(08-22-2013, 12:37 AM)BobSacamano Wrote: [ -> ]I honestly don't see what you're getting at with that last part. As for the first, yes we should try to change it, I certainly don't act like that but honestly that's all I'm gonna do about it personally. Set an example. But I just don't see this making the difference. I mean, I guess the internet could rally for it like they did with gay marriage to try to get the younger generation to understand and see that it's a problem but idk. Regardless that stuff (personal judgements about physical features that can't be changed) is just not likely to change for the most part, especially with how embedded it is within a lot of people and society in general.
That's exactly
why we should try to fix it. Especially considering there are people, usually girls, who kill themselves because they don't like what they look like. Or, a less extreme example, they starve themselves until they go under their healthy weight and
become actually unattractive (I didn't know which word to italicize so I did both). I'm talking outside the context of surgery when I say that.
The last part basically gives an example of how opinional norms actually
can change. It's like with music; today, the music of Mozart is not nearly as popular as it was back when the composer was still alive.
(08-22-2013, 12:37 AM)BobSacamano Wrote: [ -> ]Well, the standard in relationships today is that there should be some physical attraction involved on both sides. I don't think it's wrong to want that. You should be attracted to who a person really is for sure, but the whole package is certainly preferred on both sides. Maybe one side is extremely physically attracted and the other isn't. The unattractive side would probably want to even it out if he/she can. It just makes everyone feel better about it, regardless of if that's shallow.
I understand. Thing is, I'd love to have a girlfriend that is a rocket scientist, the greatest theologian in history, a supermodel, a multi-talented musician and artist, brilliant in bed, shares similar views and opinions as me, and cooks well. I do know however that perfection is unachievable by mortals and that I won't always get what I want. I feel like if I'm okay with not having the rocket scientist part, I should be okay with not having a strong physical attraction either, especially when it comes to somebody who is asexual, or blind. That said, you and I both agree that physical attraction eventually happens if love (or feelings, to the very least) is present. That's why I feel like we shouldn't put too much importance on looks. At least, not before you're
in the relationship and already happy.
I just feel like attraction should come
after feelings, not the other way around.
(08-22-2013, 12:37 AM)BobSacamano Wrote: [ -> ]You're right though, there shouldn't be a physical aspect as a deal breaker imo, but that aspect might just make the difference in "Do I find them physically attractive?" which can be huge.
Alright. Still though, again we agree that if you're in love with a person, you'll find them attractive. It's biological and evolutionary; it's hard-wired in us.
On the other hand, I could meet a buxom, blonde, blue-eyed, Eastern-European woman with the body of Venus, having the perfect, perky bust and the roundest, fittest buttock, but is a white supremacist and neo-Nazi. That ain't attractive. I'd rather a normal-looking girl that is not a supremacist.
(08-22-2013, 12:37 AM)BobSacamano Wrote: [ -> ]I'm usually the same way. But again the physical attraction plays a big role in general.
Well, to all their own. This issue for me is more personal; more in principle.
(08-22-2013, 12:37 AM)BobSacamano Wrote: [ -> ]But the self-loathing caused by the nose for example is like you said, caused by the nose. With that problem gone the self-loathing probably will be too if that's all it was physically.
But
fixing altering the nose doesn't fix the problem. It could just create another. I've already said I find plastic surgery to be unattractive. If my SO got an operation like that, I'd lose at least some interest in her. She would have waged her (from my point of view) perfectly fine nose for my attraction towards her. I guess it's really an individual case kind of thing.
(08-22-2013, 12:37 AM)BobSacamano Wrote: [ -> ]I think major physical features being attractive is pretty set in stone for our lifetime. We know what's healthy and normal. Back then, I'm willing to bet that was considered healthy and attractive because it signified wealth and therefore success. But those are different now and we know better. Most people can afford to be fat, so it doesn't mean success. And obviously it's known to be unhealthy, so due to probably evolutionary stuff we find it unattractive. It's pretty much stayed the same for a long time apart from the temporary stuff that was discussed earlier, with how things are done such as hair and make-up. It's why Marilyn Monroe is still considered beautiful. If anything it's only less-so because there have been even more ridiculous and common standards in beauty since.
So basically, I find it totally acceptable because:
1. Our society can make you feel like there's something wrong with you because of something you're born with.
2. We're lucky enough to have the technology and knowledge to make it work with low-risk.
3. Attractive traits are pretty set in stone for now.
4. It can make everyone in the relationship feel better about it
5. It really doesn't make anyone else's life worse unless you let it.
Well, I'll hand it you. Your argumentation is good. It's really a "to all their own" kind of thing I reckon. I wouldn't immediately consider cosmetic surgery to be immoral, but to be unclassy for my standards. I won't stop being friends with someone who gets cosmetic operations because of the operations themselves. They might be great people, and this whole time I've only been preaching looking past physical beauty. Heck, Cockatoo himself admitted to wanting to get laser hair removal. I just find it a little saddening that these folks want to become something they weren't born as rather than loving who they are (without becoming narcissistic, granted).
In response to your #1: that's probably the root of what I'm critiquing. Stigma that applies to something given to you genetically, that incrementally and infinitesimally defines who you are; a single string of data on your double-helix. Discrimination I think is the right word.
This is what causes people to have self-esteem issues and to hate their bodies instead of loving their imperfections, which, in my opinion at least, are mutually infinitesimally close to perfection for the human race. Imperfection is, in some way, more often than not, beautiful in its own right. If everyone and everything was perfect, life would be useless. Challenges and goals wouldn't exist. Even a nihilist can agree that life allows you to experience things such as aspirations, pleasure, philosophy, challenges, bumps in the road that need to be overcome, food, sex, love, fear, sorrow... even if it's not worth anything in the end. "Perfection" would not only render everything worthless in the end, but also
during existence itself.
As for #4, I'll stick to the attraction-after-emotion thought.
(08-22-2013, 12:41 AM)crazysam23 Wrote: [ -> ]Well, in laymen's terms, it's kind of like saying to God that he messed up when he made you. That said, there's plenty of non-religious Jews who have had plastic surgery for purely aesthetic reasons.
Yeah, that's what I thought. But tattoos? Piercings? They're not
changing or
improving you. They merely use your body as a canvas. I dunno, I guess that's just the way I see it. Some tattoos are even made to show off your body, as tattoos become deformed with weight gain and what not.
(08-22-2013, 12:41 AM)crazysam23 Wrote: [ -> ]Another side note: Been reading a sci-fi book series where one of the things about human society is "rejuvenation" (basically, the ability to make yourself younger periodically by having a several month-long procedure done). Of course, the majority of human society seems to periodically rejuvenate to the look of a biological 20-year old, because younger looks more beautiful. How would that be for glorification of physical beauty? It's fiction obviously (honestly, I don't know if humanity would really ever do this on a large scale, or it'd just be something for the rich), but that idea sort of takes it to a whole different level, when you think about it.
That's crazy, Sam.
