It seems like the default for fat-acceptance, for body-image issues, is to fall back on the idea that everyone is beautiful in their own special way.
I am starting to think that I have a problem with this.
The problem that I have is not that it's a blatant lie that relies on redefining the word "beauty" into something vaguely spiritual and pretty much altogether hippy-dippy, but that it still allows "beauty" to be a value judgement.
This is not just a women's issue, but to be honest, it is more of an issue for women than for men. If we don't like a woman's ideas, we may make fun of her appearance. If we love a woman's ideas but not her appearance, we may say that she's "beautiful on the inside" or that we "don't notice her looks" once we get to know her. People who are physically unattractive are pressured to compensate; men, by being smart or funny or wealthy, and women, by being nice. By being "pretty on the inside". Fat women are encouraged to feel "beautiful at any size". We all know that "she's got a great personality" is code for "ugly".
Here's the thing. Idealistic redefinitions aside, we aren't all beautiful, and those of us who do happen to be beautiful aren't going to stay that way. So what's the point of pretending that we are, in order to continue to attach value, actual human value, to something that is not actually all that important in the first place? It just reinforces our inner belief that our worth is connected to our appearance, and therefore our inner despair in the parts of us that recognize the lie. It's like telling a child he's smart when he knows damn well that he's not... it does nothing but rip down the self-esteem that he should be building up in other ways, building his sense of human worth by focusing on strengths he actually DOES have. So he may not be the sharpest hoe in the garden... but he sticks with things, works hard at problems, and isn't afraid to fail. So praise him for those strengths, so he can develop and take pride in them. And suppose a little girl isn't pretty... but she's analytical and spots details other people miss. Praise her for that. Praise her for being generous, kind, tough, persistent, clever, a good writer, for having a diversity of interests, for being athletic or good at research, but don't do her the disservice of both lying to her face and minimizing her true human value by telling her that she's "beautiful".
No one is beautiful. Beautiful is an opinion. If you put stock in how other people think you look then, unless you're an exceedingly rare looking individual, you're in for a world of pain and, even if you are that odd lucky fucker who won the genetic lottery, like you so rightly point out, you're going to be an ugly old fuck soon enough. Even uglier if you try to fight the tide and end up paying for some surgeon to speed the process along by temporarily knocking a couple of years off. That shit never ends well.
Fat/skinny/fit, tho is something you can do something about if you care enough. You weigh 800lbs and are happy with that then, believe it or not, I got a whole lot of respect for you but if you're three stone overweight, with the muscle density of a jellyfish, constantly whining about how it's not your fault and people like me are "lucky", between mouthfuls of cheeseburger, washed down with diet coke and a hours nap then fuck you, you're weak and you deserve to look and feel as bad as you do.
FTR: I used to be a real good looking boy, now I'm old and ugly as shit and I actually prefer it - suits my personality much better than the pretty-boy thing ever did.
My 2c
What I like about the OP is how it illustrates the way in which one can, by attempting to deny the value of attractiveness ("you're attractive on the inside" etc) one actually ends up reaffirming the value of looks. It's almost Zizek (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavoj_%C5%BDi%C5%BEek)ian.
I'm going to disagree to a degree. We've all met beautiful people whose personality spoils their looks, for example. You start noticing every little flaw, and instead of accentuating those looks, the flaws detract from them.
Conversely - and here's where the qualification is - you can take someone that's really hideous, but is also genuinely nice, and you stop noticing the ugly. They won't be "beautiful", but they're no longer repellent. Of course, there are people who are repellent in looks AND personality, just as there are people who are beautiful in each regard.
But here's the thing: As you say, nobody stays beautiful forever. And when the looks fade away, the person is left with their personality...And if the person has relied on looks to overcome a terrible personality (or lack of personality), they're fucked. Kirsty MacColl wrote a great song about this (What Do Pretty Girls Do track 9 or 10 on the album Kite)...Whereas people who are beautiful on the inside still have a measure of beauty to them.
I AM going to agree whole-heartedly with the last paragraph, by the way. Being praised for accomplishments, skills, and personality is ALWAYS better than being praised for looks, no matter WHAT you look like.
Also: The Talmud states that all brides are beautiful on their wedding day as a matter of religious law. This allows people to praise an ugly bride for her looks without lying, and also assures the bride that she IS, in fact, beautiful...Even just for that one day. Which I think is pretty neat.
The problem I have always had with "you're beautiful in your own way" or "beautiful on the inside" is not only that it reinforces the cultural standard of 'beauty' that is force fed to us, but also, especially for women, it reinforces 'beautiful' as the ultimate standard. Which is crap. I'd rather be told I'm intelligent, articulate, passionate... a million other things aside from beautiful. Because beauty -- true beauty, not the willowy-and-skinny-but-decent-tits-and-good-muscle-tone image of western beauty, is subjective, as P3nt said.
Also, Nigel, I just wanna give a big ol' hallelujah to the last paragraph.
Wouldn't this thread be better served if we defined beauty first, and then got into an argument?
I mean, I kinda disagree with the OP in some respects, but I get the feeling that I'm doing so through a different definition of beauty than what is being used.....
Quote from: Man Yellow on October 20, 2012, 07:31:48 PM
I AM going to agree whole-heartedly with the last paragraph, by the way. Being praised for accomplishments, skills, and personality is ALWAYS better than being praised for looks, no matter WHAT you look like.
Being praised for something that you didn't do is always bullshit. How you ended up looking after your DNA did it's thing is the ultimate expression of this.
On the other hand, it should be noted that there really is no avoiding it. It's part of base sexual attraction. Fitness to reproduce, etc. It's hardwired. The peacock with the shiniest tail feathers gets all the pea-pussy. There are people, really nice people, who are so hideous I couldn't get it up to fuck them, even if I wanted to. Likewise, tho, there are people who are so breathtakingly stunning I get an instant boner just looking at them, right up until they open their mouths, then it's a case of "no cock for you dear".
Quote from: Cain on October 20, 2012, 06:47:53 PM
What I like about the OP is how it illustrates the way in which one can, by attempting to deny the value of attractiveness ("you're attractive on the inside" etc) one actually ends up reaffirming the value of looks. It's almost Zizek (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavoj_%C5%BDi%C5%BEek)ian.
Thanks, Cain!
Quote from: Man Yellow on October 20, 2012, 07:26:31 PM
I'm going to disagree to a degree. We've all met beautiful people whose personality spoils their looks, for example. You start noticing every little flaw, and instead of accentuating those looks, the flaws detract from them.
Conversely - and here's where the qualification is - you can take someone that's really hideous, but is also genuinely nice, and you stop noticing the ugly. They won't be "beautiful", but they're no longer repellent. Of course, there are people who are repellent in looks AND personality, just as there are people who are beautiful in each regard.
But here's the thing: As you say, nobody stays beautiful forever. And when the looks fade away, the person is left with their personality...And if the person has relied on looks to overcome a terrible personality (or lack of personality), they're fucked. Kirsty MacColl wrote a great song about this (What Do Pretty Girls Do track 9 or 10 on the album Kite)...Whereas people who are beautiful on the inside still have a measure of beauty to them.
I think the thing to keep in mind is that the definition of "beautiful" is so muddy that it's easy to conflate "beautiful" and "attractive". A beautiful person can become very unattractive because of their personality, and an ugly person can become extremely attractive on the same basis.
And of course, when we love someone we tend to see - physically see, with our eyes and our love-enhanced brains - things about them that we find beautiful, and not so much things we find ugly.
It's important to distinguish between the standards of beauty that we all have collectively agreed on and the way that some people make out little monkey brains fire up.
One can and does feed into the other, but there is an important difference. I'm attracted to all kinds of weird looking people, people who would never, ever, ever be on any kind of magazine other than BEARS Monthly.
The kind of beauty that sets a standard that celebrities hold so proudly is part of a whole THING with people that is somewhat separate from people you want to bang, though they come roughly from the same place in the human brain.
It's the way people will always brush their hair. They do it because looking unkempt is bad for reproductive business, it looks like you don't give a good god damn. This is also why hippies are forced to produce offspring with their own kind.
That standard of beauty is what I think the OP is talking about. I think.
Quote from: Internet Jesus on October 20, 2012, 08:36:55 PM
Wouldn't this thread be better served if we defined beauty first, and then got into an argument?
I mean, I kinda disagree with the OP in some respects, but I get the feeling that I'm doing so through a different definition of beauty than what is being used.....
I'm talking about the current Western standard of physical beauty.
Quote from: Alty on October 20, 2012, 08:49:12 PM
It's important to distinguish between the standards of beauty that we all have collectively agreed on and the way that some people make out little monkey brains fire up.
One can and does feed into the other, but there is an important difference. I'm attracted to all kinds of weird looking people, people who would never, ever, ever be on any kind of magazine other than BEARS Monthly.
The kind of beauty that sets a standard that celebrities hold so proudly is part of a whole THING with people that is somewhat separate from people you want to bang, though they come roughly from the same place in the human brain.
It's the way people will always brush their hair. They do it because looking unkempt is bad for reproductive business, it looks like you don't give a good god damn. This is also why hippies are forced to produce offspring with their own kind.
That standard of beauty is what I think the OP is talking about. I think.
Yes. The one that we tend to leverage as judgement in this society.
So there's the two elements. The aesthetic - purely personal. Your "type". Then there's the biological, facial symmetry*, size of eyes, rippling pecs, whatever.
*I'm sure I heard somewhere this theory has been discredited but I'd be surprised if there wasn't some kind of metric going on aroud there. Making the lizard want to fertilize some eggs.
Here is a thought; the value of beauty is connected to the value of reproduction. So, then, when we use beauty as a value judgement, are we also reinforcing the thought that a person's value, particularly a woman's value, lies in her reproductive desirability? Not to downplay the importance of reproduction, as it is one of our basic and essential drives, but society itself, the reason for which our large brains exist, creates many opportunities for survival value to be expressed indirectly, by contributing to the survival of the clan... and that ties back full-circle to the reason society exists. So why should we decide, culturally speaking, that beauty should be the ultimate value judgement for women? I don't think it's for biological reasons, especially since the assessment of physical beauty is a changing and culturally dependent variable.
Quote from: Man Green on October 20, 2012, 09:31:51 PM
Here is a thought; the value of beauty is connected to the value of reproduction. So, then, when we use beauty as a value judgement, are we also reinforcing the thought that a person's value, particularly a woman's value, lies in her reproductive desirability? Not to downplay the importance of reproduction, as it is one of our basic and essential drives, but society itself, the reason for which our large brains exist, creates many opportunities for survival value to be expressed indirectly, by contributing to the survival of the clan... and that ties back full-circle to the reason society exists. So why should we decide, culturally speaking, that beauty should be the ultimate value judgement for women? I don't think it's for biological reasons, especially since the assessment of physical beauty is a changing and culturally dependent variable.
