Sign in to follow this  
NeedleinA

Saddened by a supposed external lack of 'beauty'.

Recommended Posts

As the title suggests, I'm frequently saddened that individuals think of themselves as having very little to no outward 'beauty'. It also saddens me to see individuals who, for whatever reason, feel that their looks or social awkwardness make them undesirable to the opposite sex, unable to find someone to date or sometimes ultimately lose hope of ever being married at some point.

I recently read an AskGramps question, which unfortunately is echoed fairly often:

Quote

Gramps,

I have some very sincere self image problems.  I feel that I am a very unattractive (both facially, and bodily) person.  I know that I can improve my body through exercise, but I will still appear, in the mirror, to be “ugly” (for lack of a better term).  I know that here on earth, I look and resemble like my earthly parents, as I am almost a splitting image of my dad; but that is my earthly body.  After the resurrection, will my visage be of my earthly “looks” or my spiritual “looks”?

John

I thought Gramps did a great job with the response.

I hope, if anything, that individuals who find themselves in this train of thought can some how/some way realize that Our Father in Heaven has provided a multitude of individuals on Earth who can:
1. See the beauty they have
2. Would be thrilled to date them
3. Would happily consider them marriage material

I recently stumbled upon this heart warming show: Adorable Dates from the Undateables

 

Edited by NeedleinA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

...he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him.

In other words, the mortal Jesus Christ wasn't going to be a very handsome or physically attractive person.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I think back on some of the more popular and attractive girls and compare them to the “ugly” ones. I find that some of the ones I thought were really cute were actually quite ugly when you stripped away their personality and how they acted around others. One girl in particular who I knew had what I would describe as having a “sloth” face. She was born with some facial deformity that made her look like Sloth from the Goonies. But despite this deformity, she was fairly popular and I found her to be pretty attractive due to her contagious smile and positive attitude.

There were also a lot of “ugly” girls  that actually looked pretty, but due to their awkwardness and lack of maturity, no one dated them.

Anyone can become attractive if they:

1. Took care of their body

2. Participated in social activities

3. Learned what was appropriate to do at such activities 

4. Lived authentically

5. Developed a productive and social hobby/talent (sports/music/art/politics/work/etc.)

The difficult is the mental and emotional part. It’s so hard to convince someone they are worth loving if they don’t feel that way. Until that happens, it is hard to be attractive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Fether said:

But despite this deformity, she was fairly popular and I found her to be pretty attractive due to her contagious smile and positive attitude.

Agreed.
A smile, up beat attitude, glowing happiness, positivity, ability to laugh, being relaxed can far overshadow the physical. These features can be as you stated, "contagious" like a magnet.

Edited by NeedleinA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, anatess2 said:

How many “wallflower” stories does it take for people to understand physical beauty is skin deep and that cinderella got the prince?

I preferred the Ugly Sisters - now THEY were COOL!

4fb054e661edb128cc40103f93070349.jpg

Edited by Jamie123

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, anatess2 said:

How many “wallflower” stories does it take for people to understand physical beauty is skin deep and that cinderella got the prince?

Cinderella was the pretty, poor girl. The other ones were ugly, rich girls. I doubt Cinderella would have gotten the prince if she was ugly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/6/2019 at 10:29 PM, NeedleinA said:

A smile, up beat attitude, glowing happiness, positivity, ability to laugh, being relaxed can far overshadow the physical. These features can be as you stated, "contagious" like a magnet.

f57735d74c1bfa50bd1f563ed0bae72e.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, LadyGunnar said:

Cinderella was the pretty, poor girl. The other ones were ugly, rich girls. I doubt Cinderella would have gotten the prince if she was ugly.

