should looks matter?

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

there's been a lot of discussion on other thread about whether looks are crucial in determining if you fancy someone or not; but even those who do think looks are important seem embarassed about this. why? why is it better to judge people for their minds rather than their bodies?

(this is only half devil's advocate btw)

― toby (tsg20), Wednesday, 6 November 2002 16:32 (twenty-three years ago)

I think the way people look changes based on what you think of them in other areas. Think of ex-es. At one point, you might have thought they were hot. But at this point they might seem revolting.

Or you might not be attracted to someone when you first meet them, but as you get to talk to them you start to notice their twinkley eyes or cute lips or something.

Plus, what looks good to you, might not look good to another person.

Um, so in conclusion, yes, looks are important.

― Sarah McLusky (coco), Wednesday, 6 November 2002 16:48 (twenty-three years ago)

Toby, I have asked the same question as you a number of times and never really got a satisfactory answer. People believe that their minds are under their control whereas their bodies are not.

Maybe you should ask their bodies what they think about it.

Except I don't think I'm a dualist. Bah.

I'd rephrase 'all's fair in love and war' to 'all's fair in attraction and war conducted under the terms of the Geneva Convention'.

But some people would disagree vehemently. Notably Pete.

― N. (nickdastoor), Wednesday, 6 November 2002 16:56 (twenty-three years ago)

i have decided to become a duellist

― mark s (mark s), Wednesday, 6 November 2002 17:01 (twenty-three years ago)

People believe that their minds are under their control whereas their bodies are not.

whereas i think it's arguable that the reverse is true - we have more control over the way we look than over our personalities.

i mean, yeah some people are born ugly and some beautiful, and some are born stupid and others clever (and often the "love me for my mind" thing is at least in part "see how intelligent i am"); why is one considered more acceptable to judge people on?

― toby (tsg20), Wednesday, 6 November 2002 17:02 (twenty-three years ago)

Hey Baby, Your Brain Is Really Turning Me On....

― N. (nickdastoor), Wednesday, 6 November 2002 17:03 (twenty-three years ago)

looks are not the only thing but yes, of course it matters. but so does everything else.

― Julio Desouza (jdesouza), Wednesday, 6 November 2002 17:06 (twenty-three years ago)

julio: you're answering a completely different question!

i've read the thread that nick's pointed at before, i guess, though i can't remember much about it. i have to do some work now anyway but more later i'm sure.

― toby (tsg20), Wednesday, 6 November 2002 17:08 (twenty-three years ago)

looks are important of course!
but i dont mean in a way of ' attractive or ugly', i mean in your personal perception of someones looks.
i may find someone attractive but my best mate cant understand it, and vice versa.
the standard 'media portrayed attractive look' really falls into nothingness when it comes to personal attraction.

― donna (donna), Wednesday, 6 November 2002 17:37 (twenty-three years ago)

Plus, the standard 'media portrayed attractive look' gets kind of boring after a while. You get numb to it.

― Sarah McLusky (coco), Wednesday, 6 November 2002 17:57 (twenty-three years ago)

heh, sorry...

''why is it better to judge people for their minds rather than their bodies?''

i think it comes down to the fact the fact that if you want a long term reletionship then its not just abt the way a person looks. I think the attraction to the person's looks wears out over time and what's left is what is their *matter*. what's inside them.

sorry I'm hurrying up a bit. i have to go but i'll throw this in for now. will be back later.

― Julio Desouza (jdesouza), Wednesday, 6 November 2002 18:03 (twenty-three years ago)

I say looks are important only in the appreciation of visual beauty, not in the appreciation of friendship, knowledge, etc.
(You can say "If that painting is beautiful or ugly it defines how good of a painting it is", but you cannot replace painting with person. Other factors define a person much more)

"we have more control over the way we look than over our personalities."

People have much less control over thier physical appearance than thier personality. Say you get 3rd degree burns on the face, you have Down syndrome, or you are a dwarf. You have 0% control over these, but you can still be kind or enjoyable company. People always have some control over thier personalities even the insane or mentally ill have the slightest control over this.

― A Nairn (moretap), Wednesday, 6 November 2002 18:09 (twenty-three years ago)

I'm not embarassed at all to say looks are important. But yes, over time you need substance as well.

― Sean (Sean), Wednesday, 6 November 2002 18:10 (twenty-three years ago)

Certianly facial expresions matter. If someone looks sad, you may ask them "what's wrong". But this could also be inaccurate. I sometimes look sad or nervous for no reason at all and people ask "what's wrong", and I'm like "what are you talking about, I'm fine." Or sometimes after I've been swimming in chlorine my eyes will start to water and I'll start crying and that will cause me to feel sad, but I'm not really sad.

― A Nairn (moretap), Wednesday, 6 November 2002 18:52 (twenty-three years ago)

haha yes i get that too. i think i have a cranky-looking face or something because i can be in a perfectly good mood but someone will ask me whats wrong!
it gets kind of annoying after a while, i feel as if i should walk about with a fixed smile to reassure people im OK GODDAMMIT.

― donna (donna), Wednesday, 6 November 2002 19:15 (twenty-three years ago)

I agree with N. as I did on the thread he links to above. I don't agree with Julio either, I think the day you stop being physically attracted to the person, there are problems. Obviously that subject is total sitcom fodder but it's quite true. Perhaps the personality connection/attraction sustains the physical one but neither ever works alone.

