From: Richard Steven Hack (richardhack@pcmagic.net)
Date: Sat Mar 02 2002 - 20:04:15 MST
At 04:02 PM 3/2/02 -0900, you wrote:
>Hello everyone,
>
>I guess I really did it this time! I deeply apologize for any possible
>offense given.
>
>I wrote:
> >I also adore brilliant AND beautiful babes!! : ) But what if a woman is
> >only brilliant?? :(
>
>Richard replied:
> >I'd be interested but not sexually attracted. Sound >shallow? Oh, well...
>
>In some ways I see sexual chemistry as a sad fact of life as things are
>now. I really wish everyone could be "genetically optimal" and not just a
>relative few. It's so sad to be attracted to someone on several levels
>but not the be lacking on the physical one.
>
>I wrote:
> >"Transhuman babe" is such an interesting term... Should it be the Extropy
> >Institute equivalent to being a Playboy Playmate? And will there be a
> >tasteful "Transhuman babe" centerfold pic for each issue of Extropy
> >online? LOL!!
>
>Richard wrote:
> >Why not? That will get us "mainstream" faster than >anything else will
> - :-}
>
>Though I was only kidding around, I really regret having written the above
>paragraph. Doing the above would not make ExI mainstream, instead it
>would make it a joke. I think all ExI friends and members need to think
>about how their private/external lives affect the organization, you and I
>included.
>
>I wrote:
> > ( Within fifty years or less, hopefully all women will get to have both
> > incredible qualities. I'll really never get a date then!! lol
>
>Richard wrote:
> >Sure you will, cause you'll be using the same tech >to improve YOUR looks
>(and maybe brains?)
>
>Sounds good to me! lol : )
>
>I wrote:
> >Actually, right now I'm dating a gal who is pretty incredible. But sadly,
> >she has a bunch of Klingons for brothers who want to meet me in person to
> >engage in ritual combat(ritual wrestling match!). I guess there is a
> >biological basis for this behavior somehow!
>
>Richard wrote:
> >Sure - primates - although I don't know that is part >of chimpanzee family
> >behavior - :-}
>
>LOL! So that explains it!! ; )
>
>I wrote:
> >Finally, wait till you look at a picture of Gina "Nanogirl" Miller! But
> >don't waste your time, she's married now to a top nanotech researcher!
>
>Richard wrote:
>Got a URL for a picture? Marriages break up all the time, you know -
>:-} Look at Russell Crowe - :-}
>
>Ah..... Richard?? This is a line you should not have written. I think we
>may be a bad influence on each other.
No one sees the happy face? (I missed one earlier, of course.)
My, we are politically correct around here. Although I was just kidding,
marriages DO break up all the time. Extropians have trouble dealing with
reality?
>While I think we are both goodhearted guys, we need to be more careful
>with what we post.
I don't change my style of speech for anyone. No one changes their style
for ME.
>Gina posted:
> have current pictures @ http://www.nanogirl.com/gina.html
>
> > >Finally, wait till you look at a picture of Gina "Nanogirl" Miller! But
> > >don't waste your time, she's married now to a top nanotech researcher!
> >
> > Got a URL for a picture? Marriages break up all the time, you know -
> > :-} Look at Russell Crowe - :-}
>(end)
>
>Umm.... Gina?? You're only encouraging this! Oh, Never mind!!
Now Gina seems to be a person who is NOT concerned about political
correctness, if her Web site photos with the semi-auto (not to mention the
*other* very nice photos) are any indication...
>Amara wrote:
>Only if the girls, the transgendereds, and the other variety of folks
>distributing this population space get to choose centerfolds too ......
>(end)
>
>That would be only fair! And the thought had crossed my mind.
Absolutely.
>you continue:
>BTW, the beautiful, brilliant women, whom I know, are really flattered
>when they discover that they are appreciated (more) for what is between
>their ears.
>(end)
>
>Absolutely! And in my post, I even brought up the matter of women who may
>not be beautiful, but should still be loved and appreciated for who they are.
I agree, but virtually everyone has some standards of physical
appearance. I don't believe that makes someone shallow. I myself tend to
be quite generous with my appreciation - no doubt due to my own emotional
reactions when women do not few me favorably - which has been true all my
life. It is worse when it is not merely your physical appearance that they
reject, but your nature and your values - again, something I have
experienced all my life.
As an aside, it irritates me when women claim to want a sensitive,
compassionate man, then hook up with the first macho, jock a** that walks
by (a recent public example - according to the tabloids anyway - not that
I give them much credence - is Jodie Foster and Russell Crowe).
>I do think that to an extent being extremely physically attractive can
>almost be a handicap. It takes a strong person to deal with such a gift
>properly. It can actually destroy some people.
>
>you continue:
>The aspects of a person that I find most "beautiful" are not what the media
>portrays as beautiful. Real beauty goes alot deeper, John, but it takes
>time to learn about that.
>(end)
>
>Yes, the media/advertising world has done quite a job pushing physical
>beauty as a means to sell product. And I do know real inner beauty is
>something which does time take to learn about and truly appreciate.
And in my personal experience, very few people want to take the time to get
to know someone if their initial "three-second" impression is at all
negative. And very few humans realize that just because one has some
unusual opinions about one subject or another, it does not mean that one is
not capable of intimacy, or passion, or love, or respect. As Barney says of
Hannibal Lector, "One quality does not prevent any other
quality". [D'oh! Bad example! :-}]
>My girlfriend is not a "classic beauty", but to me she is beautiful
>because of the way her inner beauty shines through. She is one of the
>most intelligent and caring women I have ever met. There must be some
>hope for me in that she really sees a lot of good in me.
>
>John Grigg wrote:
>Richard Steven Hack wrote (2.3.2002/07:09) :
> > >"Transhuman babe" is such an interesting term... Should it be the
> Extropy
> > >Institute equivalent to being a Playboy Playmate? And will there be a
> > >tasteful "Transhuman babe" centerfold pic for each issue of Extropy
> > >online? LOL!!
> >
> > Why not? That will get us "mainstream" faster than anything else will
> - :-}
>
>Jacques Du Pasquier wrote:
> >That would be way below extropian standards.
>
> >By the way, don't be rude to the women on the list.
>
>Though I was just kidding around, I share in the blame here because I
>wrote the above paragraph.
>
>Natasha wrote:
>Intelligent and Creative Friends,
>
>I'd rather see discussion and debate over the *contents* of the artwork
>and the art theory which both have been getting great reviews. You have a
>wonderful opportunity now to discuss and critique the current medium of
>"net.art" just as you might discuss and debate the singularity or AI.
>(end)
>
>To be able to fit into the category you are addressing above would be
>quite an honor. I really love your Primo 3M+ work both as a transhumanist
>concept and an artistic endeavor. And I hope your upcoming gallery
>promoting it is a huge success.
>
>I admit to still having much to learn about art as it relates to the human
>body. I suppose I don't know where the lines are that separate regular
>glamour photography from the actual art that you do. Perhaps the whole
>list needs to be educated on this. Or at least just some of us!
>
>I really love this list and the people on it, and it would really be
>painful for me to think some folks are harboring grudges against me. Of
>course people may say they forgive me, but actually still harbor a grudge!
>lol I hope everyone can truly forgive me for my foolishness.
>
>I don't ever want to lose friends like Amara, Gina and Natasha.
>
>sincerely,
>
>John
>
Ditto.
Richard Steven Hack
richardhack@pcmagic.net
--- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.325 / Virus Database: 182 - Release Date: 2/19/02
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:12:44 MST