[I] Musings on the nature of attractiveness

2 views
Skip to first unread message

M.E.S

unread,
May 1, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/1/99
to
On Wed, 5 May 1999 18:06:52 +0100, "Melody Shanahan-Kluth"
<Melo...@dial.pipex.com> wrote:

>Well...as female..I quite like the idea that eyes are very important to a
>chap. Also as a female I would say that the things that attract me to a
>chap[1] are:

I think I'll just chip in here as a second opinion, coming from a
young'un doesn't really make it any less valid I should think. :)

>1) Sense of Humour

This is a very important feature, although unfortunately not visible
to the naked eye.

>2) Smile

This bit I don't find that important. I've personally had crushes on
guys with terrible teeth.

>3) Shoulders (dont ask)

I won't. I think I can understand this one.

>4) Back of neck (ditto)

Now that one doesn't make any sense to me, but don't say I asked!

>5) Height (well....I am nearly 6 feet tall myself)

Very true. I'm only 5 feet 8 myself, but it's an important factor.

>6) Hands..I *like* big hands :o)

I like carpenter's hands, artistic and workable but not *huge*. This
couldn't have anything to do with the fact that I've got a carpenter
grandfather on one side and an engineer grandfather with a thing for
model airplanes on the other, I'm sure. :)

I think the only thing I could add to this is that all my friends
think I'm insane because I tend not to like conventionally handsome
men, and I have a thing for beards and long hair...

>
>
>[1] Hubby fills ALL these criteria in case anyone was wondering <g>
>
>Melody

------
MES : Synonyms as a human thriller, Harmless ran toys inhumanly
%57 AFPure, but still working on it...don't ask about other purity tests...
(when replying, take out the spamspamspam bit)
Newly joined and very cheerful Angel

Karl Ledger

unread,
May 3, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/3/99
to
In article <372e09c...@news.demon.co.uk>, Stephen Booth
<stephe...@bigfoot.com> writes
<snip stuff>
>Sorry if that seems like a strange question but I was just
>musing[1] on the what makes a woman attractive to me, what do
>those women who appear most attractive to me have in common, what
>is the first thing I look for. I think it's the eyes.
Couldn't agree more, personally I believe it's because when you speak
with someone, eye contact is the first thing you notice.
>OK, soul bared. So what does that make me? A hopeless pervert?
>Sad? Nice?
Nothing wrong AFAICS
--
Ka...@bluesman0.demon.co.uk

AFPhianced to star (Big Snog)
Heather's little Cherub with Tm. Slipped halo
Elaine's eternal beloved.
(*hugs and kisses to both*)

Tucker McKinney

unread,
May 3, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/3/99
to
Hi everyone-

My second post!... Hurrah.

Stephen Booth wrote:

> If you had to pick one feature of a person which made them
> attractive to you what would it be? I talking first sight in the
> street, a photo in a magazine, on TV accross a crowed room. What
> really does it for you? Sure there's personality, intelligence
> and the rest of the package but what makes you take the second
> look?

Chemical indicators. Definitely has to be the chemical indicators.
Pheromones, vibes, whatever you want to call them. Clearly my girlfriend
definitely emits them. Throughout our 8-month, ongoing relationship
we've kept a running tally of all the respective other suitors we knew
about. The list was easily up to 8 last time I checked, probably more
than that. She's not even the stereotypical toothpick-thin blonde
Barbie-doll type. But Thank God, if you ask me. Who knows, but, I figure
something has to contribute to the fact that -so- many guys have been
after her in her lifetime. ~shrugs~ Its a mystery, as they say. But,
s'gotta do with chemical indicators.
Eyes are nice, too. In the visual sense. :)

> I think it's the eyes.

<croon> This reminds me of a girl in my biology class last year that I
fell absolutely in love with on a totally superficial level. She was
absolutely -radiant-. You know the type, perfect golden hair, for all
intents and purpose snow white skin, and absolutely the most perfect
blue eyes. Let me tell you folks it was sickening. All the while I was
completely infatuated with her, I kept trying to initiate eye contact
with her- because I thought that was how this sort of thing worked. I
hadn't really gotten up the nerve to talk to her and assuredly, had I, I
would've given up pursuit right then and there. After all, there's
something about fundamentalist Christians that, to me, the
quintessential UU Liberal making regularly scheduled appearances on the
*far* end of the left, doesn't quite work in relationships (this is The
Voice of Experience speaking). No offense, strictly a matter of
preference, but the personality would have cut our love affair short, 'm
afraid. Either way, when I finally came to my senses I realized she was
under the impression that I was a satanic anarchist infatuated with
Marilyn Manson and all things dark & spooky. Nono, that was -two- years
ago... (but picture the effect in -her- eyes [I, mind you, have no
problem with that sect of culture]) I'd calmed down my image just a bit
by this point and was at this point fairly mainstream. All the same, her
belief that I was, well, what she thought I was was probably only fueled
further by my rabid attempts to achieve and maintain eye contact with
her, and when I was trying to acheive the effect of a really sweet guy,
I'm pretty sure I came off as a stalker. </croon>

You have to place limits on yourself sometimes.


> No matter what other freatures she may have the one thing that
> will make me take a second look is a really intense beautiful
> pair of eyes. She can be and actress on the screen, a model in a
> photograph, the woman who sits accross the office from me or
> standing in the next queue to mine in the supermarket. A nice
> smile is also a big plus. I've fallen in love with lots of eyes
> recently.

*nods* People do respond to eye contact. Its one of those friendliness
conventions that everybody mistakes in me for flirtation (i'm just doing
it to be nice, i swear). I tend to maintain eye contact with people when
they talk to me and I smile a lot. Consequently, people feel more
welcomed in my prescence, most of the time- i mean, when I'm trying to
be friendly. It makes things more personal and opens things up. And I'm
all about opening up.

S'good relationship advice though anyway- belongs in the primer on How
to Make People Like You. Eye contact -when people are speaking to you or
communicating in some way- and smiling a lot.


> OK, soul bared. So what does that make me? A hopeless pervert?
> Sad? Nice?

Well, fool-of-myself made. It doesn't make you anything but a bit more
perceptive, in my view. I'll readily admit that a nice pair of eyes are
a good start. At any rate you can work from there, establish
personality, get a feel for what the person likes, and -then- you can
look down. :)

> [1] Some may have noticed that I occassionally have these
> evenings of self analysis and introspection then broadcast them
> into the aether for public consumption/derision.

~applause~ S'a good thing, openness. Ought to be encouraged more, imho.
~shakes your hand~

Send all complaints to cthu...@mindspring.com .

Thank you,
Tucker


SpareTurtle

unread,
May 3, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/3/99
to

Stephen Booth has a thing for eyes...

> Sorry if that seems like a strange question but I was just
> musing[1] on the what makes a woman attractive to me, what do
> those women who appear most attractive to me have in common, what

> is the first thing I look for. I think it's the eyes.
>
[...]


> OK, soul bared. So what does that make me? A hopeless pervert?
> Sad? Nice?
>
>

Probably normal [1].

I have to say that I find a smile very important. Yes I have fallen from quite
a few smiles.
Smiles first, then a pretty face then I go to more ethereal qualities - sense
of humour, intelligence. But a smile and pretty face can just about steal my
heart.

I'll shut up now before I go and upset myself again.

LHDAB

SpareTurtle

[1] But bare in mind from whose keyboard this issues from


Jonathan Ellis

unread,
May 4, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/4/99
to

Karl Ledger wrote in message ...

>In article <372e09c...@news.demon.co.uk>, Stephen Booth
><stephe...@bigfoot.com> writes
><snip stuff>
>>Sorry if that seems like a strange question but I was just
>>musing[1] on the what makes a woman attractive to me, what do
>>those women who appear most attractive to me have in common, what
>>is the first thing I look for. I think it's the eyes.
>Couldn't agree more, personally I believe it's because when you speak
>with someone, eye contact is the first thing you notice.

Eye aye to that!

Jonathan.


