Not everyone is beautiful

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Beauty is my abs and, to a lesser degree my lats.

Ugly is all the fucked up looking shit from the neck up.

I've seen pics, you're still a good-looking guy. Some genetic lottery winning definitely went down in your gene pool.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

If you'd read the thread, we've already done that.  Page one or two, IIRC.

This.

[P3nT4gR4m]

Beauty is my abs and, to a lesser degree my lats.

Ugly is all the fucked up looking shit from the neck up.

I've seen pics, you're still a good-looking guy. Some genetic lottery winning definitely went down in your gene pool.

I used to be quite cute when I was younger but I look my age now and when I smile it's 30 years of repeatedly smashing teeth out, rot and irrational fear of dentistry.

I kind of dig it. I feel that having a face like this suits me much better that the hawt young thing I used to be. My body is where the ego is tied up. It's a practical thing, tho. To do the shit I like to do in my spare time it's more fun if I do it in a chopped and tuned vehicle. The fact that a lot of chicks go for this kind of look is a side effect. I'm not saying I don't enjoy that kind of attention but it's not really the reason it looks this way.

[Pergamos]

If you'd read the thread, we've already done that.  Page one or two, IIRC.

This.

It got argued quite a bit.  I didn't see a clear definition.

To use one that makes sense.  Something beautiful is something which is pleasing to look at.  We want to look at beautiful things and we enjoy looking at them.

If that is an acceptable definition then people really do get more beautiful as we get to know them, assuming they have good attributes for us to get to know.  I'd much rather look at my friend than some random well built stranger, my friend is more beautiful to me.

[P3nT4gR4m]

It's an interesting phenomenon. Initially there's the superficial - looking at that person is giving your hormones a workout - thing. Science is trying to chart and graph that shit in it's own objective manner but when you get to know someone they become more/less beautiful which illustrates just how subjective the whole deal is.

Still got a boner for Kelly Brook that would probably take decades of nastiness to even put a dent in.

[Pæs]

If you'd read the thread, we've already done that.  Page one or two, IIRC.

This.

It got argued quite a bit.  I didn't see a clear definition.

To use one that makes sense.  Something beautiful is something which is pleasing to look at.  We want to look at beautiful things and we enjoy looking at them.

If that is an acceptable definition then people really do get more beautiful as we get to know them, assuming they have good attributes for us to get to know.  I'd much rather look at my friend than some random well built stranger, my friend is more beautiful to me.

I'm talking about the current Western standard of physical beauty.

That's the OP, right there, giving a definition. Anyone who disagreed with that definition and started talking about some other shit wasn't actually involved in the same conversation.

Some asshat was all:

"BUT WHICH STANDARD OF PHYSICAL BEAUTY? HUH? HUH?"
                              //
                            //
                       :requia:

And the OP further clarified:

Let me try to simplify this for you: this is not about standards of physical beauty. This is not a debate about the Western standard of beauty or whether there's more than one. This is not about whether we have a biological drive to be sexually attracted to pretty people.

This is about the practice of using the concept of "beauty" as the ultimate value judgement. 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.

This merely reinforces the culturally ingrained ideal of beauty and reproductive viability as the source of a woman's value.

Which was nice of her, considering.

Then, as far as I can recall without going back again, some other dicks (and you kind of did it as well) were all "Okay, but if we use this definition that I have here, my response is as follows..." which is stupid, really.

It's like if I started a thread where I was all "POST ITT IF YOU THINK BETTY WHITE IS AWESOME." and RWHN came in and was like "IF BY 'BETTY WHITE' YOU MEAN 'GUNS' AND BY 'IS AWESOME' YOU MEAN 'SHOULD BE BANNED', THEN YES" which would be a dick move.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

If you'd read the thread, we've already done that.  Page one or two, IIRC.

This.

It got argued quite a bit.  I didn't see a clear definition.

To use one that makes sense.  Something beautiful is something which is pleasing to look at.  We want to look at beautiful things and we enjoy looking at them.

If that is an acceptable definition then people really do get more beautiful as we get to know them, assuming they have good attributes for us to get to know.  I'd much rather look at my friend than some random well built stranger, my friend is more beautiful to me.

The definition argument is in another thread because I told it to GTFO out of my thread, because it's not really relevant here.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I fail to see the difficulty here, except that Permagos is being difficult for the sake of being difficult.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

If you'd read the thread, we've already done that.  Page one or two, IIRC.

This.

It got argued quite a bit.  I didn't see a clear definition.