I was bewildered back in the 90's when the mainstream was pushing that - fucking skeletal / cocaine for breakfast lunch and dinner - look. Aside from the fact that I, personally, found those models absolutely fucking hideous (maybe it was just me - I'm a wierd fucker at the best of times) I was thinking that, biologically speaking, the act of impregnating one of those "waif" things would kill her, never mind carrying a foetus to full term. So where was the natural selection?
Must be overridable/programmable?
There's a lot of basic biological systems that seem to be falling by the wayside under the pressure of these huge, bloated brains we've grown. Good thing? Heh, fingers crossed :lulz:
I think the easiest way to defeat this idea that everyone is "beautiful in their own way," and to show it for the farcical idea that it is, is to say other things that should make the same sense if this was true, but actually sound absolutely ridiculous:
Everyone is generous in their own way.
Everyone is intelligent in their own way.
Everyone is a Harvard law professor in their own way.
I agree with Nigel. What you really are should be the basis of what people think of you, not what you're not but "should be." There is actually nothing wrong with being an ugly person, so why try to mitigate your ugliness by saying your beauty just exists in some spiritual wavelength that the eyes cannot pick up? It's like saying "Everyone is heterosexual in their own way." A) It is complete meaningless bullshit, and B) so what are you saying about non-hetero people?
Granted, if you are physically unattractive, you will have trouble finding mates -- or at least you might, if all people ever know about you is what you look like. But why we take our biological urge to mate with someone and pretend that it has an effect on any single other aspect about that person eludes me.
You don't see other whole groups of mammals obsessing over one of them the way humans tend to admire beauty. Maybe it's a numbers thing, there's so damned many of us we want to pick out patterns of people, add that with our reaction to visual stimulation, and everyday stupidity and BAM!
People care about Jennifer Lopez.
Yet, as the OP points out, this thing exists, yeah? . Ignoring it is bullshit too.
It just seems like making beauty a value judgment is half a step away from reducing all human behavior to code for "would mate with" and "would not mate with." I mean, sure we're just monkeys who think very highly of ourselves, but there's more to our interactions with each other than just that, right?
I'm extremely unsure about the degree of connection between beauty and reproductive desirability. I think that the connection, if it exists, has far more to do with social status than any form of biological fitness, which would explain why standards can vary so widely from era to era and from culture to culture. So, we're back to our giant brains, again.
Quote from: V3X on October 20, 2012, 09:51:00 PM
It just seems like making beauty a value judgment is half a step away from reducing all human behavior to code for "would mate with" and "would not mate with." I mean, sure we're just monkeys who think very highly of ourselves, but there's more to our interactions with each other than just that, right?
A whole lot more. That's why we got so smart in the first place.
Quote from: Man Green on October 20, 2012, 09:55:07 PM
I'm extremely unsure about the degree of connection between beauty and reproductive desirability. I think that the connection, if it exists, has far more to do with social status than any form of biological fitness, which would explain why standards can vary so widely from era to era and from culture to culture. So, we're back to our giant brains, again.
I agree, right now but I'm fairly sure that's where it came from. Look at the animal kingdom, it's all "displays" it's all about how you look. There's waving your pretty feathers and there's fight contests which means that the strongest and fittest will get the hooch, ergo strength and fitness is attractive.
Then came the big brains and we started second guessing everything and building our lizard instincts into our civilised ritual. Women in the 1800's used to wear dresses with scaffolding that made their child bearing hips look like you could squeeze a bus out of there. Where do you think that came from?
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on October 20, 2012, 10:01:25 PM
Quote from: Man Green on October 20, 2012, 09:55:07 PM
I'm extremely unsure about the degree of connection between beauty and reproductive desirability. I think that the connection, if it exists, has far more to do with social status than any form of biological fitness, which would explain why standards can vary so widely from era to era and from culture to culture. So, we're back to our giant brains, again.
I agree, right now but I'm fairly sure that's where it came from. Look at the animal kingdom, it's all "displays" it's all about how you look. There's waving your pretty feathers and there's fight contests which means that the strongest and fittest will get the hooch, ergo strength and fitness is attractive.
Then came the big brains and we started second guessing everything and building our lizard instincts into our civilised ritual. Women in the 1800's used to wear dresses with scaffolding that made their child bearing hips look like you could squeeze a bus out of there. Where do you think that came from?
The thing is, we're not birds, and showing off a display of beauty to attract a mate isn't true across the spectrum in the animal kingdom. Do bears have flashy displays of beauty? Do rabbits? Do wolves? Do chimpanzees?
Across the ages, at times it has been men whose beauty was highly valued, and not women's... and it all cases, it seems more closely tied to social status, rather than to reproduction.
Look around you in the animal kingdom you live in... that of the human being... and ask yourself whether you observe that unattractive people have difficulty reproducing, or reproduce less.
I hear what you're saying but I can't help thinking that beauty is inherently genetic and thus most likely comes under the domain of reproduction. Certainly it's my reproductive circuitry that responds to it with the most enthusiasm.
Answer me this, folks; is the "beauty" of an immensely attractive human being the same beauty as the "beauty" of some immensely beauteous nature (for example an Edenic river valley or a tropical paradise et al.)? What about the "beauty" of a beautiful feeling (like, for example, an orgasm? That's pretty beautiful)?
If they're the same beauty, then this discussion has been thrown wide open. If they're not, "beauty" should be defined much more narrowly if just for the threadly purposes. If one looks hard enough one can find some form of beauty in any old thing.
Quote from: Man Green on October 20, 2012, 09:13:51 PM
I'm talking about the current Western standard of physical beauty.
What I don't get is the rash of "scientific" guys saying that what we consider attractive is tied to good genes, reproductive ability, etc. I mean, yeah, a healthy person is a lot more attractive than a diseased one, but there's guys calibrating fractions of centimeters and assigning more points to one celeb than another. Isn't it a matter of personal taste?
A lot of people tend to have types, and one person's type isn't the next persons. FFS. Why is this being presented as science?
Quote from: Able Kane on October 21, 2012, 12:58:40 AM
Answer me this, folks; is the "beauty" of an immensely attractive human being the same beauty as the "beauty" of some immensely beauteous nature (for example an Edenic river valley or a tropical paradise et al.)? What about the "beauty" of a beautiful feeling (like, for example, an orgasm? That's pretty beautiful)?
If they're the same beauty, then this discussion has been thrown wide open. If they're not, "beauty" should be defined much more narrowly if just for the threadly purposes. If one looks hard enough one can find some form of beauty in any old thing.
You should try reading the thread: or, what Epimetheus said. :lol:
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on October 21, 2012, 01:47:32 AM
What I don't get is the rash of "scientific" guys saying that what we consider attractive is tied to good genes, reproductive ability, etc. I mean, yeah, a healthy person is a lot more attractive than a diseased one, but there's guys calibrating fractions of centimeters and assigning more points to one celeb than another. Isn't it a matter of personal taste?
A lot of people tend to have types, and one person's type isn't the next persons. FFS. Why is this being presented as science?
There are generalities for which that is true; we are most likely to find healthy, reasonably (but not overly) symmetrical people at peak reproductive potential the most sexually attractive, both relatively and generally speaking. What actually gets billed by a given society at a given stage of time as "beauty", however, varies widely. (There are also some complex factors like relatedness that come into play, but those can be considered extraneous details for the purpose of this conversation.)
There are also other factors that may override that tendency in individuals, like our own age and sexual orientation.
As for "what's up with those guys", I don't know. Who are they? Can you cite a study? Are you talking "pop" science, or real scientists?
Also, now for some reason we seem to be mostly discussing "What is beauty?" and "Is the perception of human physical beauty based in biology?" which is not irrelevant, but is completely tangential to the OP. Seems like it might be worth its own thread.
I need to gather my thoughts on this, but in the meantime I want to leave this Katie Makkai performance called "Pretty" here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6wJl37N9C0
Quote from: Net on October 21, 2012, 02:48:40 AM
I need to gather my thoughts on this, but in the meantime I want to leave this Katie Makkai performance called "Pretty" here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6wJl37N9C0
That was AWESOME, and it ties into what I was trying to say very well, I think.
A person's value is not, or should not be, defined by her breedability. Not everyone is beautiful.
And that is OK.
I had to read the OP multiple times, spaced apart, to figure out whether I agreed and was fussing over details/misunderstanding the point, or disagreed. I think it's the former. Strongly agree with the point about attaching human value to looks. It's roughly analogous to considering a book to be great because its cover art is purty.
Quote from: Epimetheus on October 21, 2012, 03:03:52 AM
I had to read the OP multiple times, spaced apart, to figure out whether I agreed and was fussing over details/misunderstanding the point, or disagreed. I think it's the former. Strongly agree with the point about attaching human value to looks. It's roughly analogous to considering a book to be great because its cover art is purty.
Thanks Epi.
To take it a step further, the part of me that recoils at "you're beautiful on the inside" is the same part of me that recoils at "you can still get married". It places all the value on the wrong part of the person. "You're still worth something because you're not totally worthless as a sex object or broodmare".
Yeah, the speaker discredits his/her own set of values by saying it.
Like if hairy feet were cultural treasures
And a man with hairless feet was very smart
"Well, he has hairy feet in his brain."
Quote from: Epimetheus on October 21, 2012, 01:10:22 AM
Quote from: Man Green on October 20, 2012, 09:13:51 PM
I'm talking about the current Western standard of physical beauty.
Unfortunately that implies there's but a single standard.
Quoteauthor=Man Green]A person's value is not, or should not be, defined by her breedability.
This is true. However there are different sorts of value like there are of beauty, and one sort of value is breeding value, which is most certainly (and redundantly) defined by their breedability (which again is subjective depending on both what makes a given partner genetically ideal for the individual, and what makes a given partner aesthetically ideal).
I agree with your overall point and I think that most people would. It's no secret that one of the thousands upon thousands of symptoms of the disease known as "civilization" is that beauty, like every other thing people value has become mass-produced and mass-consumed.
That said there is merit to valuing beauty on an individual scale. It's really not so much that people consciously base their opinion of a person's overall regard solely on how good-lookin' they are, but it's of course simple animal instinct to pay more attention to the sexy ones.
Quote from: Able Kane on October 21, 2012, 08:50:49 AM
That said there is merit to valuing beauty on an individual scale. It's really not so much that people consciously base their opinion of a person's overall regard solely on how good-lookin' they are, but it's of course simple animal instinct to pay more attention to the sexy ones.
There's merit to it because it's simple animal instinct?
Quote from: Able Kane on October 21, 2012, 08:50:49 AM
Quote from: Epimetheus on October 21, 2012, 01:10:22 AM
Quote from: Man Green on October 20, 2012, 09:13:51 PM
I'm talking about the current Western standard of physical beauty.
