# Are you intimidated by attractive people?



## SassyPJs24 (Jan 27, 2010)

I'd say that I'm not intimidated by attractive *girls*; my school is full of ridiculously good looking people and I used to be in a sorority, putting me into constant contact with some of the most attractive girls I'd ever met in real life. I find that genuine, inside-out beauty is rare but it exists, and THOSE are the people who intimidate me. The ones who aren't fake but who exude warmth, are friendly and popular--the homecoming queen types--those are the ones I feel inadequate around. I feel awkward and incapable of meeting their awesomeness. 



s0n1c800m said:


> She says she is normally only approached by arrogant jerks who don't care who she is as a person.


This happens a lot to me. And then when they realize I'm smart/not typical, they seem less interested. Or maybe intimidated, I don't know... but because of this, attractive *guys* do intimidate me, because I am always considering their alternative motives when they talk to me. If they're attractive we assume they have really high standards or something. 

I tend to act more like myself, more genuine, around people I am not attracted to at all (less attractive guys), which is unfortunate, because I wish I could act that way around people I was attracted to. Instead I feel like I have to act a certain way to meet their standards, maybe be less smart and more "cool," not showing my deep, quirky, or nerdy sides. 



perennialurker said:


> Perhaps it is just a matter of semantics, but I would say I am not so much intimidated as I am weary of exceedingly attractive females. Part of this is my natural INTJ inclination to avoid indulging in feelings. The other reason is that I am painfully aware of when an attractive woman has other males wrapped around her finger simply because she is an aesthetically pleasing woman; this naturally repulses me and I become much more aloof toward her so as to prevent myself from falling under anyone else's power.


I know an INTJ guy who I rarely see but I sometimes talk to when we're both online, but he is always aloof and mean to me. Maybe this is why 

In all reality, attractiveness matters about zero. I respect all those before who said it doesn't matter to them. It really shouldn't. Most of the deep, sweet, genuine people I know are not as attractive by society's standards. 

I often wonder if we are all given the looks "that we can handle." Maybe we look how we look so we can end up where we need to be, so we can meet the people we're supposed to meet, so we can fulfill the world's need that is uniquely made for us as individuals. Some may reject their position in society, letting their insecurities make them unhappy, and some may get giant egos and overstep their destinies out of selfishness. But we are all beautiful because we are made exactly how we are meant to be. Of course this all just my idealistic theorizing....


----------



## mrkedi (Nov 19, 2009)

well, it really defines how you define attractiveness. just because someone is consider attractive, it doesnt necessary mean they feel the same way. and it shouldn't be imitated by them just because they are well-round (?!).

our culture had told us too much on how should we regard our appearance, and forgot that sometimes the matter of attractiveness is a subjective a matter.


----------



## pinkrasputin (Apr 13, 2009)

Gorgeous people don't intimidate me. They turn me on. :happy:


----------



## zynkiro (Oct 26, 2010)

beautiful women used intimidated often but when I know it my individual attitude change because 
I feel become more normal or accessible ,she being lost their godness


----------



## snail (Oct 13, 2008)

zynkiro said:


> beautiful women used intimidated often but when I know it my individual attitude change because
> I feel become more normal or accessible ,she being lost their godness


Yeah, back when I was younger, still a college freshman on the first day of school, I remember meeting the girl who became one of my best friends there. I was very nervous at first, because until that point girls who looked like her were the ones who always picked on me. I was suspicious and nervous when she approached me to talk about my art, but as I got to know her, the first impression faded and her looks didn't intimidate me at all anymore. She was a creative type like me, and we bonded easily. I learned that not all pretty people were only talking to me because they were about to do something mean to me. I realized the error of my reverse discrimination, and corrected it. I adjusted my ability to trust people accordingly. 

