Hope This Isn't Too Much
<I><B>njjen3953 wrote:</B> "... physically excites you as much as a tickling video model, but also has the qualities you look for in a woman..." </I>
Does your question assume that most tickling video models are exciting ? I promise you that few of them excite me; indeed most don't excite me much at all. They are [1] far too young and [2] far too uhhhhh, "curvy" and [3] there is continual (and nauseating) emphasis on false cinematographic perfection of the facial features with attempted makeup which ruins a perfectly fine woman who looks okay the way she is (i.e., normal). I swear they must run ads asking first for their bra size, and then call in these idiotic "glamour make-over experts" who will invariably turn the poor girl into a space alien. Normal girls are the best girls.
<I><B>Myriads wrote </B> Physical attraction is but lust expressed as the desire to covet the pretty. </I>
Fancy words, but I do pretty much applaud the concept.
Besides, if that's the basis of attraction, then she'll be out of the picture the next time another "better" looking gal walks by.
Her general physical health/shape and her brains are the two items that will attract me, and her total character as an individual woman are what will keep me returning for the second date (and third and fourth and...).
After those preliminary factors have been established, <I>then</I> let's see if we can excite each other. A hollywood face is nearly a disqualification. I like normal looking earth women.
That physical attraction is <I>not</I> "lustful". It is a form of love called <I>eros</I> in the Greek language (English is pathetically lacking in its precision here). When eros is the central basis of a couple's desire, and spawns the rest of the relationship, you will be divorced (if the two of you ever make it to the altar). Believe me, fifty million divorce attorneys can't be wrong.
<I><B>Flatfoot wrote:</B> "...qualities to lead to physical attraction for me, and not the other way around..." </I>
If the women over the age of 30 who are interested in landing a husband could only understand that.
I've heard many older men tell me that women are "wired differently" and "don't think that way", and they've told me that with conviction and certainty to the point that I don't attempt to argue with them.
Will I ever know for sure ?
<I><B>TickledToDeath wrote: </B>"... found her, right here in the TMF! ... Not to mention she is INSANELY ticklish and loves both tickling and being tickled! </I>
QUIT GLOATING IN PUBLIC !!!
<I><B>amk714 wrote: </B>"... the qualities I'm looking for would excite me in many ways, provided she's reasonably attractive, perhaps even average-looking. ..."</I>
By hollywood's standards, I want "average looking or worse". The more the girl looks like a hollywood "beauty", the worse she will be in terms of character. Attention young guys ! Go for the plain ordinary looking girls ! They're better; waaay better. (What's more, they get better looking with age while the walking bombshells get uglier; ask your own Dad and uncles if this is true.)
<I><B>pantsonfire wrote: </B> Sure. Physical attractiveness isn't as important as the fact that she's ticklish, and she's willing to be tied down and tickled.</I>
May we all on the TMF unanimously endorse this concept ?
<I><B>terorizer wrote:</B> "... mental, intellectual, spiritual and emotional compatability in a woman breeds physical attractiveness and excitement...."</I>
Hey gals, pay attention.
<I><B>WorkInProgress wrote: </B>"...don't let the Hollywood images tell you what you should find sexually attractive ..." </I>
Give me an A+ on that assignment !
<I><B>keith940 wrote: </B> "yes and i married her...."</I>
You too Keith ! QUIT GLOATING IN PUBLIC !
Oh, by the way, welcome to the TMF
<I><B>TicklingDuo (Ann) wrote:</B> Leaving tickling out of the equation, would your responses be the same? </I>
I doubt I'd respond. Besides, why are we all (you and me included) here in the first place ?
Isn't Dating the time to establish the knowledge of the tickling interest ? Looks like it worked for Mr. And Mrs. keith940 quite well.
<I><B>MaxSpeer wrote: </B> "... Most of the tickling models ..." </I> and a lot of other words which I thouroughly applaud, mainly because I feel similarly; indeed I take it even further.
I don't want to tickle a woman, I don't want to touch her, and I don't even want to be alone with her until <I>after</I> I know more about her, not the least of which are brains and emotions and opinions and character. If it isn't going to work, let's not start the flames of physical desire. Those flames will have all the time they need later.
<I><B>BigJim wrote: </B>"...a guy could not relate to someone he's in love with, but could to a model on a video; I'd say there was deep emotional or mental issues at large ..."</I>
More applause.
Gals ? You got a boyfriend like the guy BigJim is describing ? Run away, and run away <B>now</B> !
<I><B>Nightfall wrote: </B> "...Okay, guys, you've proven your sensitive side ..."</I> and got down to some brass tacks, and yes, the physical body is a factor in physical attraction. So yes, shape counts. No, I may not like that fact, but I'm not going to write a bunch of "sensitive male" words to bluff it off. So yes, general health and shape are <I>a part</I> of attraction, but they aren't sufficient in and of themselves to hold a life of affection and devotion.
<I><B>BigJim wrote:</B> "...I am VERY attracted to the thought of going out with someone plain looking if she is on my wavelength..."</I>
Fair use doctrine, BigJim; No copyright lawsuits when I draft my ad for the personals section on the TMF.
It's the normal looking women who are <I>always</I> the best at everything else. I mean <I>always</I> as in 100% of the time.
<I><B>njjen3953 wrote:</B> It is apparent that women and men really do see things totally differently.</I>
Maybe those old guys who lectured me were right.
<I><B>shipshirt wrote:</B> no, I couldn't date someone I was not physically attracted to.</I>
If she's not physically <I><B>un</B></I>attractive to me, she's acceptable. There is a tendency in our society to have this ridiculous "cut-off" point for attraction, and set it somewhere along the movie-star group. I say the cut-off point should be moved to those who don't really repulse you; i.e., well over half the female population should be considered "attractive" instead of the 0.0001% of the females who comprise the subset of (so-called) gorgeous babes. That opens your horizons by something like ten times more than what it would be if you fall for the media's lie.
I would estimate that 70 to 80 percent of the women I know are in that group, as far as purely physical attributes alone are concerned.
<I><B>Dave2112 wrote: </B>"...it is very important to have a strong physical relationship, i.e. both into tickling. ... Not that it would be the sole basis of a relationship...not by a long shot..." </I>
Fair use doctrine again. That's going in my ad.
Yes indeed, the strong enticing physical relationship is important because with it, the two people <I>will</I> be coming back together again repeatedly, and without it, they will be continually looking elsewhere. Add in the tickling factor (well, for those of us in this community) and you've got quite a strong lock on each other.
And no, without the other factors (like adequate employment and emotional stability and behavior with banks, the law, food, housekeeping, the neighbors, the in-laws, yard care, domestic responsibility, attitudes toward alcohol, television habits, and about 37 other factors) tickling alone won't keep the couple together.
Wo ! This is a very long post. Hope it doesn't break the rules or anything.