power

[Kelley]

At 02:45 PM 3/5/02 -0800, joanna bujes wrote:
>At 05:13 PM 03/05/2002 -0500, you wrote:
>>wait a minute. does power as a turn on explain why a conventionally
>>unattractive woman gets all the conventionally attractive men (AKA Hotties).
>>
>>
>>cheeeeeee-rist.
>
>No. Why should it? We're soooo on different tracks here.
>
>As for the hottie question, doesn't that relate to the virgin/whore thing? 
>Men get hot for sleazy women: looks are mostly irrelevant. But why do you 
>say it's the attractive men who are drawn to the hotties? This I do not get.

probably because i didn't say that!

i was annoyed with the--once again!--generalized claim: power is an 
aphrodisiac.

well, no, in general, men are not, to my knowledge, turned on enough by 
powerful women that they'd overlook whether that woman was conventionally 
attractive.

it's strikes me as pretty tragic that there's a wealth of literature out 
there that could help us deal with these topics, and yet, most of the time 
we're all stuck on talking about them as if we had to invent the wheel.

kelley