Boundless continues to beat “the only true beauty is a good personality” drum.

I guess it’s been too long since Boundless reminded everyone that your personality is the only thing that matters, so they had uberbeta Andrew Hess whip up an article that not only shames people for liking attractive people of a healthy weight, but also blames pornography for unrealistic standards of beauty.  (Um…has he seen the women who act in porn?  Unrealistic, yes.  Beautiful….um.)

The whole article was completely all over the place, as if Hess were grabbing at anything that could even slightly strengthen his argument, which basically boiled down to, “Pretty people have it better, and that sucks.”

First, he lamented the old Sprite slogan that said “image is everything.”  Because darn it, some people actually believe that image matters.   Then he was sad that people had to debate whether a fat man was fit to be President (no shout-out to William Howard Taft?), and even slammed The Biggest Loser for providing the drama of watching obese people lose weight “fast.”

Next, he brought up the ominous statistics of the $60 billion-a-year weight-loss industry and the 75 million Americans currently on diets.  (And this is a bad thing because…?)  And whoa, can’t forget the whole clothing and makeup markets.  Tsk, tsk.

Then Hess asked us what the “real costs of a culture over-emphasizing image and attractiveness” are.  Wellllll, if fat Americans going on diets – and statistically, the U.S. has a majority of its adult population that is overweight – and wanting to dress fashionably constitute “over-emphasizing image and attractiveness,” is that necessarily a bad thing?  Shouldn’t a nation of fat people desire to be less fat?

But instead of discussing his own ideas of what would constitute an ideal world (where I guess it doesn’t matter if you’re fat), Hess bizarrely then starts bashing pornography as creating a population unable to appreciate true beauty.  WHAT?!?  Is he honestly trying to say that if pornography didn’t exist, the average person would find fat people more attractive?  I mean, it sure sounds like it.

Hess then makes an appeal to the spiritual:

The teachings of Jesus and the other New Testament writers point people toward a focus on spiritual realities rather than physical ones. In fact, Peter clearly instructed first-century women to focus on their inner beauty rather than the external, “Do not let your adorning be external—the braiding of hair and the putting on of gold jewelry, or the clothing you wear—but let your adorning be the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God’s sight is very precious” (1 Peter 3:3-4). Peter taught women to think about beauty in terms of their spiritual conformity to Christ’s character, and in the same way, men should think about image and attractiveness in terms of character.

Hess is trying to tie two things together that don’t belong together.  Peter correctly admonishes women to cultivate their personalities, because physical beauty is temporary.  But I’m pretty sure Peter wasn’t speaking to a room full of Weight Watchers members, either.  These verses aren’t an excuse to let yourself go crazy with the Ho-Hos because you’ve got a good personality.

Hess continues:

When the Bible describes the beauty of Christ, it always speaks of His love, His humility, His sacrifice for His people, His continuing work as their mediator, and many other things He is and does. It never even mentions what He looked like. We must learn to see the beauty in ourselves and others in the same way.

This is classic churchian logic:  your exterior doesn’t matter so long as your ~heart~ is beautiful.  But this is utterly ridiculous, because deep down, people know that their insides eventually show up on their outsides.  That is how most people can (often correctly) identify people’s character traits from their appearances.  You wouldn’t want a disheveled, sloppy person to work for you, because that sloppiness indicates interior character failings.  So why are we as Christians continually asked to pretend we are blind?  I’m not advocating a lack of compassion by any means, but I really resent being told to ignore cues that are necessary for society to operate properly.

Hess finishes up:

In a culture that boasts image is everything, let’s remember true beauty is a heart growing in the likeness of Jesus Christ. We should regularly recalibrate our hearts upon eternal reality and not spend our time, energy and money chasing physical beauty that simply will not last. Turns out godliness is everything; image is a distant second … if that.

Absolutely unfair to apply this kind of thinking to something that is a true problem and is unhealthy for society, to families, and to individuals.  But maybe it’s just indicative of the culture as a whole, that perspectives are that out of whack that someone can write an article like this and think it represents a well-thought-out idea some sort of social justice.