Not quite.  Neither the original story nor the Disney adaptation talks of Cendrillon/Cinderella as a beauty prior to the godmother casting the spell.  And neither the original story nor the Disney adaptation talks of the step sisters as physically ugly but daughters who took after the meanness of their mother.  And the physical attributes of all the courtiers going after the prince's affections were not depicted as ugly either.  The end of the spell brought Cinderella back to plainness such that the prince was not able to identify her without her shoes and so he had to see her stripped of her physical accouterments and recognize the person within that captivated him at the ball above all other courtiers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Mores
On 12/6/2019 at 1:28 PM, NeedleinA said:

As the title suggests, I'm frequently saddened that individuals think of themselves as having very little to no outward 'beauty'. It also saddens me to see individuals who, for whatever reason, feel that their looks or social awkwardness make them undesirable to the opposite sex, unable to find someone to date or sometimes ultimately lose hope of ever being married at some point.

I'm probably going to get stoned for this.  But there is something to be said about attractiveness.  Take the first couple in that video.  There was really nothing inherently unattractive about either of them.  The guy needs some lessons in dress and grooming.  And he needs to have more confidence.  But his actual bone structure and overall build are quite attractive.  The girl is pretty as she is.  But she could stand to lose some weight.  Not that she needs to be bone thin, but there is something to be said about "healthy weight".

We need to understand that what we normally perceive as "attractiveness" in humans is "healthiness".  And we also need to understand how such health can be masked or deceptively presented. 

Then we also have to give credit for personality.  Much of what we consider attractiveness includes things like posture, attitude, a smile, energy, etc.  The first couple in the video really needed coaching in social interaction.  They could work on their posture, etc.  But they were perfectly nice people.  They just needed to learn how to talk to others.  Many times people who are attractive are also more confident because they are always met with positive reactions from people around them.  Whereas, less attractive people aren't.  So, it ends up being a self-fulfilling prophecy kind of thing.  Not exactly the right term.  But you know what I mean.

As @Fether mentioned, there are people who have so much energy and confidence that they can overcome some deficiencies in that "healthy look".  The movie Mask (based on a true story) was a great example.  Obviously dealing with a health issue.  Very off-putting to people who have never seen it before.  But he understood that.  His mother refused to let him be limited by it.  And he had a confidence that overcame it.  As a result, he was a very popular guy.

Edited by Mores

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Mores said:

I'm probably going to get stoned for this.  But there is something to be said about attractiveness.  Take the first couple in that video.  There was really nothing inherently unattractive about either of them.  The guy needs some lessons in dress and grooming.  And he needs to have more confidence.  But his actual bone structure and overall build are quite attractive.  The girl is pretty as she is.  But she could stand to lose some weight.  Not that she needs to be bone thin, but there is something to be said about "healthy weight".

We need to understand that what we normally perceive as "attractiveness" in humans is "healthiness".  And we also need to understand how such health can be masked or deceptively presented. 

Then we also have to give credit for personality.  Much of what we consider attractiveness includes things like posture, attitude, a smile, energy, etc.  The first couple in the video really needed coaching in social interaction.  They could work on their posture, etc.  But they were perfectly nice people.  They just needed to learn how to talk to others.  Many times people who are attractive are also more confident because they are always met with positive reactions from people around them.  Whereas, less attractive people aren't.  So, it ends up being a self-fulfilling prophecy kind of thing.  Not exactly the right term.  But you know what I mean.

As @Fether mentioned, there are people who have so much energy and confidence that they can overcome some deficiencies in that "healthy look".  The movie Mask (based on a true story) was a great example.  Obviously dealing with a health issue.  Very off-putting to people who have never seen it before.  But he understood that.  His mother refused to let him be limited by it.  And he had a confidence that overcame it.  As a result, he was a very popular guy.

This is actually nail-on-the-head comment.

