A Playboy playmate, Dani Mathers, took a picture of an older woman in the shower at a gym, and then a photo of herself sniggering at her. She even took the time to caption it, If I can’t unsee this, then you can’t either
, before sending it out to the public. I guess the other woman didn’t look like a Playboy Playmate of the Year, which is more than enough grounds for derision, right?
She has sort of badly apologized: she didn’t mean to make her ugly thoughts public, she intended just to share her contempt for women who are insufficiently pneumatic with a good friend. She’s now getting hammered on social media, has lost her job at a radio station, is banned forever from that particular gym, and the police have been notified. But there’s a worse punishment awaiting her.
How old is she? In her twenties? In a few years, she’s inevitably going to be in her thirties, then forties, maybe even, heaven forfend, her fifties. It’s how nature works. She’s going to get older. And as she becomes increasingly aged, that loathing of other’s bodies is going to turn inward and torture herself. The only question is how long it’s going to take before she starts exaggerating her own emerging flaws in her mind. 10 years? 5 years? Now?
It seems like cruel and unusual punishment to me, but if it’s self-inflicted, it’s her own damn fault.
She wasn’t just banned from that particular gym, she was banned from the whole LA Fitness chain. Which is good, but it doesn’t undo the harm she’s done. How many less-than-Playboy-perfect people will be discouraged from going to the gym by this incident, I wonder.
Oh good God, no! That’s not going to happen to her. She is, after all, a celebrity. As long as she finds someone to fund her Botox treatments, collegen, boob jobs, facelift to, and lipo, she expects to stay young and beautiful until her late 40s. After that, she hopes to die after a drug overdose.
Edit: collagen
Jesus Fucking Christ. It’s not just the body shaming, it’s the intrusion on someone’s privacy, which apparently Dani Mathers thinks was perfectly okay to violate. This is what happens when someone completely internalizes their value as a person on how high they’d rate to the male gaze.
As for growing older, I suspect she’ll be one of those people caught in a never-ending regimen to make themselves look ‘ageless’, which, in order to work well, requires a great deal of money.
Akira MacKenzie:
That was uncalled for. How is that better than what Ms. Mathers did? Fuck sake. We all suffer the effects of ‘bodyism’ and there are many ways to be self loathing.
It was also just too wrong.
Not if she makes it to 2029.
I’m going to imagine a positive outcome for her that she becomes an advocate promoting a healthy body imagine for all people regardless of their age or physical state, and that she speaks out against anyone shaming others for the particulars of their body.
Hmm, isn’t it criminal in some places to post naked pictures of someone without their consent? How long before she’s facing charges?
Artor, from the article she is indeed being investigated by the police.
Oh good. I see from the original article that the LAPD are investigating, and charges may indeed be coming down the pike.
The article also says she’s 29 (I’d have thought much, much younger for that immaturity). She’ll be 30 soon, so her career prospects are already drying up. I hope as she gets older she does come to overcome her outward and inward body shaming. What she did was her own damn fault and lacking in maturity and empathy, but it’s our culture that sowed the seeds for her attitudes.
According to Wikipedia, she’ll be 30 in January.
Just to do a little sniggering of my own, I’d point out that there is a clear and obvious motivation for such stupidity. She’s *already* in dire fear of her impending sagginess. There just woudn’t be motivation to care otherwise.
My motivation is that I’ve never been remotely close to having a model body and in younger years was hurt fairly often by the disparagement of the jocks. I deeply enjoy the schadenfreude of the beautiful people coming undone.
I’m saddened as I grow older to become aware of how much, say just walking down the street, I will pay attention to the attractive and none at all to those not so save to avoid walking into them. Likewise when intoduced to a woman that my instant evaluatons are of her physical beauty. I’ve tried consciously to *notice* others just enough to try to wonder who they are, what kind of people they are and on first meetings to think of the person first. I doubt I’ll ever completely break our ludicrous cultural imprinting that only the beautiful matter, but I can *try*.
— TWZ
What I’d like to know is why anyone would repost this photograph even with the little black box over the woman’s butt? Why is that not a criminal offense?
I guess she’s not rich enough to be free from any consequences from her actions.
Can’t see much from the photo insert, but the naked woman in the gym looks like a healthy older woman to me. I would never think of her as something I wish I could “un-see.”
Bodies change as humans age. This is nothing for which a person should be shamed. At no point along the continuum from birth to old age is there a reason to shame someone like has been done here. It makes me angry to see a 29 year old woman be this thoughtless, this stupid.
I kinda agree with chris61. I know that if you didn’t publish it, some asshole would come around to complain that you’re tarnishing someone’s reputation without evidence, but I find that acceptable compared to republishing the photo of a woman who never consented to having her naked photo taken, let alone published.
Number of trans women posting public pictures of naked people in bathrooms: 0
Number of cis women posting public pictures of naked people in bathrooms: at least 1
And the “bathroom threat” lies where, exactly?
But trans women are the perverts.
carlie (#18) –
Of course, it is usually cis-het men who get caught placing cameras in women’s washrooms and changerooms. I found a dozen different stories of male predators from just the first six months of 2016, never mind previous years.
Body shaming is not a self-inflicted injury. Doubly so for internalized body shaming.
Not only are women (and other non-men) constantly judged for their bodies, but they also internalize this judgement, thus allowing the oppressors to both maintain the oppression without putting a lot of work into it, and to claim innocence because “women are doing it too”.
I just spent a week at an outdoor art & music festival. There is a very nice public bath house there, with a wood-fired boiler and hot showers and saunas for about 150. Inside, there are more naked hippies than you can shake a stick at, anywhere from toddlers to old farts pushing a century, in every shape and size. And you know what? They all look perfectly normal. Every last one of them.
Well, except for the guy with the teratoma. That was kinda weird.
@PZ Myers
I take very strong objection to this statement. What Dani Mathers did is despicable and she should be punished to the full extent of the law and to what social peer pressure can exert on her. She should learn the lesson that this is unacceptable behaviour and hopefully learn from the experience and become better/less awfull person in the future.
But if she so deeply internalized the perception that a woman is only as valuable as her body is conventionaly beautiful, to the point that she mentally/physically damages herself, is not “self-inflicted punishment”. It is a torture inflicted upon her by the whole society regardless of what she has done here. Indeed she has failed as ha human being, but because she has been conditioned by the society to be so. When she posted the picture she expected many people to snigger along. And many undoubtedly did.
I am sure PZ did not intend this to be so, but this statement has in my mind potential to cause splash damage to people who suffer from anorexia/bulimia or “only” depression from bodyshaming. This is victim blaming. Remember – person can be victim and opressor at the same time. Sometimes indeed it is the victims who perpetuate the opression (peer pressure for conformity).
