Not everyone is beautiful

[Internet Jesus]

It also cuts the other way, too. If a woman has virtues unrelated to her looks, but also has looks, she is often reduced to being a pretty face and her other qualities are demoted to second-class attributes or even ignored. For many women it's almost a requirement to be borderline ugly before they can be taken seriously -- of course, lacking beauty they have a lot more trouble being heard in the first place. This is a great disservice not only to women but to society in general, because it encourages beautiful women to aspire only to beauty, and stacks the deck against ugly women, both of which serve to reinforce the bullshit notion that pretty girls are weak and/or dumb, and strong/intelligent women are undesirable. This is obviously overgeneralizing it but the tendency is there, I think.

But I don't think it's so easy to divorce sex drive from value judgments based on beauty, especially considering how sex-obsessed (and repressed) our culture is.

HAR!  And when they want to show a woman scientist in a movie or a commercial, she always looks like a supermodel in a lab coat.

Contrast that with the female genius in The Andromeda Strain from way the hell back in the 70s.  She's 40-50-ish and kinda dumpy from spending all her time in the lab, and a permanent slump in her shoulders from leaning over stuff.  She's out of shape and epileptic.  She hemmed and hawed a lot, and had to explain herself several times to laymen in the movie.  She's just some scientist that understands viral epidemics.

Nowdays, she'd be shown as a early 30s half-Asian girl with a flat tummy, a tiny nose, CC tits, and perfect hair & makeup.  She'd open her mouth and speak like a tenured professor.

Could the case be made that this is an example not of the inclination towards beauty, but rather the narcissism inherent in our culture, now that a certain large segment of the population is getting older? 

Not to get too far afield, but there is a distinct vein of equating youth with Beauty in our culture.....

[The Good Reverend Roger]

It also cuts the other way, too. If a woman has virtues unrelated to her looks, but also has looks, she is often reduced to being a pretty face and her other qualities are demoted to second-class attributes or even ignored. For many women it's almost a requirement to be borderline ugly before they can be taken seriously -- of course, lacking beauty they have a lot more trouble being heard in the first place. This is a great disservice not only to women but to society in general, because it encourages beautiful women to aspire only to beauty, and stacks the deck against ugly women, both of which serve to reinforce the bullshit notion that pretty girls are weak and/or dumb, and strong/intelligent women are undesirable. This is obviously overgeneralizing it but the tendency is there, I think.

But I don't think it's so easy to divorce sex drive from value judgments based on beauty, especially considering how sex-obsessed (and repressed) our culture is.

HAR!  And when they want to show a woman scientist in a movie or a commercial, she always looks like a supermodel in a lab coat.

Contrast that with the female genius in The Andromeda Strain from way the hell back in the 70s.  She's 40-50-ish and kinda dumpy from spending all her time in the lab, and a permanent slump in her shoulders from leaning over stuff.  She's out of shape and epileptic.  She hemmed and hawed a lot, and had to explain herself several times to laymen in the movie.  She's just some scientist that understands viral epidemics.

Nowdays, she'd be shown as a early 30s half-Asian girl with a flat tummy, a tiny nose, CC tits, and perfect hair & makeup.  She'd open her mouth and speak like a tenured professor.

Could the case be made that this is an example not of the inclination towards beauty, but rather the narcissism inherent in our culture, now that a certain large segment of the population is getting older? 

Not to get too far afield, but there is a distinct vein of equating youth with Beauty in our culture.....

Hadn't thought of that.  It certainly explains why every male in any TV "drama" is either 30 something in a high-ranking position (hey, youth AND authority) or is a 50-something that's kept himself in completely optimum shape while being completely competent in 5-7 (or more) completely different fields.

[Anna Mae Bollocks]

It also cuts the other way, too. If a woman has virtues unrelated to her looks, but also has looks, she is often reduced to being a pretty face and her other qualities are demoted to second-class attributes or even ignored. For many women it's almost a requirement to be borderline ugly before they can be taken seriously -- of course, lacking beauty they have a lot more trouble being heard in the first place. This is a great disservice not only to women but to society in general, because it encourages beautiful women to aspire only to beauty, and stacks the deck against ugly women, both of which serve to reinforce the bullshit notion that pretty girls are weak and/or dumb, and strong/intelligent women are undesirable. This is obviously overgeneralizing it but the tendency is there, I think.

