Points of Attraction

What makes a person attractive? For me, it goes beyond looks and intelligence and I've come up with a point system to illustrate this. I apply it to both men and women in an attempt to adequately assess the potential for a rewarding relationship and I encourage you to do the same, but please keep in mind that this is a work in progress.


LOOKS (2 points)
>Refers to public physical appearance.
>2 points because some features may be a turn on while others are not. Eg. I give Gerard Butler 1 point for having a somewhat handsome face & good body when he's fit and bearded Eric Bana 2 points (he looked good in "The Other Boleyn Girl").
>Includes sex appeal: a softer, more sensual side indicates the person is in touch with their animal instincts. Rawr.

>1 point for book smarts, 1 point for street smarts and 1 point for relationship smarts. I won't waste my time with an Einstein who can't read a road map, a hustler who can't spell for shit or a serial cheater.
>Includes analytic intelligence: the ability to assess a situation and determine the right course of action.
>Includes attention to detail: it's one thing to acknowledge the bigger picture, but do they also pick up on the finer points?
>Includes environmental awareness: how well does your companion notice what's going on around him/her? Is the house burning down while they discuss Newton's Law of Physics? Save yourself and don't look back.

>Genuine laughter is such a turn on.
>Can they tell a funny joke? Can they take one?
>Are they more inclined to an upbeat disposition?
>Impossible to have one if they're not relaxed and comfortable in their own skin, which explains my lifelong aversion to Robin Williams' "schtick".

>Absolutely crucial. I'll never understand why some people are attracted to tyrants like Mel Gibson.
>Breakdown: generosity of spirit (1), empathy (1), classiness (1), dignity/pride (1), diplomacy/tact (1), honesty (1) and conscience (1).

>1 point for awareness of what it takes to be healthy, 1 point for execution and 1 point for consistency.
>I rule out addicts of ALL stripes. If they don't care what they put in their body/can't help self-abuse, there's no future for us.
>Includes: adherence to a healthy diet, regular exercise, sleep patterns, fresh air/sunshine consumption, personal/environmental hygiene and stress management.

RESILIENCE (4 points)
>How well do they rebound from setbacks? How thick is their skin? Do they crumble into an emotional wreck at the slightest provocation?
>Breakdown: effort put forth (1), persistence (1), patience (1) and learning from mistakes (1).

CONFIDENCE (2 points)
> You either are or you're not, but I give 1 point for confidence in the workplace and 1 point for confidence in personal relationships.
>Are they confident enough to take (calculated) risks? Do they trust their instincts and demonstrate a good sense of timing? Do they accept or shy away from a challenge?

DISCIPLINE (3 points)
>Sometimes, restraint is an asset. How well does the person resist manipulation, temptation and peer pressure? Do they have good anger management skills? Do they take care of their body or shove whatever comes along into their gaping maw? And yes, I'm aware of the overlap with "HEALTH" - but go figure - you can't have one without the other.
>1 point for discipline in the workplace, 1 for in personal relationships and 1 for in personal health.

CREATIVITY (4 points)
>This includes two spheres: 1. Innovation at work and in one's personal life (ie. Do they demonstrate flexibility in their thinking and venture "outside of the box"?) and 2. an appreciation for the Arts. Do they paint, compose or dance? Are they moved by artistic expression?
>Breakdown: workplace creativity (1), innovation in personal life situations (1), artistic expression (1) and artistic enjoyment (1).

Total: 29 points

Ok, whew! That's quite a list. Yes, I know "people aren't perfect" blah blah blah, but the objective of this exercise is to expand the definition of "attractive". Oftentimes, we sell ourselves and each other short by stubbornly adhering to criteria that's far more limited in its scope. Don't get me wrong: if you don't like what you see from the get-go, then it's near-impossible to force oneself into a rewarding relationship, but there's so much MORE to take into account when assessing another person than we've been led to believe by TV, movies, magazines etc.

Also, notice that I've left work-related success off the list. Is he an astronaut or is she a doctor? Fine - obviously they've ample book smarts, discipline and persistence, but it's my belief that society labels accomplished people as "successful" while disregarding important factors like access to opportunities (ie. there's no such thing as a "level playing field" in the work environment) and a sense of human decency. In other words, it doesn't mean squat to me if Mr./Ms. X won the Nobel Peace Prize if they're a bona fide JACKASS in real life.

And this: let's say achieving a perfect score is an unrealistic goal for just about everybody. Well, fine! No need to fret - these are mere guidelines that challenge the boundaries of our expectations. Besides, even if you could achieve a perfect 29, what're the odds of meeting another 29? Slim to nil. BUT, if you - let's say - score low on health and human decency, chances are greater you'll meet someone who does too and both of you can enjoy time spent together devouring Twinkies for breakfast while shooting pigeons with homemade slingshots. After all, isn't depravity better accomplished with company??