― Ronan (Ronan), Wednesday, 6 November 2002 20:38 (twenty-three years ago)

Of course looks do matter, and there is nothing wrong with that. If it's all you care about, you're shallow, but conversely not caring at all doesn't make you deep, it makes you asexual, I would think. One point is that a nice arse and pretty face makes a night with someone appealing, but not a year; also, I can walk down any street and see a bunch of people I fancy. Finding people I can envisage spending months with is far harder.

― Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Thursday, 7 November 2002 19:15 (twenty-three years ago)

>>> the standard 'media portrayed attractive look' gets kind of boring after a while. You get numb to it.

Maybe if you hang around with models and actresses all day, this is true.

I don't.

― the pinefox, Thursday, 7 November 2002 19:36 (twenty-three years ago)

ha ha

I'm just saying that if you look through a glossy magazine, you'll notice all the models start looking kind of the same. Some seem to have been picked for their neutralness/symmetry so that you notice the clothes, not the model. So you have these ultra-pretty people blending in with one another.

― Sarah McLusky (coco), Thursday, 7 November 2002 19:56 (twenty-three years ago)

It'd certainly be easier if I judged everyone I met on the basis of their looks. Certainly, I make instant judgment, but sort of just an objective observation--i.e. "She has nice hair." or "He looks like Don Knotts." I have noticed over time that really, people just look the same to me until I begin to know more about who they are, etc. etc. When I look out into a bar, or a party, or any kind of room stuffed full of people, I can't even point out the attractive ones anymore.

But yeah, I guess they should matter, just because it makes things easier. But I secretly wished they didn't, because I am goofy looking.

― Mandee, Thursday, 7 November 2002 20:24 (twenty-three years ago)

Sarah: I was going to say: yes, but that's not what it's like in real life. But then I realized that sometimes it *is* like that in real life. Whether that makes real life any more enjoyable for the rest of us I'm not sure.

― the pinefox, Thursday, 7 November 2002 21:15 (twenty-three years ago)

I'm not sure what the pinefox is getting at.

― N. (nickdastoor), Friday, 8 November 2002 08:48 (twenty-three years ago)

I remember you well in the Chelsea Hotel
you were famous, your heart was a legend.
You told me again you preferred handsome men
but for me you would make an exception.
And clenching your fist for the ones like us
who are oppressed by the figures of beauty,
you fixed yourself, you said, "Well never mind,
we are ugly but we have the music."

Chelsea Hotel #2, Leonard Cohen

― felicity (felicity), Thursday, 14 November 2002 08:25 (twenty-three years ago)

In conversation I often sense the absurd assumption that there is something morally superior about being fancied for your high intelligence rather than your good looks. As though good looks were pure chance but intelligence was a personal achievement.

― ArfArf, Friday, 15 November 2002 09:46 (twenty-three years ago)

Well they're both pure chance, aren't they? We don't have any choice over the genes with which our parents lumbered us. If one attribute outweighs the other, however, then maybe it's just a case of seeing "intelligence" as a better selling point than your looks if the latter are not "good."

― Marcello Carlin, Friday, 15 November 2002 10:27 (twenty-three years ago)

If I can't talk to someone properly it isn't going anywhere, I and I can't be bothered faking it to get "there". Unless I'm drunk. So, looks don't go all that far for me, I guess.

― Andrew Thames (Andrew Thames), Friday, 15 November 2002 11:11 (twenty-three years ago)

"I and I". Being the new singer in Bad Brains gets me a lot of female company, though.

― Andrew Thames (Andrew Thames), Friday, 15 November 2002 11:12 (twenty-three years ago)

Yes Marcello, that's pretty much my point. Both are largely chance. In fact arguably you have more control over your looks than your intelligence.

― ArfArf, Friday, 15 November 2002 12:14 (twenty-three years ago)

exactly!

― toby (tsg20), Friday, 15 November 2002 14:42 (twenty-three years ago)

"I and I". Being the new singer in Bad Brains gets me a lot of female company, though.
Yeah, listen to Andrew, he's great with girls. His "you're a tall fuckwad" line never fails to work on me, anyway.

― Livvie, Saturday, 16 November 2002 09:46 (twenty-three years ago)

Gosh, Livvie, I guess I never really noticed before... but you are ONE TALL FUCKWAD!

― Andrew Thames (Andrew Thames), Sunday, 17 November 2002 11:03 (twenty-three years ago)

If a person seems attractive in the abstract (in a photograph, say), does that necessarily mean their movements and expressions are attractive? More than once, I've encountered someone who would be wonderful as a model but who, in person, is clumsy and vacant-looking. And inasmuch as none of them seemed to realize how they came off to other people, their intelligence must have had certain limitations as well. "Looks" are three-dimensional qualities, and it's kind of regretable that recognition of this fact went out with the 19th century.

― yente, Sunday, 17 November 2002 11:28 (twenty-three years ago)

i blame clement greenberg

― mark s (mark s), Sunday, 17 November 2002 12:19 (twenty-three years ago)

Omg!! He likes me! He likes me!

― Livvie, Sunday, 17 November 2002 22:13 (twenty-three years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.