But I don't think it's so easy to divorce sex drive from value judgments based on beauty, especially considering how sex-obsessed (and repressed) our culture is.

"HEY MARILYN, WE GOT YOU ANOTHER GREAT MOVIE PART! YOU'RE GONNA PLAY A HOT BORDERLINE RETARD AGAIN!"

[Internet Jesus]

It also cuts the other way, too. If a woman has virtues unrelated to her looks, but also has looks, she is often reduced to being a pretty face and her other qualities are demoted to second-class attributes or even ignored. For many women it's almost a requirement to be borderline ugly before they can be taken seriously -- of course, lacking beauty they have a lot more trouble being heard in the first place. This is a great disservice not only to women but to society in general, because it encourages beautiful women to aspire only to beauty, and stacks the deck against ugly women, both of which serve to reinforce the bullshit notion that pretty girls are weak and/or dumb, and strong/intelligent women are undesirable. This is obviously overgeneralizing it but the tendency is there, I think.

But I don't think it's so easy to divorce sex drive from value judgments based on beauty, especially considering how sex-obsessed (and repressed) our culture is.

HAR!  And when they want to show a woman scientist in a movie or a commercial, she always looks like a supermodel in a lab coat.

Contrast that with the female genius in The Andromeda Strain from way the hell back in the 70s.  She's 40-50-ish and kinda dumpy from spending all her time in the lab, and a permanent slump in her shoulders from leaning over stuff.  She's out of shape and epileptic.  She hemmed and hawed a lot, and had to explain herself several times to laymen in the movie.  She's just some scientist that understands viral epidemics.

Nowdays, she'd be shown as a early 30s half-Asian girl with a flat tummy, a tiny nose, CC tits, and perfect hair & makeup.  She'd open her mouth and speak like a tenured professor.

Could the case be made that this is an example not of the inclination towards beauty, but rather the narcissism inherent in our culture, now that a certain large segment of the population is getting older? 

Not to get too far afield, but there is a distinct vein of equating youth with Beauty in our culture.....

Hadn't thought of that.  It certainly explains why every male in any TV "drama" is either 30 something in a high-ranking position (hey, youth AND authority) or is a 50-something that's kept himself in completely optimum shape while being completely competent in 5-7 (or more) completely different fields.

So Harrison Ford still gets the blood flowing down there, huh? 

Back on topic - doesn't anyone think that by removing an objective standard for beauty (ie everyone is beautiful in their own way) that we've actually eviscerated the actual standard?  That if there's no standard for it, you may as well be saying that "everyone is fantasmagoric, I'm their own way" or something as equally nonsensical?

Not that I think we've actually done that, we're still just as trapped in what we think beauty is as ever, but that this might actually be a stab in the right direction by undermining the actual category?

Just a thought.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Precisely.

And if I'm known for something, I don't want it to be for my awesome levels of sexiness.  I was born this way, I didn't accomplish it.  By making that sexiness the primary focus of attention, I am turned into an object.  Whereas, if you were to compliment me on my logical thought processes and calm & even temper and serene disposition, it would be for qualities which I have attained, not lucked out with.

[tyrannosaurus vex]

The only positive quality I have is my sexy

AND DON'T YOU FUCKERS RUIN IT FOR ME.

[Able Kane]

Rather than saying "it's OK to not be beautiful", we try to insist instead that people, women particularly, still have value because they have "beauty on the inside", or are "beautiful at any size", instead of validating the many other potential value sources they possess.

"We"? Speak for yourself, sister  I understand entirely what you're saying, it just sort of seems like an obvious conclusion to come to for anyone with a brain that likes to use it. Society is addicted to the beauty myth and it's been that way for some years and it will likely go on that way for some more (at most, until atomic radiation turns us all into equally hideous abominations).

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Rather than saying "it's OK to not be beautiful", we try to insist instead that people, women particularly, still have value because they have "beauty on the inside", or are "beautiful at any size", instead of validating the many other potential value sources they possess.

"We"? Speak for yourself, sister  I understand entirely what you're saying, it just sort of seems like an obvious conclusion to come to for anyone with a brain that likes to use it. Society is addicted to the beauty myth and it's been that way for some years and it will likely go on that way for some more (at most, until atomic radiation turns us all into equally hideous abominations).