Now the only times female prettiness makes me nervous is when I don't want someone to perceive me perceiving it. Instead of looking where my eyes naturally want to, I find myself politely, consciously looking away, the way a person might look away from someone whose skin is a different color, or whose body is deformed or disabled, not because the body has any meaning, not because I falsely imagine that it makes a person superior or inferior, but in order to avoid being rude by staring too long at whatever makes them physically uncommon. It is because of all of the implied/expected judgment (either positive or negative) that goes along with the awareness of someone else's perception. Also, if I were to look too long at someone who knew she was pretty, I would worry that she might think I was sexualizing her. I become self-conscious about what the length of my gaze might mean to the person who notices it, and I overcompensate by making my gaze shorter than usual when I encounter someone with any kind of unexpected features. Then I look around the room quickly afterward to emphasize the fact that I wasn't just looking at that person, but was looking everywhere equally. 

I think a 'little person' caught me doing it once at the aquarium, but she was probably used to such awkwardness. She didn't seem to mind my gaze. If I remember correctly, she smiled at me, and I smiled back. I was wearing my "Beauty comes in all sizes," button that day, and I like to think maybe she smiled because she noticed that it applied to both of us. I did feel awkward, though, because I worried that she might think I was judging her if I looked at her too directly, regardless of the values I was advertising. All in the course of a single second, my mind was processing all of the possibilities. 

"What if she thinks I pity her? What if she thinks I see her as something ugly or imperfect? What if she thinks I am secretly proud of not thinking she is ugly? What if she thinks I am self-righteous because of my beliefs? What if she thinks I think she is a freak or see her as less than human? What if she thinks I think highly of myself for giving her the respect everyone deserves? What if she thinks I have raised myself up and think I am something special for not seeing her as a freak? Does she think I am a freak? There was a time in recent history when we both might have been put in a circus sideshow for the shapes of our bodies, the midget and the bearded fat lady. I wonder what her life has been like. I wonder what most people who look at her are feeling. I wonder what people who look at me feel, and if it is the same thing. I wonder if she feels unity with me because we are both freaks. I wonder if she knows I want to feel connected to her, and thinks my feelings of unity are false, or come from impure, superficial motives. Do they? Would I be thinking these things about her if she weren't in that body? It should be irrelevant. Why do I want to look, if it is irrelevant?" 

Another time, a black man noticed me looking at him, and I complimented him on how he was dressed to break the awkwardness. I wasn't lying when I complimented him, but it was partly to defend against getting caught staring. I liked his hat quite a lot and considered his style intriguing. I just have a horrible fear of being thought of as a racist for not being used to seeing dark skin. It startles me a bit and I feel like I have to be extra careful about how I posture myself. This is especially strange because, when I was in the city, I was used to having black friends, including at least two who were artists like me, to whom I used to talk regularly and intimately. While I was living there, I didn't respond with any awkwardness at all, or differentiate in any way. I only feel uncomfortable when I live in a place where it is uncommon, where my notice of it might be misinterpreted as something negative. 

"I hope he doesn't think I'm staring at him because I think he is inferior. Does he feel alone because of looking different, the way I feel alone for the things that make me different? That color is beautiful, so much darker than the black people in the movies. I wish my skin looked like that. I wonder what I would look like if I were black. I can imagine bigger freckles, but I can't imagine it all over. I hope he doesn't think I'm a racist. I hope he doesn't think I see him just for his body, simply because that is what I noticed first. Does he know that is what I noticed? He must, because there isn't any other reason I would stare at him instead of someone else. I hope he knows I feel his humanness, but he probably doesn't, because I feel everyone else's humanness too, and I don't feel like looking at them this long. It's not very long, it only feels long. I wish I had a better perception of time. Just in case it has been awkwardly long, I need to say something. He sees that I see him. What can I say? The hat. Yes, it's a lovely hat. I'd wear it if I looked like he does. I like how he looks in it. I like how he looks, because it is different from what I am used to. I shouldn't like it or dislike it. I wonder if he thinks I'm lying. I wonder if he can tell I'm nervous. I wonder what he thinks my nervousness means. I wonder if he thinks I only like how he looks as a way of overcompensating for secretly not liking it. I wonder if he thinks I find him attractive. I wonder if he thinks I find him unattractive. Do I like it? I think what he looks like is irrelevant, but for some reason I feel like looking. Why do I feel like looking? I can look again if I smile when I do it. No, wait, he might think my smile is patronizing. He might think I'm flirting. He might think I'm a dumb hick. He might think I'm only pretending to be okay with him."