Dragon Prince

unread,
May 4, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/4/99
to

Stephen Booth <stephe...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:372e09c...@news.demon.co.uk...

|
| No matter what other freatures she may have the one thing that
| will make me take a second look is a really intense beautiful
| pair of eyes. She can be and actress on the screen, a model in a
| photograph, the woman who sits accross the office from me or
| standing in the next queue to mine in the supermarket. A nice
| smile is also a big plus. I've fallen in love with lots of eyes
| recently.
|

| OK, soul bared. So what does that make me? A hopeless pervert?
| Sad? Nice?

well everyone has a thing that attracts them to the opposite sex, soom
look at the eyes some look for the legs others the chest area and that
goes equaly for male or female. so Stephen you are not a hopeless
perveret just a normal human being. just look at the average couple in
the street and you will see that each persons idea of beuty is slightly
different :) and thats half the fun.

I cant remember who but I am shure someone once said that the eyes are
he gateway to the soul so its as good a place to start as any.
now if they have the personality and good scence of humer to match then
you are on a winner :-)


--
Dragon Prince
--
Apfianced to Mad Purple Dragon,Debplod,tigger,star and KkatD~2
Afpriend to Inneke | Afpbro to Shim & Thorin98 |afpuncle to Tamara


Stefan Hennig

unread,
May 4, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/4/99
to
Tucker McKinney wrote:
> [ka-snip!]

>
> Chemical indicators. Definitely has to be the chemical indicators.
> Pheromones, vibes, whatever you want to call them. Clearly my girlfriend
> definitely emits them. Throughout our 8-month, ongoing relationship
> we've kept a running tally of all the respective other suitors we knew
> about. The list was easily up to 8 last time I checked, probably more
> than that. She's not even the stereotypical toothpick-thin blonde
> Barbie-doll type. But Thank God, if you ask me. Who knows, but, I figure
> something has to contribute to the fact that -so- many guys have been
> after her in her lifetime. ~shrugs~ Its a mystery, as they say. But,
> s'gotta do with chemical indicators.

Yep. But Pheromones get turned on/off at times. I remember one time
sitting in the electronics lab with one of the very few female
students[1] in my year doing some work. It was a hot summer, the lab was
in the souterrain, exposed enough to get hot yet buried enough not to
have windows to open. No problem there.
I knew her as a good sport, but neither of us had (and has, btw) any
interest for more.
But from one moment to another (within 15 seconds I'd say) there was a
very special smell and I had to restrain myself very hard not to reach
out and kiss her. I felt electified [2]. This feeling lasted the whole
time I sat next to her and vanished the instant I left the room.
Thinking back I suppose this was the very moment she ovulated or
something and some million year old olfactory billboard lit up and said
something like "Hi, Guys! Come and get it!". *sigh* Isn't civilisation
sometimes something boring? [3] ;-)
Just recently a visited a friend whom I know for quite some time. What I
didn't know: her boyfriend had just left her. What I noticed entering
the room: Something's different. Yea. Smells _are_ important and it's a
pity we are trained/educated to ignore them.

Just my thoughts.

Stefan

[1] that's one of the reasons why i changed from physics to mathematics.
[2] no, I did not touch the wrong wire. They know their students. In the
first years youre not allowed to play with anything more dangerous than
a torch battery. Later then you get stuffed into a lab where the 5kV
powersupplies get earthed the wrong way putting the _case_ to the high
voltage. [5][6]
[3] Well, I behaved well thus sparing me to be thrown out of uni and
beeing branded as a Pervert-Who-Couldn't-Restrain-Himself (tm)[4]
[4] and they use big letters for the 'PWCRH'-branding. It's much better
to make puctuation mistakes in your homework. Then you only get branded
'.'.
[5] my personal statistics: the average postgraduate jumps about 1.5m
per kV.
[6] that's the other reason. I could tell you stories,... but most of
them would sound bitter and many others would be lies. ;-)

Gizelle

unread,
May 4, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/4/99
to
Stefan Hennig wrote :

>Tucker McKinney wrote:
>> [ka-snip!]
>>
>> Chemical indicators. Definitely has to be the chemical
>> indicators. Pheromones, vibes, whatever you want to call
>> them.

<snip>

>Yep. But Pheromones get turned on/off at times.

<snip story)

I studied aromatherapy last year, and we looked at the effects
of pheremones. Unfortunately :-) we weren't able to try any of
the experiments for ourselves, but one was described where
they placed male pheremones on a chair in a doctor's waiting
room. They let women into the room one at a time, and
apparently 3/4's of them chose to sit in that particular chair.

They repeated the experiment, but this time with a man sitting
in the next chair (the only other person in the waiting room)
and even so, just under half the women who entered the room
chose to sit in the chair - which is quite high considering
that most people prefer to choose a chair on the opposite side
of the room normally!

I also saw a picture of an experiment taking place which
showed a line of about 50 shirtless men with their arms in the
air, while 5 students, all in white coats, walked down the
line sniffing each armpit. I have no idea what they were
trying to prove, but the picture was quite funny :-)

Gizelle

--
AFPlaymate to kevin.caomhin :-)
AFPsister to Marie <x>
"No man can reveal to you aught but that which already lies
half asleep in the dawning of your knowledge." Kahlil Gibran

co. & Ponder Stibbons

unread,
May 4, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/4/99
to
On Mon, 03 May 1999 20:56:46 GMT, stephe...@bigfoot.com (Stephen
Booth) wrote:

>If you had to pick one feature of a person which made them
>attractive to you what would it be? I talking first sight in the
>street, a photo in a magazine, on TV accross a crowed room. What
>really does it for you? Sure there's personality, intelligence
>and the rest of the package but what makes you take the second
>look?
>

>Sorry if that seems like a strange question but I was just
>musing[1] on the what makes a woman attractive to me, what do
>those women who appear most attractive to me have in common, what
>is the first thing I look for. I think it's the eyes.

Yup! Like everybody else seems to have said, it's eyes first.
(And for me, as you know, next is beard and then long hair.)

>No matter what other freatures she may have the one thing that
>will make me take a second look is a really intense beautiful
>pair of eyes. She can be and actress on the screen, a model in a
>photograph, the woman who sits accross the office from me or
>standing in the next queue to mine in the supermarket. A nice
>smile is also a big plus. I've fallen in love with lots of eyes
>recently.
>
>OK, soul bared. So what does that make me? A hopeless pervert?
>Sad? Nice?

If you are, so are a lot of other people hopeless perverts! Most of
the human race IMNSHO ;-)

I know sometimes you seem sad - but not in the way you meant then ;-)

And I happen to think your very nice :-)

>[1] Some may have noticed that I occassionally have these
>evenings of self analysis and introspection then broadcast them
>into the aether for public consumption/derision.

You're very welcome. Any time :-))
--
Elaine, afphianced to Stephen, John, Matt and AfPhantom,
and eternally, undyingly afpbeloved of Karl

The Things are also People


Kevin Golding

unread,
May 4, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/4/99
to
In article <372e09c...@news.demon.co.uk>, Stephen Booth
<stephe...@bigfoot.com> writes
>If you had to pick one feature of a person which made them
>attractive to you what would it be? I talking first sight in the
>street, a photo in a magazine, on TV accross a crowed room. What
>really does it for you?

I heard somewhere that symmetry is the mythical factor, apparently
someone's analysed photo's of people who are regarded as "attractive"
and their features are symmetrical, although I think they also mention
ratio's too, apparently attractive people find their nose is a certain
ratio from their ears or something and apparently attractive women have
a certain hip-waist ratio too. How true it is I don't know, I've not
spent enough time measuring people's bodies to be able to comment
really, just passing on things I've read.

>Sorry if that seems like a strange question but I was just
>musing[1] on the what makes a woman attractive to me, what do
>those women who appear most attractive to me have in common, what
>is the first thing I look for. I think it's the eyes.

Are they symmetrical? <g> but seriously, it's quite a well accepted
soft spot, IMHO it's to do with the way people view them as windows to
the soul etc. Many people seem to believe that the eyes will give away
a lie and so judge people by them.

>OK, soul bared. So what does that make me? A hopeless pervert?
>Sad? Nice?

