "yes" above, reflects, no doubt, the Darwinian urge to mate with the best gene pool around.  Similarly SEA's instant "no" reflects the genetic recognition of any Darwinian good arising from the coupling of two females.


From a Darwinian perspective, beauty can in no way be proven to be the "best gene pool around".  Since both beauty and plainness (to be nice here         ) are both a part of our existing populations, whether each is 'best' has only to do with survival value, which is yet to be determined.  As a matter of fact, since beauty seems to be prized for its rarity, it could easily be said that the homely gene has won out thus far.  


Of course I don't believe anything I've just said, as I think Darwinism is an inadequate system with which to describe such things ... a procrustean bed on which any subject can be thrust, often to its detriment.  


But since I don't even think Darwin's mechanism can explain the differences in species (much less the origins), our views on Darwinism are bound to differ greatly.  
  
And PS)  While Dawkins may be a great biologist, he is an atrocious philosopher.  And it is philosophy which comprises most of his written works of late.

Stephen
Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


19 posted 12-08-2008 04:01 PM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

Regina

quote:
Even if I'd never set eyes on her, I'd find her beautiful.


The difference with physical looks though, even though they are more superficial, is that she literally is those looks.  She is altogether her body, her form, hair, eyes, etc.  Britney Spears literally is her bodily being, but Sinead O'Connor isn't literally a song.  


rwood
Member Elite
since 02-29-2000
Posts 3797
Tennessee


20 posted 12-09-2008 08:42 AM       View Profile for rwood   Email rwood   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for rwood

Thatís true. Sinead in not literally a song, but she is an unforgettable voice for me, while her looks may change with age and her presence may cease to be, Iíll identify with her voice for life.

I suppose thatís why I have no trouble finding beauty to be a philosophical issue, because one seeks out beauty in life and, usually, for the duration. All forms of beauty. Such as ďa love and pursuit of wisdom by intellectual means and moral self-disciplineĒ (dictionary.com) which is one definition of philosophy, and another is the investigation of truths, here, more particularly, in the workings of nature: Human nature.

Maybe Iím wrong, but I think even a stoic has to ďpassionatelyĒ embrace the ideology of stoicism to free himself from passion, pain, and happiness.

Itís natural for humans to be drawn to the beautiful aspects of other humans. What each one feels is a beautiful aspect is up for individual selection, and itís a process that changes from one day to the next--thank goodness, because a strong relationship depends on such. Weíre not forever young, on the outside, and such ďstaysĒ in physical attributes do carry too much merit (and plastic surgery/Botox injections) for most, when we should be more accepting of age due to what we attain together, around us, and within us in our years.

Itís a painful process of growing and learning, sometimes.

Iím highly attracted to older men. My ex-husband was 14 years my senior. One day he came to me and said he was aging and I wasnít. This produced too much inner struggle for him, so he let me go. 9 years of marriage thrown away. All because he could not accept that I deeply loved him, and he felt I would eventually leave him for a younger man. I could not do anything to relieve him of his insecurities. Not only did I not leave him for a younger man, but I didnít date for nearly 2 years afterward, due to being so wounded inside. I felt like my appearance was a curse!!!

Especially when I finally did begin to date again! JEEESH! Itís scary out here!

Lots of stories, but here are two examples:

1: I was asked out by my 22 year old Western World Lit classmate. I didnít even know he was asking me out due to not being able to entertain the thought at all. When I realized what he was asking? I said: ďOH MY GOSH! Iím so sorry. I didnít have a clue, but hereís one for you. My son is 22 and Iím old enough to be your mother.Ē Which he was equally shocked and we parted ways, respectfully; though he did go on to win a few bets in class about my age!! Little rascal.

2. I was working totally too hard, feeling very rundown to an unhealthy degree. Iíd even packed on quite a few pounds due to poor diet and terrible routine. I felt like haggard crap. I took a break and decided to visit my son in Germany. In that 2 week span I was inundated with male attention and a marriage proposal! TRAVEL abroad ladies. Travel outside your circle of self-cozying-state of depreciation and you may find youíre a goddess to too many.

but thatís my point. Step outside yourself, find your own attributes, and try to see them even when others donít, because we donít. Thatís human too. Just as human as NOT being able to see all the things that are not attributes, sometimes because of physical beauty and allure. We donít get to see how mean or abusive people are until after time has passed and their true colors come out on youÖbehind closed doors. So itís helpful to oneís self to be physically, mentally and emotionally strong enough for any kind of involvement with another. Sticking to oneís principles and having a good sound (though investigative) philosophy on life helps.


Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


21 posted 12-09-2008 09:53 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Of course a mere "survival of the fittest" scheme cannot explain altruism at all,

...and what can? I think your prejudice against Darwinism has it's base in your religious beliefs, not science.

One thing I have found to be interesting is that, many times, a person's looks define their personality in different ways, both good and bad. How people are treated, especially when they are young, goes a long way to determining their personalities and visions of self-worth and manifests itself in their personalities as adults. How people are treated when they are young (especially by fellow youngsters) are normally based on appearance.
moonbeam
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 12-24-2005
Posts 2038


22 posted 12-09-2008 12:20 PM       View Profile for moonbeam   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for moonbeam



quote:
Of course a mere "survival of the fittest" scheme cannot explain altruism at all,

...and what can? I think your prejudice against Darwinism has it's base in your religious beliefs, not science.