My internal dialogue around pretty/handsome people is very similar to the dialogue around the little person and the black man. Prettiness is just another way of being a physical freak, similar to my ugliness. I know my ugliness probably makes people have such conversations in their heads, too. In case anyone wonders what I am thinking when I catch them looking, I am usually just thinking "Please don't hurt me."


----------



## Sina (Oct 27, 2010)

Snail, that was a sensitive, thoughtful and touchingly honest reply. Clicking "thanks" wasn't sufficient.


----------



## ScapegoatJohnny (Dec 20, 2010)

It's about insecurity for me. I grew up in an atmosphere where people were valued based on external "things". Here's an example, "I just saw Jenny Smith again, she just got her law degree you know...". This was a constant in most conversations about people. If they weren't financially successful, the next best thing was to be attractive. I'm told I'm attractive but there's always a step up... for everyone.


----------



## Aero (Nov 25, 2009)

Not that complicated or complex, I just don't feel worthy in comparison. Part of that is surely insecurity issues and not giving myself credit and so on, blah blah, but also I value appearance. Maybe that makes me shallow, but I like what I like. I don't place ideals above the reality of what I'm feeling (as far as I know). I think what "should be" should be based on something, even if that something is hard or impossible to communicate.

Why "should" appearances be meaningless, again? I've had this preached to me for a long time now, but I have yet to accept it just because somebody says so. If it were widely accepted for long enough, wouldn't natural selection cause people to be uglier overall? If people "shouldn't" care about appearances, why do they? It's not only because of social status stuff, I don't care about that. Why is beauty a good thing, but it's not a good thing to be physically beautiful?

Personality and mind and other things should be valued too (and sadly often seem not to be), but why remove the value from something like this? I feel like a lot of people are being dishonest with themselves. I don't know how or why I would separate out this one feeling as wrong without rejecting feeling in general.

I'm mainly talking about natural stuff here (taking care of oneself), not fake stuff (fake nails, eyelashes, hair extensions, probably makeup, etc). For one thing (that may be controversial here), weight. It's unhealthy to be overweight. Why should that be ignored? No, people shouldn't be doing the hating that they do (people can be ridiculous), but can you honestly say being at a healthy weight is not better than being overweight? This particular thing bugs me because it's more than just me not seeing the point, it seems to be forcing a somewhat counterproductive or contrary point.

It seems like there might be a couple possible outcomes when somebody is unhappy with their appearance. They can say appearances are worthless anyways, or they can say they're not meeting their own expectations. I fit the latter, so that's basically why I am intimidated by good looks (or anyone I like enough). Simple, really.


----------



## Sina (Oct 27, 2010)

Aero said:


> Why "should" appearances be meaningless, again? I've had this preached to me for a long time now, but I have yet to accept it just because somebody says so. If it were widely accepted for long enough, wouldn't natural selection cause people to be uglier overall? If people "shouldn't" care about appearances, why do they? It's not only because of social status stuff, I don't care about that. Why is beauty a good thing, but it's not a good thing to be physically beautiful?
> 
> Personality and mind and other things should be valued too (and sadly often seem not to be), but why remove the value from something like this? I feel like a lot of people are being dishonest with themselves. I don't know how or why I would separate out this one feeling as wrong without rejecting feeling in general.
> 
> ...


Appearances will never be meaningless. Over-emphasizing appearance at the expense of intellect, emotional intelligence, sincerity and other qualities is what's problematic. When a sexy male/female passes by, my brain registers that as aesthetically pleasing. It doesn't happen much when I am in a relationship, but that's not the point. 