Inquisitive? Human?

Caomhin
--
ke...@caomhin.demon.co.uk

"I am Like a Slip of Comet..."
G.M.Hopkins

Barry Vaughan

unread,
May 4, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/4/99
to
In article <372e09c...@news.demon.co.uk>, Stephen Booth
<stephe...@bigfoot.com> writes
>If you had to pick one feature of a person which made them
>attractive to you what would it be? I talking first sight in the
>street, a photo in a magazine, on TV accross a crowed room. What
>really does it for you? Sure there's personality, intelligence
>and the rest of the package but what makes you take the second
>look?
>

Just to be obscure, I would have to say it's the expression
on her face. You can tell a lot about a person through the
face they present to the world, whether they're smiling or
sulking or whatever.

Barry.

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sometimes I lie awake at night, thinking that we're dead.
That all this is just Death's last joke.
That we're living one last dream before the lights go out.
And then I think, so what's new?
-Death, The Time of your life - Neil Gaiman.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ba...@samael.demon.co.uk

Barry Vaughan

unread,
May 4, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/4/99
to
In article <8DBC92DD3grush...@news.lspace.org>, Gizelle
<gr...@homechoice.co.za> writes

>Stefan Hennig wrote :
>
>>Tucker McKinney wrote:
>>> [ka-snip!]
>>>
>>> Chemical indicators. Definitely has to be the chemical
>>> indicators. Pheromones, vibes, whatever you want to call
>>> them.
>
><snip>
>
>>Yep. But Pheromones get turned on/off at times.
>
><snip story)
>
>I studied aromatherapy last year, and we looked at the effects
>of pheremones. Unfortunately :-) we weren't able to try any of
>the experiments for ourselves, but one was described where
>they placed male pheremones on a chair in a doctor's waiting
>room. They let women into the room one at a time, and
>apparently 3/4's of them chose to sit in that particular chair.
>
>They repeated the experiment, but this time with a man sitting
>in the next chair (the only other person in the waiting room)
>and even so, just under half the women who entered the room
>chose to sit in the chair - which is quite high considering
>that most people prefer to choose a chair on the opposite side
>of the room normally!
>

And presumably they did the same experiments with no pheromones
on the chair and the experimenters didn't know which bottle
had the pheromones and which was just water.

Sorry to be boring with the old "double-blind" thing again,
but experiments _really_ don't mean anything unless that's
how they're done. Anything else is just playing around.

This sort of experiment makes me very suspicious, if there was
anything in the pheromones thing, why not do a proper experiment?
Why do such a hashed-up version of one?

mark

unread,
May 4, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/4/99
to
snipppp

1 A nice smile
2 eyes
3 sense of humor
4 figure
5 intellect

although once I get to know somebody all that matters is 3 and 5
(although having 1, 2, and 4 are a big help)

David Chapman

unread,
May 4, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/4/99
to

--
sent...@globalnet.co.uk


Stephen Booth <stephe...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:372e09c...@news.demon.co.uk...

> If you had to pick one feature of a person which made them
> attractive to you what would it be? I talking first sight in the
> street, a photo in a magazine, on TV accross a crowed room. What
> really does it for you? Sure there's personality, intelligence
> and the rest of the package but what makes you take the second
> look?

The soul. If you know how to look for it, it's the only feature worth
considering.

If you can't, of course, I'd say a set of 36CC's is next best <grins, ducks,
initiates "Escape from the Planet of the Feminists" sequence>

Rob Smiley

unread,
May 5, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/5/99
to

Barry Vaughan <Ba...@samael.newantispam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message >

> Just to be obscure, I would have to say it's the expression
> on her face.

AOL!

I saw a young woman, who whilst not a 'stunna' was still quite pretty (what
a quaint word, why don't more people use it these days?).
The thing that left me gobsmacked was when she smiled, a scene my humble
imagination can only liken to watching every beautiful sunrise you've ever
seen in your whole life, all at once! WOW!
Now I know what people mean when they say 'a smile lit up her face' because
this is the effect it had on this woman.

--
rcsm...@yahoo.com "Mention the Lord of the Rings just once more,
And I'll more than likely kill you." AFPfianced to Nisaba and MEG.
AFPbrother to Antti(still) and Heather and Peter and Claire and many many
more!

Rob Smiley

unread,
May 5, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/5/99
to
Barry Vaughan <Ba...@samael.newantispam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:dr8fyIAS...@samael.demon.co.uk...

>
> And presumably they did the same experiments with no pheromones
> on the chair and the experimenters didn't know which bottle
> had the pheromones and which was just water.
>
Err...
This one doesn't have to be 'double blind' or have a 'control group'.

The purpose of the first experiment, the old 'pheromones on the chair in the
waiting room', is to see if the test subjects are attracted to something
they CANNOT DETECT on a normal basis.(BTW I've seen one of these filmed with
a hidden camera and the resulting video time-lapsed, quite interesting)

The second is to see if the effect of the pheromones can outweigh peoples
natural instinct to maintain a distance from a stranger.
This is, after all, the whole point of "the ol' sexual alchemy"[1], to
attract a member of the opposite sex without having to resort to something
as innane as "Do you come here often?"<G>

[1] By throwing in a Gaspode quote in context, does this thread become [R]?

Gizelle

unread,
May 5, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/5/99
to
Barry Vaughan wrote :

>Sorry to be boring with the old "double-blind" thing again,
>but experiments _really_ don't mean anything unless that's
>how they're done. Anything else is just playing around.
>

Maybe the English language needs more words? :-) When I use the
word experiment I don't mean it in the same sense that I would
mean a clinical trial, or something necessarily formal and
scientific... An experiment doesn't *have* to mean anything, and
IMHO, there is nothing wrong with 'just playing around' to see
what happens.

Kimberley Verburg

unread,
May 5, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/5/99
to
Rob Smiley <rcsm...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Barry Vaughan <Ba...@samael.newantispam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:dr8fyIAS...@samael.demon.co.uk...
>>
>> And presumably they did the same experiments with no pheromones
>> on the chair and the experimenters didn't know which bottle
>> had the pheromones and which was just water.
>>
>Err...
>This one doesn't have to be 'double blind' or have a 'control group'.
>
>The purpose of the first experiment, the old 'pheromones on the chair in the
>waiting room', is to see if the test subjects are attracted to something
>they CANNOT DETECT on a normal basis.(BTW I've seen one of these filmed with
>a hidden camera and the resulting video time-lapsed, quite interesting)
>
>The second is to see if the effect of the pheromones can outweigh peoples
>natural instinct to maintain a distance from a stranger.

I still think that for the results to be acceptable, this "natural
instinct" should be tested in a control group. How else would we know,
for example, the minimum distance that must be kept from a stranger
under normal circumstances? If you don't know that then you won't know
exactly how attractive these pheromones are.

--
Kimberley Verburg k...@lspace.org
FAQs for AFP/ABP are at http://www.lspace.org/
"You're the closest thing we've got to a woman."
- Leo Breebaart, Delft 1.5

Matt A Simms

unread,
May 5, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/5/99
to

Stephen Booth wrote in message <372e09c...@news.demon.co.uk>...

>If you had to pick one feature of a person which made them
>attractive to you what would it be? I talking first sight in the
>street, a photo in a magazine, on TV accross a crowed room. What
>really does it for you? Sure there's personality, intelligence
>and the rest of the package but what makes you take the second
>look?


I have to agree with you on the eyes. It's the first thing I look at unless
she has her back to me, but then I'll still reserve judgement until I see
her blinkers.
IMHO the order for me is:
1.) Eyes
2.) Smile
3.) How she carries herself
4.) Her Laugh
5.) Her smell
6.) Sense of humour

Melody Shanahan-Kluth

unread,
May 5, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/5/99
to


Matt A Simms <matt...@wordonline.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3730...@glitch.nildram.co.uk...

