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.