Here's a thought for pennies: perhaps the difference between physical beauty, personality, and intelligence isn't that great? It just strikes me that what people consider "attractive" tends to differ, and two people may think that they're talking about it when they aren't.

For example, Kimberly said that she'd date Quasimoto if he was considerate, intelligent, fun to be with, etc. Her friend stated that it's just as arbitrary to be attracted to someone for their brains as their looks. Kimberly, I re-read your post, and I don't think that you were describing Quasimodo as intelligent. Sure, showing someone that you're smart can be very attractive. But I could excitedly go into Great Detail all about the behavior of electrons between two bonded hydrogen atoms, and you may it incredibly bored.

So we can't judge a person's attractiveness solely on their intelligence, just as we can't judge it on their good looks. It appears that a good personality, charm, wit, etc. is what makes someone really attractive, but what if they're dumb as a brick? Or not as pretty as the next person? Do we need to find someone who's very intelliegent, witty, caring, AND good looking to find a good example of "attractiveness"?

I hope not! I've actually met such people, and not found them the least bit "attractive". What I think, and I must turn to the Buddhist point of view here, is that it's all about identity. No matter how other people view us as individuals, if a person truly believes that they are a worthwhile, attractive person, then other people find them attractive. Other people recognize the identity the attractive person has accepted, and act (or react) to it.

Somehow all the philosophy I learn is going back to Buddhism. . .