Are they the same?

Post Reply New Topic

Not being attracted to someone and being disgusted with someone aren't anywhere near the same.

Agree. Everyone has preferences & the person in A is taking responsibility for his/hers. The person in B is judging & blaming another for the speaker's revulsion, as if it were some objective quality.

Whereas A simply shows the speaker's tendency towards being attracted or turned off by superficial characteristics, B shows a way of speaking about & relating to others that I find personally repugnant.

they are the same message.

in this scenario, you stated that i am blonde.

so when you're qualifier for not finding another person attractive was based on a prominent feature of my own, what you are saying to me in the self-same moment is that you also do not find me attractive.

depending on how i emotionally respond to that, i could 'feel' like you think im disgusting (i.e. not attractive).

if i were tall, and you said that you didnt find the person attractive because of how short they are, we have the opposite emotional response. i have now been validated by your remarks concerning the other person and their attractiveness.

Yes in that both are based on superficial attraction.

Yes in that both contain the same statement ("not attracted to blondes").

No in that (1) begins and ends with a statement of personal tastes while (2) includes denigrating an entire group of people (their appearance, anyways).

No in that (1) is mildly stated and (2) is strongly stated.

The exaggeration was made to make a point - however a simple eww would do the same effect in scenario 2.

Based on what you said above, it's pointless to debate with you on this further.

Your wavelength of manners is totally different than mine - even me, the jerk of wrongplanet, wouldn't say eww about overweight people in front of a fat friend for example, there's a limit of jerkiness after all .

If you see Scenario 2 as normal and not offensive then you lack a common sense of manners or maybe you do behave like this yourself with your friends. As you see in the poll, the majority don't see it as the same, hurtloam made a perfect reasoning why S1 is harmless while S2 is not: That's the common sense reasoning, yours is not.

Either way, it's pointless.

Bluemax, Boo I voted yes. I both see them as saying you don't like blondes. I think I really simplify things to process them.

This sort of thing I find really difficult, I have a real problem these things..

They're not the same, no.

* Edited after seeing the reply on the other thread I won't keep the original as that seems to confuse you *
The exaggeration was made to make your point in a trumped up bias way because if a simple eww would have the same effect you would have put it instead of more emotionally negative charged words to get others to agree with your opinion.

I wasn't debating with you. You asked why to me eww/yuck is the same as not dating material and I stated my opinion and that we hold different opinions. It seems you go out of your way to prove my opinion is 'wrong' something I did not do with you.

I didn't state I see Scenario 2 as normal I did state I see them both as not finding a person with that trait dating material and
my reasoning is common sense in both the person wouldn't date another with that trait. To me it doesn't matter what the majority votes especially in a clearly trumped up biased scenario designed to get others to answer your way.

I agree it's pointless however it seems you got what you wanted.

Last edited by AnonymousGIrl on 09 May 2013, 7:11 am, edited 3 times in total.

I've read the above * my reply was to the above * part.

and I replied it to you, check the last pages of this thread.

What are we debating here? Whether it's ok to use the term 'Eww' if you don't fancy a person?

Eww is wrong on two levels (three if you aren't American):-

1. Because it's just being rude about a person

2. It's one of those probably internet or TV-originating words people use to make themselves look cool (which it doesn't)

3. If I'm not mistaken it also orginated in America, so while I'll tolerate Americans using it, it's unforgiveable for us in the UK to be using it. It's the sort of thing Phoebe in 'Friends' would say

Along the same lines I hate UK people saying 'movie' instead of 'film' - we're not American!

I'd like an answer as well as I don't know what Face Of Boo is debating as I didn't even know it was a debate I thought I was sharing my opinion when asked for it.

I do know he asked me why for me a person saying eww/yuck about another with that trait and explaining why they wouldn't date them = a person not finding another with that trait as dating material. Then again I don't hold the opinion that finding people with a trait unworthy dating material for a person = finding people with a trait unworthy value as a human being.

Some of us are just happy to find 'a person', never mind having the opportunity to be picky about hair colour

Hair colour is just a random trait and I fail to see how it can be a deal breaker except for an exceedingly shallow person
who evidently doesn't much care what's going on inside a person's head

Some are only happy to find a person they are attracted to (looks) and find appealing (personality) so to them it may not be seen as being picky.

Different opinion as I don't consider hair color a random trait going by most societies have color associations and stereotypes about hair colors. Perhaps some insight on how it can be a dealbreaker is that a person is solely or mainly attracted to a specific hair color and they desire physical/sexual attraction in a partner so while they may care about what is inside a person's head it's not to the exclusion or detriment to caring about physically/sexually desiring their partner.

How would this type of person cope with a person going grey then? lol

or the whole ageing process?

This type make bad partners imo as they are more about what's on the outside than inside
and see much of a person's worth as being linked to how sexually desirable they are

What are all these societal hair colour associations as well? What does blonde hair mean then?

The implication is the same, but the negativity is stronger in #2 than #1. The result is that #2 seems to dislike blonds far more than #1, or at the very least, is less polite about expressing their feelings than #1.

Likely by the time the person goes gray the person with the hair color preference has fallen in love and I find people generally after falling in love start to love the person's body not because it fits their preferences but because they love the person.

Bit off to me to state as if it's a fact that the type of person who has preferences you don't agree with will make bad partners or are more into the outside than inside. I find most people have preferences however that doesn't automatically mean they are more into the outside than inside it seems to be a balance with both being equally important rather than going one without the other.

Egh I was talking about psychological hair color associations when I stated hair color associations. For societal stuff that's stereotypes like blondes are sweet, mean, ditzy, dumb, etc depending on the society.