I'm talking about a trend in society as a whole, not about myself. And trying to generate dialogue about it to see where it goes, possibly even to a point of brainstorming ideas on ways to make it less acceptable/pervasive. Can you dig it, brother?

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

It also cuts the other way, too. If a woman has virtues unrelated to her looks, but also has looks, she is often reduced to being a pretty face and her other qualities are demoted to second-class attributes or even ignored. For many women it's almost a requirement to be borderline ugly before they can be taken seriously -- of course, lacking beauty they have a lot more trouble being heard in the first place. This is a great disservice not only to women but to society in general, because it encourages beautiful women to aspire only to beauty, and stacks the deck against ugly women, both of which serve to reinforce the bullshit notion that pretty girls are weak and/or dumb, and strong/intelligent women are undesirable. This is obviously overgeneralizing it but the tendency is there, I think.

But I don't think it's so easy to divorce sex drive from value judgments based on beauty, especially considering how sex-obsessed (and repressed) our culture is.

Oh, absolutely! That is completely the other edge of that sword. And the sharp part on the handle, too.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

It also cuts the other way, too. If a woman has virtues unrelated to her looks, but also has looks, she is often reduced to being a pretty face and her other qualities are demoted to second-class attributes or even ignored. For many women it's almost a requirement to be borderline ugly before they can be taken seriously -- of course, lacking beauty they have a lot more trouble being heard in the first place. This is a great disservice not only to women but to society in general, because it encourages beautiful women to aspire only to beauty, and stacks the deck against ugly women, both of which serve to reinforce the bullshit notion that pretty girls are weak and/or dumb, and strong/intelligent women are undesirable. This is obviously overgeneralizing it but the tendency is there, I think.

But I don't think it's so easy to divorce sex drive from value judgments based on beauty, especially considering how sex-obsessed (and repressed) our culture is.

HAR!  And when they want to show a woman scientist in a movie or a commercial, she always looks like a supermodel in a lab coat.

Contrast that with the female genius in The Andromeda Strain from way the hell back in the 70s.  She's 40-50-ish and kinda dumpy from spending all her time in the lab, and a permanent slump in her shoulders from leaning over stuff.  She's out of shape and epileptic.  She hemmed and hawed a lot, and had to explain herself several times to laymen in the movie.  She's just some scientist that understands viral epidemics.

Nowdays, she'd be shown as a early 30s half-Asian girl with a flat tummy, a tiny nose, CC tits, and perfect hair & makeup.  She'd open her mouth and speak like a tenured professor.

Could the case be made that this is an example not of the inclination towards beauty, but rather the narcissism inherent in our culture, now that a certain large segment of the population is getting older? 

Not to get too far afield, but there is a distinct vein of equating youth with Beauty in our culture.....

Yeah, I think there's a connection there too. Media doesn't show a lot of realistic 20- or 30- somethings (struggling to get by, shopping at goodwill, drinking cans of PBR on their friends back porches) and they don't show a lot of realistic highly successful professionals (older, not particularly beautiful, nerdy) either. Media shows people who somehow have EVERYTHING: youth, beauty, love, money, success.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

"We"? Speak for yourself, sister 

AYRTS?  IA?

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

It also cuts the other way, too. If a woman has virtues unrelated to her looks, but also has looks, she is often reduced to being a pretty face and her other qualities are demoted to second-class attributes or even ignored. For many women it's almost a requirement to be borderline ugly before they can be taken seriously -- of course, lacking beauty they have a lot more trouble being heard in the first place. This is a great disservice not only to women but to society in general, because it encourages beautiful women to aspire only to beauty, and stacks the deck against ugly women, both of which serve to reinforce the bullshit notion that pretty girls are weak and/or dumb, and strong/intelligent women are undesirable. This is obviously overgeneralizing it but the tendency is there, I think.

But I don't think it's so easy to divorce sex drive from value judgments based on beauty, especially considering how sex-obsessed (and repressed) our culture is.

HAR!  And when they want to show a woman scientist in a movie or a commercial, she always looks like a supermodel in a lab coat.

