Judged by my Body Parts, Part 2

[Proud2BCatholic139]

I don't know what has been said already...

but...

Beauty is more than skin deep. Think about the person you marry 60 years from now. Their physical beauty will be gone, but their personality is still there. However, if you are not attracted to them physically, one component is lost to make a lasting relationship work. However, I'm not saying that looks is all that is needed. Because, one person of the opposite sex can be beautiful, but there are no brains. On the other hand, one can be intelligent, but not physical attractiveness. There has to be some commonground.
Jason Everett even said so.

[CrossCuT]

[quote name='uruviel' post='995657' date='Jun 2 2006, 06:14 PM']
Yes but just because your ugly doesn't mean you will never marry, people might be attracted to other features about you other than your phsyical features and still have romance! I don't think it's VITAL for a relationship, I think it plays a MAJOR part in todays society but I def. don't think it's vital.
[/quote]

I agree with what you say! And I believe I mentioned it in my post too.
Just because some people find a person ugly does not mean another person will.
All our degrees of attraction are different.

When I would like a guy for example, and I would tell my friend, she would often be like "What? are you seriouse??" because according to the almighty opinions of the stereo crowd at school, the guy I was attracted to was "ugly".
I didnt think so...



[quote name='Proud2BCatholic139' post='996013' date='Jun 3 2006, 05:54 AM']
I don't know what has been said already...

but...

Beauty is more than skin deep. Think about the person you marry 60 years from now. Their physical beauty will be gone, but their personality is still there. However, if you are not attracted to them physically, one component is lost to make a lasting relationship work. However, I'm not saying that looks is all that is needed. Because, one person of the opposite sex can be beautiful, but there are no brains. On the other hand, one can be intelligent, but not physical attractiveness. There has to be some commonground.
Jason Everett even said so.
[/quote]

[size=1][color="330000"]When you are younger and when you are older there are different bonds of attraction being made. It might sound crazy but it is true.

Younger couples NEED some type of physical attraction to be able to stay together (it isnt the most important one, but it has to be there) because they need that element of a sexual desire (har har) for their purpose right now is to have babies! LOTS OF BABIES! So that they keep the unitive and procreative meanings in place.
While older couples have moved past those elements because they no longer have their childeren to look after (they grow up) and stuff does happen to you when you get older and so they look more into a relationships of support and deeper friendship to replace what they had when they were younger.

I dont think that made complete sense on paper, but I have it all striaght in my mind.
[/color][/size]

[TridentineMotoX]

I agree. I think.


Heaven Seeker, to answer your question. Bonnielass abused here previlledges on the computer and she knew it. I'm 19, WAY more experienced that her, and can take care of myself.

Edited June 4, 2006 by TridentineMotoX

[heavenseeker]

ok interesting seems to be a patern in thinking age makes you immuned in your family. it helps but does not fix everything.






But to stay on the real topic. Phisical beauty is only skin deep and its importance is equaly as it is. What counts is spiritual beauty, that is where the true bonds are made.

[Tata126]

I absolutely agree that physical beauty is not what a relationship should be based on, because it will fade eventually. I also agree that everyone is attracted to different people; it gives hope to those of us who haven't been asked out in a really long time.

But the ultimate difference between friendship-love and romance-love, I think, is physical attraction. I mean, I can be friends with the most wonderful guy in the world, but if I'm not attracted to him, there's nothing I can do about it, no matter how much I want to convince myself that I am attracted to him. If it's not there, it's not, and honestly, I don't want to marry someone if I'm not going to be thrilled to have him touch me on our wedding night.

But it's not the most important thing, at all. The most important thing is to have someone who loves God, and is trustworthy and honest, someone you can have amazing conversations with, and someone who will help you get closer to God.

[heavenseeker]

if you truly love someone then it shouldn't matter what they look like

[CrossCuT]

[size=1][color="330000"]I think that if you truly love someone then you will love them no matter what they look like.
And therefore be attracted to them.

Maybe I am crazy.
[/color][/size]

[uruviel]

[quote name='CrossCuT' post='996296' date='Jun 3 2006, 08:06 PM']
I agree with what you say! And I believe I mentioned it in my post too.
Just because some people find a person ugly does not mean another person will.
All our degrees of attraction are different.

When I would like a guy for example, and I would tell my friend, she would often be like "What? are you seriouse??" because according to the almighty opinions of the stereo crowd at school, the guy I was attracted to was "ugly".
I didnt think so...
[size=1][color="330000"]When you are younger and when you are older there are different bonds of attraction being made. It might sound crazy but it is true.

Younger couples NEED some type of physical attraction to be able to stay together (it isnt the most important one, but it has to be there) because they need that element of a sexual desire (har har) for their purpose right now is to have babies! LOTS OF BABIES! So that they keep the unitive and procreative meanings in place.
While older couples have moved past those elements because they no longer have their childeren to look after (they grow up) and stuff does happen to you when you get older and so they look more into a relationships of support and deeper friendship to replace what they had when they were younger.

I dont think that made complete sense on paper, but I have it all striaght in my mind.
[/color][/size]
[/quote]

I absolutely understand that, it made perfect sense, that whole, when your older it replaces the desire to have babies, thing, lol. I get it now. At least I've formed my opinion now. Thanks!


