Ok, so off topic a tad here, but why are talent and intelligence more concrete?
One suggestion that I’ve heard is that beauty fades with age, but really - a person could become arthritic (for example) and lose their dancing/football/athletic talent, or they could get dementia (for example) and pretty much lose their intelligence.
Anyhow, back on topic.
Wow! That chick is a total bitch! I hope they shrivel up and fall off!!
<ahem>
Al.
The problem, at least that I have, is people using beauty to treat other people like crap and either not noticing how horrid they’re acting or thinking they should be able to get away with it because they’re beautiful.
Substitute “intelligence” or “talent” into the above sentence, and I’m just as pissed.
** Badtz**, I don’t think the point was to demean strippers, so much as point out that they tend to have hard lives.
In a previous career, I met literally hundreds of strippers, and befriended a few dozen. And while most were compassionate people, most have also had way more than their share of hard luck. Drug use is common. Many have been abused. It’s kind of heartbreaking, but somehow most of them manage not to lose their humanity.
Seems like I’m always hijacking threads. Let’s get back to bashing mean-spirited beauties.
Well, according to statistics blacks lead harder lives than the average American, and are more likely to commit crimes. Just because some people in a group are lacking in some ways does not mean you should be able to talk shit about all of them as a group.
Way cool:
I’m first to post the relevant Onion article:
http://www.theonion.com/onion3738/thin_attractive_woman.html
Thank you for stating part of my point so succinctly, amarinth.
What makes me angry about “beauty” as opposed to “intelligence” or “talent” is that beauty is supremely arbitrary. It has no relation to effort or ambition.
Everyone has the chance to excel in an area. If you can’t be athletic (another area that garners many perks), you can find appreciation among academics or artisans, depending on your bent.
Beauty is universally appreciated and requires nothing more than “winning the punnet square of looks” (to steal a phrase from Douglas Coupland).
It’s not so much beauty, though; it’s conformity. There are many females who devote themselves to hairmakeupclothesdiet and so on, as if it were a course of study or athletic program. They end up all looking alike, and someone who looks different is dismissed as “ugly” when in fact she’s not; just living with what god gave her, and working on improving in other areas. What most people call “beauty” contests are really conformity contests. I don’t think those big-haired, vaseline-toothed chicks are particularly beautiful. But since they put in thousands of hours to look that way, I suppose it’s not wrong for them to get crowns and trophies for their efforts. However, it’s still not true beauty.
Good point, Al. I guess I should be referring to something that someone has had to work at to achieve, like becoming a straight-A student, or learning to paint or play a musical instrument, rather than something they were born with (as is the case with beauty, intelligence, and talent). I consider these things more valid than beauty because it takes some effort to achieve them. (Yes, I know, some women spend a fortune in time and money on their looks; I just think their efforts could be better spent. My opinion, for what it’s worth.)
Exactly. And also - these achievements usually have something to offer society as a whole. Music, writing, science, chemistry - you learn, struggle, educate yourself, and excel in this, perhaps you can offer something to society, up until the day you die.
I don’t think the case can be made that beauty can offer something that substantive to society. But if it can, I am not sure exactly what it would be. (Unless the beautiful person is an artist’s or photographer’s model…) Even though it might take some effort to maintain one’s beauty, I doubt the effort is on the same complex level as, say, inventing a new plumbing gadget, or creating a great sculpture, or something.
And in the case of many beauties, it’s mostly about being born with the right bone structure, the right hair, the right teeth, and then not neglecting themselves so much that they totally mess up what they were born with.
Beauty inspires (art, music, literature - “how may I count the ways?”). Beauty causes wonderful, irrational emotions (lust, envy). Beauty causes wars (“was this the face that launched…”).
For better or for worse, I’d say beauty has offered something very substantive to society - and I for one would rather not live without it. Nor, for that matter, intelligence. But does one have a greater value than the other?
Beauty has inspired reactions. The artist is reacting to beauty. Wars are inspired by beauty. But what exactly has the beauty done, other than to have been born with good bone structure?
After all, it was the artist that created the work that offered something to society. True, the beauty inspired it - but once again, who put in the effort to educate themselves to make great art? It was the artist, not the beauty.
