|
|
|
April 7th, 2002
 | 09:03 pm - IDDG
i have a question. why is valuing someone's looks bad but valuing their mind good?
seriously, i don't see why one is inherently superior. this is something that's drilled into us from childhood, that people should be judged based on their minds and personality and not on looks at all, and if you don't do that you're shallow. isn't someone's body just as much a part of them as their mind? and just as malleable. someone's personality is to an extent affected by how they look, and i suppose vice versa.
and if you were wondering, the subject is something i came across years ago and was intrigued by. it was on an x-files fan site, it was a group of people who would talk about how they were obsessed with gillian anderson. what made it strange was that they were very insistent that it had nothign to do with looks at all, because they were so superior to just thinking of someone physically, and that they liked her because she was IDDG: intellectually drop dead gorgeous.
np: Soft Boys - Insanely Jealous
|
ok....
just good looks = sexual interest, some act on this, some dont.
just good intellectually = pal
both = someone you wanna be with.
there is also the fact that you can't be with someone for a prolonged period of time if they dont have the intellectual part, but if they dont have the good looks part, that can be worked around, look at the reaaaaaaaaaaallly old couples that are still fucking.
and there are also a lot of good looking people, but there aren't a lot of smart people that you can connect with.
so i think maybe the main point is, without looks, a relationship can still work, without brains, the relationship is dead unless you are both equally stupid and shallow. i do not know, i lazy answered this question, do not hold the above against me. i think if you asked the old couples, they still find each other attractive. or maybe that's just the romantic in me
if you're interested in someone enough, they can be more attractive to you. and if you're attracted enough, they can be more interesting to you.
that's what got me thinking about all this, i wonder sometimes how much i can trust my perceptions. sometimes, everything is a variable to me yeah but in my experience if you're more attracted, you synthesize the interesting, and then it tapers off once you realize they are dumbasses.
however, love can make someone look more beautiful everday, i have experienced that. thats why i think that the attraction part isn't as important. Anybody who says that looks don't play a significant part is a) blind; b) lying. People's standards of beauty differ, though. When shopping for friends, I tend to automatically overlook people who look like they fit the type "Clothes by GAP, brains by Mattel" and go sit by the person who wouldn't recognize a hot new clothing trend if it bit him in the ass.
To overquote Fight Club, "You are not your fucking khakis."
I prefer to spend time with people whose first priority is something other than their appearance. Well-groomed is nice. Clean body, clean clothes, clean hair. Spotlessly perfectly arranged hair, perfect skin, perfect makeup ... those are optional. If that's what floats their boat, yay. Just don't expect me to be particularly interested in a two-hour analysis of nail polish colors, unless it's unusual and grabs my attention in some odd way.
Like the first guy who responded said, looks are great if that's all you'll be doing, looking. For a boyfriend or girlfriend, though, I like to have a friend besides an attractive arm-piece. Some people, that's all they want, someone that looks, talks, acts, and dresses nicely to spend time with them so they can admire the view and show off to others. If that's what they go for, then cool. Someone's got to date them, because it sure won't be me. if you're really not your khakis, would it make a difference if they were wearing gap or not? Ideologically speaking, no, it doesn't make a whit of difference. Practically speaking, I'd have to see something else about them that caught my eye as interesting before I sat down next to them to make conversation. It wouldn't turn me off; it wouldn't turn me on either.
Brand names for the sake of brand names turn me off. If they were wearing a shirt of a brand name that solely exists to promote the brand name, I might not think of speaking to them. Wearing the t-shirt of a band, tv show, movie, book, etc, it would depend on whether I had a common interest in that. I tend to view shirts that advertise software/computer products as being contentless in terms of the wearer's ideology when seen on a college student, given that companies give away free shirts all the time, and it's something to wear. I find being hit on by a guy wearing Nike, less than appealing... ![[User Picture]](https://l-userpic.livejournal.com/422594/162575) | | From: |  johnbot |
|---|
| Date: | April 7th, 2002 09:01 pm (UTC) |
|---|
| | | (Link) |
|
personality is more important because--assuming you want to have any sort of relationship (not necessarily sexual) with the person--annoying people are a lot harder to deal with than ugly people. tell me, why are looks important? it's weighted in there, sure, but it's nowhere near as important. by my clock its your fucking birthday
happy fucking birthday thanks geoff! :]
and a happy my birthday to you there is no reason not to love the way someone looks... it's ignoring the rest of them that's the problem.
only looks = not the whole person.
i don't want to be liked for the way i look -- you like your shoes (and other objects for that matter) for how they look. i am not an inanimate object. i am not a painting. i have opinions. i have ideas. and i want to be heard... I would rather spend time with:
Isaac Asimov, Albert Einstein, Ursula Le Guin, Michael Dertouzos or a large number of others... than spend time with the Backstreet Boys...
judgements on looks can be done in a few moments... |
|