Personality and mind shouldn't be valued "too", but valued more. I can't stand cognitive biases such as the halo and horn effects. I understand what you are saying about weight. It is better for an individual's health and overall well-being to not be overweight/obese. Nobody is saying that being obese is good for a person. Yes, there things some Fat positive feminists say that I disagree with. However, the overweight/obese, especially, women are disadvantaged in social, economic, educational and physical terms. A fat person is more likely to be misjudged as lazy, to say the least. This is where it becomes obvious that inflating the importance of appearances can marginalize those who don't meet societal standards of beauty. 

The example of obese/overweight individuals is just one instance, others being individuals with physical deformities, "little people" and so on. Still, the overweight garner a mostly negative image as self-destructive, careless, burdensome (on the health care system, for instance) and so on. 
I will always oppose it strongly. 

My point is that an exaggerated concern with image/ (over-the-top image consciousness) is pretentious, highly disrespectful and discriminatory.


----------



## etherealuntouaswithin (Dec 7, 2010)

Physical Attraction? while interesting in nuance of human element.....I think the many of it of Irrelevance in matter of life...and if confronted with one to whom bears of "attractive feature", i seek in immediacy of the authentic as to their person. A promise of profound contribution unto the civilization..or the foolishness of meandering activity to apply further unto the civilization...i then act accordingly..


----------



## Mutatio NOmenis (Jun 22, 2009)

I find sexy people intimidating because they are powerful and they know it. I'm not powerful and they know it. Consider it to be a form of cold war.


----------



## Third Engine (Dec 28, 2009)

I'm gonna take an evolutionary psychology approach here and say that someone may get intimidated by an extremely attractive person because they're more afraid that they're somehow going to screw up and/or have to "perform" to a higher standard in order to be with them. I've noticed this with myself too from when I was younger, but it usually doesn't happen as much anymore. Well, at least as much. :tongue:


----------



## snail (Oct 13, 2008)

Aero said:


> Not that complicated or complex, I just don't feel worthy in comparison. Part of that is surely insecurity issues and not giving myself credit and so on, blah blah, but also I value appearance. Maybe that makes me shallow, but I like what I like. I don't place ideals above the reality of what I'm feeling (as far as I know). I think what "should be" should be based on something, even if that something is hard or impossible to communicate.
> 
> Why "should" appearances be meaningless, again? I've had this preached to me for a long time now, but I have yet to accept it just because somebody says so. If it were widely accepted for long enough, wouldn't natural selection cause people to be uglier overall? If people "shouldn't" care about appearances, why do they? It's not only because of social status stuff, I don't care about that. Why is beauty a good thing, but it's not a good thing to be physically beautiful?
> 
> ...


I think you are confused, so I'll try to put it in perspective. Let's use racism as an example, since it's easily comparable. If you're not a racist, you will soon see why being prejudiced against ugly people is unfair, by switching a few words around.

Here is what you would have said, if your prejudice were against black people instead of ugly people:


> "I value race. Maybe that makes me a bigot, but I like what I like. I don't place ideals above the reality of what I'm feeling (as far as I know). I think what 'should be' should be based on something, even if that something is hard or impossible to communicate.
> 
> Why 'should' color be meaningless, again? I've had this preached to me for a long time now, but I have yet to accept it just because somebody says so. If it were widely accepted for long enough, wouldn't natural selection cause people to be darker overall? [This is spoken with the implication that this would be a bad thing.] If people "shouldn't" care about race, why do they? It's not only because of social status stuff, I don't care about that. Why is light skin a good thing, but it's not a good thing to be physically white?
> 
> Personality and mind and other things should be valued too (and sadly often seem not to be), but why remove the value from something like skin color? I feel like a lot of people are being dishonest with themselves. I don't know how or why I would separate out this one feeling as wrong without rejecting feeling in general."