Being a beautiful human being is a great thing, I’ll be the first to admit that. But there has got to be more to it than being beautiful, for the individual. The most interesting beautiful people I can think of are known for something else, other than beauty. (Talented actor, or singer, etc.) OK, their looks helped them get where they are - but if they had no talent or personality, usually they don’t go very far. (And please don’t cite Keanu Reeves as an exception to this observation here…OK? 
)
Are you saying Keanu Reeves isn’t a great actor?? If so, then this discussion is OVER! How can I argue with such ignorance?!? 
Seriously, yes, artists are reacting to beauty, but the value of beauty is thus the reaction it causes. The same way a piece of art causes a reaction for the viewer - whatever that may be (positive/negative/etc.), without it the art itself holds no value (i.e. “a tree falling in a forest”). Also, some artists aren’t educated at all - some great men and women in many vocations were never educated - and yet they are seen by many as geniuses and no one questions their substantive value to or influence on society. Why? Because of what they produce - and the reaction that thing causes.
All I’m saying is that beauty does have value to society (and not just for the drooling it evokes). The value is the reaction beauty causes - just as many things have value as a result of the reactions they cause.
Like Keanu Reeves, for example.
I’m sorry, man! What was I thinking!!!
Exactly. But there is less value in a beauty that is just a pretty face, but with a flat, undeveloped (or even bad) personality. IMO
True, but it is what the artist sees, and puts into the art. I can paint a picture of Yosemite Falls, but if I paint a crappy painting, no one cares. If I paint a good painting, it is what I paint that people react to. And Yosemite Falls? It is just beautiful. It’s great, but it is just a thing that is beautiful. It didn’t DO anything to contribute to that beauty. It isn’t sentient. We usually expect more from sentient beings. (Not that I am suggesting you don’t expect that! )
I don’t think a person who is born with good bone structure had any control over that. If they are considered beautiful, that’s great, but so what? What exactly have they done? Other than just exist and be beautiful? The rest of humanity is expected to contribute more to society than just breathing oxygen. Including beautiful people.
Every artist educates themselves, no matter what level of formal education they may or may not have. I taught myself how to do calligraphy. I am self-taught, not formally educated in calligraphy, but damn! Did I have to work at it. Sheets and sheets of bad calligraphy I had to produce! It is a rare artist that doesn’t put a lot of effort into producing notable art, of any kind. And, if nothing else, they put in time. It is highly improbable that a person can just sit down one day, having put in no previous creative effort and/or practice, and yet still produce a masterpiece. I won’t say it never happens, but it certainly is extremely uncommon.
And the beauty? I am all for beauty, but shouldn’t a beautiful person do something valuable, other than breathe oxygen? Unless you start adding the combination of beauty and personality/intelligence/talent, and appreciating the combination.
There is value in beauty. I’m the first to admit that. There is value in Yosemite Falls, or in a flower. But we are a little more exacting when establishing “value” in a human being. We usually expect people to do something, and find value in that.
And as far as Keanu Reeves? He didn’t stink in “A Walk in the Clouds”, a truly beautiful film. So his (lack of stinkiness) earns him some value in my eyes!
You make some fine points, though I’m sure it takes enormous effort to “exist and be beautiful.” I mean, what about all that posing? 
No, seriously, you have a good point. Beauty is not actively creating the beauty, it is merely existing as beauty. We, by reacting to it or interpreting it, are in fact creating its value. I just don’t want to dismiss that which is beautiful simply because it did not have to work in order to create said beauty.
I think (and this may sound cheesy) that we all have value - none more or less than another - and that we should appreciate each other equally. Often beautiful women look down on less attractive women for their aesthetics; less attractive women look down on beautiful women for their lack of erudition or intelligence. But aren’t some born with less intelligence than others, just as some are born with (what society feels is) better looks?
I guess my point (finally) is that beauty does have an essential value in society. Not, perhaps, as much value as intelligence (being that it is not “earned”), but fundamental nonetheless. And IMHO we should not look down on anyone or anything simply for being beautiful or smart (or less beautiful or less smart). Doing either is, I believe, hypocritical. Of course, one can qualify without being hypocritical (as you have done).
Just don’t ever say anything bad about Keanu!
(sidenote: have you ever seen him as Buddha in Little Buddha? It is painful beyond belief.)
