You can think that someone is beautiful and not be attracted to them.

But thinking a type isn't sexually attractive seems so much more politically rife. I mean, I know I'd bristle if a guy said he thought black women are beautiful, but not sexually attractive.

I wouldn't have a leg to stand on in an argument, so I wouldn't have it, but I'm trying to imagine seeing that quote from a white guy in the press, and what would happen as a result.

I've written 16 convoluted sentences trying to explain what I felt - beautiful and even sensual are a judgment , or a quality I place on someone/something. Sexual attraction is more of feeling - which may are may nor be related to the qualities. ( this has a lot to do with the phenomenon I've noticed that the more you know someone the better or worse they look , depending on how much I like or dislike them )

You can think that someone is beautiful and not be attracted to them.

That's been my explanation for why my Kinsey score stays at 0. There are many beautiful women out there. None of them make me want to do things with them.

I think the statement "beautiful, but I'm not attracted to type X" could be hurtful -especially if said to you, who happens to be type x. But some people just have stronger attraction to a particular 'type'. My 'type' has gotten broader the older I get,so that i almost don't believe in the concept of type.

hivemind

thank you note for an interview - via email or hard copy?

unless they are a very old fashion or low tech place, email is fast - which seems to count

We're not beholden to find everything sexually attractive, but do you think this statement is going to undermine any of what he's done in the eyes of big women?

The statement pinged me with 'Why? Why do we always have to classify people as sexually available/desirable to us?'

I say, "He seemed nice." My friend says, "Oh, he's gay." I say, "He seemed nice." My friend says "Oh, but he could stand to skip a few meals."

I'll confess to scanning for wedding rings when I see someone attractive, but it makes no sense to me that everyone is qualified as sexually available and/or attractive.

I so wished, given the excellent content of that story that the writer had left off that last bit. It seemed already explained (if it really needed to be) by Nimoy's snark over people wondering if he was a fetishist.

Then again, perhaps the too fine point was made at his request.

The statement pinged me with 'Why? Why do we always have to classify people as sexually available/desirable to us?'

Because the article is somewhat about that. I don't think he's walking up to people and volunteering the information. Nothing said earlier in the article made him seem like the sort of guy who had to make it clear he didn't want to shag fat women, in case anyone thought he was some weirdo chubby chaser (feel free to replace that with your own derogatory term that fits the context).

In an article about expanding and calmly challenging view of fatter women, yeah, I think it's in context.

I mean, I know I'd bristle if a guy said he thought black women are beautiful, but not sexually attractive.

I think there is also a semantic issue here. Does Nimoy mean "sexually attractive" in general, or does he mean that HE is not sexually attracted to them. I took it to mean the latter, and I think that you interpreted the former. Those two concepts are different.

eta: He said:

He doesn’t necessarily find them sexually attractive. “But I do think they’re beautiful.”

so, he is not sexually attracted to large women, but does not say that they are not or cannot be sexually attractive.

I don't think that the statement "______ are not sexually attractive" can be made on its face. I think that "to me" is inherent in the statment, because no one can decide what someone else finds sexually attractive.

I took it to mean the latter, and I think that you interpreted the former

I absolutely did not, and am not sure why you got that impression.

I'm not up in arms about what he said at all. In fact, my reaction to it is completely irrelevant here. I'm just wondering about the impact of that statement--I can see it having one like ChiKat had. And that might detract from the general positivity of the article, which I think is remarkable in its rockingness.

Remember--I started off by saying that no one is beholden to find everyone sexually attractive.