Attractiveness is one of those talents God gives us.  There are many facets to it - physical display is just one of them.  Attractiveness has to have substance beyond the physical display (very correctly stated that it is tied to the appearance of health and longevity) because physical display is only there to initiate attention - something of more substance keeps that attention like one's ability to express oneself, personality and character, moral grounding, intelligence, skillful ability to gain resources, strength to stand up against adversity and protect others from adversity, etc. all contribute to Attractiveness.  Like any God-given talent, we are commanded to work at magnifying them to become useful in God's purpose.  So, if one is gifted in one area - say Physical Attribute - it doesn't mean you don't have to work at other areas.  You may be able to catch someone's attention by simply walking into a room but keeping that attention is another matter (e.g. she was pretty until she spoke...).  Likewise - if one is gifted with eloquence, physical appearance can still be worked at among all other facets that contribute to Attractiveness.  Attractiveness, when wielded for God's purposes, increases one's ability to keep people's attention to gain influence, not just for finding eternal companions.  It is a great asset for everyday missionaries.

Edited by anatess2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Mores said:

I'm probably going to get stoned for this.  But there is something to be said about attractiveness.  Take the first couple in that video.  There was really nothing inherently unattractive about either of them.  The guy needs some lessons in dress and grooming.  And he needs to have more confidence.  But his actual bone structure and overall build are quite attractive.  The girl is pretty as she is.  But she could stand to lose some weight.  Not that she needs to be bone thin, but there is something to be said about "healthy weight".

We need to understand that what we normally perceive as "attractiveness" in humans is "healthiness".  And we also need to understand how such health can be masked or deceptively presented. 

Then we also have to give credit for personality.  Much of what we consider attractiveness includes things like posture, attitude, a smile, energy, etc.  The first couple in the video really needed coaching in social interaction.  They could work on their posture, etc.  But they were perfectly nice people.  They just needed to learn how to talk to others.  Many times people who are attractive are also more confident because they are always met with positive reactions from people around them.  Whereas, less attractive people aren't.  So, it ends up being a self-fulfilling prophecy kind of thing.  Not exactly the right term.  But you know what I mean.

As @Fether mentioned, there are people who have so much energy and confidence that they can overcome some deficiencies in that "healthy look".  The movie Mask (based on a true story) was a great example.  Obviously dealing with a health issue.  Very off-putting to people who have never seen it before.  But he understood that.  His mother refused to let him be limited by it.  And he had a confidence that overcame it.  As a result, he was a very popular guy.

I agree 100%, but also want to add that a person's "attractiveness" is subjective. For example, there are many models in the world today that I find quite attractive, and many who I do not. I don't just see them as average looking, but not physically attractive period, and I wonder how they got a job in the modeling industry. I often dated girls in high school and college that my friends found completely unattractive, and vice versa. It is nevertheless an important attribute to take care of oneself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, scottyg said:

I agree 100%, but also want to add that a person's "attractiveness" is subjective. For example, there are many models in the world today that I find quite attractive, and many who I do not. I don't just see them as average looking, but not physically attractive period, and I wonder how they got a job in the modeling industry. I often dated girls in high school and college that my friends found completely unattractive, and vice versa. It is nevertheless an important attribute to take care of oneself.

If you're talking about runway or print Models, they are not hired for "attractiveness".  Models are hired to compliment the clothes or accessory.  Basically, you don't want a model whose face detracts from the item they're modeling.  Designers do not make their clothes fit the model.  Rather, the designers hire a model that fit the clothes.  That's why in a runway, models are all twiggy and tall but not too tall.  Male models have square jaws and female models have small breasts.  They all have the same size feet, etc.  They all have that quality that they can make a potato sack look good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Mores
9 hours ago, scottyg said:

I agree 100%, but also want to add that a person's "attractiveness" is subjective. For example, there are many models in the world today that I find quite attractive, and many who I do not. I don't just see them as average looking, but not physically attractive period, and I wonder how they got a job in the modeling industry. I often dated girls in high school and college that my friends found completely unattractive, and vice versa. It is nevertheless an important attribute to take care of oneself.

Oh, definitely.  There is no doubt that personal backgrounds, prejudices, societal norms, and innate tastes will have an influence in our first impression of aesthetics.

