quote:

ORIGINAL: beargonewild

~agrees with Lady H~

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyHibiscus

quote:

ORIGINAL: SylvereApLeanan
  
<snippage for space> 
And I'm definitely the ugly duckling.  No one will *ever* mistake me for "gorgeous."

Hey!  I do NOT make mistakes!  Or at least that's the story I'm pushing, so get with the program fellow gorgeous one! 

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyHibiscus

quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyHibiscus

Katy, of course not.  *snort*  These men are in the same class as those who want only 20 yr old submissives who are size 4 and 34DD.  They are focused on the picture in their head, and not the PERSON.

Intellectual, I look for intelligent men myself.  I don't think it's shallow to seek intelligence---or anything else, truly---because intelligence is a thing that stays with you and grows.   An intelligent person enhances his or her companions.  (at least I would like to think so)  Beauty is transitory. 

It's true that beauty and intelligence are subjective things, but the real issue that I have with the fantasists is that they are not looking for a compatible human being, they are looking for a customized toy.    We all have an array of needs, and not all of them are "worthy" necessarily---I need a masochist, and I know that I would never be 100% satisfied in a relationship with a pain-phobic.  The foot fetishist has his needs, and he wouldn't be 100% satisfied with me, who would only indulge his desires, but never really share them. 

I want a real man, not a shell.  It would be lovely if those men who write saying that they would love to submit to me really MEANT it, but they don't.  I point out kindly that they don't even know me, how could they make such a claim?  More often than not, I don't get a response.

Well, considering that you are both intelligent AND gorgeous....the man who is first enamoured by you....for your beauty.....will just have to live with the fact that he gets a two-fer in the process.

Suck up!

quote:

ORIGINAL: RedMagic1

quote:

ORIGINAL: IntellectualPro

Red, before claiming genetics play so little a role, perform the studies yourself or look up what experts have found.

I know you don't know me, and many people do post on the net without knowing what they are talking about.  However, I do.  My position was that income matters more than genetics, and if you sample worldwide, there is no question that it does.  If you are trying to refute my position, then the studies you link to suffer from sample bias.

One example:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v388/n6641/abs/388468a0.html

You are welcome to search for a single study by an institution accredited by the APA that states that genetics plays a greater role than the amount of nutrition and attention a child gets from the ages of 0-5.  Poverty plays a much greater role than chromosomes.  Period.

quote:

ORIGINAL: wandersalone

I realise the irony of posting this in this thread however...

BSB .... your new pic

wow .... just ..... wow .....

quote:

ORIGINAL: RedMagic1

Hi BSB,

I kinda noticed the photo, too.  It makes you look very smart.

Lack of income equals poverty to me.  I don't care about the country.  I've taken Mexican immigrants as volunteers on food distributions in central California, and they told me afterward that they thought no one lived like that outside of Mexico.  There are a lot of "third world" conditions in the United States right now, and there will be more next year.  I wish I could be more cheery about that, but bottom line: if a kid grows up with no books, parents who work two jobs, and no quiet place to think, read or write, that social environment (in general) has a greater effect on mental development than being Einstein's secret lovechild.