Beauty and the Beast
- Thread starter Professur
- Start date
HeXp£Øi±
Well-Known Member
I voted bald over beautiful because all they gave me was a picture to look at. How am i supposed to know her personality from a picture? I do judge people on character. To prove it, i think Bjork is beautiful. People think i'm crazy for saying that but her words in an extreme way effect how i see her. I think you're missing out on something special if you're hung up on looks. Bodies falling in love is one thing but i tell you there's nothing more sensual and pleasurable than two spirits falling in love. Like wisdom or sex, it's something you must experience to understand.
a13antichrist
New Member
HeXp£Øi± said:
That is the most ridiculously shallow load of puke I have ever heard.
a13antichrist
New Member
a13antichrist said:
The reason I stated that is that, as anyone who's not a total mindless sheep that follows blindly without a single individual thought in his head will likely concede, to judge a certain characteristic of a person by evaluating another is the very definition of shallow. Hex called the girl ugly because he couldn't see her personality. That's just as bad as calling her an evil person because she was fat, or calling her stupid because she had small boobs.
As I said, so damn cabbage-mindedly shallow that not even a carpet mite would drown in it.
HeXp£Øi±
Well-Known Member
a13antichrist said:
It's not too complex. They asked me to judge an individual by what i know of her. What more can i judge from a picture besides my opinion of her looks? judging by my initial reaction i found her unattractive. As anal as always antichrist. It's sad that you're filled with so much hatred that you have to make something so simple look so complex and therefor make yourself look even more the idiot. I truly feel sorry for you and wonder if you have any idea the amount of anger you spew. It's clear to me that something is lacking in your life that infact makes you quite ugly.
tank girl
New Member
..bravo.
Personality, I feel is more of a combination of many things, mostly indefinate - definately complex - not to mention things that you actually need to sense about someone rather than 'perceive'. YSure, you can't tell much about a person by the way he or she looks...you can guess, and most of us would like to think we CAN... but you can't really have any idea (unless you're a mind reader) about themapart from the obvious physical aspects which may or may not be appealing to you unless you are willing to be able to look for them, personally - whether it be in the way they express themselves artistically (like bjork) or in other ways that you get a hell of a lot more sense of after interacting with someone on a more personal level.
exactly...the pictures of the advertisement targets judgement by appearance alone without considering the entire deal. Last time I checked, you couldn't evaluate someones personality with out really knowing them or seeing the way in which they express and carry themself.
Of course we're not all 'mindless sheep' but the ads are constructed in such a way to connote the exact things that they are representing and then get you to question your judgement! And draw on that very natural instict TO judge someone instantly by their appearance, by amplifying it as the only important thing. If a person in the picture is ''bald" that is obviously the implied significance of the picture - with or without the beautiful/ugly connotation! (that evaluation, not to mention the process of evaluation; is prompted by the advertisement itself).
Unless you had some fetish and genuinely thought that 'people with bald heads are "beautiful", or had the habit of reacting counteractively to the advertisement - all you're doing is exactly what the advertisement wants! (Using visual appearance as the only (obvious) means for evaluation of someones physical worth..) I think Hex stated quite a reasonable argument there - Antichrist, it is you who is mixed up - and if you weren't then all you are really doing is saying, like the person with a fetishistic inclination.... that the visual DOES matter in evaluating beauty.
Why should we call someone 'beautiful' simply because thats what the advertisement implies we should do? In reality, factors other than visual appearance make a huge difference in the way you evaluate a persons beauty - so on the basis that personality is what makes a person beautiful - in fact the combination of personality and the actual, REAL person (as opposed to a picture) then it really makes sense to say that the person/picture is 'ugly' because how could you know if they were really beautiful unless you actually knew the person as a person? (And to add to that - if you let me ramble on some more... - an advertisement itself is ugly when you think about it anyway because it invades our psychological space, and challenges us in ways that attempt to influence a behaviour towards certain products, not to mention invade our visual space with capitalist-motivated messages.
Moreover, this advertising campaign is obviously just trying to 'pretend' to challenge this perception - yet all it is really doing is reinforcing the actual issue it appears to attack - without actually tackling the real issue head on. (f it reaaally wanted a real campaign informing consumers about real beauty (which wouldn't make sense because WHY by beauty products when you already know you are beautiful?) - I don't think technology hasn quite caught up with us to be able to reproduce fully virtual people for us to "meet", and "evaluate" by more than just visual appearance - this even wouldn't work, because it wouldn't be REAL youd have the knowledge it was virtual. The only other thing I can think of is actors playing the role of these so-called "beautiful" people... and illustrating that rather than the obvious physical alternatives to the stereotypical norm, a complex range of characteristics that can make someone a genuinely beautiful person to anyone who is looking for beauty in that form.