Well...as female..I quite like the idea that eyes are very important to a


chap. Also as a female I would say that the things that attract me to a
chap[1] are:

1) Sense of Humour
2) Smile
3) Shoulders (dont ask)


4) Back of neck (ditto)

5) Height (well....I am nearly 6 feet tall myself)

6) Hands..I *like* big hands :o)

[1] Hubby fills ALL these criteria in case anyone was wondering <g>

Melody

--
AFPaunt to Nugent , AFPtwin to the lovely Irina and AFPsis to The Apostate
XXX
AAT d- s+:+ a+ U++ R++++ F h P-- OS+:++ C+++ M pp--- L+ c+ B+ Cn PT+ Pu30+
5++ X- MT- e r++ x++++


Lindsay Endell

unread,
May 5, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/5/99
to
Stephen Booth wrote:

> If you had to pick one feature of a person which made them
> attractive to you what would it be? I talking first sight in the
> street, a photo in a magazine, on TV accross a crowed room. What
> really does it for you? Sure there's personality, intelligence
> and the rest of the package but what makes you take the second
> look?
>

Do you know, I have absolutely no idea. There isn't any *one* thing.
On some people it's leather trousers (sigh...), on others it's the
eyes, or the voice, or the smile. Different people have different
attractive features, for me.

Okay, it's *not* the beard. I can honestly say I've never looked at a
man and looked again thinking "Gosh, what a wonderful and sexy beard,
I really fancy that man". Sorry, bearded guys. Even though Matt's got
one, I am not the world's number one beard fan...

Linz
--
Oh, not really a pedant, I wouldn't say.
http://www.gofar.demon.co.uk/ - Issue 2.0 available now
In AUE all Englishes are equal, though each is more
equal than all the others. Bob Lieblich, aue

Tom Lawton

unread,
May 5, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/5/99
to
In article <8DBD6365Egrush...@news.lspace.org>, Gizelle
<gr...@homechoice.co.za> writes

>... An experiment doesn't *have* to mean anything, and
>IMHO, there is nothing wrong with 'just playing around' to see
>what happens.
>
>Gizelle

sounds like the now infamous "Teapot" "Experiment".

TTFN,
--
Tom Lawton
ICQ:21604785
DJ and Thrower of Disco Shapes since 1995

Asperger's Syndrome: A socially acceptable affliction for the new millenium.

Gizelle

unread,
May 6, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/6/99
to
Tom Lawton wrote :

>
>sounds like the now infamous "Teapot" "Experiment".
>

Hmmm. literally *in*-famous, I have never heard of it :-). Care
to elucidate?

in...@fdhoekstra.nl

unread,
May 6, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/6/99
to
Gizelle wrote:
>
> Tom Lawton wrote :
>
> >sounds like the now infamous "Teapot" "Experiment".
> >
> Hmmm. literally *in*-famous, I have never heard of it :-). Care
> to elucidate?

It was a bit of ground-breaking social research by our esteemed
co-afp'er Chris J. Horry, who conducted it by simply placing a
teapot in the middle of the group and watching the group's
reactions. The teapot was a small and red one[1].
I don't know what interesting, perhaps scientifically significant,
conclusions Mr. Horry drew from this experiment, but we certainly
enjoyed the tea[2].

Richard

[1] This kind of detail is important in describing experiments :-)
[2] Well, I'm a teaoholic, ok?

Mike Knell

unread,
May 6, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/6/99
to

In article <372b5778....@news.lspace.org>,
M.E.S <kazulspa...@rotfl.com> wrote:

>>2) Smile
>
>This bit I don't find that important. I've personally had crushes on
>guys with terrible teeth.

There's more to a smile than rows of pearly whites. It has to reach the
eyes, you know.

Besides, enough people generally keep their mouths closed when smiling
(myself included, just to declare the vested interest) that teeth just
ain't an issue most of the time. Indeed, one could say that the typical
"toothy grin" can be taken too far - what's known as the American High
School Yearbook Syndrome. Lots of rows of gleaming gnashers with nothing
behind them...

Then again, the bits of me that people seem to remark on are a bit,
ah, lower down, so what do I know?

Mike "Stan" K.

Melody Shanahan-Kluth

unread,
May 6, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/6/99
to


Mike Knell <m...@tuatha.org> wrote in message
news:7gs5t9$ub5$1...@dagda.tuatha.org...


Snipped to get to the erm interesting bit <g>

>
> Then again, the bits of me that people seem to remark on are a bit,
> ah, lower down, so what do I know?

Ahhh..ermm..okaay..how do I put this genteely? Errr I *think* we were
talking abpout first impressions....and unless you are a flasher (not
unknown Ill grant you that) or you are talking about legs (I covered that
with the height thing I reckon and anyway they are normally covered by
trousers) I'm at a loss...care to elucidate? :o)

Ray-Me-Krid

unread,
May 6, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/6/99
to
stephe...@bigfoot.com (Stephen Booth) wrote:

>If you had to pick one feature of a person which made them
>attractive to you what would it be? I talking first sight in the
>street, a photo in a magazine, on TV accross a crowed room. What
>really does it for you? Sure there's personality, intelligence
>and the rest of the package but what makes you take the second
>look?

It may sound strange, but think about it... I found that the nose
plays quite a determining factor.

If the nose is nice or not can completely determine the overall effect
of a face.

Well, of course I, too, don't consciously look at someones nose first,
but I think it's the part of the face that adds most to the character
of someone's looks.

If you don't think that a cute nose can make an otherwise 'avarage'
face beautiful, I think that at least most people will agree that an
ugly nose (whatever may seem ugly to your personal preferences) can
completely ruin the effect of an otherwise beautiful face.

And - as eyes have been mentioned quite often here - it takes quite
close examination to find out, if the eyes are really beautiful and
they surely can't give someone a beautiful profile.

Apart from that, the 'attitude' may play the most important role. The
overall impression you get from someone - if s/he is open minded and
has a nice smile - can often be more important than plain physical
looks. But this probably already counts as second impression, as you
actually have to observe that person in a conversation / social
situation.

Bye,
Krid. (NOT a nose-fetishist... hmm... but then again.....;) )


esmi

unread,
May 6, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/6/99
to
In article <7gs5t9$ub5$1...@dagda.tuatha.org>, m...@tuatha.org said...

> In article <372b5778....@news.lspace.org>,
> M.E.S <kazulspa...@rotfl.com> wrote:

> >>2) Smile

> >This bit I don't find that important. I've personally had crushes on
> >guys with terrible teeth.

> There's more to a smile than rows of pearly whites. It has to reach the
> eyes, you know.
>
> Besides, enough people generally keep their mouths closed when smiling
> (myself included, just to declare the vested interest) that teeth just
> ain't an issue most of the time.

IIRC, smiles that show little or no teeth tend to be the most genuine or
natural smiles. When was the last time you asked a child to smile for the
camera and got the most awful, face-clenched, eyes screwed up, toothy
grimace? From what I can remember from reading a few tomes on body
language/non-verbal communication, over emphasised displays of toothiness
when smiling tend to imply aggression. IIRC there was a parallel drawn
between non-natural human smiles and the teeth baring displays that apes
enact when threatened.

Laughter, OTOH, often results in the kind of wide open mouth where
everyone can see your recent dental treatment....which could, I suppose,
mean that laughter (and humour) indicates a reaction to a threatening
situation....

Oooer...I feel a sense of deja vue...

esmi
--
Lspace Web: <http://www.lspace.org/>
Need help with afp?
Mail the Clue Fairies at afp-...@lspace.org

Nathan F. Yospe

unread,
May 6, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/6/99
to
stephe...@bigfoot.com (Stephen Booth), is it true that on Mon, 03 May
1999 20:56:46 GMT, you claimed:

>If you had to pick one feature of a person which made them
>attractive to you what would it be? I talking first sight in the
>street, a photo in a magazine, on TV accross a crowed room. What
>really does it for you? Sure there's personality, intelligence
>and the rest of the package but what makes you take the second
>look?

For a long time, it was predatory eyes. Narrowing, focussed, intelligent
eyes that ripped you bare...

See, I'd fallen in love with a girl with eyes like that. Not that I fell
for the eyes at first. I hadn't even noticed what she looked like before
I fell in love. Love at first listen... I've never heard anyone else who
could talk physics in such an intoxicating manner, and still be utterly,
unbelievably passionate...

