Hand-Raiser

You are 71% Rational, 71% Extroverted, 29% Brutal, and 29% Arrogant.

Take The Personality Defect Test at OkCupid

I wonder what the writers of the show are implying?

The believer is the source of the belief, so people whose minds can’t imagine a perfect God or a functioning universe will constantly be at odds with nature.  They can’t begin to surpass themselves because they can’t understand or believe in themselves.  They can not believe that everything was made as it was, regardless of how they believe things were made.  Because of this, they can’t think of a way to enhance things.  You have to know what’s there to figure out how to make it better, or even if it needs improvement.

So God or nature becomes an excuse for personal failures that are within their power to change, but apparently not within their will…or it would seem so anyway.  I personally believe that one’s will is part of one’s power.

On a personal or societal level, to direct things to how they should be, one has to first know (well enough anyway) what is.  If one refuses to see what is, they will fail or lead themselves or others into destruction.

Both camps are guilty of leading people to destruction because thusfar, few seem to be willing to face the way things are, including the human imagination and will, or how they relate to each other.

Religious people claim to believe in an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, unfathomable God and yet they reduce it to little more than a hatless Santa Claus each time they pray for any purpose but gratitude.  Non religious people claim not to believe in God, and instead, reduce the universe to something that should be their hatless Santa Claus every time they hope for anything but what they have earned.  So they have a god they believe will part the Red Sea for them.  I like to call it the Denial Fairy.

I have a sort of hobby of naming people’s god or at least their anthropos figure by their behavior.  One can tell who they really worship by what they do.

Whichever it is though, nature is still what it is, and none of us is smarter than it.  Worst case, we can make this tiny rock we infest uninhabitable, but said rock will still orbit the sun until it is consumed by it.  So I’m trying to live in peace with my fellow inhabitants unless they don’t want to live in peace with me.  If the latter is the case, then it’s on.

Whether I am a child of God or merely a gob of flesh, my life is important to me.  I give and receive much love, and for this I am grateful.  I live on a planet that has many habitable areas where I could live rather pleasantly for years with nothing but my wits, and should I lose those, my suffering will not be long.  I will die of dehydration or exposure, and my body will feed some worms and flies that may someday feed a toad or maybe a fish that may someday feed a bigger fish or maybe even a child.  I am a part of the cycle of life, and when that stops, I will be a part of the collection of minerals that make up this universe.

It’s nice to think there may be a God.  I don’t presume what it is, if it exists in the ways I can possibly imagine existence, or try to parse its will aside of what is naturally creative and destructive, and the balance between those that sustains life.  No book is needed to see this, though reading the ideas of others on the matter helps as a nice springboard for forming one’s own ideas.  Everything we need to know, and may instinctively know already is spelled out in flesh and blood…and in trees and stones.

I wondered if that is also the case with me.  I’m female, so what I find attractive in person or aesthetically pleasing to look at is not going to be the same as most males.  Different needs and priorities.  I am an artist though, as well as partly a stylist and natural beauty expert, so my eye is very trained towards femininity.  I also have a patent sexual dislike of sheeple, so the balance of femininity and masculinity preferences is fluid for me, but certain things are well, harmfully masculinizing.  A butch Lesbian or athlete’s masculinity usually looks good on her.  Horse facedness comes from something other than working out and having low body fat.

The facial muscles determine a good part of what a person looks like.  It’s how most identical twins cease to look identical in their 20′s even if one of them didn’t suffer nutrition or space discrepancies in the womb.  One’s outlook and behavior, and things they’ve suffered go deeper than the surface.  Horseface comes from being emotionally hollowed out.  Assface comes from entitlement.  The Lecter non-scar comes from contempt.

So I was eyeing Maxim’s list of the hottest women, to perhaps get a better idea of what the difference is between my and other expats’ idea of beauty, and the American living in America’s idea of beauty.  I’ve already seen AskMen.com’s list, and didn’t get into the vast majority of them.  Most of the top 100 list are women who look like they’re genetic males and/or have to be coated in full body paint and airbrushed to look “beautiful”.

American beauty is apparently a flawless looking tall, slim boy with boobs on the surface.  It is an early aging Frankenstienian drug addict balloon filled with cottage cheese, crumbling bones, and silicone in reality.

Strangely, the ones who didn’t look like monsters (to me) are over 30, some over 35, who had bouts of overweightness during their careers.  In their time off, some of them have actually been chubby, and some still are at least Playboy rounded.  Yet these are the minority, and nowhere near the top of the lists.

I now have mixed feelings about this.  It brings up alot of bad memories of high school, and the difference between how I was treated on base and off base.  I went to a DoDDs school, for those who don’t know.  On the one hand, the painful truth that though beauty itself is largely objective, the reaction to it is socially dependent, was known to me.  What is startling is that it is apparently so socially dependent that American men have been convinced that the feminine ideal is FrankenBarbie.  I’d have been happier with the old standard princess Barbie.