[quote name='CrossCuT' post='996886' date='Jun 4 2006, 10:29 PM']
[size=1][color="330000"]I think that if you truly love someone then you will love them no matter what they look like.
And therefore be attracted to them.

Maybe I am crazy.
[/color][/size]
[/quote]

Yeah, so, to love someone, you have to have turn on's, (oh great here we go, I'm gettting deep into it) God had to make us so that we can live together, he had to make pairs. Well when you meet someone, things in their personality turn you on, and maybe physically they don't turn you on. But you are still attracted to them because of DIFFERENT features in them! Say you meet someone who is physically attractive, and you date them. Then you get to know THEM and they turn you off, because of their personality. I think it more rely's on personality, despite the major role that looks play in our romance, part of life.

[heavenseeker]

is this one of those long post only threads?

[uruviel]

yes.

[heavenseeker]

well then we broke the rule

[Guest Rick777]

Hmmm......If a relationship is based on "looks" than it's a vain superficial relationship that doesn't hold much meaning although it can grow into a meaningful one.

[heavenseeker]

are you tring to get this back on topic?

[missionseeker]

sounds like it.

[heavenseeker]

thats dissapointing

[Guest Rick777]

I just thought I would say something.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='ChrisZewe' post='994031' date='May 31 2006, 10:02 PM']
I could find you the exact quote, I suppose, but then I'd feel like one of you people, just quoting and not backing it at all x.x So go whip out a copy of Revelation and read the part where the 144000 have Jehovah on their foreheads.

The rest of the faithful aren't damned, by the way.
[/quote]
[font="Courier New"]symbolism in the bible:In all this the mystical interpretation of numbers holds a great place. There are twelve consecration crosses, and this, besides a reference to the Twelve Apostles (in not a few instances each consecration cross is marked upon a shield borne by one of the Apostles), symbolizes the spiritualizing human nature and of the world by faith, or, as others put it, it betokens the universal Church. The reason is that three, the number of the Blessed Trinity, figures the Divine nature, and four, the number of the elements, typifies the number of the material world. Twelve is the product of three and four, and it consequently betokens the penetration of matter with spirit. So again eight denotes perfection and completion, for the visible world was made in seven days and the invisible kingdom of grace follows upon that. In this way the octagonal shape was judged specially appropriate for the baptistery or for the font, on the ground that this initiation into the supernatural order of grace completed the work of creation. Naturally five recalls the wounds of Christ, and five grains of incense are inserted cross-wise in the Paschal Candle, while ten, the number of the Commandments, is typical of the Old Law. Seven again has its own very special attraction as the number of the sacraments, of the gifts of the Holy Ghost, of the virtues and vices, and many other things. There can be little doubt that much of this symbolism of numbers is to be traced back to Egypt and Assyria, where the movements of the seven planets, as men then counted them, were continuously studied and where the elements of three and four into which seven was divided lent themselves to other combinations also regarded as peculiarly sacred, for example the number sixty, the product of three, four, and five.[/font]
144,000 means the fullness of the 12 tribes of Israel.

[Luthien]

The sentiment I see running rampant in this thread is soul good/body bad.

That my friends, is Manechism, seperation of body and soul. The Church condemns this school of thought. The body and soul are connected, because God gave us physical bodies so that we may do His will here on Earth. Whether it be makin' babies, or helping others.

And I must address the thought that if you love someone, looks don't matter. As someone said earlier, "beauty is in the eye of the beholder".
With this point in mind, ones own definition of what is attractive might not be attractive to someone else. Now even though someone else might not find this "other" attractive, you still do right? My point is, there IS someone for everybody, and attraction is an important component. There is a reason we were made sexual beings, to ignore this fact would be to deny a part of us that God created to be good. Its one thing to deny this part of ourselves for the glory of God, but to be with someone you are not even attracted to in the least would be unfair to that other person. How would you feel if you were with someone who didnt find you attractive? You say you'd be alright with it, but I cannot believe what you say unless you have really been through a situation like that.

/end rant.

[heavenseeker]

im running out of stuff t osay thats even half way on topic

[Guest Rick777]

[quote name='Luthien' post='999527' date='Jun 7 2006, 07:51 AM']
The sentiment I see running rampant in this thread is soul good/body bad.

That my friends, is Manechism, seperation of body and soul. The Church condemns this school of thought. The body and soul are connected, because God gave us physical bodies so that we may do His will here on Earth. Whether it be makin' babies, or helping others.

And I must address the thought that if you love someone, looks don't matter. As someone said earlier, "beauty is in the eye of the beholder".
With this point in mind, ones own definition of what is attractive might not be attractive to someone else. Now even though someone else might not find this "other" attractive, you still do right? My point is, there IS someone for everybody, and attraction is an important component. There is a reason we were made sexual beings, to ignore this fact would be to deny a part of us that God created to be good. Its one thing to deny this part of ourselves for the glory of God, but to be with someone you are not even attracted to in the least would be unfair to that other person. How would you feel if you were with someone who didnt find you attractive? You say you'd be alright with it, but I cannot believe what you say unless you have really been through a situation like that.

/end rant.
[/quote]

Good rant and very true.