Lindsay @ #1
I thought that this looked like an LA Fitness shower room as soon as I saw the picture. I had to look closely to make sure that the older woman in the picture wasn’t me, but realized that it’s in a completely different part of the country. The rules state “No cameras in the locker rooms”, but we all carry our phones, and I’ve sometimes answered a call while getting dressed. I hope that this immature little twerp doesn’t make life more difficult for the rest of us who use LA Fitness locker rooms.
I was upset not long ago when I heard that a member was complaining about a trans female using the women’s locker room in my LA Fitness gym. I wish that I had been there at the time. I would have welcomed to trans woman to join me in the women’s locker room and would have made sure that the management knew about my opinion.
This country really needs to get over the body-shaming.
Artor – I’m jealous!
@PZ Myers
I take very strong objection to this statement. What Dani Mathers did is despicable and she should be punished to the full extent of the law and to what social peer pressure can exert on her. She should learn the lesson that this is unacceptable behaviour and hopefully learn from the experience and become better/less awfull person in the future.
But if she so deeply internalized the perception that a woman is only as valuable as her body is conventionaly beautiful, to the point that she mentally/physically damages herself, is not “self-inflicted punishment”. It is a torture inflicted upon her by the whole society regardless of what she has done here. Indeed she has failed as ha human being, but because she has been conditioned by the society to be so. When she posted the picture she expected many people to snigger along. And many undoubtedly did.
I am sure PZ did not intend this to be so, but this statement has in my mind potential to cause splash damage to people who suffer from anorexia/bulimia or “only” depression from bodyshaming. This is victim blaming. Remember – person can be victim and opressor at the same time. Sometimes indeed it is the victims who perpetuate the opression (peer pressure for conformity).
Testing.
OK, does anyone else get problems posting? Because I got miffed at PZ, tried to post and my post does not appear anywhere.
@PZ Myers
I take very strong objection to this statement. What Dani Mathers did is despicable and she should be punished to the full extent of the law and to what social peer pressure can exert on her. She should learn the lesson that this is unacceptable behaviour and hopefully learn from the experience and become better/less awfull person in the future.
But if she so deeply internalized the perception that a woman is only as valuable as her body is conventionaly beautiful, to the point that she mentally/physically damages herself, is not “self-inflicted punishment”. It is a torture inflicted upon her by the whole society regardless of what she has done here. Indeed she has failed as ha human being, but because she has been conditioned by the society to be so. When she posted the picture she expected many people to snigger along. And many undoubtedly did.
I am sure PZ did not intend this to be so, but this statement has in my mind potential to cause splash damage to people who suffer from anorexia/bulimia or “only” depression from bodyshaming. This is victim blaming. Remember – person can be victim and opressor at the same time. Sometimes indeed it is the victims who perpetuate the opression (peer pressure for conformity).
OK, damn this for a game of soldiers. I did not use any words that might be blacklisted and no links whatsoever, but that post seems to be un-postable. I guess it is somewhere in purgatory and I hope PZ gets around to reading it.
Akira @3 corrects “collegen” @2 to “collagen”.
“Collegian” would have been too weird, I guess.
so police will investigate because a woman posted an intrusive picture of another woman, with a rude but harmless (physically) caption appended; yet will not investigate repeated written death threats and physical abuse at a man from another disgruntled man.
I see feminism has made every sex perfectly equal in all things. /sarcasm
and police are perfectly fair in who they choose to investigate /sarcasm-squared
slithey tove (twas brillig (stevem)).
With all the unprocessed rape kits rotting in police basements, sure, women are totally getting catered to by police.
/sarcasm
Is that one of those magnetic bracelets? Heh, what an irrational turdblossom.
@throwaway, butcher of tongues, mauler of metaphor #29
Looks like a simple surgical-steel c-bracelet. My ex-wife had a similar one, it’s just jewelery.
As for the online posting of photos like this, the offensive part for me was the text about “unseeing” and the body-shaming. Since it’s been posted online it’s now immortal, but I get it’s problematic to repost it here (ableit with a body-positive message), although I’m not sure how it’s even possible show what you’re talking about without reposting the photo in some form or other. The significant points to me would be the illegality of taking such photos, the low-resolution with no identifying features and blacking out genital regions. Should PZ have linked to the original (and then the point is moot) or not posted anything at all (in which case the OP would be entirely theoretical and everyone who wanted to understand what was going on would have to google it, once more leading to the original and making the point moot).
=8)-DX,
Not pictured: photo of a naked older woman in the shower, as seen through the shower room door.
He could still post the photo of Dani Mathers.
Not all that difficult.
I keep imagining myself in that poor woman’s shoes and frankly… I’m starting to get pissed of at anyone reposting this or defending that action.
Thoughtless, cruel and stupid – pretty much then perfect trifecta. Hopefully, she still has time enough to mature out of this behaviour and stop being quite such a poisonous arsehat, though that said I would have thought that 29 was old enough to know better already – this type of ‘mean girl’, bullying display would be unbecoming of a person in their mid-teans, still less an adult with a full decade of legal maturity under their belt. Then again, it is sadly true that some people never succeed in growing out of the stage of being an empathy-free, self-obsessed waste of space.
I like to think that she will learn from this experience. That she will make the effort to find out what body shaming is and why it is so corrosive, and might even go on to use what she has done as an example of toxic behaviour that must be resisted, but only time will tell if she has that much social conscience or self awareness.
So many questions.
Why is there a glass door in the showers of that gym? Shouldn’t they have made more of an effort about privacy?
Also if Dani what part of your body do you hate? Because I’m yet to find someone who doesn’t loathe something about themselves.
Can I form a coherent sentence when I’m this tired and irritated? Probably not.
Or you can pixellate out or put a black block over the entire woman in the background, without taking anything away from the disgusting message printed across the bottom.
I, too, am uncomfortable with reposting the woman’s photo like this. If that was me, I’d be horrified. Even with the black bar. The rest of me, that’s my body, too, and no, it’s not for public viewing until I say so.
I bet the woman in the picture is not ashamed of her body.
Unlike Dani.
…
=8)-DX #30
If your ex was wearing a bracelet that looked like that, it was a magical magnetic bracelet.
Jewelry steel bracelets don’t look like that.
re: glass doors
so you can see inside the small, enclosed space before you choose to enter it.
.
The photos seem to have been taken from inside the sauna.
Dani is fully clothed, wearing metal jewellery, wearing a music device.
So the sauna was not on.
So Dani went in there for the purpose of taking that picture of the other woman.
Dani is contemptible.
@33 gijoel
Glass is easier to keep clean/mold-free and easier to see that it’s clean.
@ slithey tove (twas brillig (stevem)).
I am trying to parse your argument. It seems to be that if a police force in one jurisdiction fails to investigate a crime against a man, then all police forces everywhere must fail to investigate crimes against women or feminism is bad??
Why is the failure of police in one jurisdiction requiring punishment of women in every other jurisdiction by ignoring crimes against them?