But of course this is far from practical, and instead the company will set up this Rather billboard implicitly saying, (funnily enough) "look at me". Beauty isn't anything but limited to cultural and socially percieved Ideas anyhow. You're right, you can't tell anything from a picture! Either way, advertising is continually telling us exactly TO LOOK and JUDGE despite what the "message" might be. The oldest trick in the book, really to counter the 'reality' about beauty issue without REALLY countering it at all.... And the sad thing is; we're all easily enough to get sucked into this kind of thinking because these advertising techniques are so sophisticated and subversive...and continually try to make us think that they *(not to mention WE)are 'right'.
Personality, I feel is more of a combination of many things, mostly indefinate - definately complex - not to mention things that you actually need to sense about someone rather than 'perceive'. YSure, you can't tell much about a person by the way he or she looks...you can guess, and most of us would like to think we CAN... but you can't really have any idea (unless you're a mind reader) about themapart from the obvious physical aspects which may or may not be appealing to you unless you are willing to be able to look for them, personally - whether it be in the way they express themselves artistically (like bjork) or in other ways that you get a hell of a lot more sense of after interacting with someone on a more personal level.
exactly...the pictures of the advertisement targets judgement by appearance alone without considering the entire deal. Last time I checked, you couldn't evaluate someones personality with out really knowing them or seeing the way in which they express and carry themself.
Of course we're not all 'mindless sheep' but the ads are constructed in such a way to connote the exact things that they are representing and then get you to question your judgement! And draw on that very natural instict TO judge someone instantly by their appearance, by amplifying it as the only important thing. If a person in the picture is ''bald" that is obviously the implied significance of the picture - with or without the beautiful/ugly connotation! (that evaluation, not to mention the process of evaluation; is prompted by the advertisement itself).
Unless you had some fetish and genuinely thought that 'people with bald heads are "beautiful", or had the habit of reacting counteractively to the advertisement - all you're doing is exactly what the advertisement wants! (Using visual appearance as the only (obvious) means for evaluation of someones physical worth..) I think Hex stated quite a reasonable argument there - Antichrist, it is you who is mixed up - and if you weren't then all you are really doing is saying, like the person with a fetishistic inclination.... that the visual DOES matter in evaluating beauty.
Why should we call someone 'beautiful' simply because thats what the advertisement implies we should do? In reality, factors other than visual appearance make a huge difference in the way you evaluate a persons beauty - so on the basis that personality is what makes a person beautiful - in fact the combination of personality and the actual, REAL person (as opposed to a picture) then it really makes sense to say that the person/picture is 'ugly' because how could you know if they were really beautiful unless you actually knew the person as a person? (And to add to that - if you let me ramble on some more... - an advertisement itself is ugly when you think about it anyway because it invades our psychological space, and challenges us in ways that attempt to influence a behaviour towards certain products, not to mention invade our visual space with capitalist-motivated messages.
Moreover, this advertising campaign is obviously just trying to 'pretend' to challenge this perception - yet all it is really doing is reinforcing the actual issue it appears to attack - without actually tackling the real issue head on. (f it reaaally wanted a real campaign informing consumers about real beauty (which wouldn't make sense because WHY by beauty products when you already know you are beautiful?) - I don't think technology hasn quite caught up with us to be able to reproduce fully virtual people for us to "meet", and "evaluate" by more than just visual appearance - this even wouldn't work, because it wouldn't be REAL youd have the knowledge it was virtual. The only other thing I can think of is actors playing the role of these so-called "beautiful" people... and illustrating that rather than the obvious physical alternatives to the stereotypical norm, a complex range of characteristics that can make someone a genuinely beautiful person to anyone who is looking for beauty in that form.
But of course this is far from practical, and instead the company will set up this Rather billboard implicitly saying, (funnily enough) "look at me". Beauty isn't anything but limited to cultural and socially percieved Ideas anyhow. You're right, you can't tell anything from a picture! Either way, advertising is continually telling us exactly TO LOOK and JUDGE despite what the "message" might be. The oldest trick in the book, really to counter the 'reality' about beauty issue without REALLY countering it at all.... And the sad thing is; we're all easily enough to get sucked into this kind of thinking because these advertising techniques are so sophisticated and subversive...and continually try to make us think that they *(not to mention WE)are 'right'.
a13antichrist
New Member
The point is, dumbarses, they didn't ask you to judge the PERSON. They asked you to judge her looks. You don't need to see anything other than her looks to be able to judge her looks. This over-compensatory, must-go-out-of-my-way-to-make-sure-everyone-thinks-I'm-sensitive-&-PC mindset you seem to have got yourself into is BY FAR the ugliest thing of all.