I would want to add the fact that this doesn't mean attractiveness is ENTIRELY subjective.  There are going to be some factors that are considered universally attractive.  Depending on the individual, these factors will weigh more or less on the overall impression to a given observer.  But they DO weigh somewhat for virtually everyone.

Looking for healthy appearance in a mate will always be a trait of attractiveness.  But healthy for an American vs. a Bushman of the Kalahari may be somewhat different.  But it cannot be completely so, because we are all human.  There are certain human characteristics that will be universally desirable.  Consider extreme examples such as gross deformities.  The Elephant Man would not have ever been considered attractive in any culture because of the extremity of his deformities.  So, just consider that some things are like that, but to a much lesser degree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, NeedleinA said:

Sorry my bad, wrong pic... here you go.

b.jpg.1dfc159fb6b27c0e98520d6060a9b630.jpg

Gotta tell you, this is an indictment of our own perverse, infantilizing culture, and an example of where the feminists actually have a good point. A partially dressed woman in a seductive pose is universally recognized and is not really Godly...but the fact that she has armpit hair? News flash: In most races of human beings, adult women have axillary hair. If we find that weird or disgusting, that's a problem with us, not with women's hairy armpits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Vort said:

If we find that weird or disgusting, that's a problem with us, not with women's hairy armpits.

Ding, ding. The two varying pictures were to allow individual readers to judge, for themselves, if one type of hair was considered 'ugly' or not.
Whether:
1. an individual has armpit hair or not
2. an individual has a mustache or not
3. an individual feels their skin is too dark or not dark enough  (bleaching vs. tanning)
4. an individual feels their face is too symmetrical or not symmetrical enough
5. etc.
6. etc.

Their is someone out their that will see them as beautiful (see below), so please don't give up hope.

On 12/6/2019 at 1:28 PM, NeedleinA said:

I hope, if anything, that individuals who find themselves in this train of thought can some how/some way realize that Our Father in Heaven has provided a multitude of individuals on Earth who can:

1. See the beauty they have
2. Would be thrilled to date them
3. Would happily consider them marriage material

 

 

Edited by NeedleinA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Vort said:

Gotta tell you, this is an indictment of our own perverse, infantilizing culture, and an example of where the feminists actually have a good point. A partially dressed woman in a seductive pose is universally recognized and is not really Godly...but the fact that she has armpit hair? News flash: In most races of human beings, adult women have axillary hair. If we find that weird or disgusting, that's a problem with us, not with women's hairy armpits.

Why is it problematic, perverse, and infantile that I find armpit hair unappealing? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Fether said:

Why is it problematic, perverse, and infantile that I find armpit hair unappealing? 

Do you find eyebrows unappealing? Pubic hair? Women being taller and stronger than children?

Girls grow up into women. That's how it's supposed to be. And adult women grow hair on various parts of their bodies, including the scalp, the brow, the forearms, the legs, the pubis, and the armpits. To find those things unappealing is to find womanhood unappealing. It's the same as women finding men's beards to be disgusting (which many women do).

Healthy children generally do not have visible body hair. Healthy adults do. To prefer the body-hairless look in an adult is infantilization by definition. Clearly, few men would find it appealing for a woman to have a man's body hair pattern. But armpit hair is not a solely masculine trait—except in western societies, where the fashion trend against body hair has been overpoweringly reinforced in the last century.

I am not pretending to be above this cultural preference. I'm an American. I grew up watching TV. I share many of the same stupidities as the vast majority of my fellow countrymen. But that doesn't mean I can 't see the foolishness of it, or that I'm unwilling to point it out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

image.jpeg.cd6a3cbb2eb8a8c55847fa6e9cd23402.jpeg

 

You'll have to search for your own pictures of nose hair or ear hair. 

What makes one cultural preference ok, and another perverse or infantalizing?

Edited by NeuroTypical

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

 

image.jpeg.cd6a3cbb2eb8a8c55847fa6e9cd23402.jpeg

 

You'll have to search for your own pictures of nose hair or ear hair. 