The reason my feelings about it aren’t totally negative is that it has some historical and social basis.  Men are physically stronger and their bones and musculature more “solid” looking than females generally.  We sacrifice alot as far as objective beauty because of our reproductive hormones and such.

So much, if not most of feminine beauty is actually evidence of having sacrificed more in muscle, height, and bone density, in order to be able to carry babies to term.  It’s only fair that someone who appears not to have those particular “deficiencies” will be perceived as more objectively beautiful.  Broad shoulders, a square jaw, a jutting chin, and signs of early aging make for a rather handsome appearance.

The problem of course is that this is Lord of the Flies beauty, not “be fruitful and multiply” beauty…though Americans are now fully convinced that it is.

It wouldn’t be so bad if the people who believed in it just limited their personal activities to people who fit their preferences.  American culture doesn’t allow “live and let live” though.  No, they have to socially enforce their preference on others, even going as far as verbal and physical harassment, and then spread the “gospel” across the world.

I watched it happen here: diet clinics sprang up, and over the course of five years, the women got uglier, fatter, worse dressed, and yet snottier.   Israelis are becoming like Americans in the worst ways.

So when I see the supposed empirical evidence of what is supposedly objectively more beautiful, I think that the judges of this are being paid off.  The evolutionary biologists put out information, but people pick and choose what they want to believe rather than looking at the whole truth.

Beauty is far more objective than the western layman gives credit to.  Its near universality in cultures wherein people have to be hardy to survive is a hard thing to ignore in a world where there is the internet.  This is how we got to the overrepresentation of the badly assembled cyborgian addict in “hot” lists.  An animal is most dangerous and irrational when it is cornered and wounded.

I don’t really blame the men…or even women for this.  The general population can’t control what “information” they are presented.  I blame their social engineers: the rich people who mostly know better.  Some of them in their daily living, stayed pretty natural despite the health hype.  Some believed their own propaganda because they were particularly obsessed with their youth and beauty, and wanted to make everyone think that plastic boobs really do look better.

It puts money in their pockets.  Sure, they could put just as much or more money in their pockets promoting a more human friendly way, but when you’re a semi nihilist obsessed with looks rather than content, the scratch on your brain precludes making HGH more widely available instead of plastic surgery.  Why legalize marijuana when pills are the standard way the slaves solve their problems?  Antidepressants made your kid suicidal?  Collateral damage, right?

The truly insideous bit of all this is that for those who’ve already crossed the line into profitting from the exploitation of the herd, there is no ethical dilema.  For them, the sheeple are serving their purpose, and only suffering their destiny.  No independent thinker is in danger from it.  When they are 45, they will look as good as sheeple who are 30 or less.  Nature rewards the smart and punishes the stupid.

…but what of duty?  This is where it gets interesting, and where at some point I can’t even really blame the social engineers for their attempts to lead the herd off a reproductive cliff.

How much duty do you feel towards people who, were you in their power, would kill you or make your life miserable?

How much duty would you feel towards people who historically, went along with people who would burn, hang, and torture you for being socially inconvenient because of your color or religious beliefs?

Humans still do that to each other nowadays…and much worse.  Is it really so bad to capitalize off of a social trend that makes us more invisible except to each other, rather than visible and therefore targetted for cruelty?

Many questions, I do not have answers for.  I used to be very sure that it was partly my job to direct people towards a more positive way of life.  Now, with more experience, I’m not so sure.

Their heartbroken and shocked mother tearfully asked her middle son, the “clean” one how her well raised sons came to believe that they weren’t good enough…how they got to the point where they felt they had to use steroids regularly.

In my exploration of the blogosphere, in an attempt to better understand men, I’ve noticed a marked difference between the guys my dad’s age, and the guys my age, and the guys in their 20′s now.  Guys under 45 these days are, for the most part, feminine, vain, and have screwed up priorities.  They are this way mainly because their parents protected them from reality.

They were told that if they “worked hard and played by the rules” they would succeed.  If they were fortunate, they came to understand that this was hogwash early enough to take the truth in stride.  The unfortunate ones still feel as if they are weak or defective because working hard and playing by the rules did not give them the rewards they were promised.

One of the most damaging myths, in my opinion, has been the promise of free, easy sex, from hot chicks with no consequences.

What is most physically beautiful and ideal in a woman is youth, breeding/nurturing/sexual fitness, and good proportions/symmetry.  This has been so since the dawn of known history.  The problem is, of course, that the same things are most physically beautiful in men, and that neither men nor women can function optimally just from being pretty.  So all sorts of things come into play in determining who is one’s best mate.