Unfortunately that implies there's but a single standard.
Quoteauthor=Man Green]A person's value is not, or should not be, defined by her breedability.
This is true. However there are different sorts of value like there are of beauty, and one sort of value is breeding value, which is most certainly (and redundantly) defined by their breedability (which again is subjective depending on both what makes a given partner genetically ideal for the individual, and what makes a given partner aesthetically ideal).
I agree with your overall point and I think that most people would. It's no secret that one of the thousands upon thousands of symptoms of the disease known as "civilization" is that beauty, like every other thing people value has become mass-produced and mass-consumed.
That said there is merit to valuing beauty on an individual scale. It's really not so much that people consciously base their opinion of a person's overall regard solely on how good-lookin' they are, but it's of course simple animal instinct to pay more attention to the sexy ones.
You get extra bonus points for being a complete useless wanker. :lulz:
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.
Quote from: Man Green on October 21, 2012, 01:58:15 AM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on October 21, 2012, 01:47:32 AM
What I don't get is the rash of "scientific" guys saying that what we consider attractive is tied to good genes, reproductive ability, etc. I mean, yeah, a healthy person is a lot more attractive than a diseased one, but there's guys calibrating fractions of centimeters and assigning more points to one celeb than another. Isn't it a matter of personal taste?
A lot of people tend to have types, and one person's type isn't the next persons. FFS. Why is this being presented as science?
There are generalities for which that is true; we are most likely to find healthy, reasonably (but not overly) symmetrical people at peak reproductive potential the most sexually attractive, both relatively and generally speaking. What actually gets billed by a given society at a given stage of time as "beauty", however, varies widely. (There are also some complex factors like relatedness that come into play, but those can be considered extraneous details for the purpose of this conversation.)
There are also other factors that may override that tendency in individuals, like our own age and sexual orientation.
As for "what's up with those guys", I don't know. Who are they? Can you cite a study? Are you talking "pop" science, or real scientists?
Pop science, it was a fad for awhile. I remember a whole pack of them blitzing the talk show circuit five or six years ago, don't recall names but google got me these:
http://www.oprah.com/oprahshow/Measuring-Facial-Perfection-The-Golden-Ratio
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/lifestyle/2012/04/britains-most-beautiful-face-reveals-beauty-secrets/
This one is saner and allows for personality, effects of advertising, etc.
http://www.jyi.org/volumes/volume6/issue6/features/feng.html
I agree, health, youth, etc. are considered more attractive generally - but this? :horrormirth:
FIT OR FUGLY APP (http://www.prweb.com/releases/fit_or_fugly/app/prweb3236074.htm)
Quote from: Man Green on October 21, 2012, 07:44:51 PM
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.
THIS.
:mittens: to the OP. I've been thinking about this a lot since I read it and it lines up pretty well with some of my own thoughts of late.
Real body positivity ought to hang on people being comfortable in their own skin, not "everyone is beautiful", yes? Because, yeah, as the OP points out, "everyone is beautiful" reduces a person to their fuckability (and, oddly, this is linked sometimes to a person's ability to be loved, which makes me a little uncomfortable).
"Everyone is beautiful" is a nice sound bite (and just a sound bite), but I'm thinking it ought to be replaced with something that doesn't value beauty so much, nor does it reduce a person to whether or not they are fuckable.
Quote from: Net on October 21, 2012, 02:48:40 AM
I need to gather my thoughts on this, but in the meantime I want to leave this Katie Makkai performance called "Pretty" here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6wJl37N9C0
I want to hug this woman.
Quote from: Man Green on October 21, 2012, 07:44:51 PM
This is about the practice of using the concept of "beauty" as the ultimate value judgement.
Oh, okay.
I have no argument with that being wrong.
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.
Quote from: V3X on October 21, 2012, 08:04:57 PM
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.
Quote from: Man Yellow on October 21, 2012, 08:11:58 PM
Quote from: V3X on October 21, 2012, 08:04:57 PM
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.....
Quote from: Internet Jesus on October 21, 2012, 08:18:52 PM
Quote from: Man Yellow on October 21, 2012, 08:11:58 PM
Quote from: V3X on October 21, 2012, 08:04:57 PM
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.
Quote from: V3X on October 21, 2012, 08:04:57 PM
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!"
Quote from: Man Yellow on October 21, 2012, 08:21:33 PM
Quote from: Internet Jesus on October 21, 2012, 08:18:52 PM
Quote from: Man Yellow on October 21, 2012, 08:11:58 PM
Quote from: V3X on October 21, 2012, 08:04:57 PM
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? :lulz:
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.
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.
The only positive quality I have is my sexy :(
AND DON'T YOU FUCKERS RUIN IT FOR ME.
Quote from: Man Green on October 21, 2012, 07:44:51 PM
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 :roll: 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).
Quote from: Able Kane on October 21, 2012, 09:54:03 PM
Quote from: Man Green on October 21, 2012, 07:44:51 PM
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 :roll: 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?
Quote from: V3X on October 21, 2012, 08:04:57 PM
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.
Quote from: Internet Jesus on October 21, 2012, 08:18:52 PM
Quote from: Man Yellow on October 21, 2012, 08:11:58 PM
Quote from: V3X on October 21, 2012, 08:04:57 PM
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.
Quote from: Internet Jesus on October 21, 2012, 08:28:45 PM
Quote from: Man Yellow on October 21, 2012, 08:21:33 PM
Quote from: Internet Jesus on October 21, 2012, 08:18:52 PM
Quote from: Man Yellow on October 21, 2012, 08:11:58 PM
Quote from: V3X on October 21, 2012, 08:04:57 PM
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? :lulz:
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.
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.
Quote from: Man Yellow on October 21, 2012, 10:24:16 PM
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?
Quote from: Placid Dingo on October 21, 2012, 11:06:54 PM
Quote from: Man Yellow on October 21, 2012, 10:24:16 PM
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.
Quote from: Man Green on October 21, 2012, 10:22:08 PM
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.
Fair enough, but then doesn't that imply this is a reaction that's as deeply ingrained in us as favoring one hand over the other, or sexual orientation, and therefore not really worth calling out save for a resigned it is what it is?
Or have I competely lost the thread here?
Quote from: Internet Jesus on October 21, 2012, 11:26:29 PM
Quote from: Man Green on October 21, 2012, 10:22:08 PM
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.
Fair enough, but then doesn't that imply this is a reaction that's as deeply ingrained in us as favoring one hand over the other, or sexual orientation, and therefore not really worth calling out save for a resigned it is what it is?
Or have I competely lost the thread here?
You've lost the thread.
Quote from: Man Yellow on October 21, 2012, 10:24:16 PM
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.
I think you nailed it. It explains why I keep being baffled by the arguments that don't actually have anything to do with my OP. I'm like... wha? :?
Ah, we'll okay then, Nigel. I'll shut the fuck up and go back to my fried chicken and grape Faygo then. Carry on.
Quote from: Placid Dingo on October 21, 2012, 11:06:54 PM
Quote from: Man Yellow on October 21, 2012, 10:24:16 PM
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?
I'd recommend getting a handle on what you're disagreeing or agreeing with first, personally.
Quote from: Internet Jesus on October 21, 2012, 11:33:23 PM
Ah, we'll okay then, Nigel. I'll shut the fuck up and go back to my fried chicken and grape Faygo then. Carry on.
Um.
Weren't you just telling me to calm the fuck down?
Quote from: Internet Jesus on October 21, 2012, 11:33:23 PM
Ah, we'll okay then, Nigel. I'll shut the fuck up and go back to my fried chicken and grape Faygo then. Carry on.
Not tying to insult you, here. I just can't actually figure out where or how you've lost it, or how the point you seem to be trying to make (if you were making a point) related to the topic of the thread, so I don't know how to steer you back onto it. Maybe read the OP again?
In a nutshell, my point was "It's OK to not be beautiful, and it does us all a disservice to use platitudes that indicate otherwise."
Quote from: Man Green on October 21, 2012, 11:34:24 PM
Quote from: Placid Dingo on October 21, 2012, 11:06:54 PM
Quote from: Man Yellow on October 21, 2012, 10:24:16 PM
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?
I'd recommend getting a handle on what you're disagreeing or agreeing with first, personally.
No, no.
I made a strong statement about strong statements, so Dingo HAD to challenge it. His testicles are at stake here, Nigel.
Dingo isn't a stupid guy. He knew precisely what I meant, which is kind of what you just said. But he still has to challenge it, or risk his standing in the pack.
Quote from: Man Yellow on October 21, 2012, 11:34:38 PM
Quote from: Internet Jesus on October 21, 2012, 11:33:23 PM
Ah, we'll okay then, Nigel. I'll shut the fuck up and go back to my fried chicken and grape Faygo then. Carry on.
Um.
Weren't you just telling me to calm the fuck down?
I was, but I wasn't getting bent out of shape. This is just one of those things that I don't think I grok at an intuitive level.
And that's O.K.
Besides, have you ever had fried chicken and grape Faygo? Fucking orgasmic.
Quote from: Man Green on October 21, 2012, 11:36:34 PM
Quote from: Internet Jesus on October 21, 2012, 11:33:23 PM
Ah, we'll okay then, Nigel. I'll shut the fuck up and go back to my fried chicken and grape Faygo then. Carry on.
Not tying to insult you, here. I just can't actually figure out where or how you've lost it, or how the point you seem to be trying to make (if you were making a point) related to the topic of the thread, so I don't know how to steer you back onto it. Maybe read the OP again?
In a nutshell, my point was "It's OK to not be beautiful, and it does us all a disservice to use platitudes that indicate otherwise."
No insult taken.
I think I see the point. Which puts me in mind of the objection I was trying to make, but I don't want to be accused of trying to revive shriveled testicles. So I'll ponder what I was attempting to say and get back to you. Or not. I still haven't decided.
Quote from: Internet Jesus on October 21, 2012, 11:43:48 PM
Quote from: Man Green on October 21, 2012, 11:36:34 PM
Quote from: Internet Jesus on October 21, 2012, 11:33:23 PM
Ah, we'll okay then, Nigel. I'll shut the fuck up and go back to my fried chicken and grape Faygo then. Carry on.
Not tying to insult you, here. I just can't actually figure out where or how you've lost it, or how the point you seem to be trying to make (if you were making a point) related to the topic of the thread, so I don't know how to steer you back onto it. Maybe read the OP again?
In a nutshell, my point was "It's OK to not be beautiful, and it does us all a disservice to use platitudes that indicate otherwise."
No insult taken.
I think I see the point. Which puts me in mind of the objection I was trying to make, but I don't want to be accused of trying to revive shriveled testicles. So I'll ponder what I was attempting to say and get back to you. Or not. I still haven't decided.
Fuckers will turn into raisins and yank themselves straight up into your abdominal cavity. No shit.
You have to screech really, really loud. There's no other option.