Why must police everywhere treat older white men perfectly before police in every jurisdiction can appropriately investigate crimes against women?
Do you understand that these are different jurisdictions and police forces, with different laws to enforce, different funding, cultures and priorities? Why aren’t you celebrating that at least one of them is doing their job properly?
Your sexism is showing in your logic fail.
@chigau (違う) #35
Because of course, you know my ex and her propensity for woo and you’ve personally seen, held and worn the bracelet I was describing? No, my ex didn’t have a magical magnetic bracelet. Perhaps there are magical bracelets sold with the same general design, but that would not negate my point. Looking again, it’s probably a more flexible type of bracelet (with coiled metal instead of being one piece), but I don’t see any specific “magic magnet” parts on it so my comment that there are perfectly ordinary jewelery bracelets similar to that in response to throwaway’s bare naked conjecture of its woo-i-ness still seems appropriate.
@chris61 #37
Agreed. Also visually connected, “open” showering-sauna-spa spaces in this type of facility are enjoyed by many of us who don’t want to always have to be closed up in little rooms when relaxing (while respecting people who feel otherwise and the need for facilities/sheets to accommodate them in equal measure).
And if that was a sauna (and chigau (違う) makes a relevant point about how creepy that feels), glass doors on saunas would help anyone in distress inside to be more easily seen by personnel or others outside and allow them to better signal for help.
Yeah… as someone who has been deeply affect by society’s fetishisation of youth, and does tend to suffer from body image problems related to no longer being in my twenties (heck, even when I was in my twenties I felt old and past it), it does seem a little hurtful implying that the condition is self-inflicted.
Obviously this woman’s thoughtless behaviour is unacceptable. That’s not up for debate. But as others have said above, it is also symptomatic of wider social pressures that many of us try to ignore but can’t quite seem to.
It amazes me whenever I see something like “omg she got so old” as a criticism. Yeah no shit, it’s called time and no one is immune you fucking idiot.
“If I can’t unsee this, then you can’t either”
At least this is correct. I can’t unsee the stupid expression on Mathers’ face.
Nudeoldies. com shows some older women that are perfectly comfortable with their bodies. And because I don’t discriminate I recommend nudeoldme. tumblr. com as well.
PZ is right – these old geezers have the last laugh.
I’ve got to agree with Beatrice and rq: It probably would’ve been best not to include the picture of the naked woman that is the target of this other woman’s ridicule. There’s obviously nothing wrong with the woman’s body (she has the usual complement of heads and limbs, and no unusual pigmentation), so it’s hard to figure out exactly what I’m supposed to “unsee”, but nothing is really gained by reproducing the image in yet another location and furthering the victimization.
To answer some questions:
Most LA Fitness locker rooms that I have visited are laid out pretty much the same. The women’s sauna is across the hall from the toilets and the showers. It does have a glass window for the safety of anyone who might be trapped inside.
I have seen many young women enter the sauna fully clothed and with their earbuds in so that they can listen to music while sweating.
It looks rather uncomfortable to me. I sometimes use the sauna while wearing my swimsuit to warm up a bit if the pool was a bit on the cold side. To each their own. I’m disabled, and when I get into the shower, I’m busy hanging up my crutches and my gym bag, so I tend to “let it all hang out”. Even though I’m disabled, I have no problem with showing my body. However, there are many ladies at my gym who do. They tend to tie up the handicapped restroom stall to get dressed (grrr) rather than getting dressed in the locker room with the rest of us.
It’s not like the police investigate internet death threats against women either. I mean, Briana Wu made that point the other day when teh death threats against the police where taken seriously, despite the fact that hundreds against her were not.
If I had to guess, it’s because police think the threats themselves don’t really matter, since the operating assumption seems to be that the internet isn’t real, and thraets made there doubly so. The privacy violation is more comprehensible within a structure that dismisses the internet. Also, there’s a skinny white model involved which makes the story eye-catching and is presumably why it has been diseminated so widely. (That’s not a criticism of it being widely disseminated. Just, I find it difficult ot believe that this sort of thing doesn’t happen from time to time or even regularly but not by people with a significant following.)
On second thought, I’m overreading. There doesn’t really need to be a theory about why two different departments don’t act the same way. There could be a revealing systemic issue, or not. It’s not like you can tell from two cases.
@ck, the Irate Lump #48
Oh. Shit. I’m now biting my tongue. Of course that depends on how the woman would respond to reading a blogpost like this (it might be overall positive) something we can’t know unless she said so, but then .. yeah. Not a good idea. Link/reference without showing would be better.
Showing the picture is splash damage to people with body image issues who aren’t the woman in question anyway. I guarantee there is at least one person for every one who is saying “but she looks fine!” who is thinking “oh god if there’s a problem with HER, I must be subhuman.”
What she did was a gross violation of privacy and she should be punished to the full extent possible. Further, thus sort of overt body shaming is counterproductive.
But let us not pretend that all people are equally beautiful or have the same erotic capital. They clearly don’t.
It’s so, so wrong that women are exclusuvely based on looks. But looks, for any and all genders, are relevant.
I’m saying this as a queer person that is extremely unattractive to the point where finding partners is a struggle. It should be a source of shame if you don’t have the capital to get needs fulfilled.
Dani is strabismic.
ewww
I guess they spent too much time on her tits.
Good point.
As Frank Zappa said, the ugliest part of some person’s body can be their mind.
Your mind is incredibly ugly.
Inside Mike Smith is a 4 foot tall, warty skinned, green troll. Not that there is anything wrong with it. People’s taste vary and I’m sure to another troll, Mike Smith looks simply irresistible.
@Raven
I know what I am and I know where I fall on the great issues. If you think I’m a troll, fine. Ignore me. It’s no skin off my back if people don’t respond.
But yes not every one has a pleasant personality. I know I’m grating on top of being ugly. It’s yet another reason my erotic capital is so low.
I should be ashamed of this, and I am. I use to be a lot worse trust me. I’m working on it. Ttfn
raven the troll
you are also boring
You weren’t really so much grating as wildly wrong. Just like your last marathon on the worth of unreal hypotheticals.
1. People’s idea of attractiveness is personalized. Different people differ wildly,
It changes through time. It changes with age and experience.
2. Most of all it changes with familiarity and interpersonal feelings, that mind thing. The saying goes, familiarity makes the beautiful less and the plain more attractive.
3. Most of what I asserted is just common sense or personal observations. Your mileage may vary. I will back up one statement with a psychology abstract from the NLM.
Oh man, opposing anti-discrimination legislation and body positivity? The “Mike Smith is a Shitty Person” article just gets more and more citations with each post.
@vivec
You really have trouble reading and/or understanding what I wrote. I’m not anti-body positivity. I’m anti-blinders. A person shouldn’t be shamed for their looks nor should the unattractive be told they are beautiful. I’m saying this as a person who is deeply profoundly unattractive. I’ve been more damaged by people telling me I’m fine and looking for dates than being called fat. My life improved 1000% once I accepted this and went about business in a way that accommodated this fact.