It would be nice if Boundless could produce a writer who could craft a persuasive argument that was worth reading.

 

Church is for frumps?

It occurred to me today that maybe part of the problem of getting people to meet and marry within the church is the high incidence of egregious frumpiness.  I’m not saying that this is the reason or even a main reason, but surely it is a not completely insignificant contributing factor.

Seriously, look around the average evangelical McChurch on Sunday morning.  People don’t dress up for church anymore.  In the effort during the past 25 years or so to entice non-churchers into (or back into) the fold, churches ditched just about everything that was traditionally churchy.  Out went the stiff, boring hymns**, and in came “worship choruses” that sound like the worst dreck of soft hits radio and usually feature lyrics addressed to “you” about streams, fountains, skies, and hearts.  This also meant that organs were out, and “praise bands” led by a semi-hip guy (sometimes trendily unshaven) who passionately grimaces while strumming his acoustic guitar were in.  Similarly, pastors stopped wearing suits and ties and started wearing Hawaiian shirts in order to be “accessible,” everyday joes.  Churches started trying to be cutting edge and “not scared of the culture,” injecting movie clips, popular songs, skits, and lots and lots of PowerPoint into sermons.

And, not surprisingly, with churches now acting the part of “cool hangout where, like, you can learn stuff that’s, like, totally important for life – bring your unsaved friends!”, out went the practice of dressing up in Sunday’s best.  Nowadays it’s rare to see a man in a button-down shirt, much less a tie, much much less a suit – and this goes tenfold for younger men.  Women don’t wear dresses, and if they do, they’re not nice dresses but Frump City specials that don’t accentuate anything good about the woman’s body.  In the summer, it’s common to see hideous khaki shorts all over the place, and in the non-summer, jeans galore.

If Christians are representatives of Christ on Earth, shouldn’t we be doing a little better in the looks department?  Yeah, yeah, yeah, God cares more about the work you’re doing for the lost souls of the world than your appearance, and we certainly don’t want to encourage superficiality or materialism, and heaven forbid we even hint at a legalistic dress code, but ugh…when you think about it, most congregations are eyesores.  And yes, some of it is just a widespread cultural thing, with the average American being an eyesore himself, but man, not many people dress with pride for church anymore.  (And part of me wonders if churches would be more effective if their congregations dressed better.)

So, bringing this back around to the mating game – when the majority of young, single people at a church frump it up on Sundays, how are they ever going to catch each other’s eyes?  (It’s not like they’re dressing any better for the young singles group on Wednesdays.)  I guess everyone’s just hoping that this year’s winter retreat is going to be the one where Jimmy finally sees the inner beauty of Sarah’s godly personality.  Or vice versa.

(To find the above photo, all I used was “worship service” as my search term.  This is fairly dressed up by contemporary evangelical standards.)

**Good hymns = Not Boring.  Boring = Most Worship Songs Sung in Churches Today.

The 10-point scale for female attractiveness.

There’s a lot of talk on the internet among men about the 10-point scale – Kane is the most recent to broach the topic.  The scale is supposed to be objective, but it is accurate more in the sense of large-scale consensus than if you were to ask an individual person for rankings.  Additionally, it uses one number to account for both face and body, which can lead to difficulties in precision of ranking if, say, a woman has a gorgeous face but wears a size 18.  (It reminds me a little of the old figure skating point system, where the judges had to reduce the complexities of choreography, interpretation, performance, and technical ability into two marks, one for technical merit and the other for artistry.  This sometimes led to controversy when a skater could jump like a god but could barely skate.)

For future reference (and for throwing in my $0.02), here’s how I would break it down:

1, 2, 3 – Really unfortunate-looking women.  The bodies aren’t good…neither are the faces.  Sometimes it can’t be helped (genetics, disease, other conditions); sometimes it can (diet/exercise/grooming say what?).  A beautiful personality is the saving grace.  Still, even these women can get husbands.

4 – Moving into the territory of “plain.”  Not pretty, not cute, but not ugly.  Weight may or may not be a factor.  Includes RenFaire lovers; Comic-Con cosplayers; young, educated professional women who are impassioned about gender equality and gay rights and are prone to meticulous bean-counting of all pop culture transgressions in these areas.