In the past, western men seemed to understand this as well as other men understand it still.  They expected more of their partners and themselves than a pretty face and physique.  If it was a matter of love or practical good (such as in arranged marriage cultures) looks were secondary to optimal function and attachment.

I’m not waxing nostalgic.  People were no more deep then than they are now.  Yet then, it was less frustrating for the vast majority to find a decent partner at least most of the time, because expectations were based on deeds not looks.  Now, men themselves feel like lesser men if they don’t look pretty and have alot of money, and they feel as if women who don’t look pretty are lesser women.

In the 30-somethings it seems to have turned sharply in that direction.  Teens of the 80′s turned into bitter lonely men, married whores, or dumped their good wives for the hypothetical whores they thought they could do better with, in record numbers.  It’s gotten so that I understand the life stories of most of my old contacts will follow one of maybe 4 scripts.  Mine was getting dumped for hypothetical whores, but with a twist since I understand men way too well, and give a guy a “free five”.  Within 5 years, he can walk away with zero penalties.

More about why that was a good decision later, but for now I’ll explain a bit more why western men are so damned girly now.

Basically, it’s because they don’t generally have man-like priorities anymore.  If you need a woman to be dependable and trustworthy, that will be important to you.  If your woman can be a lying, thieving, cheater, and you’ll still be okay, then honesty, loyalty, and honor are not as important.

Women have let men off the hook.  Sure, they still take them to the cleaners in divorces when possible, but otherwise women don’t require that men be honorable, trustworthy, and kind anymore.  In fact, these traits are viewed as strangely feminine rather than just humane.  Humanity has become the domain of the female, and studly assholery has become the definition of male.

So a guy who isn’t an mirror primping asshole worried about whether or not jojoba or papaya is a better conditioner, is viewed as feminine now.  Women who cook and can manage a group of five kids in an orderly manner are considered too masculine.

So these three steroid taking brothers’ mom was a big, curvy, church going, super feminine woman who even baked their weight gain bars.  Their dad was a very handsome, hard working guy with his head on straight, who worked for IBM and later started his own business.  Who was the invader who programmed their beautiful strong boys with big dreams to believe they weren’t good enough?

The television.

Well, to be fair, it was too many hours and instances of unsupervised television.  My daughter watches plenty, but it’s usually educational, cartoons, and sci-fi.  No chance of developing a negative body image from Mythbusters.  We talk about models and actresses.  We know a few, and my daughter knows exactly what they go through to maintain their looks…and what they look like without makeup.  She has no illusions, and thusfar, no desire to be like that since her career and priorities in life are different.  So she’s not judging them negatively, just choosing her own path.

I wonder how different life would have been for these brothers if they had met and gotten to know some professional wrestlers, bodybuilders, and strength athletes growing up, who were honest with them.  They might still do steroids, but they’d be less conflicted about it, and much more understanding of their own motivations, rather than detached and viewing it in the context of addiction.

What really disturbs me is this idea that they and most western males now have the same desires.  It’s like the American dream is no longer individual.  They feel like they must all have big muscles, lots of money, and access to lots of young, pretty girls spreading their legs on demand, or something is lacking in their lives.

Even more disturbing is the seething contempt so many have for the women who may not be so “perfect”, but do give them attention.  It doesn’t matter than 100 million average looking girls would have their babies, cook their meals, and be faithful wives for life.  These are substandard ogresses who deserve to die alone for the sin of not being hot enough that their equally feminized friends would praise their living status accessories.

They actually complain about these women talking to them, being friendly to them, and wanting them.  The women who are important are the top 10% in looks, who they deserve because they’ve played by the rules and worked hard.  It should be like in the sitcoms, right?

At 38, I’m basically out of that “game” and enjoying the apocalyptic show from the nosebleed.  It would be nice to find a partner in all ways, but I’m sure if I do, it’ll be a chance meeting in the parking lot, and I understand my chances are quite low.   So part of my development back into my formerly hardcore self is being more okay with the idea that I wasn’t one of the lucky ones…or was I?

I did have the good sense and good luck to marry young and breed young.  I also look pretty good for my age, and no wall is on the horizon to hit in the near future.  All my older aunts are aging well, as is my mom.  So at least for the purpose of hanging out and being a non slutty freak who likes to dance, I’m doing pretty well.  I won’t look too extremely out of place when I take my daughter to Burning Man for her 21st birthday.

…and who knows?  Maybe somewhere out there is a bookish and yet highly…driven guy who can handle me.  I’m not holding my breath, but it can happen.  It’s just not something I can say that I’m really looking for anymore…at least not in Israel.  Guys outside of Israel, well, that would require a miracle, and this is not something I would bank on.

Like I said…most people are not that deep.  The practical concerns would get in the way unless someone thought I was truly special.  Lots of girls who are younger and prettier are special too.