Quote from: Man Yellow on October 21, 2012, 11:48:54 PM
Quote from: Internet Jesus on October 21, 2012, 11:43:48 PM
Quote from: Man Green on October 21, 2012, 11:36:34 PM
Quote from: Internet Jesus on October 21, 2012, 11:33:23 PM
Ah, we'll okay then, Nigel. I'll shut the fuck up and go back to my fried chicken and grape Faygo then. Carry on.
Not tying to insult you, here. I just can't actually figure out where or how you've lost it, or how the point you seem to be trying to make (if you were making a point) related to the topic of the thread, so I don't know how to steer you back onto it. Maybe read the OP again?
In a nutshell, my point was "It's OK to not be beautiful, and it does us all a disservice to use platitudes that indicate otherwise."
No insult taken.
I think I see the point. Which puts me in mind of the objection I was trying to make, but I don't want to be accused of trying to revive shriveled testicles. So I'll ponder what I was attempting to say and get back to you. Or not. I still haven't decided.
Fuckers will turn into raisins and yank themselves straight up into your abdominal cavity. No shit.
You have to screech really, really loud. There's no other option.
You keep saying that, but I haven't noticed any change recently. I'll have to remember to ask my wife if she's noticed any shrinkage the next time she lets me have visitation with them.
Quote from: Man Yellow on October 21, 2012, 11:36:47 PM
Quote from: Man Green on October 21, 2012, 11:34:24 PM
Quote from: Placid Dingo on October 21, 2012, 11:06:54 PM
Quote from: Man Yellow on October 21, 2012, 10:24:16 PM
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?
I'd recommend getting a handle on what you're disagreeing or agreeing with first, personally.
No, no.
I made a strong statement about strong statements, so Dingo HAD to challenge it. His testicles are at stake here, Nigel.
Dingo isn't a stupid guy. He knew precisely what I meant, which is kind of what you just said. But he still has to challenge it, or risk his standing in the pack.
I'm not entirely convinced that he even read what you wrote, because his reply was a total non-sequitur.
Quote from: Man Green on October 22, 2012, 12:02:27 AM
Quote from: Man Yellow on October 21, 2012, 11:36:47 PM
Quote from: Man Green on October 21, 2012, 11:34:24 PM
Quote from: Placid Dingo on October 21, 2012, 11:06:54 PM
Quote from: Man Yellow on October 21, 2012, 10:24:16 PM
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?
I'd recommend getting a handle on what you're disagreeing or agreeing with first, personally.
No, no.
I made a strong statement about strong statements, so Dingo HAD to challenge it. His testicles are at stake here, Nigel.
Dingo isn't a stupid guy. He knew precisely what I meant, which is kind of what you just said. But he still has to challenge it, or risk his standing in the pack.
I'm not entirely convinced that he even read what you wrote, because his reply was a total non-sequitur.
If there isn't an argument, generate one. Any amount of gymnastics is permitted. I mean, required.
Quote from: Man Yellow on October 22, 2012, 12:12:11 AM
Quote from: Man Green on October 22, 2012, 12:02:27 AM
Quote from: Man Yellow on October 21, 2012, 11:36:47 PM
Quote from: Man Green on October 21, 2012, 11:34:24 PM
Quote from: Placid Dingo on October 21, 2012, 11:06:54 PM
Quote from: Man Yellow on October 21, 2012, 10:24:16 PM
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?
I'd recommend getting a handle on what you're disagreeing or agreeing with first, personally.
No, no.
I made a strong statement about strong statements, so Dingo HAD to challenge it. His testicles are at stake here, Nigel.
Dingo isn't a stupid guy. He knew precisely what I meant, which is kind of what you just said. But he still has to challenge it, or risk his standing in the pack.
I'm not entirely convinced that he even read what you wrote, because his reply was a total non-sequitur.
If there isn't an argument, generate one. Any amount of gymnastics is permitted. I mean, required.
:lulz: Maybe he was being ironic and I missed it.
Quote from: Man Yellow on October 21, 2012, 10:24:16 PM
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.
Thread summarized. :lol:
People are great for a lot of things other than decoration, agree.
People in general and women especially get fucked over on the basis of appearance, agree.
What can we do about this? I have no fucking clue.
Sorry, that's all I have. :sad:
Quote from: Man Yellow on October 21, 2012, 11:36:47 PM
Quote from: Man Green on October 21, 2012, 11:34:24 PM
Quote from: Placid Dingo on October 21, 2012, 11:06:54 PM
Quote from: Man Yellow on October 21, 2012, 10:24:16 PM
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?
I'd recommend getting a handle on what you're disagreeing or agreeing with first, personally.
No, no.
I made a strong statement about strong statements, so Dingo HAD to challenge it. His testicles are at stake here, Nigel.
Dingo isn't a stupid guy. He knew precisely what I meant, which is kind of what you just said. But he still has to challenge it, or risk his standing in the pack.
I wish people would assume I'm a bit more stupid because everytime I'm accused of missing v the point I'm told I'm doing it intentionally.
I felt like the posters were being accused of arguing just because an assertion was available for them to beat their heads against our just because Nigel is a woman which seemed unfair, although Nigel's point about understanding what youre arguing against first is legit.
It's interesting how the idea that "you are beautiful no matter what" actually reinforces the standard of beauty. Kind of like how films like Zoolander challenging conventions of masculinity end up reinforcing them. Our how Shrek is just another standard fairy tale.
Quote from: Man Green on October 22, 2012, 12:20:37 AM
Quote from: Man Yellow on October 22, 2012, 12:12:11 AM
Quote from: Man Green on October 22, 2012, 12:02:27 AM
Quote from: Man Yellow on October 21, 2012, 11:36:47 PM
Quote from: Man Green on October 21, 2012, 11:34:24 PM
Quote from: Placid Dingo on October 21, 2012, 11:06:54 PM
Quote from: Man Yellow on October 21, 2012, 10:24:16 PM
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?
I'd recommend getting a handle on what you're disagreeing or agreeing with first, personally.
No, no.
I made a strong statement about strong statements, so Dingo HAD to challenge it. His testicles are at stake here, Nigel.
Dingo isn't a stupid guy. He knew precisely what I meant, which is kind of what you just said. But he still has to challenge it, or risk his standing in the pack.
I'm not entirely convinced that he even read what you wrote, because his reply was a total non-sequitur.
If there isn't an argument, generate one. Any amount of gymnastics is permitted. I mean, required.
:lulz: Maybe he was being ironic and I missed it.
I probably just misread the way things were panning out. Early v morning posting. Excuse me.
When I started this thread, I was all, "Yeah right on! Unevolved fucks should wise up and quit judging people by what their face looks like!"
Then three hours later I was talking to my wife about this hideous troll who works where I work and how useless she is. Mind you, she really is useless at work, and she fumbles things a lot, but I was talking like this behavior somehow defines who she is. And what would you know but from the way I was describing her, you'd get the impression that her face caused her to be unable to do her job. I was in the middle of a sentence that started with "She's so ugly that..." when it hit me that I am in fact a hypocritical douchebag. So from that point on I have been lurking and reading, hoping to learn something.
I'd like to go from Dingo to Mr Green by bedtime.
I'm not exempt from that kind of thinking. I doubt any of us are, because we are products of our society, and that's a deeply ingrained social value. Fortunately, society IS interactive and constantly evolving, which means we can change it. Maybe.
The great thing is that you recognized it in action, in yourself.
That's what I like about Discordia, and about this place... things that used to be reflex, I think about. I feel like I have more choices in my own behavior, because spags here opened my eyes to different options.
Spag on, my spags!
I think finding a person beautiful is influenced by two levels.
There is a deeper set of biological, evolved factors, to do with attraction (sexual or otherwise).
There is relatively little variation at that level except for the ubiquitous auto-bias (by and large, we tend to find people who are similar to us attractive) and climatic variation (different features are advantageous for breeding in hot and cold, wet and dry climates).
Then, superimposed over it, there is a cultural construct that, ever since the dawn of cultural proliferation, has exhibited and still exhibits amazing variation.
These two levels can be triggered in concert, and there is LURVE - but they can also contradict each other: it is quite possible to find someone ugly and attractive, and it also quite possible to find someone beautiful and unattractive
What I wish to note is that while there are outliers at both extremes (the 'beautiful people' of the media circus at one end, people with various hereditary or accidentally or even wilfully acquired disfigurations at the other), the majority of people are born and reach adulthood with "givens" (skeletal structure, skin texture and tone, musculature, hair pattern) that are neither here or there: they can be quite beautiful or quite ugly, it's up to them.
The insanity of the prevailing dominant cultural constructs of beauty (and everything else) has been discussed, in fact it's been flogged to death, as dwelling on it seems a large part of some people's Discordia, so I don't wish to add anything there.
But us humans are capable of becoming aware of and then, in a tortuous process, actually improving our cultural constructs (i think in this neighbourhood this is called getting up on hind legs).
I believe that a sane cultural construct of beauty is one that picks out accomplished, cultivated human beings - bipeds, as they are often called here. Most of this kind of beauty is in the face, a large part of it in and around the eyes (think of all the chicks with hot bods and dead eyes - complete turn-off), and also in gait, motion and voice (again, the self-conscious, egotistic movements and retarded tones that come out of some bods with super chassis are quite depressing).
As (I think) Goethe once said, over the age of thirty, one is responsible for one's own face.
So, in that sense, yes, not all of us are beautiful, but we all have the potential to be beautiful. It's hard work. (But someone's gotta do it. :))
And of course, in that sense,beauty is quite important. And should be distinguished from "conformity of one's physical configuration to some crazy dominant cultural norm".
Way to not read the thread and epically miss the point, resident Holist.
I will ask all of you a single question, and I demand that you defend your answer; Is Roger beautiful?
Go.
Quote from: Man Green on October 22, 2012, 06:37:04 AM
Way to not read the thread and epically miss the point, resident Holist.
I just wished to respond to the OP, is that not allowed? Sorry.
Quote from: Man Green on October 22, 2012, 06:38:46 AM
I will ask all of you a single question, and I demand that you defend your answer; Is Roger beautiful?
Go.
Not possible. I've seen a total of two photos of him, never met him, never saw him talk. I did ask for the videos, but my request was disregarded.
Demand away, though, it does become you, Nigel! :)
Quote from: holist on October 22, 2012, 06:55:33 AM
Quote from: Man Green on October 22, 2012, 06:37:04 AM
Way to not read the thread and epically miss the point, resident Holist.
I just wished to respond to the OP, is that not allowed? Sorry.
[/pledge]
You should probably respond to the point the OP was making then, instead of the one which has been pointed out, explicitly, numerous times, as NOT being the point of the OP.
[pledge]
Quote from: Man Green on October 22, 2012, 06:38:46 AM
I will ask all of you a single question, and I demand that you defend your answer; Is Roger beautiful?