Humanists ought to deal with with reality and people as they are, not as we wish them to be
Talking about beauty or lack of attractiveness as some general, objective thing is silly.
It’s a heavily personalized thing that is also largely affected by how and where people are socialized.
Case in point, I don’t find anything remotely unattractive about fatness. That might go against the popular preference, but that doesn’t mean it’s transgressing some absolute standard of beauty.
@Raven
You are straw manning me. Nothing I said doesn’t allow for subjective values of personal looks or changes in attractions across time. Or “feelings” to lend more heft to an attraction.
However, there clearly are standards/types that most people desire. These standards are heavily influenced by culture and change over time. But that doesn’t mean they are not there or people are wise to ignore them. There’s no reason to kick against the pricks; it does no good.
Look I’m fat. And I’m 32 which is basically a senior in queer space. This means the odds of me finding a person who finds me attractive is extremely low, maybe 5% of queer men will be attracted to my body type. It’s highly unlikely that I will find a person that I also like who is into fat people.
This is what I meant by erotic capital. The goods I’m selling few people are buying. There’s nothing objective about it but it is what is.
Now I don’t think I should be mocked/shamed for being fat. But I also don’t need people blowing unicorns and sunshine up my wazoo about every one being equally attractive.
Everyone is a 10 to somebody; the better off are 10 to more people.
It’s far better for people to see themselves as they are. You shouldn’t be ashamed of your body, but you shouldn’t try to write checks with it that it can’t cash.
Oh yeah that there are popular types are displayed everywhere: porn, movies, sports, social settings, etc.
I mean, I guess I would agree if your definition of attractive is “a person that coincides with society’s current preferences for appearance”, but I think that’s a silly definition.
mercy
would mercy be good?
@vivec
Nothing I’m saying depends on absolute objective standards. That fatness is unpopular is enough to make my point.
I’m all for people having less pressure placed on them. I’m not for people being lied to.
Like or not, no matter where it comes from or if it changeable in the long run ornot, fatness is held by most people to be unattractive. Insofar as I’m alive in 2016, I must accommodate that fact. It’s false to say I’m attractive to most people, which in short hand means I’m unattractive. I have to accept that. Because otherwise I’m living in a fantasy world. And it hurts me more to try to be something I’m not.
I reject that “unnattractive” is a valid synonym for “not within current beauty standards”.
There are people that fit the latter group that I find highly unattractive in appearance, and people that fit the former that I am highly attracted to.
Er, that is why you don’t frankenstein two posts together.
What I mean to say is that there are people that fit the current standards of beaty that I find highly unattractive – most in that group, actually- and people that don’t meet those standards that I am heavily attracted to.
As to the assertion that we shouldn’t push back against the pricks or that doing such serves no purpose, I couldn’t agree more.
@vivec
How else would you define attractiveness? We don’t have reliable access to other people’s attractions. We have is the standards that are displayed in the media.
I’m all for a wider range of bodies in the media BTW but people have zero control over their attractions. As such people like Jake Gyllenhaal are always going to beat the Seth Organs of the world.
Something like “the degree to which some individual feels the bundle of feelings collectively referred to as ‘attraction’ towards the person in question”
That accounts for the fact that a majority can find someone unnattractive without summarily declaring them objectively unattractive just because most people aren’t attracted to them.
I also disagree that people have zero control over their aesthetic attractions, given that it is at least partially, if not primarily, affected by society and upbringing.
I meant Seth Rogan. Autocorrect.
I’m taking the line that if attractiveness doesn’t mean “aligns with societal norms of beauty” then it has no meaningful import. I don’t experience other’s attractions
Regardless of that issue, whatever you call it, it is still for people to meet the standard or not. This states of affairs needs some word or phrase to flag it. It’s still important that people know when they don’t meet it.
“Considered unattractive according to current standards” does that job just fine. Or, even just “considered unattractive.”
I’m sure more Americans like hamburgers than Kokoreç, but I think it’d be silly to call the latter less tasty in some general, objective sense.
@vivec
1) I have no way of applying that definition in practices. I don’t see othes’ attractions, ever. Being thought nobody had empirical access to it. I however do see bodies. What’s wrong with this judgment? Its not a moral one. The problem comes when people assign moral worth which I fully reject.
2) I’m fine granting attractions are malleable to socialization. But I have zero control over that. People, collectively accross time, may be able to adjust attractions. That still doesn’t mean I can shape my attractions at will. I’m not attracted to fat men/bears. I’ve spent a considerable part of life trying to be given my looks. I find I can’t change this. You can’t will the content of your will.
I see no practical difference between ‘unattractive’ and ‘considered unattractive.’ They both imply not meeting standards and neither seems to shield feelings any better.
They both subject people to collective subjectivity which may or may not be a firm of objectivity but in any case gets treated as such in practice.
1. People voice their position on someone’s attractiveness all the time – usually without having to be asked.
If you’re talking about some kind of hyperskeptic WELL HOW DO I KNOW HOW THEY REALLY FEEL ON THE MATTER question, I’m completely disinterested in the question.
People seem perfectly willing to act in accordance with their voiced opinions on someone’s attractiveness.
2. “I can’t do x” doesn’t logically imply “it must therefore be impossible for anyone to do x”.
I reject that “x is considered unattractive to most” is equivalent in practice to “x is objectively unattractive”.
Surely, as someone who’s been on the internet for more than five minutes, you can tell that there are untold thousands of people attracted to fatness in particular, to the point that the community surrounding pretty much every popular work of fiction has a contingent that is specifically attracted to characters re-imagined to be fat. Such would not occur if fatness was objectively unattractive.
@vivec
When I’m walking along the street I do not have access to anybody attractions the same way I do to everybody’s body. To apply my definition I merely have to go look and see. To use yours I am dependent on self reporting which can be trusted to an extent* but is unwieldy to use.
*it is extremely easy to generate cases where self reporting attractions are likely false. Roy Cohn reported all his life he was heterosexual. I don’t for a second believe that. Fat shaming also covers shaming people for liking fat people so the lack of reporting such in meat space is to be expected.
2) no logically it doesn’t follow. But it’s damn good evidence that it is not a thing. I have never heard of a person changing their attractions at will either. There is a shut ton of evidence that “ex gay therapy” doesn’t work. If people could change their attractions at will that wouldn’t be the case.
3) the two senses are not equally in concept which is why fat loving people can be a thing, but the two senses don’t change practices. A person who is objectively unattractive if such objectively would exist is not going to be treated differently from a person who most people find unattractive.
The objectively ugly person will have trouble bonding and the person most find unattractive is also going to have trouble finding partners.