What makes one cultural preference ok, and another perverse or infantalizing?

Not sure.

"Perverse" is a general indictment of our society, one that I would be surprised if most here didn't agree with. It encompasses situations where normal, desirable traits of men or women are minimized, dismissed altogether, or even held in contempt. Women as the designated stay-at-home parents, men as the designated breadwinner, a desire to rear children, even the very idea of a nuclear family are ignored or despised. That's perverse. I think that might reasonably extend to finding the normal, God-given traits of men and women distasteful—you know, things like body hair.

As for infantilizing: How did the whole idea of women shaving their legs or armpits get started? Hair on women's head isn't seen as unappealing. Eyebrows aren't seen as unappealing (possibly very masculine eyebrows). Why other body hair, specifically underarm hair? Unlike chest or back or facial hair, axillary hair is almost universal among adult women. Why should anyone find it more attractive when it's shaved off? The root of the answer seems obvious to me: Little girls don't have underarm hair, so shaving off underarm hair is an attempt to make an adult woman look more like a little girl. And why would an adult woman want to look more like a little girl? Well...hairy armpits are a turnoff...that's sexual...so obviously, the hairless armpits of little girls are more sexually appealing.

At the risk of discussing things that maybe should not be openly discussed: I read an article a few months back that mentioned how modern porn shows a preference for women to be shaved in the pubic area. Individual variations of taste aside, why would the average man want his wife or lover to not have any pubic hair? I mean, that would make her look like...well...

A little girl.

Bingo.

Gross? Disgusting? Horrible? Make whatever value judgments you want. But that's infantilizing.

Edited by Vort

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, as always, your opinions are well-thought out and presented.  I'm only able to go maybe 25% of the way with you though. 

There's no end of normal God-willed stuff in this world that gives me an ick factor.  Both in and out of human behavior and appearance, both in and out of a cultural framework.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Mores
4 hours ago, Vort said:

Do you find eyebrows unappealing? Pubic hair?

You have some points in your favor here.  But you are also ignoring certain points against you. 

Most women tend not to have hair on their thighs.  This is the gateway to the pubic region.  Ever since the invention of the loincloth millennia ago, private parts have been hidden.  But the thighs were not hidden.  So, it was natural for a male of the species to view the hairless thighs as somewhat enticing.  Would it not make sense that having the entire leg barren might be more enticing?  It could go either way.  But why were women's legs covered in earlier generations?  One could even extend that line of thinking to the recent trend in self grooming (actually for males and females, as I heard).  I just hear stuff.  

This isn't necessarily infantilizing because there are many other features that differentiate child and adult that are certainly NOT sought after.  The ratio of length to diameter is considered important.  We often hear the description of a desirable woman having "legs that go on forever."  I myself never really understood that.  But it is certainly a saying for a reason.  The shape of a child's face is more circular vs. the oval of an adult.  Eye size to head size ratio is very different. And of course, the most visible feature of the female physique is still something that captures the male eye.  And children most definitely do NOT have that characteristic.  Yet, would it not be considered repulsive for a woman to have a hairy chest?

There is certainly a connection between sexuality and the desire for the bulk of the body to be glabrous rather than pileous (yes, I googled those words).  But hair of the head (as well as eyebrows and eyelashes) is there to adorn and has completely different effects because it is SO obviously visible for EVERYONE that those are actually desired rather than eschewed.  In fact, longer hair on the head and longer eyelashes are considered a sign of beauty for women in most cultures.

OK, that was a lot more than I wanted to say.  It kind of sounds like I spend a lot more time thinking about sex than I do.  Truthfully, I spend a lot of time thinking about why people tend to think the way they do.  And Freud had a point.  A great deal of how we think can be attributed to a basis in sexuality.  And this isn't necessarily in a hedonistic manner, but rather the healthy desire to propagate the species.

Edited by Mores

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this