To use one that makes sense.  Something beautiful is something which is pleasing to look at.  We want to look at beautiful things and we enjoy looking at them.

If that is an acceptable definition then people really do get more beautiful as we get to know them, assuming they have good attributes for us to get to know.  I'd much rather look at my friend than some random well built stranger, my friend is more beautiful to me.

I'm talking about the current Western standard of physical beauty.

That's the OP, right there, giving a definition. Anyone who disagreed with that definition and started talking about some other shit wasn't actually involved in the same conversation.

Some asshat was all:

"BUT WHICH STANDARD OF PHYSICAL BEAUTY? HUH? HUH?"
                              //
                            //
                       :requia:

And the OP further clarified:

Let me try to simplify this for you: this is not about standards of physical beauty. This is not a debate about the Western standard of beauty or whether there's more than one. This is not about whether we have a biological drive to be sexually attracted to pretty people.

This is about the practice of using the concept of "beauty" as the ultimate value judgement. 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.

This merely reinforces the culturally ingrained ideal of beauty and reproductive viability as the source of a woman's value.

Which was nice of her, considering.

Then, as far as I can recall without going back again, some other dicks (and you kind of did it as well) were all "Okay, but if we use this definition that I have here, my response is as follows..." which is stupid, really.

It's like if I started a thread where I was all "POST ITT IF YOU THINK BETTY WHITE IS AWESOME." and RWHN came in and was like "IF BY 'BETTY WHITE' YOU MEAN 'GUNS' AND BY 'IS AWESOME' YOU MEAN 'SHOULD BE BANNED', THEN YES" which would be a dick move.

THANK YOU!

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I fail to see the difficulty here, except that Permagos is being difficult for the sake of being difficult.

Yeah, that seems to be the case. I think he should go back and read the entire thread over again, and then shut up.

[Anna Mae Bollocks]

I probably should re-read it too...did anybody mention how this crap is drilled into kids? All those fairy tales where the future princess is the prettiest pre-rich girl in the kingdom (right down to her teensy little feet) and her evil, murderous stepsisters are butt ugly. Stepmom is usually a looker but ZOMG OVER 30 and not near as pretty as Teenage Future Princess, who she tries to put a hit on.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I probably should re-read it too...did anybody mention how this crap is drilled into kids? All those fairy tales where the future princess is the prettiest pre-rich girl in the kingdom (right down to her teensy little feet) and her evil, murderous stepsisters are butt ugly. Stepmom is usually a looker but ZOMG OVER 30 and not near as pretty as Teenage Future Princess, who she tries to put a hit on.

Yep. There's a really strong cultural seam. Beauty = good.

[Pergamos]

I probably should re-read it too...did anybody mention how this crap is drilled into kids? All those fairy tales where the future princess is the prettiest pre-rich girl in the kingdom (right down to her teensy little feet) and her evil, murderous stepsisters are butt ugly. Stepmom is usually a looker but ZOMG OVER 30 and not near as pretty as Teenage Future Princess, who she tries to put a hit on.

That may be partly Disney's spin on it.  Snow White was indeed the most beautiful woman in the kingdom  (or the fairest one of all, in the story's words) but her step mother was the most beautiful until she grew up, and was still the second most beautiful after that.  The dwarves meanwhile were ugly little fuckers.  It was her step mom's emphasis on beauty as the most important attribute that had her causing trouble in the first place.

[LMNO]

I can't remember if anyone's mentioned the Halo effect in this thread yet.  It's a cognitive bias that more or less equates (in one aspect) the attractiveness of a person with their mental and emotional fitness, their job competence, and even their guilt or innocence when on trial.

If we've already covered this, apologies for the redundancy.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Bumping because this came up in conversation, because of this article:

http://nathanbiberdorf.wordpress.com/2014/06/09/not-everyone-is-beautiful/

Nobody says, "Everybody has a pleasant laugh." Nobody says, "Everyone is athletic to somebody." Nobody says, "You are an amazing writer, whether you know it or not." I keep waiting, but they never say it.

Beauty is the only trait that everyone gets free access to. Why?

Because we have created a culture that values beauty above all other innate traits...for women, at least. Men are generally valued by their success, which is seen as a result of talent and hard work, despite how much it depends on luck and knowing the right people.



But women are pretty much a one-note instrument. Society says, you're hot, or you're not. Your looks affect your choice of mate, the friends you have, and even your job. And this factor that will affect every part of your life is something you have next to no control over.