Now, if that didn't work to show you why your view is limited and unfair, let me answer your questions more directly. 



> Not that complicated or complex, I just don't feel worthy in comparison. Part of that is surely insecurity issues and not giving myself credit and so on, blah blah, but also I value appearance. Maybe that makes me shallow, but I like what I like. I don't place ideals above the reality of what I'm feeling (as far as I know). I think what "should be" should be based on something, even if that something is hard or impossible to communicate.


So, you think limited temporary emotions are more important than having a consistent value system, or doing things based on some kind of well-considered ethical structure that determines what is decent and fair?  "I like what I like," you say, but what if what you like is hurtful to others, or dangerous for the entire world? What if you liked something that is easily recognized as being blatantly destructive, like kicking puppies? Would you go around kicking puppies just to avoid denying your emotions, even when you know that you shouldn't be doing it? Would you even consider the impact your decisions might have on others, besides yourself?



> Why "should" appearances be meaningless, again? I've had this preached to me for a long time now, but I have yet to accept it just because somebody says so.


Appearances should be seen as meaningless because they really don't mean anything about who we are, as people. Bodies are objects. People aren't. You shouldn't accept anything just because somebody says so, any more than I should accept your position just because I am in the minority. We should decide what we believe based on careful consideration rather than basing important life-changing values on our immediate impulses or the opinions of others. You don't have to change your mind just because I want you to. If you did it for that reason, you wouldn't be able to explain to others why you value what you value. "Someone said it was right," isn't any better than, "Because I want to, whether it's right or not." 



> If it were widely accepted for long enough, wouldn't natural selection cause people to be uglier overall?


Yes, if people were non-superficial, natural selection would select for different qualities, and people would become physically uglier. What we currently consider ugly might become the norm over time, and would not be perceived as ugly. It would eventually be perceived as irrelevant. This wouldn't necessarily be a horrible thing, since it is likely that other qualities would become more desirable in order to compensate. Tolerance would increase our sense of unity, and our tendency to place value on less materialistic qualities would allow us to achieve greater levels of spiritual advancement, instead of pursuing tangible goals like physical power at the expense of ethics. The world would be a better place if the instinct for superficial attraction were eventually bred out of people. Our current advancements in medicine and technology decrease the importance of physical size and strength, and certain preferences that were once necessary for our physical survival are now counterproductive, such as the tendency for women to be attracted to aggressive men with a tall, muscular build. In today's world, women are at greater risk of violence from their own partners than from external threats, and would probably be better off ignoring the inclination to reject shorter, less muscular men for having "unattractive" bodies. Mate selection should be based on compatibility instead of on the obsolete needs of our ancient ancestors. 

If superficial mate selection were eliminated, we would be more likely to select each other for meaningful reasons that had to do with our ability to live in a harmonious way. We would select each other for intelligence, for creativity, or for spiritual qualities instead of for the immature reasons like "ooh, looky! It's pretty! Me wants!" ...not to say you are a caveman, or that anyone else here is, but I think some of our primitive instinctual desires have very little to do with our current needs. They have outlived their usefulness and have become destructive. We are given strong wills that allow us to rise above our animal natures. We are blessed with intelligence, which allows us to recognize certain behaviors as irrational or undesirable. 



> If people "shouldn't" care about appearances, why do they? It's not only because of social status stuff, I don't care about that. Why is beauty a good thing, but it's not a good thing to be physically beautiful?


People do a lot of things they shouldn't. "If people shouldn't smoke crack, why do they?" 

Actually, in this case, to be fair, it's more like saying "If people shouldn't have violent tempers when angered, why do they?" It is a primitive tendency that now causes more harm than good. It was once protective and made people more likely to survive to pass on their genes, before we were civilized enough to have less destructive methods. What is good for the survival of individual is sometimes dangerous to the larger group.