5 – Average.  Not likely to ever be called pretty or cute, but not ugly and can be appealing with good grooming.  The good-looking version of a 4.

6 – Not pretty, but can pass for cute as long as they take care of themselves.  A good personality is a HUGE boost to a 6.

7 – Cute (or cute-ish) girls who can look pretty or even hot under the right circumstances; also, girls with 8.5 bodies and 5.5 faces.  Think actresses who usually play “the best friend” or “nerd girl whose glasses prevent her from being seen as hot.”  Celebrity reference:  Alyson Hannigan, Pauley Perrette, Melissa Joan Hart.

8 – Genuinely pretty girls.  You want to keep looking at them.  Hollywood leading lady-caliber begins here (unless they’re talented, in which case being a 7 will do).  Celebrity reference:  Anne Hathaway, Kate Middleton, Evangeline Lilly, Sandra Bullock, Carrie Underwood.  Actually, now that I think about it, most contemporary Hollywood leading ladies are 8s – good-looking enough to be aspirational, not so good-looking or overly sexy to be off-putting.

9 – “One of the world’s most beautiful women” territory.  This is where a woman is so dazzling that almost nothing else about her matters; even if she cured cancer and brought world peace, these would still be secondary to her beauty.  “Sexy” is often used as a description.  Celebrity reference:  Sofia Vergara, Halle Berry, Kim Kardashian, Victoria’s Secret models.

10 – “World’s most beautiful woman” who tickles your particular fancy.

Note that for the majority of women, ranking is not static.  A woman can improve her ranking by maintaining a weight that is close to ideal for her body type/frame, dressing well, and grooming herself in a flattering way.  Of course, the opposite is all too true as well.

Why girls are not usually friends with girls prettier than themselves.

This message board post gets to the heart of it:

Have you ever had that one girlfriend who always seems to get hit on first within your group? Well whenever my roommate/friend and I go out, guys will ask her to dance over me or when two guys approach us it’s obvious that both guys are trying to get her attention and the one stuck with me will act disinterested.

I honestly think I’m an average to cute girl and come off very friendly and sociable, but my roommate is obviously prettier than me. I’m just tired of being the girl who gets overlooked and not approached when I’m with her and in all honesty as bitter as it sounds, my self-esteem has hindered by hanging out with her because of all the attention she gets. I’ve even had guys I’m interested in ask me if she’s single.

Please tell me someone out there has a close friend like this and has been in this kind of situation, and how did you handle it?

While there IS the phenomenon of one genuinely pretty girl having a bunch of semi-buttery friends basking in their pretty friend’s aura (see:  most popular girl cliques in high school), most female friend groups sort out by looks status.  In other words, even if two girls have similar interests (for example, they both love Grey’s Anatomy, reading, and horses), they probably won’t be friends unless they’re within 1 point of attractiveness of each other.  Any more difference than that, and it just becomes too difficult for women to hang out, particularly once there are men in the picture.  The less pretty friend eventually gets tired of being ignored and decides it’s pointless to go out with the pretty friend when all it does it result in the less pretty friend being ignored all night and/or used as a conduit to the pretty friend.  When allowed to go on for too long, the less pretty friend usually ends up jealous, resentful, and sometimes bitter.

That said, there are a few exceptions that do allow two women of unequal good looks to remain friends:

1. The pretty girl attracts men who are not attractive to the less pretty friend.  For example, if Unpretty is into skinny intellectuals and Pretty gets swaggery thugs in oversize sports jerseys who make Unpretty’s brain cells atrophy, Unpretty will be less likely to resent the attention that Pretty gets.
2. Pretty doesn’t bask in the attention or ditch Unpretty whenever guys come on the scene.  In other words, if Pretty shows “good taste” in whose attention she chooses to receive, and graciously strives to include Unpretty, then Unpretty will also be less likely to resent the attention that Pretty gets.  On the other hand, if Pretty luxuriates in being the Belle of the Ball whenever a guy looks at her for two seconds, the friendship with Unpretty probably won’t last.
3. Unpretty worships Pretty.  Some girls are so desperate for any glimmer of a chance at popularity that they will endure a lot of crappy and sometimes humiliating treatment just to remain in Pretty’s orbit.  Even if Unpretty subconsciously resents Pretty, Unpretty will beat down her subconscious in order to achieve the greater goal.

