display | more...
Most of the responses to TheBooBooKitty's writeup wouldnt have been out of place in an article in Cosmo or Fair Lady. I think there's an opinion less informed by mass media platitudes that needs to be voiced.

Question: In general, what is the key difference between someone you are 'close to' and someone you are 'with' or 'dating'?

Answer: Sex.

So why is it unreasonable that sexual attractiveness be the key factor in making decisions about whom to date? Prole suggested that 'a pretty face' is not that important but I think physical attractiveness is far more than that. Due, perhaps, to the influence of the aforementioned mags, physical beauty has had a bad rap in the past while. It has been strongly suggested that people shouldn't be credited simply because they were born beautiful.

But why not?

Physical beauty is captivating. It makes life more vivid. It accesses us primally and honestly. It is art in people. Why should someone who was born with the talent of being smart and witty be considered of more 'substance' than someone born with beauty?

People are great. They come in different shapes, sizes, volumes, densities. But to me it makes complete sense to choose beautiful people as sexual partners. People who are less attractive are great for dinner conversation and intimate fireside chats. But if they are not attractive sexually then why have sex with them?

Of course this is an oversimplification because sex is also about emotional closeness. But surely then, if there is no correlation between sexual attractiveness and intelligence, then they are just as likely to be smart/fun/deviant as anyone else? So "all else being equal" doesn't it make sense to target the most attractive people?