> Personality and mind and other things should be valued too (and sadly often seem not to be), but why remove the value from something like this? I feel like a lot of people are being dishonest with themselves. I don't know how or why I would separate out this one feeling as wrong without rejecting feeling in general.
> 
> I'm mainly talking about natural stuff here (taking care of oneself), not fake stuff (fake nails, eyelashes, hair extensions, probably makeup, etc). For one thing (that may be controversial here), weight. It's unhealthy to be overweight. Why should that be ignored? No, people shouldn't be doing the hating that they do (people can be ridiculous), but can you honestly say being at a healthy weight is not better than being overweight? This particular thing bugs me because it's more than just me not seeing the point, it seems to be forcing a somewhat counterproductive or contrary point.


The reason to remove the value from something like this is that it is already invalid. It's not a matter of being dishonest about our feelings. It is a matter of recognizing that sometimes doing what feels good isn't the same as doing what is right, or what is actually good for us. 

If you are going to distinguish between the real and the artificial, it is important to note that the artificial things people do to make themselves pretty exist primarily to mimic the natural things that superficial suitors value. People use those things in order to override some of the unfairness of beauty-based mate selection. Instead of striking the problem at the core, they treat it as though it were inevitable and unchangeable. They change themselves to conform in order to avoid getting left behind because they feel powerless to change the actual, external problem. This is understandable, because of how lonely it is to fight for something unpopular, but it is also selfish when people are unwilling to make personal sacrifices for the greater good. 

I mostly agree with Hazelwitch about her stance on size-based prejudice, and won't go into that, since I feel it has already been adequately addressed. 



> It seems like there might be a couple possible outcomes when somebody is unhappy with their appearance. They can say appearances are worthless anyways, or they can say they're not meeting their own expectations. I fit the latter, so that's basically why I am intimidated by good looks (or anyone I like enough). Simple, really.



I think this is a very limited view. It isn't always about the individual being dissatisfied with his or her own appearance. In my case, I am comfortable in my body. Other people are the ones who have a problem with it, because they are too shallow to overcome their biases. I believe that appearances are worthless, but it is not as a defense against self-hatred. It is because I believe it is true. If I am going to dislike myself for something, I would rather it be for something spiritually meaningful than for something as trivial as what this object I inhabit happens to look like. It is naive for you to make assumptions about my motives, or to treat my values as though they were merely some kind of personal issues I have because I am delusional or lack self-awareness.


----------



## wisdom (Dec 31, 2008)

Wouldn't it be great if everyone had a similar baseline of physical attractiveness that reflects physical health, nutrition, and so on? Appearance does somewhat reliably reflect those things in people who aren't trying very hard to look good. I like the baseline idea because then people could ignore appearance aside from clothing style and other signs of personality. And much of the intimidation and premature rejection factors, barriers to good communication, likely would disappear.


----------



## WickedQueen (Jun 1, 2009)

One of my best friends was a finalist of some beauty pageant. She's very very beautiful, not mention also brilliant, rich, and kind. I'm a witness of how the guys attracted to her and how they tried to get her. They treat her like she's goddess and give her specialties that others don't get. To them, she is intimidating, yet also challenging and interesting. All girls thinks she's intimidating and she became the main source of their jealousy.

I must be honest to say that at first she's kinda intimidating to me because she's so glamorous. But as time goes by, I'm able to see right through her soul, and was quite surprised when she told me that she's lucky to have me as her best friend. Reality speaking, I'm nowhere near her awesomeness, but she stick with me like she's glued to me. The reason is because, according to her, I treat her like human being, not as attractive/threatening object like everyone else does.

But when it goes to attractive males, I must say that I mostly try to avoid them. Even if I have to deal with them in friendship, I let it superficial. Not because they are intimidating, but because I'm attracted to them physically, and I don't want that disturbing my objectivity. I don't want to be like other people who give specialties to beautiful people. I want to be fair and treat all people in the same manner.


