Following up on yesterday’s post I’d like to look at one point:
“Another assumption that crops up in the discussions on Kiki’s site is that looks really do matter, enough so that men simply won’t consider partners who don’t meet certain (generally conventional) standards of attractiveness.”
I’d like to be clear that “standards of attractiveness” doesn’t exclusively mean face and figure. Re-reading the post it seemed like between the points about “blonde hair and fake boobs” and my selection of flowers as an example of iconic beauty I might have created that impression. Don’t get me wrong about physical attractiveness. It’s all well and good but it’s neither necessary nor sufficient. (For example for most post-adolescents it’s not sufficient that hostile performance artist Ann Coulter has an iconic model appearance. And meanwhile a list of “not necessaries” would be dauntingly long.)
The assumption is that (grown) men require a certain minimum of standard physical attractiveness or they won’t give women the time of day. Of course a corresponding assumption is that if you do meet that standard men will hound you endlessly. (Is it necessary to point out that most men feel very similar self-induced stresses, expressed most often by worries that women won’t find them attractive unless they meet certain difficult-to-achieve standards of physical attractiveness, status, income, physical fitness, or ability to dance? Oh yeah, and sufficiently “hung?” I didn’t think so.)
The tough thing about either assumption — that men won’t notice you if you don’t meet standard X, and that they’ll chase you relentlessly if you do — is that either way is a setup for failure with some people overlooking overtures because they don’t feel up to scratch, and others frustrated that no one seems interested even though they’re archetypically “hot.”
The secret, maybe even the dirty little secret, is that those things do matter! Just not the way we imagine.
See that man over there, the one who’s killing himself at two jobs so he can afford the hotter sports car so he needs so he can get someone to go out with him? Y’know what? His lack of a sports car is really killing his chances. (But do you know why?)
And see that woman over there, the one who’s totally stressed about the Oreos she binged on the other night and now she’s making herself pay by skipping breakfast and lunch, all because she needs to lose another dress size before anyone will think she’s sexy? Y’know what? That extra dress size really is killing her appeal. (But do you know why?)
And that [individual] over there, the one who’s not mingling because [they] weren’t able to wash [their] hair or shave after [their] workouts because a water main broke? The ones who already know they’re not going to score because [they] need to look presentable or no one will give them a second glance? Y’know what? That sweaty look really is killing [their] chances. (But do you know why?)
Here’s why. (It might surprise you.) Nobody wants to go out with an egotist.
And while we generally think of egotists as people who spend all day thinking how great they are, it’s just as egotistical (not to mention a lot more common) to spend all day thinking how inadequate you are, how poorly hung, how inadequately stacked, how unfashionably shod, how unpleasingly plump.
In other words the “whys” of sexual undesirability generally have a lot more to do with our fretting about not meeting* standards we measure ourselves against than about any standards that are imposed on us by our potential partners.
—-
Finally, I think this may point to another question that I didn’t finish mulling over yesterday and still can’t answer: why does the media/advertising/porn standard of beauty seem to be a “tall skinny blonde with a tiny arse and huge tits” (as the non-heterosexual Eric Idle of Monty Python once put it?) It’s not that that’s a genuine best standard of beauty. If it were then, again, Ann Coulter would be considered universally beautiful and she’s often harshly criticized (and I mean for her looks, not just her offensive posturing.) I’m not saying I know for sure. Could it have more to do with unachievability than actual desirability?
Submitted by 813 (not verified) on Wed, 2006-06-28 14:02.
I wasn't stressed out about my looks until the only man I caught the attention of was homeless. Had started to work in an area where I saw more men. This happened in my mid forties. Up to then, I accepted my imperfections as normal. Got over, in my early twenties, trying to bring my body to model proportions, when I relalized that my body type and ratio of waist to hips would never fit.
[Thank you, 5o9. --fl]
Submitted by 813 (not verified) on Wed, 2006-06-28 17:52.
Hey, and one more thing, I noticed that there are lots of beautiful women who do not make my heart beat faster from erotic thrills and there are lots of women are "less" beautiful than other women who kick my erotic buttons. I notice it had to do with their attitude... their casualness about themselves and knowing that they can enjoy life with whoever and in whatever situation because they are confident. In my opinion, self confidence and nominal commonsense (under whatever circumstances) are sufficient to catch other people's attention.
[Well that puts in a nutshell what it took me pages to say. Thank you, Oscar. --fl]
Submitted by 813 (not verified) on Thu, 2006-06-29 07:55.
There are two issues in this post that I want to address.
#1 In other words the "whys" of sexual undesirability generally have a lot more to do with our fretting about not meeting* standards we measure ourselves against than about any standards that are imposed on us by our potential partners.
I have disagreed with you on this issue before, and will do so again. Why do all these folks fret about their appearance? Why don't they have the illusive self-confidence, which oscar extolled in his response? Because it takes a tremendous amount of will power to overcome the negative messages one receives, not merely from the media, but from coworkers, acquaintances, family and potential partners. The Erotic Readers Association hosted a discussion on Body Image. There is no doubt that many of the respondents have tried not to internalize our culture's narrow definition of desirability. But as one young woman stated: I have big red, curly hair, I have breasts that I love at a 34C; I have short, plump, strong legs; I have a big round ass that rocks without jiggling and I have a great smile with good teeth to match. I love the way I look but the problem is no one else really does...Men my age are just so judgmental and grossly idealistic. If you're not a size two, it's like you're not worth a second glance.
