Would you date someone who didn't find you physically attractive -- a BETTER poll!

[Mrs. Luther073082]

I think some people may be misreading the question in the OP. I am not asking if you would date someone YOU think is unattractive. I am asking if you would date someone who thinks YOU'RE not attractive. Just to clarify.

 

[ProAntiRevolution]

Not being much to look at I'm going to assume that anyone dating me is doing so because they think I have something else to offer.

 

[Mrs. Luther073082]

I'm not sure if it would be as painful for guys as for girls. There's that whole research thing that was posted in the other thread, for starters, and then there's the fact that women seem to learn from our culture that looks are the be all end all of everything. The research posted in the other thread unfortunately seems to support that, given that relationships where the female SO was less attractive did not fair well.

 

[NoodlesNoodlesNoodles]

There is a huge difference between loving and accepting a person, flaws and all and thinking someone looks like a gargoyle and giving them a chance because they "seem like a nice person." First of all, ouch to the latter situation. I expect to be in love with whomever I marry (should I marry), so of course I'm going to have to find him attractive physically. I hate (hate) when people think they're shallow or that others are shallow for admitting to having eyeballs and preferences. So not true. Likewise though, I would hope and pray that my mans would find me delicious to look at, too.

Gargoyles need love too, you know. What about facial burn victims? Cleft palette? Partially absorbed twin?

My contention is almost entirely that Christ loves the unlovely. Marriage, from a Christian perspective, is all about reflecting God's love in multiple facets. Also, true love is in no way effected my externals. Love is a choice. Do we really need to get into this sermon that I think we've all heard a million times?

Admitting to having eyeballs and preferences is not shallow, no. Letting those preferences for externals dictate who you choose... yes. I think the better term would be "un-christlike".

Noodles, I wasn't thinking of a specific thread in the married forums -- just a bunch of threads I've seen over time. I will have to look at the one you posted if I can find it.

Eek, I wasn't thinking of a specific thread either. I was just making a generic title to try to find out what exactly you were talking about. Was it a general topic like people not finding their spouse attractive anymore?

I wonder about that myself as well. What happens if after 15 or 20 years they balloon to 300 pounds, stop shaving body parts and decide to see how long they can grow their toenails? I dunno. What can you do at that point? *he asks rhetorically*

I'm not sure if it would be as painful for guys as for girls. There's that whole research thing that was posted in the other thread, for starters, and then there's the fact that women seem to learn from our culture that looks are the be all end all of everything.

So sad.

The hard truth is most people are average looking at best. People that are average looking, or below, compromise the majority of humanity. So the truth is odds are if someone is thinking you're wonderful to look at it will because they've come to appreciate something about you on a deeper level than your actual looks. Which are, average, after all.

When my last girlfriend called me average she was just being mean.

(That joke never gets old for me )

 

[PinkSweetart]

In many, many ways we all do. To disagree with it, seems rather pointless. I don't care if its 1% or 100% if there is something about that person that attracts you -then you would want to be with them. I know my post was rather silly, but I didn't mean it that I would want to be completely hot for anyone. I couldn't be even if I tried, but, I would rather have them see qualities that made me more attractive. I've said this a million times and will say it again, when I get to know someone, they become better looking for me. There is something so beautiful about them, that makes the things that were not noticeable in the beginning, more noticeable. If its faith, compassion, kindness, stubbornness, strength...it doesn't matter, whatever quality they have.
Now that I really think about it, if a guy did not find me attractive and did date me to get to know me then I don't believe it would be pity anymore, because I know I would have something that they would find attractive later on. Just, as I don't believe I would date someone I didn't think was attractive, as pity, because I am going to find something amazing about them.

I think the question is, are we will to give people that chance?

This is exactly what I was trying to say in my post earlier. My words don't flow so nicely like yours.

 

[anewday]

I voted no. He needs to be attracted to me to some degree and I to him. Like others have said, I have not been immediately attracted to a man I was dating/getting to know, but the more I got to know him the more outwardly (and inwardly) attractive he would become to me. I skimmed through most of the responses, but did anyone mention Song of Solomon? I do agree with those that said inward beauty/quailities are much more important to look upon than outward beauty. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the groom and his bride in Song of Solomon seemed pretty outwardly attracted to each other. I'm not saying this is right or wrong. Just thought about this book and wanted to point this out. A person's heart should be the most important part of them. If all you do is focus on physical beauty, then you're in trouble. Your significant other could get into a horrible accident that disfigures them for life, not age well, etc.