Go.
Yes. I find him very beautiful, aesthetically speaking.
Waffle iron is beautiful.
All the ladies is hottie pance.
I could go on. On and on and on. I spags here exceedingly beautiful.
This thread. I find myself becoming more hostile the more I read it, because I'm not sure if we're taking into account what the viewer thinks is beautiful, or what is going on. OP states that fat people are ugly. They are maybe to
you. I'm not about to say that there aren't ugly people, because there are.
I will fully admit to missing the point entirely if I have, but hey, FUCK YOU, because I qualify as ugly, and struggle daily to see myself otherwise, which is probably a point you were trying to bring up, but unless you have some sort of whatever I don't even know what the fuck, just fuck right the hell off.
Quote from: V3X on October 22, 2012, 07:03:07 AM
Quote from: holist on October 22, 2012, 06:55:33 AM
Quote from: Man Green on October 22, 2012, 06:37:04 AM
Way to not read the thread and epically miss the point, resident Holist.
I just wished to respond to the OP, is that not allowed? Sorry.
[/pledge]
You should probably respond to the point the OP was making then, instead of the one which has been pointed out, explicitly, numerous times, as NOT being the point of the OP.
[pledge]
Okay, read the whole thread.
So I take it this is the point: "It's OK to not be beautiful, and it does us all a disservice to use platitudes that indicate otherwise." (wherein the value of beautiful = the prevailing dominant social construct of what a beautiful person is).
I think that is entirely true and completely trivial.
What I was suggesting was that for another value of beautiful (which I actually think is the right one), the statement goes: (Over a certain age) it is still possible - in fact, totally widespread -
but not OK not to be beautiful, but being beautiful has little to do with physical body config.
Nigel did say she was interested in where this would go...
but I should probably have posted in the other thread, the definition of beauty one. How can this be fixed?
Quote from: Man Green on October 22, 2012, 06:38:46 AM
I will ask all of you a single question, and I demand that you defend your answer; Is Roger beautiful?
Go.
See okay in order to answer, don't we have to spell out some sort of standard that we're using, which just gets us back to losing the thread?
I mean I can honestly answer yes and no, arrive at both answers using multiple lines of reason and it would all depend on what we're calling beautiful.
Roger is beautiful because he's the end product of billions of years of evolution, all the way from a simple single celled life form up to a hairless ape that can change its environment. That's beautiful in a sense.
Roger is not beautiful because no matter how dolled up he gets, I still don't want to stick my penis in his mangina. (Sorry, Roger)
Roger is beautiful because his insights are the product of a mind that fights hard against the things it's been programmed with.
Roger is not beautiful because he's frequently a sullen asshole.
Again, I probably lost the thread. My bad. Don't punish me with the spiked dildo, please.
Roger is beautiful because:
His lips, while a bit on the small side and frequently tabacco and coffee stained, is perfectly shaped. It looks best in a lascivious smile, which happens whenever he looks at or talks about his wife. His eyes are a blue, with a neat butterfly wing effect you get on the desert. He is broader in shoulder than he is in gut. His face is mostly symmetrical.
Challenge met.
Quote from: Internet Jesus on October 22, 2012, 07:52:37 AM
Roger is not beautiful because he's frequently a sullen asshole.
I am a beacon of joy in a dull grey world. I laugh all the fucking time. No shit. Granted, it's not a
nice laugh (sounds like bats in an enclosed area, and maybe some lady singing
Fur Elise, or maybe that's just what's in my head when I laugh), but these days you have to settle for what you can get.
Quote from: Man Green on October 22, 2012, 06:38:46 AM
I will ask all of you a single question, and I demand that you defend your answer; Is Roger beautiful?
Go.
Yes, he is. On account of him being a pretty pretty princess. QED.
Quote from: Man Green on October 22, 2012, 06:38:46 AM
I will ask all of you a single question, and I demand that you defend your answer; Is Roger beautiful?
Go.
Roger is beautiful in the same way a particularly deadly strain of cowpox tearing through a town full of neo-Nazis is beautiful. While it's happening, there's nothing but HORRIBLE everywhere you look. But once it's run its course, you're left with an inexplicable feeling that the world has somehow inched toward "better."
Roger is a howling mad bastard who was born into the wrong time, and that's beautiful.
When I met Roger I remember thinking something along the lines of "Here is a man who is himself", and what could be more beautiful than simply being who you are, rather than who other thing you ought to be? I never detected a note of self doubt in anything he said or did when in my physical presence, and I was deeply moved by this. Yes, I found him to be beautiful.
Roger is a force of nature, like a typhoon.
Roger sees EVERYTHING. He's engaged in the world, that takes nuts. And it's beautiful.
Roger actually gives a shit if people get fucked over.
And besides, ROGER IS A PRETTY PRETTY FAIRY PRINCESS. :fap:
Nigel, I think the OP is great insight because it extends a proven tendency for people to praise naturally occuring traits to learned ones.
If you tell a kid they're smart, they won't work as hard because they'll think they won't have to. If you tell a kid they're a good worker, they'll continue to strive to achieve and hone that skill. Being smart and a hard worker is great, but not only is it ineffective to foster the former, it's actually a hindrance. I wish I could remember the name for this.
I haven't seen much of Roger, but from the videos I have seen, he has one of the best smiles I have seen, ever. That is beauty.
Quote from: Man Yellow on October 21, 2012, 08:11:58 PM
Quote from: V3X on October 21, 2012, 08:04:57 PM
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.
You mean she'd have glasses so she'd be totally repulsive and miserable, then she'd take them off and realize her true calling as "TOTALLY HAWT!!1!1!!"
Quote from: Eater of Clowns on October 22, 2012, 08:44:58 PM
Nigel, I think the OP is great insight because it extends a proven tendency for people to praise naturally occuring traits to learned ones.
If you tell a kid they're smart, they won't work as hard because they'll think they won't have to. If you tell a kid they're a good worker, they'll continue to strive to achieve and hone that skill. Being smart and a hard worker is great, but not only is it ineffective to foster the former, it's actually a hindrance. I wish I could remember the name for this.
This!
I was mostly always embarrassed to be called "smart," mainly because there was absolutely nothing to it as far as I could see. But at the same time, I knew that's where the praise was from an early age so that's what I learned to identify with. Also, I knew that that's where the shame was so that's what I learned to distance myself from. If I wasn't smart I wasn't anything and if I was smart I was phony, so FUCK!
Yeah. That.
Quote from: Man Yellow on October 22, 2012, 03:16:45 PM
Quote from: Man Green on October 22, 2012, 06:38:46 AM
I will ask all of you a single question, and I demand that you defend your answer; Is Roger beautiful?
Go.
Yes, he is. On account of him being a pretty pretty princess. QED.
HE SHOOTS
HE SCORES!
I can't believe that everybody else missed that. :lol:
Quote from: Eater of Clowns on October 22, 2012, 08:44:58 PM
Nigel, I think the OP is great insight because it extends a proven tendency for people to praise naturally occuring traits to learned ones.
If you tell a kid they're smart, they won't work as hard because they'll think they won't have to. If you tell a kid they're a good worker, they'll continue to strive to achieve and hone that skill. Being smart and a hard worker is great, but not only is it ineffective to foster the former, it's actually a hindrance. I wish I could remember the name for this.
I didn't even realize there was a name for it, but yes. Totally proven effect. If you praise children for working hard, they are more likely to seek out greater challenges, whereas if you praise children for being smart, they are more likely to seek fewer challenges for fear of failing and losing their "smart" status.
Freeky, I encourage you to read the OP again, because it does NOT say that fat people aren't beautiful. It talks about the way we use beauty as a measure of value. Fat people can be beautiful. But not everyone is beautiful, no matter how you define the word, unless you strip it of all meaning.
Chinese guy sues wife for being ugly and wins:
http://myfox8.com/2012/10/26/chinese-man-sues-wife-for-being-ugly-wins-lawsuit/
:x :x :x
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on October 27, 2012, 08:29:12 PM
Chinese guy sues wife for being ugly and wins:
http://myfox8.com/2012/10/26/chinese-man-sues-wife-for-being-ugly-wins-lawsuit/
:x :x :x
That's insane.
Also I can't seem to find an original source... all the usual tabloids are circulating the same story without any citations. Anyone else have any better luck?
Google gives me the same as you're getting.
It does have a Weekly World News ambience.
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on October 27, 2012, 09:51:41 PM
Google gives me the same as you're getting.
It does have a Weekly World News ambience.
Yeah, something feels off about this. Even "Jian Feng divorce" doesn't come up with anything that looks legit.
The fact that every story references the divorce "earlier this year" as if there had been news stories about it, but no such stories are surfacing in searches, is really suspicious. Even more suspicious is this EXACT SAME STORY from February, with the same wording: http://macedoniaonline.eu/content/view/20455/48/
A little more delving and I found the same story, from 2004: http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_26-5-2004_pg9_8
I call hoax.
2004? Yeah, hoax.
Somebody brought it up at the Snopes forum back then, but it never went any further: http://msgboard.snopes.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=76;t=001217;p=0
TinEye gave 0 results on the image, but I'm pretty willing to bet it's from a plastic surgeon's ad someplace.
From the comments on the Fox article: http://www.otsuka-biyo.co.jp/bc/case003.html
Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on October 28, 2012, 12:55:07 AM
From the comments on the Fox article: http://www.otsuka-biyo.co.jp/bc/case003.html
:cheers:
Annnnd BAM!
I didn't see it mentioned here, so:
Does beauty being an invalid measure of human value mean that a person complimented for their beauty cannot justifiably be pleased with themselves?
On the one hand, the beauty is a chance genetic mixture that has no relation to the person's value, as stated.
On the other, is there not some kind of true compliment which is NOT a value judgment in saying, "You are aesthetically pleasing to me" ? I want to make an analogy about complimenting an artwork, but of course an artwork is produced by the artist's intent and manipulations - which (ignoring surgery) does not apply...
Just some conceptual cud-chewin'.
- Ruminant, PhD.
Quote from: chimes on October 31, 2012, 07:39:36 AM
I didn't see it mentioned here, so:
Does beauty being an invalid measure of human value mean that a person complimented for their beauty cannot justifiably be pleased with themselves?
On the one hand, the beauty is a chance genetic mixture that has no relation to the person's value, as stated.
On the other, is there not some kind of true compliment which is NOT a value judgment in saying, "You are aesthetically pleasing to me" ? I want to make an analogy about complimenting an artwork, but of course an artwork is produced by the artist's intent and manipulations - which (ignoring surgery) does not apply...
Just some conceptual cud-chewin'.
- Ruminant, PhD.
Theoretically, yes. In this society, no. It would be a pretty mild compliment though, and not really beneficial to the receiver.