Likewise, thinking fatness is objectively unattractive can accommodate date people being attracted to fatness. To wit, they like fatness because it’s unattractive.
I don’t see why it’s important to preserve a distinction that only comes into play two levels up from the practical. It makes no difference to me if a person likes fatness because they are attracted to fat or if they like fatness because they shouldn’t.
Also I think online spaces greatly exaggerate people who find fatness attractive. By my experience, and trust me I’ve looked extensively, asexuals (~1% of the population) are 3 to 4 times more common. Exocorns are more plentiful then people attracted to fatness.
Most of the queer spaces I’ve been in that are set up for that have been extremely sad in that it was a bunch of bears all playing pretend.
Further I’m taking the negative side on the question if people can change their attractions at will. The burden of proof falls on you to demonstrate otherwise given how alien to idea is.
Everyone I have ever met has 1)been attracted to someone they wish they weren’t 2) not attracted to some one they wish they were.
Mike, what exactly do you want? If it’s for everyone to agree with you that fat=ugly with no exceptions ever, I’m afraid you’re doomed to disappointment.
Besides, who determines what is “ugly fat” and what is cuddly or curvy or voluptuous? Standards change over time. Different people find different things attractive.
1. So it is the hyperskeptic stance. If you think so, cool, I just actually don’t give a shit about ~what people really think.~
2. “Not being able to change some particular attraction x” does not logically imply that it is impossible to change attractions in general.
3. Well, I suppose the difference is immaterial if you don’t care which of the two is actually true. There is at least one person that is attracted to fat people for reasons other than them being considered unattractive, so it can’t be that they’re objectively unattractive.
Ultimately I think this really a semantic argument. I don’t agree with your definition of attractiveness/unattractiveness, nor do I believe the idea that there’s a single person on the planet that is unattractive/attractive in some ultimate sense, just relative to the popular conception.
If it really just boils down to whether or not we prefer one definition over the other, I’m fine agreeing to disagree. I think you’re wrong, but I stand nothing to gain by trying to make you adopt my viewpoint. The discussion is equal in ultimate value to one about the virtues of Mike Nelson vs Joel Hodgson.
Joel is the right answer, by the way.
I’m not taking the stance that it’s possible for someone to do such, I just remain unconvinced that it is impossible. That I do not believe it is impossible does not therefore mean that I believe it is possible.
If someone hands me a locked box and tells me it’s full of some certain kind of bean, me failing to accept the claim that there is an odd amount of beans in the box does not therefore entail that I believe that there is an even amount. I could be just as unconvinced of the “beans are even” hypothesis.
@vivec
1) nope. I fully granted that most self reporting is reliable. I only highlighted a couple of cases where it wouldn’t be. My objection is rooted in trying to use your definition. I’m not in a place to say someone is attractive unless I find them attractive or hear some number of people say that they. To use mine I only have to look.
Case in point: I go to a dinner and there is a new waitress (only using a woman because of being queer) and she looks like oh Michelle Obama. Nobody states if they find her attractive. I’m not attracted to women. The new waitress was really good at her job. I go home and tell my straight roommate about the new waitress. He asks me if the new waitress is attractive. Using your definition I can not answer that question at that time. I have no basis in my own attractions and no reports of others. Using mine yes if course I can answer yes.
3) it is not a mere semantic disagreement but I’m fine leaving it alone. I think you are trying to gave your cake and eat it too.
there are many things that could be said about this subject.
it is a cheap joke at the expense of someone who did not give permission which is also a an invasion of the privacy of the un-consenting person.
there is much that could be said and has been said about the issue of body image and beauty specifically and generally .
I want to focus on the caption
I am kind of amazed that someone of that age has never seen anything like that before. How could an ordinary woman of that age be some sheltered for so long.
There are many ways to react to seeing naked old age I am reminded of the story of Siddhārtha Gautama who had a much different reaction.
uncle frogy
Caine @ 5
First of all, I’m sorry for not reply sooner. It’s been a day.
My intent was not to body shame, but to make fun of the narcissistic “live fast, die young, leave a pretty corpse” attitude of celebrity culture. However, as it has been pointed out many times before, intent is not magic.
I apologize to everyone for my thoughtlessness and own myself an ass. I’ll try and manage it better the next time.
Sure you can. You can ask what his standards of attractiveness are, and can then see if the waitress matches them sufficiently to qualify. Furthermore, you can say that, according to society’s standards, she qualifies or not.
If I’d never seen Seth Rogen before and I asked if they’re cute, a friend could say “I don’t know, kinda chubby guy with brown hair and glasses.” and I’d go “Yep, sounds cute to me”, because I find chubby people, brown hair, and glasses attractive qualities.
If you’re asking whether or not you could determine if Seth Rogen or the waitress are attractive in some ultimate sense, I don’t believe said ultimate form of attractiveness exists, so no.
Regardless, I do think this is the most productive conversation we’ve had yet, so I’m thankful for that, at least.
@vivec
2) don’t be coy with me. You flatly denied that it was impossible to change attractions up thread. You are not suspending judgment in the question.
This point came up in the context that it is important for people to be aware of where they generally stand in relation to popular standards as individuals don’t seem to control their attractions. If you are suspending judgment on the question I have to ask why? Should a fat person not take into account that yes most people will not be attracted to them? Because it’s possible that some one can will there attractions? To what end are you being skeptical about this?
Second, I am not claiming some sort if metaphysical/logical impossibility on this point. I’m claiming that as a general practical rule attractions seem inviolable to willful control. I’m not claiming it is impossible, I’m claiming it doesn’t seem possible. You’re demanding evidence for a claim I’m not making, don’t need to make and unfairly stretches what I am saying beyond the somewhat narrow point I’m making
To wit, attractions do not seem to be under willful control:
1) I have never willed it and have never heard of anyone doing so.
2) there’s reams of evidence of highly motivated individuals not being able to do it via a vis “ex gay” (in the same vein there is a lot if data that shows gay men have a lot of physical similarities, hair whorls, pene size, birth order etc.)
3) there’s clearly biological elements to physical attractions. I.e. hormones, biochemistry of the brain.
4) socialization is also outside individual control; in no sense did I choose to be raised Mormon.
5) other somewhat similar brain states, ie happiness, also seem largely uncontrolled by willful volition. To make yourself gappy you have to do something that makes you happy. You can’t just flip a happy switch in your mind.
6) free will in general seems suspect as umm the universe is causal.
Now does that prove that attractions at will are impossible? No it doesn’t but that isn’t what I need. If we take things as they seem to be practically speaking it really seems as if attractions are not subject to volition.
Now either address these lines of evidence, present different lines if evidence that do show it as possible, or grant the point.
Stop being coy and hiding behind logical possibility. It’s virtually impossible to demonstrate anything up to that standard. I can’t demonstrate that unicorns are not a logical possibility. And it is logically true that all unicorns have only one horn.