FL, this is the attitude that so many women and men come up against, that I think you do your readers a disservice by attributing their feelings undesirability to "egotism." This ends up being a variation of "blame the victim" which annoys me rather than helps me.
#2 why does the media/advertising/porn standard of beauty seem to be a "tall skinny blonde with a tiny arse and huge tits"... Could it have more to do with unachievability than actual desirability?
Chris Hall of Literate Perversions had some interesting thoughts on this "unachievability" which he addressed in his article Beautiful Scars:
And that's why, despite the coy poses and bared pussy, I find Miss March's photos so strangely non-sexual. The precise, immaculate nature of her body completely misses the point. The mayhem of sex, the relentless collisions of physical and mental self that it produces are simply not evident anywhere in her. It's hard to imagine that tidy, groomed bush clumping together with threads of semen and pussy juice, or those perfect porcelain limbs jerking spastically as she reaches climax. And of course, in that she is the norm for mainstream media. It seems that, above all, the media strives to create anonymity in the figures of desire it presents for us. Not only does it tame sexuality and make it a thing less nakedly primal, but it also puts it neatly out of reach, as though placing something precious on a high shelf. Sex, as depicted by Playboy, Cosmo, Maxim, Glamour, or any of the other glossies is something so closely associated with youth, wealth, and privilege that it seems almost irrelevant to our everyday lives. It seems like sex is something that invariably happens to other people.
Based on the messages that men and women receive from those around them (#1) and the media (#2), attributing feelings of undesirability primarily to one's own egotism is inaccurate and unfair.
FL, even though I disagreed with your view, I thank you for this thought provoking post.
[First of all I absolutely don't dispute that young men and women can be almost psychotic in their insistent obsessions with conformity and idealism. In fact I don't think we can be real adults, and thus we can't have real adult relationships (or sex) until we get over that. Next, I stand by my assertion that distress about our perceived deficits tend to be larger hindrances to our desirability than the deficits themselves tend to be. And I'd like to defend my assertion that self-negation is a form of egotism by pointing to our tendancies to aggressively defend our self-negation in the face of contrary opinion. And finally, I think we're totally on the same page about the intention behind reducing "miss march" and her myriad fellow male and female colleagues to iconically ideal but subjectively uninspiring shapes and lines. That reduction coincides fabulously with the narcissism and idealism of adolescence, which itself correlates nicely with the adolescent demographics significant disposable income. That's all well and good but, unlike advertisers, I don't think adolescence -- no matter how intense our experience of it -- is a helpful model of behavior for the rest of our lives. So I'm sticking to my points, however poorly I've articulated them. Thanks, Kochanie. --fl]
Submitted by 813 (not verified) on Thu, 2006-06-29 15:31.
Hey, I'm not feeling up to posting about the main topic today; but as a Python fan, thought I'd point out that Graham Chapman, not Eric Idle, was the gay Python.
Eric Idle is hetero, and has in fact been called to the carpet a number of times for blatantly sexist remarks, including insisting on a filmed interview that women by nature are simply not capable of being funny. (If memory serves me correctly...it was a while back.)
[I knew Chapman was openly gay back in the Python days but... I was pretty sure Idle was also gay, though more quietly so. I thought I'd heard somewhere that he'd come out but couldn't find anything tangible in a quick Google search. I must say that if he *is* hetero then his performance as Ko-ko in the English National Opera's version of Gilbert & Sullivan's "The Mikado" was egregiously mysogynistic and not merely ironically so. Still, stranger things have happened and either way his characterization in the MP sketch was clearly prescriptive/iconic rather than descriptive. Thanks for the tip, Syl. --fl]
Submitted by 813 (not verified) on Thu, 2006-06-29 16:27.
I stand by my assertion that distress about our perceived deficits tend to be larger hindrances to our desirability than the deficits themselves tend to be. And I'd like to defend my assertion that self-negation is a form of egotism by pointing to our tendancies to aggressively defend our self-negation in the face of contrary opinion.
Figleaf, I respect your opinion. However, your assertions contradict my personal experience and direct observation of behavior in the workplace, social situations, and in family intereactions. I have witnessed men and women in their 30's, 50's and 80's, who are educated and in established professions, make cruel and unkind remarks about the physical appearances of others. I have seen the recipients of these remarks, who are, in my opinion, average looking, become emotionally drained from fending off these insults, not infrequently, but on a regular basis. They are not defending their self-negation; they're defending their self-concept as attractive adults who are sexually desirable.
With all due respect, you and I will have to agree to disagree on this matter.
[And all I can say is "Yikes!" Also I think I lead a sheltered life. I don't doubt it for a moment but I'm shocked by that kind of immaturity and, in business contexts, that kind of unprofessionalism. Fucking hell! Thanks, Kochanie. --fl]
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu, 2006-06-29 23:59.
Something is up with your comment and continue linkies. I clicked on the comments for The space between (my ears?) and ended up here....
[Hmm. Thanks, A. I'll take a look. --fl]