HeXp£Øi±
Well-Known Member
a13antichrist said:
The website went on and tried to convince me that my opinion of her looks was somehow wrong. As if i would judge an individual by my opinion of how i think they look. If you want to bitch about something complain about the website not my opinion. You said my opinion was hogwash. I'm telling you i spoke my mind.
a13antichrist
New Member
HeXp£Øi± said:
Your opinion is perfectly legitimate. What is hogwash is your misconception that you can't judge a person's LOOKS (not the PERSON, her LOOKS alone) without knowing her personality. BEAUTY is a perfectly legitimate "thing" in itself. PHYSICAL beauty exists completely independantly of anything else. Going on about how you can't judge her physical beauty because you don't know her personality is, as I said, remarkably shallow - precisely what you were evidently going to great lengths to avoid.
If I asked you to have a look at the engine in a car, would you say it's an shitty engine because you can't see the rest of car? Of course not.
HeXp£Øi±
Well-Known Member
a13antichrist said:
That statement is absolutely 100% inaccurate.
Beauty is completely subject to the beholder. Look at the women in Africa that stretch their necks with rings until they are a foot long. It their society they're considered beautiful. In the eighteen hundreds in America chunky women were considered sexy. The 1920's America women used tight girdles and bras so that their figure resembled that of a boy and it was considered beautiful. Nowadays the upper class supermodels are skinny bearbreasted woman that often look like heroin addicts with bony cheeks and sunken in eyes. I remember one woman from years back that when i first saw here i turned into an absolute fool around her because i thought she was so beautiful. That was until i got to know(and despise) her and i remember how her appearence changed over a period of weeks until she was literally unattractive to look at. Obviously her physical appearance hadn't changed but my opinion of her looks had. The fact is that the human mind identifies character/personality and how we see people (or things) can drastically change how we interpret their physical appearance.
I would say to you that physical beauty exists completely independant of everything else only when it is being judged entirely independantly.
a13antichrist
New Member
Who said anything about universal? Sheesh you people need to stop trying to cover your prejudices by over-compensating towards what you'd like to think you think. Physical Beauty can be judged, period. Obviously everyone is going to have different judgements but it is never not possible to judge the physical beauty of any given entity ON THE BASIS OF THE CHARACTERISTIC OF PHYSICAL BEAUTY ALONE.
How naïve are you? Your opinion of her PHYSICAL beauty didn't change in the slightest. As you said, her look shadn't changed at all - what had changed was your opinion of her PERSONAL beauty - which is what you saw when you looked at her, because for you there was much mnore to her than just the pretty face. People's tendanacy to deceive themselves in this way is similar to the tendancy to attach to a "higher being" - a well-recognised evolutionary tool that serves to take your mind off things you weren't (or were) initially entirely happy with.
Anyway, back to the point...
Indeed! And that, as it happens, was ENTIRELY the point of that survey.
And to be perfectly honest, I think it's more of an experiment to see how many people will because they want to believe they're not condoning the stereotypical image of beauty. Your response was arguably even worse, because not only did you consciously try to avoid the stereotype, but - and this is the worst bit of all - you also took a question about the PHYSICAL BEAUTY of a person and interpreted it as a judgement on her PERSONAL beauty. And THAT is precisely what you want to believe you don't do.
So, just in case anyone is still trying to pull the wool over their own eyes about what they do & don't believe, let me make this kindergarten-ly simple: PHYSICAL beauty is a characteristic that can be judeged entirely independantly of anything else; and anytime you bring a person's overall PERSONAL beauty into question when you're asked to judge SOLELY the physical beauty, then you're displaying the shallowness you specifically tried to avoid.
HeXp£Øi± said:
How naïve are you? Your opinion of her PHYSICAL beauty didn't change in the slightest. As you said, her look shadn't changed at all - what had changed was your opinion of her PERSONAL beauty - which is what you saw when you looked at her, because for you there was much mnore to her than just the pretty face. People's tendanacy to deceive themselves in this way is similar to the tendancy to attach to a "higher being" - a well-recognised evolutionary tool that serves to take your mind off things you weren't (or were) initially entirely happy with.
Anyway, back to the point...
Indeed! And that, as it happens, was ENTIRELY the point of that survey.
And to be perfectly honest, I think it's more of an experiment to see how many people will because they want to believe they're not condoning the stereotypical image of beauty. Your response was arguably even worse, because not only did you consciously try to avoid the stereotype, but - and this is the worst bit of all - you also took a question about the PHYSICAL BEAUTY of a person and interpreted it as a judgement on her PERSONAL beauty. And THAT is precisely what you want to believe you don't do.