@Anne
I don’t want people to think that fatness is objectively ugly. I certainly don’t want more pressure on people especially woman/feminine+ people. I don’t want people to be shamed by not being attractive.
But at the same time it can be highly damaging to not be honest about this stuff. Case in point: Hairspray (any version) is tremendously good at celebrating bodily difference. It’s 90% on point. But unfortunately it has Tracy end up with Link. Now that isn’t impossible to happen. But a Tracy getting a Link is a kin to winning the lottery. I’m saying this as a “Tracy.” It’s hugely damaging to hold that up as bound to happen as, Hairspray does. 15+ years those sort of messages damaged me.
You shouldn’t be taught to hate your body. Likewise you shouldn’t be taught that everybody gas the same erotic capital. We don’t.
I’m a body realist.
Because it’s irrational to accept a claim that isn’t supported by sufficient evidence to justify it being true or most likely true. This is the same standard I hold any claim to.
Said fat person is free to do whatever they want. I just reject the claim that said fat person is objective unattractive, nor unattractive in any general, ultimate sense.
Indeed, because I remain unconvinced that it is impossible. I am not taking the position that it is therefore possible.
Doesn’t prove it is impossible. It could be done outside of your sample size.
Doesn’t prove it’s impossible. Sexual orientation could be impossible to change, but attractions on other axes could be.
Fuck me, I hate forgetting to close a blockquote.
Doesn’t prove it’s impossible to change. That it has biological elements doesn’t mean that it’s impossible to counteract those elements.
Doesn’t prove it’s impossible. That you were socialized into believing something doesn’t mean you can’t later come to believe something different. That is, in fact, very common.
I’m not sure I even believe this one. I’ve given myself mental peptalks into happiness all the time.
I think free will is incredibly ill-defined, but in most cases I’m inclined to agree. So, sure.
Absent of sufficient evidence to discount the claim that attraction is immutable, I reject that claim. I do not therefore accept the claim that it’s possible.
And here we go full circle. I don’t think that unattractive people exist, the way you’re using it.
A person can be unattractive to someone in particular, or unattractive to people at large, but that doesn’t make them “an unattractive person” anymore than the fact that people in america prefer hamburgers makes kokorec an “unappetizing food”
To wit; my partner is the most attractive person I’ve ever seen, despite not adhering to societal standards of attractiveness for either gender. Why should their opinion on the matter be any more important than mine or my partner’s?
If everyone prefers vanilla to chocolate ice cream, does that make vanilla better? How many subjective opinions of quality does it take for this to count as functionally equivalent to it being objectively that quality?
Mike Smith,
I think you’re projecting your own personal issues as more universal than they are.
You’re saying that body positivity shouldn’t be too positive while giving an example of a single movie where a conventionally unattractive woman “gets” a conventionally attractive man.
For one, these occasions in movies are an exception, not a rule. Saying that they are too unrealistic and will cause misery because people will see it as a possibility .. . that’s not exactly shaming but it’s certainly not body positive.
I’m really sorry you feel that way, but I strongly disagree you should extrapolate from “this example of body positivity made me have unrealistic expectations” to “body positivity should be carefully measured not to give people unrealistic expectations.”
Because … are they even unrealistic? I have my own personal issues with how I look/am/feel/relate to others. Sometimes, it’s easier to think that no one would ever be attracted to me or love me because it mitigates the disappointment. Things are as they are, I (pretend, mostly to myself that I) have accepted them so I don’t have to feel bad over and over again. Just occasionally, when the pretense fails.
So reading you sounds as if, for example, I had been strongly influenced by a movie where a sad, antisocial girl gets a great guy, felt I could be that girl and when I wasn’t claimed that these movies are harmful. No, the way I bring myself down is harmful. To me.
@vivec
If I say that the waitress us attractive to societal standards I’m using my conception with more words. I don’t see the point.
Now you keep harping on the ultimate/objective thing. I really don’t like getting into this because it can sprawl quickly.
Anyway, collective subjective judgments can take on a lot of the characteristics of being objective. One way of defining objective is as “what can not reasonably denied.” A lot of subjective judgment have this.
Case in point: the claim that the Iliad is a good story.
Goodness here basically only means that the vast majority if expert opinion, individual reactions across time and space and cultures have reacted favorably to the Iliad. But given the boarder context of conversation(s) it’s unreasonable to deny that claim.
Now this quasi-objectivity is different from say math, but there’s something to it.
Likewise, it strikes me as plainly unreasonable to deny that Brad Pitt is attractive because of this deeper issue of what to make collective subjective judgments.
Haggis is plainly untasteful.
I certainly don’t find him attractive.
I find your conception just as trivial and uninteresting as the claim that she is attractive according to societal standards, or the claim that more people like vanilla ice cream than chocolate, then.
For once in my life, I am likely to agree with you on something.
@vivec
Re: attraction volitions.
1) demonstrate to me that God is logically impossible. Otherwise I have no grounds to be an atheist!
2) I’m plainly saying that I am not claiming it is impossible, I’m claiming that it doesn’t seem possible. Different claims, different standards.
Much like it is different to say God does not exist vs I don’t believe in God.
3) much if you handwaving is besides the point. To wit to respond to the “ex gay” evidence by going that doesn’t show impossibility it could happen on different axis! Yeah no shit sherlock it could but I’m not claiming that. What I am claiming is this if people’s attraction were under volitionak control we could reasonable expect “ex gay therapy” to work. But “ex gay therapy” doesn’t work, so it seems doubtful that volition us involved with attractions.
It doesn’t demonstrate impossibility. It does demonstrate the implausibility.
Free will god be the answer to the problem of evil but that’s not fucking likely.
X) if you grant that free will seems implausible that tips the scales in the favor if my claim. It means generally that the stress is too find evidence for the act if will. Not evidence for the impossibility of it.
In what world is conventionally unattractive people being told they’re conventionally attractive physically a big problem we need to combat?
I’m pretty sure people who don’t fall within the bounds of conventional physical attractiveness are well aware of it and being told otherwise isn’t a big problem. We’re judged based on appearance all the time. When we fall short of societal expectations, appearance-wise, it’s pretty damn apparent.
I’m trying to figure out what harm people whose appearances fall outside what it considered conventionally attractive having positive body images would do anyways. Fat people who don’t hate themselves? Older people unashamed of being nude in the sauna? Madness!
@Beatrice
1) Hairspray isn’t the only example; it just happens to be the one that springs to mind. But oh people telling me to x bar, or there’s always someone for everyone, or there’s an entire community for people like me! Just keep looking! That’s there is a thing called a chubby chaser. Gay publication berating gay men for having the sort if attractions they do etc.
I’ve been told repeatedly that it’s OK to be the way I am and if people are not interested it’d on them you such a great person!
The second part is BS. My body/looks are unappealing. I shouldn’t be ashamed of that, likewise I shouldn’t expect anybody to be interested. It’s unreasonable to expect anyone to be attracted to me.