----------



## Aero (Nov 25, 2009)

snail said:


> I think you are confused, so I'll try to put it in perspective. Let's use racism as an example, since it's easily comparable. If you're not a racist, you will soon see why being prejudiced against ugly people is unfair, by switching a few words around.


Thank you, comparing my valuing of health to being a racist has opened my eyes. I now agree with you that everything I've said is worthless and that I am an ignorant bigot for not considering our bodies to be devoid of value.



snail said:


> So, you think limited temporary emotions are more important than having a consistent value system, or doing things based on some kind of well-considered ethical structure that determines what is decent and fair?


I said feelings, not "temporary emotions." So, you think feelings are worthless? It seems like if it were up to you, we'd only keep our brain, and even then just select parts of it._"I like what I like," you say, but what if what you like is hurtful to others_​Then I would take that into consideration and not do it. Listening to one thing does not preclude listening to another. You can hear both sides out, and in my opinion, should. Hearing something and considering it is different from being a mindless slave to it. If you want to silence feeling entirely, I refuse. I don't want to be an android._ What if you liked something that is easily recognized as being blatantly destructive, like kicking puppies?_​Do you often have these kinds of urges? I don't._Would you even consider the impact your decisions might have on others, besides yourself?_​You took "being overweight is unhealthy" and turned it into "you are an insensitive, uncaring, ignorant bigot who doesn't care about anyone but themself," and proceeded to write it in an extraordinarily condescending (and drawn out) way. I think we are just about done here._We are given strong wills that allow us to rise above our animal natures._​So everything that's come before should be tossed to the trash? Everything natural is worthless? We can't coexist with nature or feelings, only conquer them?


----------



## snail (Oct 13, 2008)

Aero said:


> Thank you, comparing my valuing of health to being a racist has opened my eyes. I now agree with you that everything I've said is worthless and that I am an ignorant bigot for not considering our bodies to be devoid of value.
> 
> 
> I said feelings, not "temporary emotions." So, you think feelings are worthless? It seems like if it were up to you, we'd only keep our brain, and even then just select parts of it._"I like what I like," you say, but what if what you like is hurtful to others_​Then I would take that into consideration and not do it. Listening to one thing does not preclude listening to another. You can hear both sides out, and in my opinion, should. Hearing something and considering it is different from being a mindless slave to it. If you want to silence feelings entirely, I refuse. I don't want to be an android._ What if you liked something that is easily recognized as being blatantly destructive, like kicking puppies?_​Do you often have these kinds of urges? I don't._Would you even consider the impact your decisions might have on others, besides yourself?_​You took "being overweight is unhealthy" and turned it into "you are an insensitive, uncaring, ignorant bigot who doesn't care about anyone but themself," and proceeded to write it in a extraordinarily condescending (and drawn out) way. I think we are just about done here._We are given strong wills that allow us to rise above our animal natures._​So everything that's come before should be tossed to the trash? Everything natural is worthless? We can't coexist with nature or feelings, only conquer them?


It would have been against the rules (both the forum rules, and my own) for me to call you an "insensitive, uncaring, ignorant bigot who doesn't care about anyone but [yourself]." I didn't say that. Even if I did feel that way (and I admit that it was definitely how I was perceiving you), those were only my feelings, not my words. In fact, I was being careful not to attack you, even to defend myself, or to defend everyone else that you were hurting with your hateful message. I was making a conscious effort to go against what I felt like doing, because sometimes doing what we feel like isn't the same as doing what is right, regardless of what is natural for us. That was my point, and if I had acted on my impulse, I would have been hypocritical.

When I read your post, I believed your viewpoint was a changeable state rather than something that defined you. I also believed, perhaps falsely, that you were only being that way because you were confused. I thought I could get you to empathize and understand if I took the time to answer all of the things you asked. I thought maybe you would take what I said to heart instead of continuing to promote social injustices. I thought it was reasonable for me to think this was a possible outcome, and if I hadn't, I wouldn't have wasted my time responding to you. If you weren't wanting answers, why did you form so many of your statements as though they were questions, as though you were actually seeking answers rather than merely asserting your own opinions? I took what you were asking at face value, and I answered you. 