So, just in case anyone is still trying to pull the wool over their own eyes about what they do & don't believe, let me make this kindergarten-ly simple: PHYSICAL beauty is a characteristic that can be judeged entirely independantly of anything else; and anytime you bring a person's overall PERSONAL beauty into question when you're asked to judge SOLELY the physical beauty, then you're displaying the shallowness you specifically tried to avoid.
tank girl
New Member
antichrist:
Physical "beauty" in itself IS a subjective, ideological, culturally constructed thing that is historically specific . Yet you, like the advertisement would like to think that it is a seperate, stable thing, this is unfortunately misguided and horribly twisted ideal. You only have to look back in history and around the world to realise that it is something bred out of our social and cultural ideology. You COULD judge the visual representation of an individual as to however "aesthetically pleasing" they were - but even then, theres problems with that simply because aesthetics is something that is culturally located also.
Therefore it is imposible that physical beauty exists completely independant of anything else simply because..as the saying goes, "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" but NOT outside our own cultural social mindset. So, one would like to hope that we aren't all mindless sheep that thing that you can judge someone as beautiful because of a percieved "ideal", someone from a completely different mindset and culture might think otherwise. Because physical "beauty" has nothing to do with authentic beauty, and thereby is actually wrongly named. Unless that is what you choose to percieve as beauty - as such advertisements try and persuade you it is only a matter of visual perception - Being "beautiful" or "ugly" has nothing at all to do with the visual, and physical beauty is only something that you personally percieve.
So why should you feel obliged to participate in an advertisement that demands that you use physical criteria to choose? Hex was not judging that the person was ugly on the grounds of physical beauty, he was judging on the grounds of his personal conception of what beauty means to HIM.
My impression is, antichrist, you are desperately confused over this issue, perhaps you are unaware as to how "shallow" YOU sound, because all you are defending is the cultural ideal of beauty and assuming that it is the separate and same thing for everyone. Physical attractiveness maybe, but then again that is ver, very, different. And even that poses problems because would you judge Marylin Monroe "beautiful" today? she was about 4 dress sizes larger or more than the average model today! Conceptions of physical beauty are just as fickle as conceptions of fashion.
No. Variances of beauty exist & the "ideal" always changes. Attractiveness can be universal, beauty can not.
EVERYONE is BEAUTIFUL, it can't be limited to a certain criteria, and who you are as a HUMAN BEING it seems counts for so much more than physical beauty ever does. Seen shrek?
A person can appear "physically attractive" and still be ugly, a person can be physically ugly, and be the most beautiful person.
however some people are unfortunately misguided over what beauty entails.
Physical "beauty" in itself IS a subjective, ideological, culturally constructed thing that is historically specific . Yet you, like the advertisement would like to think that it is a seperate, stable thing, this is unfortunately misguided and horribly twisted ideal. You only have to look back in history and around the world to realise that it is something bred out of our social and cultural ideology. You COULD judge the visual representation of an individual as to however "aesthetically pleasing" they were - but even then, theres problems with that simply because aesthetics is something that is culturally located also.
Therefore it is imposible that physical beauty exists completely independant of anything else simply because..as the saying goes, "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" but NOT outside our own cultural social mindset. So, one would like to hope that we aren't all mindless sheep that thing that you can judge someone as beautiful because of a percieved "ideal", someone from a completely different mindset and culture might think otherwise. Because physical "beauty" has nothing to do with authentic beauty, and thereby is actually wrongly named. Unless that is what you choose to percieve as beauty - as such advertisements try and persuade you it is only a matter of visual perception - Being "beautiful" or "ugly" has nothing at all to do with the visual, and physical beauty is only something that you personally percieve.
So why should you feel obliged to participate in an advertisement that demands that you use physical criteria to choose? Hex was not judging that the person was ugly on the grounds of physical beauty, he was judging on the grounds of his personal conception of what beauty means to HIM.
My impression is, antichrist, you are desperately confused over this issue, perhaps you are unaware as to how "shallow" YOU sound, because all you are defending is the cultural ideal of beauty and assuming that it is the separate and same thing for everyone. Physical attractiveness maybe, but then again that is ver, very, different. And even that poses problems because would you judge Marylin Monroe "beautiful" today? she was about 4 dress sizes larger or more than the average model today! Conceptions of physical beauty are just as fickle as conceptions of fashion.
No. Variances of beauty exist & the "ideal" always changes. Attractiveness can be universal, beauty can not.
EVERYONE is BEAUTIFUL, it can't be limited to a certain criteria, and who you are as a HUMAN BEING it seems counts for so much more than physical beauty ever does. Seen shrek?
A person can appear "physically attractive" and still be ugly, a person can be physically ugly, and be the most beautiful person.however some people are unfortunately misguided over what beauty entails.