Contrast that with the female genius in The Andromeda Strain from way the hell back in the 70s.  She's 40-50-ish and kinda dumpy from spending all her time in the lab, and a permanent slump in her shoulders from leaning over stuff.  She's out of shape and epileptic.  She hemmed and hawed a lot, and had to explain herself several times to laymen in the movie.  She's just some scientist that understands viral epidemics.

Nowdays, she'd be shown as a early 30s half-Asian girl with a flat tummy, a tiny nose, CC tits, and perfect hair & makeup.  She'd open her mouth and speak like a tenured professor.

Could the case be made that this is an example not of the inclination towards beauty, but rather the narcissism inherent in our culture, now that a certain large segment of the population is getting older? 

Not to get too far afield, but there is a distinct vein of equating youth with Beauty in our culture.....

Hadn't thought of that.  It certainly explains why every male in any TV "drama" is either 30 something in a high-ranking position (hey, youth AND authority) or is a 50-something that's kept himself in completely optimum shape while being completely competent in 5-7 (or more) completely different fields.

So Harrison Ford still gets the blood flowing down there, huh? 

Back on topic - doesn't anyone think that by removing an objective standard for beauty (ie everyone is beautiful in their own way) that we've actually eviscerated the actual standard?  That if there's no standard for it, you may as well be saying that "everyone is fantasmagoric, I'm their own way" or something as equally nonsensical?

Not that I think we've actually done that, we're still just as trapped in what we think beauty is as ever, but that this might actually be a stab in the right direction by undermining the actual category?

Just a thought.

No, I just think it's a lame and ineffectual attempt to redefine beauty. There are multiple kinds of beauty, but if we were successful at redefining beauty as something that everyone has, then another word would be invented to take its place, because even if the media stopped showing us images of thin, tall, young, flawless-skinned, pale women with symmetrical features and flowing hair, and muscular, young, flawless-skinned pale men with symmetrical features and thick hair, we would still have both an internal and a social/collective idea of what an exceptionally physically attractive person looks like.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

See, here's the thing:  Nigel made a strong statement in the OP.  Strong statements (especially from women, lol) are a challenge.  So everyone must argue for the sake of arguing, so their testicles don't shrivel up.  And since there really isn't any argument to be given in response to the OP¹, then an argument must be GENERATED by fucking with the definitions of words, nitpicking pronoun use, etc.

Why?  Because people are dumb fucking primates, following their dumb primate wiring, and thinking that THEY are actually the smart monkey in a cage full of lobotomized chimpanzees.





¹ Unless you're a page 6 junkie, or one of those people who has their butt surgically altered to look like J-Lo, or a moron who thinks that anything less than perfection = hag.

[Placid Dingo]

See, here's the thing:  Nigel made a strong statement in the OP.  Strong statements (especially from women, lol) are a challenge.  So everyone must argue for the sake of arguing, so their testicles don't shrivel up.  And since there really isn't any argument to be given in response to the OP¹, then an argument must be GENERATED by fucking with the definitions of words, nitpicking pronoun use, etc.

Why?  Because people are dumb fucking primates, following their dumb primate wiring, and thinking that THEY are actually the smart monkey in a cage full of lobotomized chimpanzees.





¹ Unless you're a page 6 junkie, or one of those people who has their butt surgically altered to look like J-Lo, or a moron who thinks that anything less than perfection = hag.

So what, next strong statement should be agreed with unconditionally?

[The Good Reverend Roger]

See, here's the thing:  Nigel made a strong statement in the OP.  Strong statements (especially from women, lol) are a challenge.  So everyone must argue for the sake of arguing, so their testicles don't shrivel up.  And since there really isn't any argument to be given in response to the OP¹, then an argument must be GENERATED by fucking with the definitions of words, nitpicking pronoun use, etc.

Why?  Because people are dumb fucking primates, following their dumb primate wiring, and thinking that THEY are actually the smart monkey in a cage full of lobotomized chimpanzees.





¹ Unless you're a page 6 junkie, or one of those people who has their butt surgically altered to look like J-Lo, or a moron who thinks that anything less than perfection = hag.

So what, next strong statement should be agreed with unconditionally?

Nope.  Plant your feet firmly, screech, and fling poop.

TGRR,
Isn't playing that fucking game today.  Sorry.