So, for a long time, it was just a matter of having the same mannerisms,
good or bad, as someone else.

But I got burned a few times, and I got over her, and for a long time, I
didn't even look, and certainly was never tempted...

Now, it might have been that if I had met one or three of the people who
are now a part of my life before other events had transpired, I might've
found my way into a relationship again, by the old method of noticing an
attractive girl with intelligence... I think I subconciously tally their
textbooks and sort their speeches... but that was not how events were to
unfold.

You see, I met someone upon this very forum who impressed me with mental
acuity and humour, and who captivated me with common interests, and such
was my impression that, upon meeting her face to face, I discovered that
same intense fascination I'd felt once before...

And so, I say here, with absolute honesty... it is words first, and only
then do I see beauty.
--

Look, there's no reason we can't get along. Aside from one minor detail:
You're a rat, I'm a cat, cats eat rats. And I hate to befriend my lunch.
Nathan F. Yospe: email yospe#hawaii.edu; <http://www2.hawaii.edu/~yospe>
University of Hawaii, Manoa Dept. of Physics; Textron Systems, Maui Ops.

Morgan Lewis

unread,
May 6, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/6/99
to
Nathan F. Yospe wrote:
>
> stephe...@bigfoot.com (Stephen Booth), is it true that on Mon, 03
> May 1999 20:56:46 GMT, you claimed:
>
> >If you had to pick one feature of a person which made them
> >attractive to you what would it be? I talking first sight in the
> >street, a photo in a magazine, on TV accross a crowed room. What
> >really does it for you? Sure there's personality, intelligence
> >and the rest of the package but what makes you take the second
> >look?
>
> For a long time, it was predatory eyes. Narrowing, focussed,
> intelligent eyes that ripped you bare...
>
> See, I'd fallen in love with a girl with eyes like that. Not that I
> fell for the eyes at first. I hadn't even noticed what she looked like
> before I fell in love. Love at first listen... I've never heard anyone
> else who could talk physics in such an intoxicating manner, and still
> be utterly, unbelievably passionate...
> [major snipage]
> Nathan F. Yospe:

With me, both of those are definitely factors.... Since most people I
meet I see before I hear them, visual factors are definitely there. The
eyes being first and foremost; I always notice a person's eyes before
the rest of them, so it's only natural that I'd notice an attractive
girl's eyes right off the bat as well. And the girls I tend to fall
hardest for are those that impress me with their intelligence (usually
by being so smart that even a person with my ego has to admit that he
just might be outmatched. This isn't to say I think I'm smarter than
most people; rather that I have trouble admitting that anybody might be
*smarter* than me. This weird juxtaposition leads to my "everybody is a
genius" theory...) And, also, their voice itself is a definite factor
with me. When you live the first ten years of your life with such poor
vision that faces can't be made out more than 6 inches away (and without
realizing it's not normal, since you've never known different), you
learn to pay great attention to sound. So a person's voice is probably
the first thing I notice other than their eyes. (The girl I probably
fell hardest for had beautiful, tranquil eyes, a keen intellect, and a
laugh that I can honestly say was like music. Naturally she wasn't the
least bit interested in me. C'est la vie.)

After those factors, I'd say the next important thing is if it all goes
together well....Are her eyes, hair and skin all colors that look nicely
together, or do they clash a bit? (To me, pale skin and raven hair
clash and aren't attractive, though many guys find it so. To each their
own. No offense to any Snow Whites out there.) Is everything in
proportion? If yes to both, then the girl will probably be at least
moderately attractive to me, though not necessarily enough to really
pique my interest. (The above paragraph being requirements for that.)
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Morgan Lewis m...@efn.org mle...@gladstone.uoregon.edu

Marian

unread,
May 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/7/99
to
Bruci's back!

In article <7gptvr$n1h$1...@lure.pipex.net>,


"Melody Shanahan-Kluth" <Melo...@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
>
>
> Matt A Simms <matt...@wordonline.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:3730...@glitch.nildram.co.uk...
> >
> > Stephen Booth wrote in message <372e09c...@news.demon.co.uk>...

> > >If you had to pick one feature of a person which made them
> > >attractive to you what would it be? I talking first sight in the
> > >street, a photo in a magazine, on TV accross a crowed room. What
> > >really does it for you? Sure there's personality, intelligence
> > >and the rest of the package but what makes you take the second
> > >look?
> >
> >

> > I have to agree with you on the eyes. It's the first thing I look at
> unless
> > she has her back to me, but then I'll still reserve judgement until I see
> > her blinkers.
> > IMHO the order for me is:
> > 1.) Eyes
> > 2.) Smile
> > 3.) How she carries herself
> > 4.) Her Laugh
> > 5.) Her smell
> > 6.) Sense of humour
>
> Well...as female..I quite like the idea that eyes are very important to a
> chap. Also as a female I would say that the things that attract me to a
> chap[1] are:
> 1) Sense of Humour
> 2) Smile
> 3) Shoulders (dont ask)
> 4) Back of neck (ditto)
> 5) Height (well....I am nearly 6 feet tall myself)
> 6) Hands..I *like* big hands :o)
>
> [1] Hubby fills ALL these criteria in case anyone was wondering <g>

First thing I look at in a guy are his shoulders. That and the chest. He
needs to have nice shoulders. Both of the guys I'm dating have absolutely
wonderful shoulders (the one finds it quite humorous that every girl he has
dated who has made claim to a certain body part or feature as being the
reason she liked him at first has chosen a different one).

It has to be the shoulders. I've met some very nice guys who just had the
wrong type of shoulders, too frail or too big or what have you and just
wasn't interested for that reason alone.

Long hair, height, humor, interests that they share other than tongue
wrestling, shoulders . . . umm, shoulders . . . chest, shoulders . . . did I
mention the shoulders? Oh yes, and a definite plus is if he can give a back
rub. I melt at the mere mention of back rubs . . .

--
"I will buy with you, sell with you, talk with you, walk with you,
and so following; but I will not eat with you, drink with you, nor
pray with you. What news on the Rialto?"
- Merchant of Venice I.ii.35-38

-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own

Marian

unread,
May 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/7/99
to
In article <7gpung$apc$3...@gxsn.com>,

"David Chapman" <sent...@globalnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
> --
> sent...@globalnet.co.uk
> Stephen Booth <stephe...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
> news:372e09c...@news.demon.co.uk...
> > If you had to pick one feature of a person which made them
> > attractive to you what would it be? I talking first sight in the
> > street, a photo in a magazine, on TV accross a crowed room. What
> > really does it for you? Sure there's personality, intelligence
> > and the rest of the package but what makes you take the second
> > look?
>
> The soul. If you know how to look for it, it's the only feature worth
> considering.
>
> If you can't, of course, I'd say a set of 36CC's is next best <grins, ducks,
> initiates "Escape from the Planet of the Feminists" sequence>

Never heard of double Cs. I thought they went AA, A, B, C, D, DD and were
1/2" more than the underbust, 1", 2", 3", 4", 5" . . . then you get into
other letters . . .

I think I personally am a 36D[1][2] but I haven't bought a bra since I was 14
and tend only to wear them when I have a really lovely outfit which, if I want
to fit in, I need to do some compressing.

[1] I had to use a measuring tape to figure this out. 40" bust, 36"
underbust. [2] For some reason men who know I'm getting involved in the SCA
keep making all these suggestions and hints about Elizabethan garb.

SpareTurtle

unread,
May 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/7/99
to

Marian ... hang on aren't you really Brucianna?...

> Bruci's back!
>
> In article <7gptvr$n1h$1...@lure.pipex.net>,
> "Melody Shanahan-Kluth" <Melo...@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
>
[edit]

> > chap. Also as a female I would say that the things that attract me to a
> > chap[1] are:
> > 3) Shoulders (dont ask)

>
> First thing I look at in a guy are his shoulders. That and the chest. He
> needs to have nice shoulders.

I'm doomed.

That's two women in a row who say that they go for shoulders.