Now that i think about it, it would be a dick-move disguised as a compliment. Like the sort of compliment that starts with "Well, at least you are (consistent/not completely retarded/entertaining)" With a HUGE implied 'but...' afterwards.
Quote from: chimes on October 31, 2012, 07:39:36 AM
... beauty is a chance genetic mixture that has no relation to the person's value ...
I'm afraid that is a misconception. Although it has some underlying genetic factors, personal beauty is actually largely a cultural construct and is ultimately a (conscious or unconscious) achievement of the individual (embedded in a social context).
Nigel, this veers off the original point, but what about someone who has a certain genetic makeup that may or may not conform to the current social norms, but then attempts to compliment that makeup with, well, fashion?
Looking good doesn't alway have to be about bone structure or body type, it can also be about concious choices of what to wear, and how to groom yourself.
When someone says "you look good," how much is a commentary about genetics, and how much is commentary on how we present those genetics?
Quote from: chimes on October 31, 2012, 07:39:36 AM
I didn't see it mentioned here, so:
Does beauty being an invalid measure of human value mean that a person complimented for their beauty cannot justifiably be pleased with themselves?
On the one hand, the beauty is a chance genetic mixture that has no relation to the person's value, as stated.
On the other, is there not some kind of true compliment which is NOT a value judgment in saying, "You are aesthetically pleasing to me" ? I want to make an analogy about complimenting an artwork, but of course an artwork is produced by the artist's intent and manipulations - which (ignoring surgery) does not apply...
Just some conceptual cud-chewin'.
- Ruminant, PhD.
Of course someone complimented for their beauty should feel good about it. There is a huge difference between appreciating beauty, and using beauty as the ultimate determinant of human value. Complimenting beauty is not in itself a value judgement of human worth.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 31, 2012, 12:11:34 PM
Nigel, this veers off the original point, but what about someone who has a certain genetic makeup that may or may not conform to the current social norms, but then attempts to compliment that makeup with, well, fashion?
Looking good doesn't alway have to be about bone structure or body type, it can also be about concious choices of what to wear, and how to groom yourself.
When someone says "you look good," how much is a commentary about genetics, and how much is commentary on how we present those genetics?
I don't really want to get into a discussion of the definition of beauty in this thread, which is what this is veering into... I think that's better suited for Roger's thread. But of course presentation is a tremendous part of it, which is what almost all marketing directed toward women is about. If we were thinner, looked younger, dyed our hair this color, removed all our body hair, used this lotion/makeup/hygiene product, and wore these styles, we would be beautiful according to the aesethetic standards of the dominant culture.
Regardless, not everyone has "good fashion sense". Not everyone, in fact, even cares.
Agreed on both points, and will avoid going into the definition spiral.
Quote from: CAKE on October 31, 2012, 02:13:09 PM
Quote from: chimes on October 31, 2012, 07:39:36 AM
I didn't see it mentioned here, so:
Does beauty being an invalid measure of human value mean that a person complimented for their beauty cannot justifiably be pleased with themselves?
On the one hand, the beauty is a chance genetic mixture that has no relation to the person's value, as stated.
On the other, is there not some kind of true compliment which is NOT a value judgment in saying, "You are aesthetically pleasing to me" ? I want to make an analogy about complimenting an artwork, but of course an artwork is produced by the artist's intent and manipulations - which (ignoring surgery) does not apply...
Just some conceptual cud-chewin'.
- Ruminant, PhD.
Of course someone complimented for their beauty should feel good about it. There is a huge difference between appreciating beauty, and using beauty as the ultimate determinant of human value. Complimenting beauty is not in itself a value judgement of human worth.
I notice you specify "ultimate," implying beauty is still a determinant of human value, albeit a minor one. If this is what you mean, why would it determine any amount of human value at all? And if that is not what you mean:
But isn't accepting the praise as a
personal compliment an affirmation of its place as a value judgment of oneself (excepting the case of fashion/cosmetics)? In other words, isn't the person who feels good about it feeling valuable because of their looks? (Or if that is only the fucked-up our-society way it works, what would be the intelligent reason to feel good about it?)
I really apologize if I'm repeating others' questions and beating the horpse (horse corpse)...my memory is far from perfect
In my head, think the idea is that a more appropriate mental space for "you're beautiful" to occupy would be the one where "I like your shirt" lives. It's a nice thing to say (if true), makes the receiver of the compliment feel good about their current appearance, but is still pretty superficial. If "everyone is beautiful" then either you are a TOTAL FAILURE FOREVER if you don't look beautiful at this moment, or the word "beautiful" means nothing and you can never really use it in that "I like your shirt" sense.
Quote from: holist on October 31, 2012, 09:25:14 AM
Quote from: chimes on October 31, 2012, 07:39:36 AM
... beauty is a chance genetic mixture that has no relation to the person's value ...
I'm afraid that is a misconception. Although it has some underlying genetic factors, personal beauty is actually largely a cultural construct and is ultimately a (conscious or unconscious) achievement of the individual (embedded in a social context).
I'm not calling 'meeting society's expectations' an achievement or a determiner of human value - have you not read anything in this thread? Maybe read it again.
Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on October 31, 2012, 04:24:15 PM
In my head, think the idea is that a more appropriate mental space for "you're beautiful" to occupy would be the one where "I like your shirt" lives. It's a nice thing to say (if true), makes the receiver of the compliment feel good about their current appearance, but is still pretty superficial.
But a shirt is something you chose specifically to put on your body. Complimenting a shirt would be like complimenting a painting of yours. But complimenting your looks is not a praise of your skills in putting together an ensemble
(again excepting fashion/cosmetics...i wonder how many times I will give this disclaimer :P ).
Quote from: chimes on October 31, 2012, 04:28:31 PM
Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on October 31, 2012, 04:24:15 PM
In my head, think the idea is that a more appropriate mental space for "you're beautiful" to occupy would be the one where "I like your shirt" lives. It's a nice thing to say (if true), makes the receiver of the compliment feel good about their current appearance, but is still pretty superficial.
But a shirt is something you chose specifically to put on your body. Complimenting a shirt would be like complimenting a painting of yours. But complimenting your looks is not a praise of your skills in putting together an ensemble (again excepting fashion/cosmetics...i wonder how many times I will give this disclaimer :P ).
I'm talking about the mental space it resides in, not whether the two are exactly identical.
OK.
Quote from: chimes on October 31, 2012, 04:16:50 PM
Quote from: CAKE on October 31, 2012, 02:13:09 PM
Quote from: chimes on October 31, 2012, 07:39:36 AM
I didn't see it mentioned here, so:
Does beauty being an invalid measure of human value mean that a person complimented for their beauty cannot justifiably be pleased with themselves?
On the one hand, the beauty is a chance genetic mixture that has no relation to the person's value, as stated.
On the other, is there not some kind of true compliment which is NOT a value judgment in saying, "You are aesthetically pleasing to me" ? I want to make an analogy about complimenting an artwork, but of course an artwork is produced by the artist's intent and manipulations - which (ignoring surgery) does not apply...
Just some conceptual cud-chewin'.
- Ruminant, PhD.
Of course someone complimented for their beauty should feel good about it. There is a huge difference between appreciating beauty, and using beauty as the ultimate determinant of human value. Complimenting beauty is not in itself a value judgement of human worth.
I notice you specify "ultimate," implying beauty is still a determinant of human value, albeit a minor one. If this is what you mean, why would it determine any amount of human value at all? And if that is not what you mean:
But isn't accepting the praise as a personal compliment an affirmation of its place as a value judgment of oneself (excepting the case of fashion/cosmetics)? In other words, isn't the person who feels good about it feeling valuable because of their looks? (Or if that is only the fucked-up our-society way it works, what would be the intelligent reason to feel good about it?)
I really apologize if I'm repeating others' questions and beating the horpse (horse corpse)...my memory is far from perfect
If human beauty had no value, significant chunks of mythology and culture would be missing entirely. "Value" is relative, of course, but there's nothing wrong with finding value in beauty. I'm not going to claim it has no value, and that's not what the thread is about.
Quote from: chimes on October 31, 2012, 04:28:31 PM
Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on October 31, 2012, 04:24:15 PM
In my head, think the idea is that a more appropriate mental space for "you're beautiful" to occupy would be the one where "I like your shirt" lives. It's a nice thing to say (if true), makes the receiver of the compliment feel good about their current appearance, but is still pretty superficial.
But a shirt is something you chose specifically to put on your body. Complimenting a shirt would be like complimenting a painting of yours. But complimenting your looks is not a praise of your skills in putting together an ensemble (again excepting fashion/cosmetics...i wonder how many times I will give this disclaimer :P ).
Why are we still arguing definitions? That's been resolved ages ago. It doesn't MATTER why someone is "beautiful"...It is utterly irrelevant to the central point of the argument made in the OP.
Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on October 31, 2012, 04:24:15 PM
In my head, think the idea is that a more appropriate mental space for "you're beautiful" to occupy would be the one where "I like your shirt" lives. It's a nice thing to say (if true), makes the receiver of the compliment feel good about their current appearance, but is still pretty superficial. If "everyone is beautiful" then either you are a TOTAL FAILURE FOREVER if you don't look beautiful at this moment, or the word "beautiful" means nothing and you can never really use it in that "I like your shirt" sense.
I agree with this, pretty much". "You're beautiful" is one of those things like "Your ass looks great in those jeans"... a person receiving it as a genuine compliment would justly feel pleased, affirmed in their appearance. The problem becomes when it is elevated in importance above less trivial qualities, so that people are not beautiful or who are wearing unflattering pants feel that they lack significant value, when actually they have tremendous value that has nothing to do with how they look.
Quote from: Reverend Roadkill on October 31, 2012, 07:56:38 PM
Quote from: chimes on October 31, 2012, 04:28:31 PM
Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on October 31, 2012, 04:24:15 PM
In my head, think the idea is that a more appropriate mental space for "you're beautiful" to occupy would be the one where "I like your shirt" lives. It's a nice thing to say (if true), makes the receiver of the compliment feel good about their current appearance, but is still pretty superficial.
But a shirt is something you chose specifically to put on your body. Complimenting a shirt would be like complimenting a painting of yours. But complimenting your looks is not a praise of your skills in putting together an ensemble (again excepting fashion/cosmetics...i wonder how many times I will give this disclaimer :P ).
Why are we still arguing definitions? That's been resolved ages ago. It doesn't MATTER why someone is "beautiful"...It is utterly irrelevant to the central point of the argument made in the OP.
this.
Incidentally Nigel, your ass looks great in those jeans.
Quote from: Reverend Roadkill on October 31, 2012, 07:56:38 PM
Quote from: chimes on October 31, 2012, 04:28:31 PM
Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on October 31, 2012, 04:24:15 PM
In my head, think the idea is that a more appropriate mental space for "you're beautiful" to occupy would be the one where "I like your shirt" lives. It's a nice thing to say (if true), makes the receiver of the compliment feel good about their current appearance, but is still pretty superficial.