It is what it is. I’m a body realist.
2) have you ever seen a Tracy with a Link? I haven’t not in meatspace.
I don’t hold that god is logically impossible, nor is that implied by being an atheist.
I reject the claim that any particular god exists from lack of evidence, but it could very well be that there is a god.
One just couldn’t be rationally justified in believing in one, given the lack of said evidence.
Why is that? Sexual orientation and aesthetic attraction are fairly different things, given the wide degree of variation of the latter, regardless of the individuals stance on the former.
That I can’t throw a frisbee correctly doesn’t lend evidence to the claim that it is impossible to throw fastballs.
Like I said, I think that free will is a poorly defined term, and it might just be the case that we just have to assume that “the appearance of free will” is what we refer to when we say “free will”.
Kinda how like, given the problem of solipsism, we have to treat “the reality i experience” as the reference for the word “reality” to have any meaningful conversation.
@98
Oh no body shaming is where most of the stress should be placed. That’s the bigger issue by several magnitudes.
The problem comes from the expectations of needing to/being able to peer bond, regardless of physical attractiveness.
@vivec
And I don’t particularly the Iliad. WTF does that have to do with what I said?
I’m reluctant to go here but there’s naturally a transcendental argument here. If there weren’t shared standards (in that sense objective) then we couldn’t track what people meant by attractiveness
Nothing, it was a snarky aside, just like your haggis one.
Are we really making a transcendental argument for objective standards of beauty?
Okay, fine, consider this.
A; Hey B, do you think C is attractive?
B: I dunno, what is he like?
A: He has traits X, Y, and a really big Z.
B: Oh, yeah, I like those. Sure, he sounds cute.
What part of that needs transcendent objective standards of beauty to suss out?
I guess part of the problem is that you seem to treat attractiveness as a quality possessed by the person in question, rather than a subjective determination made by an outside observer.
I don’t think “unattractive people” exist. I think there are people that are considered unattractive, but I don’t think that therefore means that they therefore have the quality “unattractive” without qualifications.
Also, it’s like midnight for me, so I’m gonna have to bow out, probably until after work tomorrow. Take that as a victory as you will.
Also, for the record, I don’t think you’re nearly as bad a person as I thought you were going into this. So, congrats for managing to convince me of that, I guess.
@vivec
1) oh good you can track the relevant evidence difference.
Like claiming there is no good reason to think there is a god, I’m claiming there is no good reason to think attractions are volitional.
2) sexual orientation is defined by sexual attractions. As such if sexual attractions were volitional it seems to follow sexual orientation would be as well because it’s exhaustively defined by sex attractions. There’s nothing more to be a gay man then finding other men attractive.
I do not know what you mean by aesthetic attractions. But if you mean that people show a large degree of variation in type, I don’t believe that is true. Evidence? Most gay men only like jocks and twinks for example. Second even if that is true I fail to see how gender is anything but a more generalized type. So again I’m not seeing how you can ignore this line of thought.
Your metaphor is misplaced. This isn’t Frisbee vs fastball. It’s slider vs breaking ball. So yes if nobody could throw a slider I don’t find it reasonable to expect them to be able to throw a breaking ball.
3) be that as it may the stess then is to find the appearance if the act if will.
Where us this appearance? Again I find my attractions completely beyond my control.
@vivec
The standards are guiding which traits to talk about.
The collective standards are guiding selection.
If there’s nothing shared between A and B, A would not gave an idea what to talk about.
@vivec
Yes attractiveness (to others) is a quality that a person has. It’s not merely in the mind of the observer, even through it’s generated through subjective experience.
If it wasn’t like this it would be impossible to say things like:
Brad Pitt can reasonable expect to take home 99% he wishes too.
It is unreasonable of me to expect to be able to meet a person who finds me attractive at a random queer venue.
She could make lot of money being a model
Etc.
That we can talk about things like this means there is something that we all have access too that bears on the question. It’s ultimately subjective because it’s a matter if tastes but there’s a quasi-objectivity about it as well.
It would certainly be nice if people didn’t lie and say looks don’t matter as it’s horribly condescending and dishonest. Of course they fucking do. People are superficial. As a result, appearances will impact with how much ease one navigates life.
I don’t think most of us ever believed nonsense like “There’s someone for everyone” and “It’s what’s on the inside that counts” and “People will fall in love with your personality” though. I mean, did we? I never believed it. I always knew people who were considered attractive by more people would have easier lives, socially.
@108
I did internalize such messages. Those are what I’m railing against.
It’s profoundly unlikely I ever have a boyfriend again. I’m not angry at gay men for that. I’m angry at people saying I should expect that while attraction shaming gay men for not liking fat people.
It’s fine to be fat. It’s fine to not be attracted to fat people. It’s not OK to tell fat people they can find someone and shame others for not dating fat people.
We should just be honest and upfront. You’re not a bad person for being fat, but it’s unreasonable to expect love.
It is what it is. I’ve learned to accept this in the last year.
Can should be will in the above
Not only is it dumb to make fun of people’s appearance, but this is making fun of old age, something that happens to all of us, unless we die too early to get there. What the hell.
In the porn industry, with her 29 years Mathers would already be considered a MILF. End of career is approaching fast.
@49 I stand corrected.
The petty arrogance of youth. What she and many others who have yet to see a gray hair on their heads don’t seem to realize is that you can have a perfect diet, exercise 5 times a week, get plenty of sleep, have sex on a regular basis (yeah, that’s important in a lot of ways), do your best to keep your mind sharp and have long-lived parents and guess what? You still grow old. And, perhaps just as important, growing old is not a crime! That woman in the photo has done nothing wrong. Do you think she wants to look that way? That’s why she’s in the gym, for crissakes. If only the buffed and beautiful went to gyms they would go out of business before you could read through one of their contracts.
I won’t say that we’re programmed to self-destruct, but having recently passed the big 60 it sure seems that way to me at times.
This statement is objectively false. There are many many people who are fat and in loving relationships.
Maybe it’s not your looks, but your attitude that is causing your lack of relationships.
@Rowan
Unless the number is 51+% of fat people are in loving relationships after becoming fat (I.e. the person didn’t stick with them through weight gain), then yes it is unreasonable.
I do not believe that 51% of fat people are able to peer bond once they are heavy. In so far that is true it isn’t reasonable for a fat person to think they can peer bond.
I’m open to be corrected. Any sort of evidence that 51+℅ of people of size peer bonded after be umm heavy. Surveys? Studies?
Because in my experience every single fat person I know is either single or gained the weight after peer bonding.
It’s worse when you consider my queerness. I don’t know a single fat gay man who isn’t single or in a loveless relationship because they are terrified if being alone.