Both my shoulders have been turned into un-lovely wrecks by surgery over the
last 2 years.

I'm doomed....

Unless there is someone out there who has a nice smile and doesn't care about
a man's shoulders.

*sniffle*

SpareTurtle


Julia Jones

unread,
May 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/7/99
to
In article <7gpung$apc$3...@gxsn.com>, David Chapman
<sent...@globalnet.co.uk> writes

>If you can't, of course, I'd say a set of 36CC's is next best <grins, ducks,
>initiates "Escape from the Planet of the Feminists" sequence>

Whereas I'd say "Eight and a half inches...".

(Wonder if that will get certain lurkers out of hiding?)
--
Julia Jones
"Don't philosophise with me, you electronic moron!"
The Turing test - as interpreted by Kerr Avon.

co. & Ponder Stibbons

unread,
May 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/7/99
to

Don't cry dear Spare Turtle, just grow your hair and grow a beard!
There's more than one afper that will find you attractive *regardless*
of your shoulders, AFAIAA ;-)
--
Elaine, afphianced to Stephen, John, Matt and AfPhantom,
and eternally, undyingly afpbeloved of Karl

The Things are also People


David Scully

unread,
May 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/7/99
to
esmi wrote in message ...

>From what I can remember from reading a few tomes on body
>language/non-verbal communication, over emphasised displays of toothiness
>when smiling tend to imply aggression. IIRC there was a parallel drawn
>between non-natural human smiles and the teeth baring displays that apes
>enact when threatened.


ICBW, but I thought that teeth-baring in apes (chimpanzees anyway)
was a sign of submission and a declaration of *non*-aggression.

Maybe I was reading different books.....


--
David Scully


Heather Knowles

unread,
May 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/7/99
to
In article <alh298AE...@jajones.demon.co.uk>, Julia Jones
<a...@nospam.demon.co.uk> writes

>Whereas I'd say "Eight and a half inches...".

Only eight and a half? ;)

>
>(Wonder if that will get certain lurkers out of hiding?)

There's nothing like a well-hung lurker.....
--
luv Heaven - Nanny Ogg to Stewart's Coven, snug in the Molehill,
At One with Mad Purple Dragon, Keeper of Heaven's Little Angels
(*hug*), and afpfiancée to Miq the Archangel Michael (*snog*)

Pam xxx

unread,
May 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/7/99
to
Stephen Booth wrote:

<snip very informative measurements>

> That's for normal day-to-day wear of course. Ideally you should
> try to get a proper fitting with a specialist bra fitter whenever
> you can. I read somewhere that at least 60% of woemn in the
> developed world will be wearing an ill fitting bra for most of
> their adult life, either too small so it cuts them in the bust
> and crushes their breasts (a potential cause of problems in later
> life) or too large and so not providing enough support (also a
> potential cause of problems in later life) -- very often a
> combination of both (bust to small and cup too large or cup to
> samll and bust too large)!

Speaking from the point of view of 42G I found the greatest danger to
my health to be from having a bra professionally fitted - when I left
the shop, wearing the new, excellently fitting garment, I overbalanced,
not being able to see the kerb, and I still swear I rocked when my
front hit the pavement <g> I certainly had a problem getting to my feet
again.

---

Pam xxx

Miq

unread,
May 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/7/99
to
On Fri, 7 May 1999, SpareTurtle <spare...@bigfoot.com> wrote

>Unless there is someone out there who has a nice smile and doesn't care about
>a man's shoulders.

*I've* got a nice grimace and really don't give a toss about a
man's shoulders.

Unless he's about to hit me, that is.

>*sniffle*

*hug*

--
Miq

Laurabelle

unread,
May 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/7/99
to
Stephen Booth (stephe...@bigfoot.com) wrote:

<huge schnipp>

> That's for normal day-to-day wear of course. Ideally you should
> try to get a proper fitting with a specialist bra fitter whenever
> you can. I read somewhere that at least 60% of woemn in the
> developed world will be wearing an ill fitting bra for most of
> their adult life

<schnipp>

Hmmph, well that's because it's *impossible* to find the right size bra
for me! I will not broadcast my bra size on usenet, but suffice it to say
that it's possible to commonly find the right bust size but a too-small
cup size, or the approximately right cup size and a too-large bust size.
I have to go to specialized lingerie shops, and even then they don't have
my size in lots of styles! It really bites!

--
Laurabelle, AFPrelated to more lovely AFPers than will fit in this sig
"What a sense of possession, of confidence, it gave one to have pockets,
to shove one's fists into them, as if in simply owning pockets one owned
riches, owned independence." -- Anita Desai, _Clear Light of Day_

Paul E. Jamison

unread,
May 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/7/99
to
Julia Jones wrote:

> In article <7gpung$apc$3...@gxsn.com>, David Chapman
> <sent...@globalnet.co.uk> writes
> >If you can't, of course, I'd say a set of 36CC's is next best <grins, ducks,
> >initiates "Escape from the Planet of the Feminists" sequence>
>

> Whereas I'd say "Eight and a half inches...".
>

> (Wonder if that will get certain lurkers out of hiding?)

I;m reminded of an old jazz standard that Maria Muldaur covered back in the
'70s: "It Ain't the Meat, It's the Motion". Says it all for me, really.

Paul E. Jamison, Esq.

--

"So this Vorlon says to me, 'Never ask that question!' And I go, I says,
'IT'S THE ONLY QUESTION I'VE GOT, BABY!!"
- The Evil Midnight Bomber What Bombs Space Stations at Midnight

Charles A. Lieberman

unread,
May 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/7/99
to
Mike Knell

> Indeed, one could say that the typical
> "toothy grin" can be taken too far - what's known as the American High
> School Yearbook Syndrome.

a/k/a "Jimmy Carter."
I don't rightly know what I find attractive in women. I can't think of a
feature any two of the women I've been attracted to in the last recently
share (well, other than the basic ones).
Including the most recent -- thanks, folks what counciled me ::hugs::

--
Charles A. Lieberman | "[A]pproximately 70% of the students at Stuyvesant
Brooklyn, NY, USA | fit the description of a teen-age homicidal maniac"
calieber at bu.edu | --letter in New York Post, April 28, 1999

Nathan F. Yospe

unread,
May 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/7/99
to
Marian <marian_debor...@washcoll.edu>, is it true that on Fri,
07 May 1999 07:38:22 GMT, you claimed:

>Bruci's back!

Hey! Welcome back, Marian!

>First thing I look at in a guy are his shoulders. That and the chest. He

>needs to have nice shoulders. Both of the guys I'm dating have absolutely

<snip> Um... Sure.

>It has to be the shoulders. I've met some very nice guys who just had the
>wrong type of shoulders, too frail or too big or what have you and just
>wasn't interested for that reason alone.

So define "too big" with regard to shoulders, then? <fx: preparing broad
shoulders for possible offendedness and reminding them that the one that
counts likes them just fine as big as they are...>

I'll get my coat. It's that trench with wide shoulders.

Paul Wilkins

unread,
May 8, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/8/99
to
Heather Knowles wrote
>Julia Jones writes

>>Whereas I'd say "Eight and a half inches...".
>>
>>(Wonder if that will get certain lurkers out of hiding?)
>
>There's nothing like a well-hung lurker.....

Well, there's the well hung poster.
Then you can keep and admire them.

Paul Wilkins

Brian Howlett

unread,
May 8, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/8/99
to
Stephen Booth awoke from a deep slumber, and posted thusly:

[...bigsnip...]
>
> [Source: Littlewoods Catalogue]

<<<Boggle>>>


>
>
> That's for normal day-to-day wear of course. Ideally you should try
> to get a proper fitting with a specialist bra fitter whenever you can.
> I read somewhere that at least 60% of woemn in the developed world

> will be wearing an ill fitting bra for most of their adult life,


> either too small so it cuts them in the bust and crushes their breasts
> (a potential cause of problems in later life) or too large and so not
> providing enough support (also a potential cause of problems in later
> life) -- very often a combination of both (bust to small and cup too
> large or cup to samll and bust too large)!