If I thought you were unable to change, I wouldn't have bothered explaining, point by point, why you were being both impractical, and unapologetically unfair. I assumed you were concerned with doing what was right, and were merely ignorant about why your attitude was wrong. Whenever possible, I would rather think people are capable of growing out of their cruelty when confronted with an awareness of it. I would rather not just give up, lose hope in humanity, and resort to insulting the people whose views attack me. If my interest was in hurting you back, getting revenge, or something of that nature, maybe I actually would have said what you accuse me of communicating, but I think it is meaningful to note that I didn't say what I was feeling, because I knew it would be hurtful. This doesn't mean that I didn't try to call you out on your wrongness, as tactfully as I was able. Trying to tell someone why you think their actions are evil is always a delicate problem, because no matter how you say it, if the message actually gets through, it is going to be invalidating to that person. If it weren't, it wouldn't be opposing anything. I still have faith in your potential goodness. I'm just having trouble seeing it right now.


----------



## Aero (Nov 25, 2009)

Are you serious? What social injustice did I promote?

I would be 10-20x happier with your responses if you would just be honest and stop lacing everything you say with insult. That entire post is implying I'm evil in like every other line. This is incredibly immature.


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

Firstly, define attractive. I have seen a lot of derpy comments that seem to take for granted that there is some set notion of attractive. Are we saying that what -we- perceive as attractive can intimidate us? Or are we going with the societal standard?

I saw someone mention that basically, because many people do care about appearances, that it must be right. Thats the glorification of what exists. Just because theres an idea in culture doesn't make it correct. Look at how many other strange wants, rather than needs people develop in consumer capitalistic society where the bar is always being raised, demand being -created- and ideas being sold back to us that are steadily altered.

Someone else was on about it being unhealthy to be overweight, well sure, being significantly overweight is unhealthy - but look at how physically -and- mentally unhealthy women are because of these fucked beauty standards, which push them into taking diet drugs, eating too little, etc. I had a friend who was my size, -average- size, when she was anorexic.. just because her body type required she was a little heavier - and for her frame and such, she was healthy a little heavier (buy todays standards). But even when she was anorexic, people could still find room for "improvement" - because what society thinks is ideal these days is whats unhealthy. People aren't focused on their health typically - overweight, or whats passable as healthy these days. They are focused on looking like some ideal that will please people who put fake looking celebrities on a pedestal. People are raised on this shit from the time they start exploring their sexuality these days thanks to the internet's vast array of porn. The concepts of sexuality.. love, orgasm, its all connected to the surreal images culture has been cranking out due to its constantly raising the bar on whats ideal. An example of the problem: diet pill commercials target healthy average size people in their "before" pictures knowing if they reach more people, they make more money. The whole media is full of instances where a false standard is portrayed as correct.

I know the thread is asking if you are actually intimidated by attractive people, but I'm more interested in pointing out that theres a very distorted view of what is attractive in society, because a lot of people seem to be nodding and agreeing on something that should be examined at the fundamentals. 

And everyone needs to watch this. A lot of people are just blowing my minds with how much they don't get it. This is a vid of a woman who eats healthy and works out a lot, but when she goes into have her photoshop consultation, the guy finds several things about her that could be "fixed" - and that is the end product, the revered societal standard that people are blindly accepting. It isn't natural, or healthy, and it spreads this consciousness in people that they have to fixate on attaining this look in order to even be loved. Its a very base human drive being played on here to make the bucks.


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

Aero said:


> Are you serious? What social injustice did I promote?
> 
> I would be 10-20x happier with your responses if you would just be honest and stop lacing everything you say with insult. That entire post is implying I'm evil in like every other line. This is incredibly immature.


And you, read my last post and watch the vid. Judging my your first post in this thread you really need to think about it.


----------