 

[Sketcher]

No. No reason to consign myself to a relationship of backhanded compliments.

 

[NoodlesNoodlesNoodles]

I skimmed through most of the responses, but did anyone mention Song of Solomon? I do agree with those that said inward beauty/quailities are much more important to look upon than outward beauty. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the groom and his bride in Song of Solomon seemed pretty outwardly attracted to each other. I'm not saying this is right or wrong. Just thought about this book and wanted to point this out. A person's heart should be the most important part of them. If all you do is focus on physical beauty, then you're in trouble. Your significant other could get into a horrible accident that disfigures them for life, not age well, etc.

That's a good point! And one that I almost brought up. The physical compliments between the two show that enjoying the human body within marriage is no sin at all. However, I hope no one uses that to justify using physical beauty to bond a relationship together. S of S is license for a married couple to enjoy the human body and encourage a lack of shame and inhibitions in a sexual relationship. S'all.

No. No reason to consign myself to a relationship of backhanded compliments.

If you consign yourself to a life of backhanded compliments, it's not because you're partner thinks you're ugly. It's because your partner is a jackass.

 

[Rhye]

Noodles, you make my day!

 

[white dove]

Gargoyles need love too, you know. What about facial burn victims? Cleft palette? Partially absorbed twin?

My contention is almost entirely that Christ loves the unlovely. Marriage, from a Christian perspective, is all about reflecting God's love in multiple facets. Also, true love is in no way effected my externals. Love is a choice. Do we really need to get into this sermon that I think we've all heard a million times?

Admitting to having eyeballs and preferences is not shallow, no. Letting those preferences for externals dictate who you choose... yes. I think the better term would be "un-christlike".

Hm, and yet.. the marriage relationship is unlike any other known to (wo)man. Fancy that.


The thing is, of course true love is a choice. Of course true love transcends the physical. But, when you're talking about a relationship like marriage (again, significantly different than any other relationship we have with others) where physical intimacy and affection, sex and desires exist, the needs alter a bit. True love is of course still required. However, we cannot deny the physical needs of others. Song of Songs? It's not wrong to desire the physical in a spouse. It's a blessing to behold them with the eyes and the.. whatever you got going on. For me, making love exclusively in the dark with a supposed future-husband is not an option. Referring to burn victims and tragic circumstances... you have taken my post completely wrong. I love it when people bring up rare circumstances and perhaps more accurately, circumstances they themselves have never been in. I'm not trying to pull a self-righteous trick here, but clearly you are. I would never call someone "un-Christlike" for having different needs and desires.

 

[NoodlesNoodlesNoodles]

Hm, and yet.. the marriage relationship is unlike any other known to (wo)man. Fancy that.

You're right in it's uniqueness... but I can't see what that has to do with the discussion. I've read up and down and am probably missing something.

The thing is, of course true love is a choice. Of course true love transcends the physical. But, when you're talking about a relationship like marriage (again, significantly different than any other relationship we have with others) where physical intimacy and affection, sex and desires exist, the needs alter a bit. True love is of course still required.

Needs can only righteously alter as much as God allows. Needs can include maturity, spiritual understanding, and other Godly characteristics. However, moving on to the next point...

However, we cannot deny the physical needs of others. Song of Songs? It's not wrong to desire the physical in a spouse. It's a blessing to behold them with the eyes and the.. whatever you got going on.

Yes! Perfectly correct. It's not wrong to have and enjoy your spouses physicality. That's not my point. My point has been that demanding a certain physical response from your spouse (i.e. must find you attractive) doesn't have a place in true love or marriage. Emphasis on the word "demand". It would be nice, sure. But can't be demanded.

For me, making love exclusively in the dark with a supposed future-husband is not an option. Referring to burn victims and tragic circumstances... you have taken my post completely wrong. I love it when people bring up rare circumstances and perhaps more accurately, circumstances they themselves have never been in. I'm not trying to pull a self-righteous trick here, but clearly you are. I would never call someone "un-Christlike" for having different needs and desires.

As I was mentioning the topic of burn victims and etc. I seriously thought about disclaiming it with a few things, but didn't I now wish I did.

I truly wasn't trying to pull a straw man argument, where an extreme posotion is built up and then attacked. Is it unusual situations? Yes. Even extreme? Maybe. But this is God and his doctrine we're handling, not theoretical math. If a thing is true, it must be true to the extremes. God is not a god of opt-outs, almost-theres and close-enoughs. If love is what he says it is, it is to be done His way at all times even in the most extreme circumstances. Sometimes His way does involve choices that are left up to us, sure.

We are altogether ugly in God's sight due to our choice for sin. He loved us and married himself to us. God made marriage a human institution, told us it's his way of having us reflect him. The demand for my spouse to be pretty to me or me to be pretty to her is not possible to do. If I should see a girl in church who is a burn vitcim, why should I check her off? She is a soul, a child of God. I'm a man, charged with loving a wife some day. What discounts her from me? Or me from her if the tables were turned?

(Replace "burn victim" with "fugly sack of crap" and it still works exactly the same way)

Not that we should intentionally look for ugly (inside or outside) people or stay ugly (inside or outside) ourselves. But physical beauty cannot be demanded as a means for a relationship to work. If a marriage fails or falters because one person is not attracted to the other, it's the fault of the sinners' and their choices. Not the ugliness of the person. It's not a deterrent for future marriages to have some kind of "physical compatibility" on a prettiness scale. It's a warning for other people to grow the frick up and be Godly to their ugly spouse.

My contention is, and will continue to be until I can be doctrinally proven otherwise: Including a physical characteristic in a must-have list for a spouse or demanding that a spouse find you attractive physically is not allowed. It would be nice, sure. But I can't find reason to demand it within a christian framework.

I'm not trying to call someone "un-Christlike" for having different needs and desires. I'm calling un-christlike desires what they are. Unchristlike. What if I desire a girl who's a 8 on my scale in the name of physical compatibility and won't relent? I would be... in divine trouble.

 

[xuxana]

heck no. why should i? why would anybody?

 

[white dove]

You're right in it's uniqueness... but I can't see what that has to do with the discussion. I've read up and down and am probably missing something.

I mentioned its uniqueness because you appeared to be focusing in on the 1 Corinthians 13 aspect of love, not honing in on the unique aspects of love that exists between 2 spouses. Again, 1 Corinthians 13 is still present, but there is also more to consider.

If Bill Nye were here, he would say: Consider the following... and have random clips of baboons, centipedes and caterpillers doing "the nasty."

Needs can only righteously alter as much as God allows. Needs can include maturity, spiritual understanding, and other Godly characteristics. However, moving on to the next point...

Ah. Another slight backhand, huh? So again, people who (conveniently, don't think as you do) consider the physical on some level must be: immature/ungodly and lack spiritual understanding.

Oop, but wait. There's more..

Yes! Perfectly correct. It's not wrong to have and enjoy your spouses physicality. That's not my point. My point has been that demanding a certain physical response from your spouse (i.e. must find you attractive) doesn't have a place in true love or marriage. Emphasis on the word "demand". It would be nice, sure. But can't be demanded.

Who here is demanding it? I think most people have said they would like it or that ideally, yes that would happen. Demanding? Where?

As I was mentioning the topic of burn victims and etc. I seriously thought about disclaiming it with a few things, but didn't I now wish I did.

I truly wasn't trying to pull a straw man argument, where an extreme posotion is built up and then attacked. Is it unusual situations? Yes. Even extreme? Maybe. But this is God and his doctrine we're handling, not theoretical math. If a thing is true, it must be true to the extremes. God is not a god of opt-outs, almost-theres and close-enoughs. If love is what he says it is, it is to be done His way at all times even in the most extreme circumstances. Sometimes His way does involve choices that are left up to us, sure.

We are altogether ugly in God's sight due to our choice for sin. He loved us and married himself to us. God made marriage a human institution, told us it's his way of having us reflect him. The demand for my spouse to be pretty to me or me to be pretty to her is not possible to do. If I should see a girl in church who is a burn vitcim, why should I check her off? She is a soul, a child of God. I'm a man, charged with loving a wife some day. What discounts her from me? Or me from her if the tables were turned?

(Replace "burn victim" with "fugly sack of crap" and it still works exactly the same way)

Have you ever dated a "fugly sack of crap?" You can make this easier on yourself and saying 'yes' and offering several different stories to make your point. Otherwise, you're being a bit of a hypocrite here.

Again, I wouldn't say the physical is unimportant to me. Ever. I cannot lie. I'm not saying I've dated Greek gods, but their appearances were something that interested me and attracted me. The rest of them added much more though.

Not that we should intentionally look for ugly (inside or outside) people or stay ugly (inside or outside) ourselves. But physical beauty cannot be demanded as a means for a relationship to work. If a marriage fails or falters because one person is not attracted to the other, it's the fault of the sinners' and their choices. Not the ugliness of the person. It's not a deterrent for future marriages to have some kind of "physical compatibility" on a prettiness scale. It's a warning for other people to grow the frick up and be Godly to their ugly spouse.

My contention is, and will continue to be until I can be doctrinally proven otherwise: Including a physical characteristic in a must-have list for a spouse or demanding that a spouse find you attractive physically is not allowed. It would be nice, sure. But I can't find reason to demand it within a christian framework.

I'm not trying to call someone "un-Christlike" for having different needs and desires. I'm calling un-christlike desires what they are. Unchristlike. What if I desire a girl who's a 8 on my scale in the name of physical compatibility and won't relent? I would be... in divine trouble.

I don't think anyone should get married if they don't figure that their spouses' appearance will change to a certain extent as they age. It happens. And if there is some waning physical attraction, I agree that that is the problem of that person (which, in turn, becomes a problem to the other, sadly).

As far as being "un-Christlike," you can step around that all you want, but you already stated it. I don't believe for one moment you're not and were not ego-tripping in your post(s).

 

[white dove]

On second thought, I can see where you got the "demand" part based on the poll options. I'll give you that. It can seem like a demand.



But how is this "demand"/requirement/ideal any different than anything else? In that case, we should have no standards/ideals of any kind? I mean, if love is indeed the be-all and end-all, what more is needed, right? We don't live in John Lennon's world.

 

[ProAntiRevolution]

This is why everyone should be Catholic or Orthodox. For those of us who are unworthy of love because of being physically unattractive we can just go the monastic route.

 

[Rhye]

Not being much to look at I'm going to assume that anyone dating me is doing so because they think I have something else to offer.

That is false.

 

[white dove]

That's a good point! And one that I almost brought up. The physical compliments between the two show that enjoying the human body within marriage is no sin at all. However, I hope no one uses that to justify using physical beauty to bond a relationship together. S of S is license for a married couple to enjoy the human body and encourage a lack of shame and inhibitions in a sexual relationship. S'all.

Physical beauty? Not so much as a physical bond. The act of making love is just one way a married couple can bond, both physically and spiritually -- you cannot take out either or, they both exist in union. This is one of the reasons why I think it is so dangerous to discount one or the other. I agree with what Ethnog had mentioned in her post, as well. When you are attracted to someone physically, that doesn't mean that person has you, has enraptured you or taken hold of you - not for very long, at least. When you truly get to know someone and thus, fall in love with them, the attraction only grows and deepens. It really depends what that person has to offer and what the other person really sees in them. But again, if it isn't physical, it must be something else. So again, I don't see how one can "poo-poo" physical attraction and yet, understand other forms of attraction. In that case, things like compatibility are null and void.. and I don't think there is any truth to that.

 

[Apollo Celestio]

Uh, this is a toughie from my perspective.

 

[Mrs. Luther073082]

We need to differentiate between "doesn't think I'm bikini-model material" and "thinks I'm so repulsive he gags everytime we're together".

The first one, sure I'd date him, if he geniunely liked/loved me and didn't care about outer shell so much (I voted yes in the poll along this line of thinking). There are soooo many couples out there who are just plain ol' average-looking people, and they love each other, and that's all they care about. To think that you just can't love a person who isn't smashingly hot on the outside...is such a disservice to our humanity and the possible depth with which we CAN live if we choose to.

If the second one...umm...why would he even ask me out if he couldn't hold his lunch around me?

I keep thinking about this post. Again, Vicky, great minds think alike I, however, voted "no" because I had more of the "so repulsive he gags" thing in mind.

 

[NoodlesNoodlesNoodles]

White dove, I'll smoosh together your three previous posts into this one response:

I mentioned its uniqueness because you appeared to be focusing in on the 1 Corinthians 13 aspect of love, not honing in on the unique aspects of love that exists between 2 spouses. Again, 1 Corinthians 13 is still present, but there is also more to consider.

If Bill Nye were here, he would say: Consider the following... and have random clips of baboons, centipedes and caterpillers doing "the nasty."

1 Cor 13 does play a part in this, but I'm not ignoring the 1 Cor 7:5 aspect either. In fact, this whole topic is something I jumped on because I've been focused on 1 Cor 7 for about a month now, trying to hack through it with the likes of Luther, Calvin and some other reformers.

As far as I can tell, the proper application of sex or sexual attraction in the bible is not mentioned in context of it having any bearing on if a marriage between two people should take place. I think of Proverbs 5:19 where men are told to be satisfied with the wife of their youth, her breasts and her love. The context isn't "find someone who's body and love satisfy you" but rather "You there man, be satisfied."

What you're saying all makes sense in a way. Sexual attraction and compatibility are not insignificant things. However, getting down to brass tacks, the bible does not seem show that as being a factor in choosing a mate.

The only halfway coherent argument I've ever heard concerning if attraction should play a part in choosing a spouse, is this: Since one of marriage's roles is to prevent sexual immorality, then there should be some sexual attraction within the marriage. That truly makes me stop and think. Why? Because it's actually reasoned out with biblical backing.

Ah. Another slight backhand, huh? So again, people who (conveniently, don't think as you do) consider the physical on some level must be: immature/ungodly and lack spiritual understanding.

No, it's not a matter of people thinking as I do. It's a matter of if people are thinking thoughts in line with the bible.

If I'm part of a tour group and own a map of the site, it's not "convenient" that I happen to be telling people the directions to any place. It's reality. The map says certain things are certain places and that's that. The Bible refers to love and marriage in certain terms. I'm simply using standard rules of verbal communication, historical context and at times a hazy look into original language to try and figure out exactly how that has bearing on the human race. Once you use those three tools, certain doctrines come to light.

This is not merely my own fancy, this is a viewpoint shared by many of Christianity's Reformers and theologians. No, that's not an argument from authority, it's showing that I'm not a loose cannon with crazy ideas. Or if I do have crazy ideas, at least I'm not alone in the padded cell.

Who here is demanding it? I think most people have said they would like it or that ideally, yes that would happen. Demanding? Where?

On second thought, I can see where you got the "demand" part based on the poll options. I'll give you that. It can seem like a demand.

Yeah, I think you got it. The question is "Would you date someone who didn't find you physically attractive" and people are mostly saying "No". To make it a positive statement, "People must find me physically attractive to date me". That's pretty much an imperative so that's why I'm using the word "demand".

Now, what level of physical attraction someone wants their spouse to feel is a sliding scale. Some people want their spouse to collapse in ecstasy at the site of them, others are just happy for a "you're kinda cute". But either way, we're in imperative "People must find me physically attractive to date me" territory.

But how is this "demand"/requirement/ideal any different than anything else? In that case, we should have no standards/ideals of any kind? I mean, if love is indeed the be-all and end-all, what more is needed, right? We don't live in John Lennon's world.

That's exactly correct! When I realized that fact a few months or maybe a year back (time flies), I paired down my list of demands for a spouse to 2.5 things. 1) Saved, 2) A heart motivated by charity, 2.5) More outgoing than me (that last one I couldn't stand on firmly since it has no bearing on spirituality or anything -- it's just a preference of mine that I was hoping for). I even stated that in the "dealbreakers' thread. I stated one demand: "saved" and said that everything else would just be a selfish list of demands.

But really, why are those 2 things of mine even something I can demand? Martin Luther even argued against the demand that someone be a believer in Christ to be eligible for marriage to another believer. In reality, I should be able to be married to any living single female on this planet and make it work to marriage's ultimate goal, which is to glorify God. I should be able to. Am I able to? Probably not. Why? I'm immature.

True love, as Christ exemplifies it, is capable of living with joy and happiness with anyone (which might not be comfortable when living with certain types of people). True love is the emptying of self for the betterment of the other. True love is way better than John Lennon's thoughts on the topic. We don't have to imagine. Everyone who believes on Christ has a groom who didn't find them intrinsically attractive, but could only use the love that he himself exemplifies to marry himself to us.

Have you ever dated a "fugly sack of crap?" You can make this easier on yourself and saying 'yes' and offering several different stories to make your point. Otherwise, you're being a bit of a hypocrite here.

Have I ever dated a "fugly sack of crap?" No! You know why? Because I'm wicked! That's why. That's the trouble part of this whole thing. I have seen the enemy, and it's me. I want an attractive female and I want to be attractive to her. That's my nature. And my nature is totally screwed up, self seeking and pretty much indefensible in light of the Bible.

So to be clear here, let's not have any doubt. I am a total hypocrite. I am condemned by my own words, hoist by my own petard. I see what is the right thing to do and live, and I don't like it or want it. I see Christ's teaching, I see the bible's doctrines and it really annoys me by nature. I know what's right, and I don't like it. By nature, I'm basically giving Jesus the middle finger and saying "Thanks for that whole atonement and substitution thing, but there's some things that I'm just not going to live out like you say! Sorry, bro!" To which I hear ringing in my ears "Why do you call me Lord and don't do the things that I say?"

That's me. An utterly contemptible, wicked hypocrite. No, that is not hyperbole. No, I am not smiling. Yes, I am serious. My hope is that the Lord will mature me, because if left to myself I'm totally hopeless and will only continue to get worse.

I don't think anyone should get married if they don't figure that their spouses' appearance will change to a certain extent as they age. It happens. And if there is some waning physical attraction, I agree that that is the problem of that person (which, in turn, becomes a problem to the other, sadly).

As far as being "un-Christlike," you can step around that all you want, but you already stated it. I don't believe for one moment you're not and were not ego-tripping in your post(s).

I'm not trying to step around anything. I don't know what gave you that idea. If someone looks at you and says "Sorry girl, I don't like the way you look so we can't be together," then the plain simple fact of the bible is that they are not being like Christ.

And as for ego-tripping, I can only tell you that that wasn't my motivation.

Physical beauty? Not so much as a physical bond. The act of making love is just one way a married couple can bond, both physically and spiritually -- you cannot take out either or, they both exist in union.

I'm with you 100% so far.

This is one of the reasons why I think it is so dangerous to discount one or the other. I agree with what Ethnog had mentioned in her post, as well. When you are attracted to someone physically, that doesn't mean that person has you, has enraptured you or taken hold of you - not for very long, at least. When you truly get to know someone and thus, fall in love with them, the attraction only grows and deepens. It really depends what that person has to offer and what the other person really sees in them. But again, if it isn't physical, it must be something else. So again, I don't see how one can "poo-poo" physical attraction and yet, understand other forms of attraction. In that case, things like compatibility are null and void.. and I don't think there is any truth to that.

I think the topic of arranged marriages, as brought up in the sister thread to this one, is important here. If my understanding of the history of marriage is correct, the vast majority of cultures practice it in some form for most of human history. Some people will cite female subjugation, humans as property, abuses and extreme cases such as sheiks with 1000 wives. However, by and large it seems to have worked out pretty well for people.

The Bible certainly never speaks against it. It never says "This is the way it must be done" either. But, the silence indicates that it's not sin and can be done that way if a culture so chooses. The bible typically speaks of marriage after the fact. "Dwell joyfully with the wife of thy youth. Let her breasts satisfy you" as in, after the fact of marriage. Song of Solomon was written about a married couple' sexual enjoyment... after the fact of marriage had taken place. The NT speaks of how to treat your spouse... after the fact of marriage.

It seems that God is much more concerned with how we behave in our marriage than in how we get married. That would seem to include a laundry list of wants and desires. We are told "let every man have his own wife and every woman have her own husband." We are told what characteristics makes a godly man and what characteristics make a godly woman. I can't see evidence that god is pleased when people make physical attraction or sexual compatibility part of their demands for a spouse. With the possible exception of the above concept that if marriage is in part to quell sexual immorality, then a total lack of sexual attraction could be dangerous. That one seems like an immature trap door to escape through, but maybe it's "allowable" in the same way that divorce was allowed for the hardness of men's hearts.

It may be possible that part of having godly wisdom is to not choose someone that is so grating and so annoying and so repulsive to you that it would make marriage unnecessarily hard. However, taking it so far that ugly people are left out does not seem godly. Choosing based on personality types seems different than physical characteristics because a personality type is part of who a person is. A physical type has utterly no bearing on who a person is. A person is not visible. Their body is, however.



All I know, is that suddenly I'm very glad that I'm not heinously ugly. Must suck to be those people.