Stephen - you really need to get out more... ;-)
--
Brian Howlett
--------------------------------------------------
Sex is great, but you can't beat the real thing...

Meg (the Magpie) Thornton

unread,
May 8, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/8/99
to
Okay, so on Fri, 07 May 1999 19:38:51 GMT, stephe...@bigfoot.com
(Stephen Booth) said :

>I read somewhere that at least 60% of woemn in the
>developed world will be wearing an ill fitting bra for most of
>their adult life, either too small so it cuts them in the bust
>and crushes their breasts (a potential cause of problems in later
>life) or too large and so not providing enough support (also a
>potential cause of problems in later life) -- very often a
>combination of both (bust to small and cup too large or cup to
>samll and bust too large)!
>

Rant warning: To all those on #afp or elsewhere who have heard my "bra
rant" and don't want to hear it again - look away *now*

<rant>

Hmmm... let me tell you about ill-fitting bras. I'm a size 18 E
(Australian sizes - about 44E by the chart Stephen reproduced). This
means that my breasts weigh about 1kg *each*. Most bras, oddly
enough, are designed to support little B and C cup sizes (usually
about 200g per breast). See the disparity there?

So this is what happens to my bras: First, the weight of the breast
in the cup pulls the bra downward. This pulls the back strap (which
is the *only* anchor most bras have) up my back. Then, when the back
strap is as far up as it can manage (my shoulders get in the way -
real design fault there, maybe I should get them removed), the sliding
clip on the straps starts to work its way from the shortest possible
length (which is what I *always* set them at - I've been living with
this for years now, I'm used to it) to the longest. End result: My
bras provide support for a maximum of 3 weeks. After that, they're
useless.

Oh, and with an underwire bra, what happens is that the underwires,
instead of laying snugly against my chest/decolletage/the bit between
the tits, pout forward. This creates a very handy spot to put my keys
(anyone who tries to nick 'em is going to have to get *rather*
personal), but a rather ugly line on tshirts and suchlike.

The point being, for any woman who has breasts which are heavier than
about 500g each, *no* bra is going to work properly. They're just not
built to take the weight - the suspension system won't handle it.
What's needed instead is a bra which offers some support from *under
the front of the breast* (once you're over about a D cup, this is
*easy* to hide in draping) to counterbalance the drag of gravity on
the breast tissue. Anyone with an interest in engineering and
dressmaking out there?

</rant>

It's safe to look now <grin>

--
Meg (the Magpie) Thornton email: mag...@megabitch.tm
Please note: sending me spam or flames via email means that
you have consented to a $100 (.au) proofreading fee.

doc

unread,
May 8, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/8/99
to
In <3733A1A1...@wichita.infi.net>, paul...@wichita.infi.net made
the world a better place by saying...

> I;m reminded of an old jazz standard that Maria Muldaur covered back in the
> '70s: "It Ain't the Meat, It's the Motion". Says it all for me, really.

Related to Geoff Muldaur, i wonder? "Geee baby, ain't i good to you?"...
--
love&piece http://www.drvielgut.de
doc. mailto:d...@drvielgut.de

Rudewind-Rustling B.F.,B.Am.Ta. D.C.M (Unseen) The Order of Midnight

unread,
May 8, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/8/99
to
On Fri, 07 May 1999 21:41:47 +0100, Pam xxx wispered these words
of wisdom:

Greetings Pam xxx

>Speaking from the point of view of 42G I found the greatest danger to
>my health to be from having a bra professionally fitted - when I left

I can't help but feel, that at 42G they should be registered as
lethal weapons :)


--
Rudewind-Rustling, _Shad0w_ to people on ICQ or even Chris Crowther on ocassion.
1613694 @ ICQ - sha...@shad0w.org - http://www.blood-runs-deep.org/shad0w/

Julia Jones

unread,
May 8, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/8/99
to
In article <jdJBnpAz...@fanged.demon.co.uk>, Heather Knowles
<heaven...@fanged.demon.co.uk> writes

>In article <alh298AE...@jajones.demon.co.uk>, Julia Jones
><a...@nospam.demon.co.uk> writes

>>Whereas I'd say "Eight and a half inches...".
>
>Only eight and a half? ;)
>>
It's an occasional but long-standing joke in a mailing list I frequent.
I'm not repeating the story in a family newsgroup, but there is a
particular significance to the figure, and I know that other members of
the mailing list lurk here from time to time.

Heather Knowles

unread,
May 8, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/8/99
to
In article <7h00e7$55g$2...@cantuc.canterbury.ac.nz>, Paul Wilkins
<pm...@student.canterbury.ac.nz> writes
>Heather Knowles wrote
>>Julia Jones writes

>>>Whereas I'd say "Eight and a half inches...".
>>>
>>>(Wonder if that will get certain lurkers out of hiding?)
>>
>>There's nothing like a well-hung lurker.....
>
>Well, there's the well hung poster.
>Then you can keep and admire them.
>

Don't make me laugh like that, Paul, it hurts my stomach muscles! :))

Ben Hutchings

unread,
May 8, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/8/99
to

In article <3731...@glitch.nildram.co.uk>,
Chris Horry <lo...@the.sig.invalid> wrote:
<snip>
>The original idea for the experiment was by one Kelvin Phillips, esq.
>Full information on what happened is available at
>http://www.wibble.co.uk/teapot [1]. of, if you want to see the results
>for yourself.
>
>Place a little red teapot in the center of the room. Sit back, and watch.
<snip>

Doesn't it start to rotate and wobble, and reflect multiple light
sources in an extremely realistic way?

Oh no, that's just an OpenGL demo.

So, why are teapots mandatory in OpenGL demos?

Ben (short and stout) (that was a lie)
--
Ben Hutchings - wom...@zzumbouk.demon.co.uk, http://nowhere.at.the.moment
Team *AMIGA* | Jay Miner Society | Linux - the choice of a GNU generation
Sturgeons's Law: Ninety percent of everything is crud.

Ben Hutchings

unread,
May 8, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/8/99
to
In article <3733363...@news.demon.co.uk>,
Stephen Booth <stephe...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
<snip>
>You measure your ribcage immediatly under your bust and teh
>fullest par of you bust then It's (all measurements in inches):
<snip tables>

Stephen, many thanks for saving me from the potential embarrassment
of never understanding what bra size codes mean. ;-)

Ben.

Martyn Clapham

unread,
May 8, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/8/99
to
I've posted this because from the thread it appears that several female
afpers may be interested in the information.

In article <3733e677...@newshost.dynamite.com.au>, Meg (the Magpie)
Thornton <mag...@megabitch.tm> writes

[ snip Megs bra problems ]

>The point being, for any woman who has breasts which are heavier than
>about 500g each, *no* bra is going to work properly. They're just not
>built to take the weight - the suspension system won't handle it.
>What's needed instead is a bra which offers some support from *under
>the front of the breast* (once you're over about a D cup, this is
>*easy* to hide in draping) to counterbalance the drag of gravity on
>the breast tissue. Anyone with an interest in engineering and
>dressmaking out there?

There was a program on UK TV about this recently ( actually a repeat
from last year ).

Two designers were challenged to re-design common objects ( a car, a bra
and a loo! ).

For the bra they came up with the idea of replacing the under-wire with
a semi-flexible plastic moulding. This is designed to give support
without the problem of a wire coming adrift, but it will also mould
itself to the shape of the breast so that all of it is supported.

IIRC the manufacturer is Charnos and the update at the end of the
program stated that the bras are now undergoing manufacturing tests and
should be on the market within 6 to 12 months.

During the design stage they had the help of a young lady who models
bras for larger bust sizes, she thought it was a great improvement and
that was one of the early prototypes.

>It's safe to look now <grin>

I'd rather not as I don't fancy a slap! :-))

Mart - fount of useless knowledge!
--
http://www.mclapham.demon.co.uk/index.htm Mobile 0410 468303
Full-time general weirdo and professional ex-afpfiance. :-)


Kevin Hackett

unread,
May 8, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/8/99
to

Ben Hutchings wrote in message <7h1u85$49r$1...@zzumbouk.demon.co.uk>...