Presumably such people exist; I’ve yet to meet them. If we are going to trade personal stories subject to all sorts if bias I’m going to trust mine first.
re 115:
it is unreasonable to expect love. Even if one is a top model with many adoring fans. Adulation is NOT love, uh uh. Expecting love is unreasonable even if one is totally nice and everything. Love is not an emotion that one should expect to be given. It is an emotion that a person freely chooses to give to another. Hope for, is more proper than expect.
[or so my grammar sense tells me]
I consider myself more healthy for not settling for another bear/cub. It’s extremely sad to talk to the bear couples I know. None if them are passionate about their partners and they ended up together because they were they best each other could “buy” with their erotic capital.
@117
I don’t mean love in that sense. I don’t think that sort of love exists. I mean much more basic feelings of erotic attraction and kinship and fondness.
Not agape as agape is not a thing that actually happens. We are too fundamentally alone for that to actually happen.
Mike,
I’m realy sorry about the issues you have with your weight, and your love/sex/romantic life, but your extrapolation of your own experience to everyone is fuckin fat shaming
Be so kind zo stop being an asshole on the tppic. This thread, with that photo on the top, is shit enough.
Yes. Your bitterness is probably exactly the reason because *I* certainly wouldn’t want to be with someone displaying your attitude.
I’m fat. I wasn’t when I met my now boyfriend, but I was when I asked him out for the first time. My boyfriend is also fat. Has been since I met him. I find him very aesthetically pleasing AND he is a gentle, kind, forgiving person with a nicely sarcastic sense of humor. His attitude is definitely even more of an attracter than his looks (though I tend to like heavier guys with beards). I’ve had ‘conventionally attractive’ guys interested in me. One of them turned into a stalker because I rejected him because *he* was creepy and full of ‘Oh WOE IS ME’ which was aggravating to be around. His fragile ego needed constant supporting and being his friend was fucking draining. I certainly wasn’t going to *date* someone like that.
Also, yes, love does exist. I may be asexual, but I still feel romantic love. It’s not just kinship and fondness.
Not that my opinion matters much, but I don’t think Mathers is very attractive at all.
My wife is a bit like the lady in the gym shower. She is 41 years old, had two children (which shows) and has struggled with her weight for years. I still think she’s the foxiest woman in the universe.
This thread seems to be a long pity party by MS.
The biggest sexual organ in humans is their brain.
If you are constantly sending off vibes that you dislike yourself, or only want to talk about yourself, most people will not spend much time with you, as you seem unpleasant.
If you show people you are interested in them, and are really paying attention to them, people will want to spend time with you. Even I know that. But, as Rowan #121 says, the other people can demand too much, and be a real unpleasant turn-off.
If they spend enough pleasant time with you, who knows what might happen. With me, it was the Redhead.
Sigh…
Mike, I know that sometimes talking about one’s problems and issues and insecurities online can be a cathartic or helpful experience. Especially among a group as generally friendly, progressive and understanding as tends to be found here and especially if you don’t have such a forum elsewhere to talk about such things. I often feel like doing so myself, and sometimes I end up posting a comment or two that owes more to my own insecurities than to any reasonable desire to discuss the issue at hand or contribute to an understanding of it. Or I make a crap joke and move on.
You seem to be trying to win an argument though, and to get others to support the conclusions about love, relationships and social life you have come to in order to feel better in yourself. Somewhat zealously and frantically too. I get the impression that doing so is as much a coping mechanism for you as anything else. I get a real sense that you feel you need to convince everyone else that your way of thinking is the right one, because it matters quite a lot to your self esteem and self worth.
I can’t bring myself to condemn that. Self esteem is a tricky beast. I can say, though, that you come across as confrontational, grating, a little bit self-righteous and rather off-putting, which probably rubs people up the wrong way and causes needless aggravation. I can also say that I’m not sure this line of disputation is really helping anyone. It looks a fair bit like raking open old wounds to me.
You’re not the only person who hasn’t found love in this world and would really quite like to. It’s not fair, it’s painful, and it sucks. Especially when we are surrounded by media messages that extol the virtues of being a happy, loving part of a couple, or when all our friends and peers have been in long-term relationships and seem joyous and content and enriched by it. I’ve been there myself. All my adult life. I’m there still. It’s pretty crap.
But it helps to get some perspective. We are encouraged to see love and relationships as the most central and fulfilling part of existence, and made to feel like failures if we can’t access that. This does not have to be so. There is plenty more to life than love and relationships. It’s fine to be jealous, it’s fine to fume and grate your teeth and bemoan how unfair life is. But ultimately we do have to move beyond apportioning blame and feeling hard done by and get on with enjoying the other things life can offer. There’s really nothing in life that only a romantic relationship can fulfil. Friends, family, social connections of all kinds can be cultivated. Hobbies can be enjoyed. Even sex can be done alone – personally I’ve enjoyed the solo effort far more than any of the few awkward and anxious times I ever managed to secure it in company.
One can argue the semantics of whether “attractiveness” has an objective existence in re extra until the cows come home. One can try to mathematize one’s chances of finding love all day long, making spurious generalisations and guessing at variables far too complex to ascertain. It seems to me that doing so is merely a none-too-effective sticking plaster for self doubt, and a better solution would be either to seek professional counselling or to focus on other things instead.
Dani Mathers has made an apology video in which she states that she meant for photo to be sent to only one other person….hmmmm.
At the end of the video she says:
“I need to take some time to myself now to reflect on why I did this horrible thing.”
Almost sounds as though she means it.
Echoing Nerd and Rowan. Attitude is huge, in all aspects of life. I think the French call it amour de soi, but don’t take my word on anything French. Too sophisticated for me.
I truly had to look twice to make sure that the older lady in the picture wasn’t me. I look very much like her. I’m nearly 59, have had five babies and I go to LA Fitness 5 days a week to swim. Swimming is the only exercise that I can do without pain since I had a botched spine surgery 16 months ago and I’m trying to stay somewhat fit in preparation for a revision surgery in October.
Our water aerobics class is populated with others who are rehabilitating from back, knee and shoulder surgeries. We also have several ladies and a few men who are obese. I admire them for having the courage to come to the gym and TRY.
We also have an 84 year old lady who was originally from Germany who is very fit and can swim rings around the rest of us. She is not body-conscious at all and wanders around the ladies’ locker room nude regularly.
As for beauty, my sweet husband still swears that I’m beautiful in his eyes. I still consider him quite handsome as well. That is all part of being happily married for almost 40 years.
Should probably give her the benefit of the doubt, then. Let the police handle the privacy issue and leave her alone to learn from this and deal with the backlash.
Well, the police *are* trying to identify her to see if she wants to press charges. I’d like to see that happen although if it were me, I’d probably not want to. Or maybe I would. I don’t know.
How many people share these so-called beauty standards anyway? Who issues them, and who agree? When we investigate what people really find attractive, would the median outcome conform to those standards? I seriously doubt it.