But a shirt is something you chose specifically to put on your body. Complimenting a shirt would be like complimenting a painting of yours. But complimenting your looks is not a praise of your skills in putting together an ensemble (again excepting fashion/cosmetics...i wonder how many times I will give this disclaimer :P ).
Why are we still arguing definitions? That's been resolved ages ago. It doesn't MATTER why someone is "beautiful"...It is utterly irrelevant to the central point of the argument made in the OP.
I wasn't trying to define beauty, I was trying to question why beauty would be a determiner of value, which is related to the OP.
Quote from: CAKE on October 31, 2012, 07:55:41 PM
If human beauty had no value, significant chunks of mythology and culture would be missing entirely. "Value" is relative, of course, but there's nothing wrong with finding value in beauty. I'm not going to claim it has no value, and that's not what the thread is about.
Okay.
Quote from: CAKE on October 31, 2012, 07:59:58 PM
Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on October 31, 2012, 04:24:15 PM
In my head, think the idea is that a more appropriate mental space for "you're beautiful" to occupy would be the one where "I like your shirt" lives. It's a nice thing to say (if true), makes the receiver of the compliment feel good about their current appearance, but is still pretty superficial. If "everyone is beautiful" then either you are a TOTAL FAILURE FOREVER if you don't look beautiful at this moment, or the word "beautiful" means nothing and you can never really use it in that "I like your shirt" sense.
I agree with this, pretty much". "You're beautiful" is one of those things like "Your ass looks great in those jeans"... a person receiving it as a genuine compliment would justly feel pleased, affirmed in their appearance. The problem becomes when it is elevated in importance above less trivial qualities, so that people are not beautiful or who are wearing unflattering pants feel that they lack significant value, when actually they have tremendous value that has nothing to do with how they look.
Okay fair enough, cheers
This blog is tangentially related maybe?
It's also some funny shit.
http://ad-busting.tumblr.com
Quote from: Pixie on November 01, 2012, 12:25:26 PM
This blog is tangentially related maybe?
It's also some funny shit.
http://ad-busting.tumblr.com
That's a good blog! And yeah.
Cameron Russel gave this talk in which she illustrates a great deal of what I was trying to express in my OP: http://www.ted.com/talks/cameron_russell_looks_aren_t_everything_believe_me_i_m_a_model.html
Quote from: Wuli Fufu on October 21, 2012, 08:22:18 PM
Quote from: V3X on October 21, 2012, 08:04:57 PM
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!"
<3 <3 <3
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on January 20, 2013, 03:25:43 AM
Cameron Russel gave this talk in which she illustrates a great deal of what I was trying to express in my OP: http://www.ted.com/talks/cameron_russell_looks_aren_t_everything_believe_me_i_m_a_model.html
I saw that a few days ago. It was very good.
Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on October 22, 2012, 07:36:17 AM
Quote from: Man Green on October 22, 2012, 06:38:46 AM
I will ask all of you a single question, and I demand that you defend your answer; Is Roger beautiful?
Go.
Yes. I find him very beautiful, aesthetically speaking.
Waffle iron is beautiful.
All the ladies is hottie pance.
I could go on. On and on and on. I spags here exceedingly beautiful.
This thread. I find myself becoming more hostile the more I read it, because I'm not sure if we're taking into account what the viewer thinks is beautiful, or what is going on. OP states that fat people are ugly. They are maybe to you. I'm not about to say that there aren't ugly people, because there are.
I will fully admit to missing the point entirely if I have, but hey, FUCK YOU, because I qualify as ugly, and struggle daily to see myself otherwise, which is probably a point you were trying to bring up, but unless you have some sort of whatever I don't even know what the fuck, just fuck right the hell off.
The point, for someone who is actually ugly seemed to look like this
"No, you aren't beautiful, stop trying to define yourself as something you aren't and realize that your value as a human being doesn't rely on your physical appearance. Stop trying to be beautiful and emphasize your strengths instead"
Come to think of it, that seemed to be basically the message for someone who is beautiful too. Since beauty fades, don't rely on it, build up your other strengths so they'll be there when you aren't gorgeous any longer.
Quote from: Pergamos on January 20, 2013, 07:56:41 PM
Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on October 22, 2012, 07:36:17 AM
Quote from: Man Green on October 22, 2012, 06:38:46 AM
I will ask all of you a single question, and I demand that you defend your answer; Is Roger beautiful?
Go.
Yes. I find him very beautiful, aesthetically speaking.
Waffle iron is beautiful.
All the ladies is hottie pance.
I could go on. On and on and on. I spags here exceedingly beautiful.
This thread. I find myself becoming more hostile the more I read it, because I'm not sure if we're taking into account what the viewer thinks is beautiful, or what is going on. OP states that fat people are ugly. They are maybe to you. I'm not about to say that there aren't ugly people, because there are.
I will fully admit to missing the point entirely if I have, but hey, FUCK YOU, because I qualify as ugly, and struggle daily to see myself otherwise, which is probably a point you were trying to bring up, but unless you have some sort of whatever I don't even know what the fuck, just fuck right the hell off.
The point, for someone who is actually ugly seemed to look like this
"No, you aren't beautiful, stop trying to define yourself as something you aren't and realize that your value as a human being doesn't rely on your physical appearance. Stop trying to be beautiful and emphasize your strengths instead"
Come to think of it, that seemed to be basically the message for someone who is beautiful too. Since beauty fades, don't rely on it, build up your other strengths so they'll be there when you aren't gorgeous any longer.
Bingo
Why are we even tying up human worth in physical appearance? That's the real question. We, as a culture, use "beautiful" synonymously with "good", to the point where it's almost impossible to extricate the two in people's minds.
One of the things I was thinking about but never got back to with the "is Roger beautiful" question is that when asked to explain their response, most people gave explanations that were values that actually have nothing to do with physical good looks. He's brilliant... OK, yeah. But that isn't "beauty", exactly. Well, it is in the sense that my brain totally wants to do it and have little brain-babies with his brain (and most of the brains here, in one big grey slippery brain-orgy) but in the sense that we usually use to describe a person as "beautiful", not so much.
But we use "beautiful" as a synonym for "good", so in that sense, yes, of course his brain makes him beautiful. We also use "beautiful" as a synonym for "attractive", although they actually mean different things.
I think there is a totally valid and useful place for the word "beautiful". It has a very functional definition and is a real, if mutable, phenomenon. I just want, kind of like how just yesterday Roger reminded me to THINK when I talk, for people to be conscious of the word when they use it, and maybe sometimes take a second thought and use a different, more appropriate word instead. Like brilliant, creative, persistent, reliable, joyous, funny, or compassionate.
There's some kind of conditioned response that comes into play, I think.
Eyes: "Hey, there's Roger!" Brain: "YAY!"
Eyes: "Hey, there's Brad Pitt." Brain: "Shut that shit off."
Another interesting, if tangential thought that has already been mentioned a few times in this thread... personality and familiarity always override physical beauty. Therefore, physical beauty is largely an issue in first impressions. If you were to ask me what, for example, Hoopla looks like, I would have a hard time describing him beyond shaved head and glasses, because to me, Hoopla is far more personality than appearance. I don't think he'd appreciate "he looks HILARIOUS!" :lol:
Likewise, I have an old friend who, occasionally, my new friends will meet and be all "OMG WHO IS YOUR FRIEND HE'S SO SO HOT" and I'm all :? THAT GUY? REALLY????
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on January 20, 2013, 10:45:14 PM
Another interesting, if tangential thought that has already been mentioned a few times in this thread... personality and familiarity always override physical beauty. Therefore, physical beauty is largely an issue in first impressions. If you were to ask me what, for example, Hoopla looks like, I would have a hard time describing him beyond shaved head and glasses, because to me, Hoopla is far more personality than appearance. I don't think he'd appreciate "he looks HILARIOUS!" :lol:
Likewise, I have an old friend who, occasionally, my new friends will meet and be all "OMG WHO IS YOUR FRIEND HE'S SO SO HOT" and I'm all :? THAT GUY? REALLY????
This makes the idea that everyone is beautiful a lot easier for people to accept, since if they get to know someone and that person has a lot of good attributes they are going to perceive them as beautiful, or at least a lot closer to beautiful than if they don't know them.
Doesn't make it right, but it's certainly part of the foundation.
Quote from: Pergamos on January 20, 2013, 10:50:28 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on January 20, 2013, 10:45:14 PM
Another interesting, if tangential thought that has already been mentioned a few times in this thread... personality and familiarity always override physical beauty. Therefore, physical beauty is largely an issue in first impressions. If you were to ask me what, for example, Hoopla looks like, I would have a hard time describing him beyond shaved head and glasses, because to me, Hoopla is far more personality than appearance. I don't think he'd appreciate "he looks HILARIOUS!" :lol:
Likewise, I have an old friend who, occasionally, my new friends will meet and be all "OMG WHO IS YOUR FRIEND HE'S SO SO HOT" and I'm all :? THAT GUY? REALLY????
This makes the idea that everyone is beautiful a lot easier for people to accept, since if they get to know someone and that person has a lot of good attributes they are going to perceive them as beautiful, or at least a lot closer to beautiful than if they don't know them.
Doesn't make it right, but it's certainly part of the foundation.
That's that redefinition of the word that I was talking about, the conflation with attractive or good. The very thing I'm arguing against.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on January 20, 2013, 10:52:44 PM
Quote from: Pergamos on January 20, 2013, 10:50:28 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on January 20, 2013, 10:45:14 PM
Another interesting, if tangential thought that has already been mentioned a few times in this thread... personality and familiarity always override physical beauty. Therefore, physical beauty is largely an issue in first impressions. If you were to ask me what, for example, Hoopla looks like, I would have a hard time describing him beyond shaved head and glasses, because to me, Hoopla is far more personality than appearance. I don't think he'd appreciate "he looks HILARIOUS!" :lol:
Likewise, I have an old friend who, occasionally, my new friends will meet and be all "OMG WHO IS YOUR FRIEND HE'S SO SO HOT" and I'm all :? THAT GUY? REALLY????
This makes the idea that everyone is beautiful a lot easier for people to accept, since if they get to know someone and that person has a lot of good attributes they are going to perceive them as beautiful, or at least a lot closer to beautiful than if they don't know them.
Doesn't make it right, but it's certainly part of the foundation.
That's that redefinition of the word that I was talking about, the conflation with attractive or good. The very thing I'm arguing against.
I know the definition of beauty is outside the scope of this thread, but I think we might get a more productive flow of conversation if we have a clear concise definition given for exactly what beauty means in the context of this thread.
If you'd read the thread, we've already done that. Page one or two, IIRC.
Beauty is my abs and, to a lesser degree my lats.