>
>In article <3731...@glitch.nildram.co.uk>,
>Chris Horry <lo...@the.sig.invalid> wrote:
>>Place a little red teapot in the center of the room. Sit back, and watch.
><snip>
>
>Doesn't it start to rotate and wobble, and reflect multiple light
>sources in an extremely realistic way?
>
>Oh no, that's just an OpenGL demo.
>
>So, why are teapots mandatory in OpenGL demos?


As far as I can remember, the teapot was the standard test model for a
renderer. I don't know why (probably force of habit or too much caffeine),
but it is used for benchmarking, being a reasonably simple object with all
sorts of variations in smoothing and curves.

I know I talk rubbish, but this time it's true, I swear. I use 3D Studio
Max at work, and the selection of standard primitves are box, sphere, cone,
cylinder, and some others, and teapot, so the old habit still goes on.

Oops, I've just handed out normal, useful information... I need a lie down.

Cheers,
Kevin
A pet is for life, not just for breakfast

Marian

unread,
May 8, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/8/99
to
In article <373347bb...@news.lspace.org>,

yo...@hawaii.edu wrote:
> Marian <marian_debor...@washcoll.edu>, is it true that on Fri,
> 07 May 1999 07:38:22 GMT, you claimed:
>
> >Bruci's back!
>
> Hey! Welcome back, Marian!

I missed the 'froup

> >First thing I look at in a guy are his shoulders. That and the chest. He
> >needs to have nice shoulders. Both of the guys I'm dating have absolutely
>
> <snip> Um... Sure.

It's a long story. I've been dating the one since October and the other since
early April, both know about each other and I'm still dating both of them.

> >It has to be the shoulders. I've met some very nice guys who just had the
> >wrong type of shoulders, too frail or too big or what have you and just
> >wasn't interested for that reason alone.
>
> So define "too big" with regard to shoulders, then? <fx: preparing broad
> shoulders for possible offendedness and reminding them that the one that
> counts likes them just fine as big as they are...>

Well, um, like, <thinks> King Kong big . . .

The shoulders need to be proportioned just right in relationship to my own
football-player shoulders so that they make a nice pillow.

Marian

unread,
May 8, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/8/99
to
In article <3733e677...@newshost.dynamite.com.au>,
mag...@megabitch.tm wrote:

> Oh, and with an underwire bra, what happens is that the underwires,
> instead of laying snugly against my chest/decolletage/the bit between
> the tits, pout forward. This creates a very handy spot to put my keys
> (anyone who tries to nick 'em is going to have to get *rather*
> personal), but a rather ugly line on tshirts and suchlike.
>

> The point being, for any woman who has breasts which are heavier than
> about 500g each, *no* bra is going to work properly. They're just not
> built to take the weight - the suspension system won't handle it.
> What's needed instead is a bra which offers some support from *under
> the front of the breast* (once you're over about a D cup, this is
> *easy* to hide in draping) to counterbalance the drag of gravity on
> the breast tissue. Anyone with an interest in engineering and
> dressmaking out there?

I don't think they could be worn with t-shirts, but Elizabethan bodices are
wonderful for support. Same goes for corsets. If you want to make on
yourself there is http://www.dnaco.net/~aleed/corsets and there are bunches
of places out there that sell them custom made.

Marian

unread,
May 8, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/8/99
to
In article <7h1ufh$4ah$1...@zzumbouk.demon.co.uk>,

Ben Hutchings <wom...@zzumbouk.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <3733363...@news.demon.co.uk>,
> Stephen Booth <stephe...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> <snip>
> >You measure your ribcage immediatly under your bust and teh
> >fullest par of you bust then It's (all measurements in inches):
> <snip tables>
>
> Stephen, many thanks for saving me from the potential embarrassment
> of never understanding what bra size codes mean. ;-)

Could someone repost Stephen's message, it isn't coming up on Dejanews.

jester

unread,
May 8, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/8/99
to
On 8 May 1999 18:06:41 GMT, Ben Hutchings <wom...@zzumbouk.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
<snip>

>Stephen, many thanks for saving me from the potential embarrassment
>of never understanding what bra size codes mean. ;-)

Oh, don't worry about it. Those particular measurements don't always work.
It depedns on the manufacturer, Same as sizing any clothing really.

Andy Brown
--
http://www.innotts.co.uk/~jester/ | Unsound Engineer to the MAS
AFP Code V1.1a AC$/Mu-UK dx@ s-:@ a UP+ R>+ F h> P-- OSUD:>- ?C M-
pp>++ L C- B+ Cn-:+:+ PT++ PU68@ 5 X++ MT+ eV++ r>++ y*-- end

Jacqueline Hookey

unread,
May 8, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/8/99
to
jester <jes...@innotts.co.uk> wrote:

> On 8 May 1999 18:06:41 GMT, Ben Hutchings <wom...@zzumbouk.demon.co.uk>
> wrote:
> <snip>
> >Stephen, many thanks for saving me from the potential embarrassment
> >of never understanding what bra size codes mean. ;-)
>
> Oh, don't worry about it. Those particular measurements don't always work.
> It depedns on the manufacturer, Same as sizing any clothing really.

This is *so* true... Just cause you find your bra size doesn't mean
it'll fit properly and look nice... One major thing can be the placing
of the cups - close together or set further apart... This can make a
huge difference in how a bra fits even the same size bra made by the
same manufacture can fit differently if it's a different style <sigh>

Ookey
--
<<<< Inline |Live your life with no regrets, love with all your
>>>>>>_o Skating |heart, for we know not what's to come, so now's the
<<<<<'/ Punk |time to start... AFPurity 27% AFPetite 'n insane ;)
[ÕÕÕÕ] Hedgehog|www.cadvision.com/woodrr & www.lacestudio.demon.co.uk

Natalie M., Renegade Soubrette

unread,
May 8, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/8/99
to
> I don't think they could be worn with t-shirts, but Elizabethan bodices are
> wonderful for support. Same goes for corsets. If you want to make on
> yourself there is http://www.dnaco.net/~aleed/corsets and there are bunches
> of places out there that sell them custom made.
Agreed both on corsets and that page ('tis marvellous)! Someday when I
have the time I'll make one... Recently though I did manage to almost
give my theory prof a heart attack with the following exchange:
(I'm standing by the box office of our recital hall talking to a friend of
mine who's working that evening, D W-S (theory prof) marches up about 15
minutes late)
me: "What do you think you're doing coming here now?"
D W-S: "Well, I'm doing exactly that."
me (wagging a finger coyly): "Well, can I just reprimand you a little
bit?"
D W-S: "You're into that kind of thing, are you?"
me: "Yes, and I also enjoy corsetry."

OK, there was very little point to that, but it was funny when it
happened....
nattie, who had far too much fun with the bodices in last semester's opera

Natalie Mayer, driven feverish and delirious by spring
All new, all magnifical (?!?!) http://rohan.sdsu.edu/~nmayer
"No one pushed them into the canal..."
(PLEASE help me find a new sig-file quote!)


Paul E. Jamison

unread,
May 8, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/8/99
to
doc wrote:

> In <3733A1A1...@wichita.infi.net>, paul...@wichita.infi.net made
> the world a better place by saying...
> > I;m reminded of an old jazz standard that Maria Muldaur covered back in the
> > '70s: "It Ain't the Meat, It's the Motion". Says it all for me, really.
>
> Related to Geoff Muldaur, i wonder? "Geee baby, ain't i good to you?"...

Just did a search on the 'net and according to a biography given on the All Music
Guide (www.allmusic.com), she was, kinda. They were married during the 60s, when
they were members of the I'mnotmakingthisup Kim Kweskin Jug Band. Maria and
Geoff divorced in '72, and she went on to a solo career. Her most famous single
would be, I suppose, "Midnight at the Oasis". From what I can see, she's still
recording. The site lists 20(!) albums.

I can remember listening to her stuff when it first came out. Gad, that makes me
feel old. I think it's time for a nap.

Elchonon Edelson

unread,
May 9, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/9/99