Yes folks, this happened over ten years ago and I did learn a lesson here; thats what I get for thinking with my dick! Not to excuse what this girl did, it was in fact hurtfull, when I in fact at no time had any intension of hurting her or even disrespecting her. Let me just say that my mind was “clouded” at the time. Did I want to f’ her? Sure, but was I being deceitful in order to f’ her? Absolutely not.
In summary this girl was out for blood; I was out for… well, you know.
No tears deserve to be lost over this. <shrugs shoulders>
I don’t either. I’m an artist. I like to draw beautiful people. But that still doesn’t automatically make them valuable human beings. They have to put in some effort for that. Only they can do that. Their bone structure can’t. I can’t, even when I paint their beautiful countenance.
I agree with this, up to a point. We are all born with inherent value. We all have potential value. We all have - potential! And that is valuable. But in the end, we have to put in some effort. We have many years to do this. And if we don’t - well, why should we enjoy the same amount of respect as the people who do?
I think everyone should “look down” (if one is inclined to “look down” on people) on anyone who is gliding through life, not even making a stab at living up to their potential.
A beautiful woman can “look down” on a plain woman if she doesn’t even try to groom herself, has dreadful taste, and looks like a complete skanky lowlife (or whatever). But if she is just born with less than gorgeous bone structure - what can she do? She does the best with what God gives her, and then she shouldn’t think about it. And no one should “look down” on her because of it.
Any intelligent person is also going to have trouble feeling respect for anyone else who is born with a certain amount of intellectual potential, but wastes it. A person cannot control what their intelligence level will be - but they do have control over how much effort they put into cultivating the intellect they do have.
Yes, and it’s wrong to look down on either - as long as they are making some stab at using some of their potential. Few of us live up to all of our potential. But we should at least give it a shot.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by yosemitebabe *
**
I think I have to respectfully disagree here. I think ALL humans are valuable, be it because they are smart or talented, or beautiful. Or bitchy for that matter, because really, who doesn’t love a good villain, if only to see them get it in the end?
This is really funny.
Anyhow, one role that is often filled by a spectacular beauty, is that of muse. There are people that are so lovely to look at, they inspire great works. The Mona Lisa comes to mind - certainly, we assume that she is a lovely person due to her lovely countenance, but really, she could have been a monstrous hose-bag and we will never know, because her appearance inspired such a masterpiece.
However, that being said, in the big scheme of things, I have more respect for the work of people finding a cure for cancer, than I do for those inspiring works of art.
Al.
Al, Yosemite, and Leander, I’d love to sit down to coffee with all of you and continue discussing this. I think it bodes well for the human race that we can have four different (although not mutually exclusive) opinions on a subject and still manage to have an interesting discussion on it. (I have nothing pithy to add to the discussion - just wanted to chime in with this. :))
Yes…I know what you are saying. I don’t disagree. To re-quote myself from an above post (which I think says what I mean clearly):
I would never say that someone who was rather a slug had no value. They are a human being. They have all that potential. And certainly, even though they are a slug, they’ve done something - even some small thing - of value. But I still contend - we gotta put in some effort. And just being beautiful - that doesn’t usually take much effort. I think most of us expect more than that from most people.
Yeah, but that still does not automatically give the “muse” something of significance, as an individual. So they inspired an artist. Did they inspire them because of their beautiful personality, and beautiful countenance overall? Or was the artist “seeing” what they wanted to see? (I’ve done this - not that I’m a great artist - but I enjoy drawing beautiful faces, just like the next artist. I often “make” my model into something they are not. And that’s me doing that, not the model. They are just sitting there.)
The “muse” may or may not accomplish something on their own. But only they can do this! They can have a great sense of humor. They can be very sympathetic, a good listener. They also may have killer bone structure. It is my suspicion that very often, the combination of these makes them attractive as a “muse”. But the beauty gets all the credit! And if truly all the beauty has to recommend them is their looks - you can be darned sure the artist is enhancing their work, and making their artwork into something more than they are seeing in the “muse”. (I’ve done this when I am painting someone.)
Well, sure, up to a point. There need to be (I suppose) different compartments for this sort of thing. A world full of people who valued the “practical” people, but had no value for the “creative” people would be dull indeed. They have different functions.
If we keep this up we’re gonna get moved to Great Debates…
Great comments and thoughts, though. Hope we don’t get in trouble. Has a thread ever moved from the Pit to GD?
Just in case, er, fuck…you…Keanu…