Ugly is all the fucked up looking shit from the neck up.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on January 21, 2013, 03:08:01 PM
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.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 21, 2013, 02:56:21 PM
If you'd read the thread, we've already done that. Page one or two, IIRC.
This.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on January 21, 2013, 03:46:15 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on January 21, 2013, 03:08:01 PM
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.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on January 21, 2013, 03:46:54 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 21, 2013, 02:56:21 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: Pergamos on January 21, 2013, 10:44:30 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on January 21, 2013, 03:46:54 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 21, 2013, 02:56:21 PM
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.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on October 20, 2012, 09:13:51 PM
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:
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on October 21, 2012, 07:44:51 PM
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.
Quote from: Pergamos on January 21, 2013, 10:44:30 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on January 21, 2013, 03:46:54 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 21, 2013, 02:56:21 PM
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.
I fail to see the difficulty here, except that Permagos is being difficult for the sake of being difficult.
Quote from: Pæs on January 21, 2013, 11:22:49 PM
Quote from: Pergamos on January 21, 2013, 10:44:30 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on January 21, 2013, 03:46:54 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 21, 2013, 02:56:21 PM
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.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on October 20, 2012, 09:13:51 PM
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: Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on October 21, 2012, 07:44:51 PM
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!
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 21, 2013, 11:41:20 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: Wuli Fufu on January 21, 2013, 11:52:52 PM
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.
Quote from: Wuli Fufu on January 21, 2013, 11:52:52 PM
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.
I can't remember if anyone's mentioned the Halo effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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.
Bumping because this came up in conversation, because of this article:
http://nathanbiberdorf.wordpress.com/2014/06/09/not-everyone-is-beautiful/
QuoteNobody 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.
And then, I did a little Googling, and found these articles:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/09/30/906790/-Everyone-is-physically-beautiful-The-naked-ugly-truth#
http://verysmartbrothas.com/everyone-cant-be-beautiful-and-thats-ok/
http://thoughtcatalog.com/chelsea-fagan/2012/09/not-everyone-is-beautiful-and-thats-okay/
Quote from: Pergamos on January 22, 2013, 05:18:50 PM
Quote from: Wuli Fufu on January 21, 2013, 11:52:52 PM
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.
this suddenly reminded me of this.
http://www.cracked.com/video_18506_the-4-worst-lessons-disney-movies-taught-us-as-kids.html
I agree that beauty, despite its inevitable value as a judgment we tend to place on others, shouldn't be placed above other, worthier virtues such as intelligence, trustworthiness, hard work etc.
I'm a pretty large dude, 340lbs at 5ft 10 in. i doubt i will ever fit into most peoples image of what is fuckable. A lot of the time, this gets me down, as it becomes intertwined with my family's concerns for my future (you're gonna die young if you don't lose weight, you'll get turned down for jobs being fat, you'll never find a girl being at that weight). Yet sometimes, on certain days, i find myself looking in the mirror and actually liking what i see,because i know that at least i'm living my life my way, and my way involves chili cheese fries.
I know that, based on results, i probably dont give enough of a fuck to focus on losing this weight, and i know that doesn't put me on anyone's radar, romantically or professionally. But on those certain days i look in the mirror and remember that i am trying my hardest to be the best possible person i can be, in a dozen ways that have nothing to do with my BMI, and that i have a large circle of friends who consider me a good and worthwhile friend. But it took a lot of work to get to this point, a lot of reprogramming and self work, and i dont think one can expect the majority of people to flip the same table and say "fuck it, i dont care about what you think about how i look!"
some thing needs to be done about the beauty myths here, but what i'm not entirely sure. I can agree with the fairy tales angle tho, i think the way we portray people in stories and media has a lot to do with he values we assign to people who look a certain way. My first thought would be to move away from the slim and skinny standard of beauty, but i feel that's maybe missing the point entirely? Like, what if you had a modeling agency, that only hired women who were within 1 standard deviation of the national norm in terms of body size, height, curves etc. in order to offer a more representative image of what people actually look like? I'm sorry if i'm all over the road here, i'm just writing whats coming to me at the moment.
Quote from: The Right Reverend Nigel on October 20, 2012, 05:36:39 PM
It seems like the default for fat-acceptance, for body-image issues, is to fall back on the idea that everyone is beautiful in their own special way.
I am starting to think that I have a problem with this.
The problem that I have is not that it's a blatant lie that relies on redefining the word "beauty" into something vaguely spiritual and pretty much altogether hippy-dippy, but that it still allows "beauty" to be a value judgement.
This is not just a women's issue, but to be honest, it is more of an issue for women than for men. If we don't like a woman's ideas, we may make fun of her appearance. If we love a woman's ideas but not her appearance, we may say that she's "beautiful on the inside" or that we "don't notice her looks" once we get to know her. People who are physically unattractive are pressured to compensate; men, by being smart or funny or wealthy, and women, by being nice. By being "pretty on the inside". Fat women are encouraged to feel "beautiful at any size". We all know that "she's got a great personality" is code for "ugly".
Here's the thing. Idealistic redefinitions aside, we aren't all beautiful, and those of us who do happen to be beautiful aren't going to stay that way. So what's the point of pretending that we are, in order to continue to attach value, actual human value, to something that is not actually all that important in the first place? It just reinforces our inner belief that our worth is connected to our appearance, and therefore our inner despair in the parts of us that recognize the lie. It's like telling a child he's smart when he knows damn well that he's not... it does nothing but rip down the self-esteem that he should be building up in other ways, building his sense of human worth by focusing on strengths he actually DOES have. So he may not be the sharpest hoe in the garden... but he sticks with things, works hard at problems, and isn't afraid to fail. So praise him for those strengths, so he can develop and take pride in them. And suppose a little girl isn't pretty... but she's analytical and spots details other people miss. Praise her for that. Praise her for being generous, kind, tough, persistent, clever, a good writer, for having a diversity of interests, for being athletic or good at research, but don't do her the disservice of both lying to her face and minimizing her true human value by telling her that she's "beautiful".
I didn't read responses prior to posting so forgive me if I say something redundant.
I just wanted to say that I've actually given this a lot of thought before. It kind of sickens me when I see so many signs everywhere that tell women that looks are the most important factor to being a woman. I think with men there are more directions of "worth" but for women the first and foremost is always beauty. The first thing said about a woman is often appearance based. There's an aspect of this to men; beyond a certain level of physical ugliness men and women both tend to be shunned, but at the same time an "average" appearance male has more societal pressure to succeed financially than have a pleasing appearance. I've heard many times an ugly guy with an attractive woman is assumed to be wealthy to get such a woman. Ignoring all the other things obviously wrong with that sentiment (like the assumption that she must be shallow), it definitely hints at the idea that a woman brings looks to the table and a man brings money, first and foremost. Of course, not everyone is so shallow, but media plus stupidity converge to really stuff that down a lot of throats.
It's part of society's cancer, I think.
Quote from: Chelagoras The Lust-Driven Dickwolf on July 10, 2014, 05:01:38 AM
i know that at least i'm living my life my way, and my way involves chili cheese fries.
I think you need to put that on a T-shirt (XXL).
naw man, XXXL, or as my dad refers to them, Super Bowl sizes
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on October 20, 2012, 06:18:51 PM
No one is beautiful. Beautiful is an opinion. If you put stock in how other people think you look then, unless you're an exceedingly rare looking individual, you're in for a world of pain and, even if you are that odd lucky fucker who won the genetic lottery, like you so rightly point out, you're going to be an ugly old fuck soon enough. Even uglier if you try to fight the tide and end up paying for some surgeon to speed the process along by temporarily knocking a couple of years off. That shit never ends well.
Fat/skinny/fit, tho is something you can do something about if you care enough. You weigh 800lbs and are happy with that then, believe it or not, I got a whole lot of respect for you but if you're three stone overweight, with the muscle density of a jellyfish, constantly whining about how it's not your fault and people like me are "lucky", between mouthfuls of cheeseburger, washed down with diet coke and a hours nap then fuck you, you're weak and you deserve to look and feel as bad as you do.
FTR: I used to be a real good looking boy, now I'm old and ugly as shit and I actually prefer it - suits my personality much better than the pretty-boy thing ever did.
My 2c
Everyone is beautiful. Even at their ugliest.
Quote from: Pope Lecherous on July 12, 2014, 09:21:56 AM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on October 20, 2012, 06:18:51 PM
No one is beautiful. Beautiful is an opinion. If you put stock in how other people think you look then, unless you're an exceedingly rare looking individual, you're in for a world of pain and, even if you are that odd lucky fucker who won the genetic lottery, like you so rightly point out, you're going to be an ugly old fuck soon enough. Even uglier if you try to fight the tide and end up paying for some surgeon to speed the process along by temporarily knocking a couple of years off. That shit never ends well.
Fat/skinny/fit, tho is something you can do something about if you care enough. You weigh 800lbs and are happy with that then, believe it or not, I got a whole lot of respect for you but if you're three stone overweight, with the muscle density of a jellyfish, constantly whining about how it's not your fault and people like me are "lucky", between mouthfuls of cheeseburger, washed down with diet coke and a hours nap then fuck you, you're weak and you deserve to look and feel as bad as you do.
FTR: I used to be a real good looking boy, now I'm old and ugly as shit and I actually prefer it - suits my personality much better than the pretty-boy thing ever did.
My 2c
Everyone is beautiful. Even at their ugliest.
Sooo . . . you are just going through every thread and posting, without actually reading any of them, aren't you?
Quote from: Cardinal Pizza Deliverance. on July 12, 2014, 04:52:02 PM
Quote from: Pope Lecherous on July 12, 2014, 09:21:56 AM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on October 20, 2012, 06:18:51 PM
No one is beautiful. Beautiful is an opinion. If you put stock in how other people think you look then, unless you're an exceedingly rare looking individual, you're in for a world of pain and, even if you are that odd lucky fucker who won the genetic lottery, like you so rightly point out, you're going to be an ugly old fuck soon enough. Even uglier if you try to fight the tide and end up paying for some surgeon to speed the process along by temporarily knocking a couple of years off. That shit never ends well.
Fat/skinny/fit, tho is something you can do something about if you care enough. You weigh 800lbs and are happy with that then, believe it or not, I got a whole lot of respect for you but if you're three stone overweight, with the muscle density of a jellyfish, constantly whining about how it's not your fault and people like me are "lucky", between mouthfuls of cheeseburger, washed down with diet coke and a hours nap then fuck you, you're weak and you deserve to look and feel as bad as you do.
FTR: I used to be a real good looking boy, now I'm old and ugly as shit and I actually prefer it - suits my personality much better than the pretty-boy thing ever did.
My 2c
Everyone is beautiful. Even at their ugliest.
Sooo . . . you are just going through every thread and posting, without actually reading any of them, aren't you?
I am responding to the text I quote. Is this concept difficult for you?