As for the OP, I would be surprised if she remains friends with her roommate beyond the next year or so.  Pretty’s popularity with men whom OP finds attractive is going to get to OP eventually, and the tension and resentment of being ignored will become too great for OP to stand – even if OP still genuinely likes Pretty.  Ten bucks says OP will chalk this up to “growing apart.”  Of course, Pretty could always level the playing field by gaining weight (or OP could lose weight/glam up, if those are issues affecting OP’s attractiveness to men).

 

~Realistic expectations~ part 2.

~Realistic expectations~

(Unbunch your britches, people.  I’m doing a female one, too.)

Curvy on the internet.

THIS ARTICLE, I can’t even.

The article:  Heavy Issues for Heavy Women.  (So miraculous that NAMES HAVE BEEN CHANGED.)

The discussion thread:  Miracle on Matrimony Street.

A quote:

We’ve been married for almost seven years now. One child and an additional 35 pounds later [which makes her 290 at 5’3″], my husband is nothing but more attracted to my fat frame. And he gets a little annoyed about the guys who hit on me. Just as God had made some men who prefer brunettes, some who prefer tomboys, some who prefer bookish gals, God has given some guys a deep appreciation for fat women.

Especially in light of Roissy’s post on Why European Girls Stay Thin.

BRAIN GOES KABOOM.

You can do better than these guys.

Photo by moi.

A good hairstyle success story.

In the last thread, Ceer asked:

For a men’s haircut, unless it’s quite outlandish, like a mohawk or dreadlocks, is the quality of a man’s haircut REALLY all that noticeable?

The answer is YES.  A good haircut can make the difference between a man looking sexy and a man looking plain (or worse).

A good example of the power of a good haircut is 2008 American Idol winner David Cook.  I think it’s fair to say that Cook might not have won Idol if he hadn’t gotten a very flattering haircut when he was about 6 weeks into the voting rounds of the competition.  Even though Cook had one of the best voices of the season and had turned in some very strong performances, women didn’t get excited about him until the haircut arrived.  It was only after the haircut that Cook, who had previously been considered somewhat douchey and smug, transformed in women’s eyes into a sexy, smart, mature man who sent them into a tingle frenzy.

Here is Cook as he looked at his audition:

He’s not a bad-looking guy, but there’s nothing remarkable about his looks, either.  Pretty much everything about his hair screams douchewad.

Here is Cook as he looked singing “Hello,” which was his breakout performance three weeks into the voting:

His singing put him on the map, but he wasn’t incinerating panties, either.  While the hair is improved, it distracts from his face and looks like a run-of-the-mill “young rocker guy” haircut.

Below is Cook as he looked post-haircut:

His face is now front-and-center, and the facial hair adds maturity and intelligence to his look.  He looks cleaner, healthier, more confident, more approachable, and more open.  He barely resembles the douchewad who auditioned with red bangs, soul patch, and really ugly fauxhawk.  This is the haircut that skyrocketed his sex appeal to women, and which he has more or less maintained since.

The thing to note is that the changes that Cook made to his hair aren’t drastic.  Mainly he just got a cleaner, shorter ‘do that flattered his face.  But the difference that those small changes made was huge.  His haircut allowed people to see the best in him, instead of distracting them.  (He also lost some weight on the show.  That helped, too.)

Now, Cook obviously had the help of professional stylists, and the average person doesn’t have access to that.  Cook was also starting with a more extreme look than the average person.  Still, if you’ve had the same “safe” haircut for a while, maybe it would be worth looking into something a little edgier, something that’s a break from the normal.  It’s only hair.  It’ll grow back.  At the very least, you’ll get credit for rocking the boat a little.