One thing I have found to be interesting is that, many times, a person's looks define their personality in different ways, both good and bad. How people are treated, especially when they are young, goes a long way to determining their personalities and visions of self-worth and manifests itself in their personalities as adults. How people are treated when they are young (especially by fellow youngsters) are normally based on appearance.


I was with you all the way until the last sentence.  "Normally" is wrong.  A stunning body and visage are certainly a help in gaining initial respect, but then so is a stunningly witty personality or a fantastic intellect or superb prowess in sports.  After the first few days acquaintance I think personality becomes at least as important as looks, even in the young.  
moonbeam
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 12-24-2005
Posts 2038


23 posted 12-09-2008 01:03 PM       View Profile for moonbeam   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for moonbeam

quote:
From a Darwinian perspective, beauty can in no way be proven to be the "best gene pool around".  Since both beauty and plainness (to be nice here         ) are both a part of our existing populations, whether each is 'best' has only to do with survival value, which is yet to be determined.  As a matter of fact, since beauty seems to be prized for its rarity, it could easily be said that the homely gene has won out thus far.  

I am not sure Stephen.  I think we are talking about slightly different things because I think it's possible to argue that humans generally have become steadily more attractive over the millennia, while still acknowledging, as you say, that within a specific time frame extreme beauty is rare.  Which, however, when you think about it, is really a given, because if it wasn't rare it wouldn't be extreme beauty.  I rather think in fact your point doesn't impair the reasoning because at any one time there will always be "cutting edge" traits of beauty strength intelligence etc etc, leading the genetic way into the next generation.  So, today's Miss World or Mr Universe will be tomorrow's bank clerk (hope there are no bank clerks here   )
quote:
Of course I don't believe anything I've just said, as I think Darwinism is an inadequate system with which to describe such things ... a procrustean bed on which any subject can be thrust, often to its detriment.  

But since I don't even think Darwin's mechanism can explain the differences in species (much less the origins), our views on Darwinism are bound to differ greatly.  

As I have said I too have reservations about what I might term "pure" Darwinism (or modern day Darwinism) which in the hands of practitioners such as Dawkins seems to preclude any form of divinity.  But as you correctly surmise, I guess we will diverge substantially in WHY we both agree that natural selection is a suspect theory as an explanation of the origins and development of everything we perceive.  While I'm perfectly happy to let Darwinism try and explain most of the matter based activity we see around us - and I even believe a lot of it - I am not at all happy to let those propositions rule out a spiritual dimension to our existence, which might help to explain some of the "aberrations" that occur in the natural selection model and some of the holes in the philosophy that some have sought to build from it.

I apologise because I have not read sufficient of your comments here to know more about your theological stance, but if you rule out Darwinism and immediately rule in a creationist  
view to replace it, then clearly I'm going to disagree.  Moreover, if you do take that line I'd have to say that I have the same problem with your position as I do with that of the radical Darwinists.  Umm, we are probably way off topic by now.
quote:
And PS)  While Dawkins may be a great biologist, he is an atrocious philosopher.  


I wouldn't go that far.  In fact I was talking to Dawkins' biology teacher (who also taught me a few years later as it happens) a couple of months ago, and we got on to discussing The God Delusion and how we both felt that Dawkins himself had become increasingly deluded as he got older.  I think that it's not so much that he is an atrocious philosopher, but more that he sets himself an impossible philosophical task, in that he is not really interested in a philosophical debate at all.  He is simply trying to dress up an attack on the established churches in a way that seems philosophically convincing to the average reader.  For since school he has been on a vendetta to expose the absurdity of the mainstream religion, and it was only some time later that he enlisted the assistance of Darwin, and developed a "philosophy" along the lines we now see.  I certainly don't object to his crusade against some organised religions, in fact I agree with a lot of his criticisms, but he goes far too far.  His underlying assumption that the C of E and the Vatican are charlatans does not logically project into a "therefore there is no god" result - even, dare I say it, by bolstering his arguments by borrowing and radicalising Mr Darwin's ideas.  Now I really am off topic, sorry Ess.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


24 posted 12-09-2008 01:05 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Personality. intellect and prowess in sports is certainly important (even more so than looks) but I was referring to initial reactions. Yes, when one takes the time to know someone, everything else comes into play. In the same vein, one may gather an instant high appreciation for another based solely on looks but, after getting to know the person, that appreciation will fade with the discovery of a bad personality.

Men are not wild about the Victoria's Secret models because they know them.

There is an interesting new tv show starting this week called Perfect Beauty, or something like that, where absolutely gorgeous people are interviewed and observed for what they think is a beauty contest. In reality, it's a contest of their INNER beauty, their personalities and character. They are then given their grades, which seems to be quite a conflict to what they think about themselves. Could be an interesting show....

Kids are not kind. They make fun of fatties, of stutterers, of kids with any kind of a physical defect or others that are simply not "cute". Many times this leads to defensiveness, low self-esteem and a shrinking away from any kind of spotlight. This can easily follow them into adult life. I've seen it many times. Good looking kids, based on their constant immediate acceptance, can result in social, outgoing, self-confident people. Does it always work that way? Of course not but it happens more often than not.
 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> Philosophy 101 >> Are You More Willing?   [ Page: 1  2  3  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors