by Guest » Thu Jun 19, 2008 10:29 am
I think all of us are missing the point.
Initially I tagged her as a low value girl because she appears to have a really shitty attitude. Fact is that I don't really know that for sure...none of us really do.
I think the blog is symbolic, however. Assuming of course that it is true. It reeks of superficiality and shallowness. In which case the blog, and the writer, should be attacked. The issue is that we really don't know what she's like. Could be that any one of us could meet her, show her our personality, then we assess her value, and we find that she's a great person.
Grain of salt my friends, grain of salt.
I think the real take-away from this is that this girl, just like everyone on the freaking planet, has some ideal vision of her perfect person living in her head. Or, at least she thinks she does. In practice, she's going to end up falling head over heels for a guy that doesn't really resemble the guy she described in her blog. As a matter of fact, the mere fact that she's putting these qualities on paper tells me that she probably hasn't regularly been with a guy like she has described. If she has always had relationships with a guy like that in her blog, do you think she would set out to put all of this on paper as if she were requisiting this combination of traits? NO.
PC alluded to it earlier, as did I when I quoted the 'speed date' study. In theory we have a vision of what we want. That's our higher level thinking rationalizing what we want and why. But, attraction is built just as much on biology as it is on rational thought. At the end of the day, we simply don't fully know what we want until we're presented with it...