Friday, October 16, 2015

Are We All Confused About Beauty? A Clarification

Annoyed about the forgotten wanker Japanese guy and his "a specific race of women are the least attractive" science detour, racist imagery in music videos such as "no light, no light" and “I am a proud coon, proud coon, proud coon” plus a general moonwalk back in race relations since Obama's symbolic inauguration, I feel to put some self-clarifications on such matters up here on the sheep-share interweb.

I previously wrote a super long article titled "Racism, Media and Beauty" which got deleted when my phone got wet, it had pretty much everything I might say on those said subjects so I'm not sure whether or not this simplified and incomplete replacement will have to be finished up in the comments section (not a chance, with subjects like this one) but here goes...

Let's get this out of the way first off - 'Attraction' is different from 'Practical Choice of Companionship'.

I am not doing this out of hate (as many others would), I do this because I love women, their beautiful minds and tender hearts. Each and every one deserves to be comfortable with themselves. I intensely dislike the hating of others but even more, I hate self-loathing. My whole existence is geared against that disease. Of course, society is a crude system, opposition to community, in which there are always organic dynamics and, as a result, groups of disadvantage.
Women are beautiful, regardless of their skin colour. To all “man”, they are visually appealing by default. It's probably in our genes to desire the opposite sex, why wouldn't it be? Skin colour and facial templates should not come into matters of attraction unless the subjects are racially motivated or mildly idiotic, both of which traits are an expected result of progressive immersion in our modern west-world.
We live in a world where someone can change from ugly to beautiful just by getting brighter coloured eyes, their eyebrows shaped or their head-hair changed - where not wearing multilayer make-up artistry that changes a face's angles leaves people feeling deeply disgusted about who they are - where someone with clearly healthy, neat and nicely shaped teeth has, in many blinded eyes, an unattractive smile because their gums are naturally dark and not proverbial print pink.

DIgESt  ny

We are all influenced, our motives moulded by our immersions. The images we are shown and see are destined to be the ones we envisage. If one type of woman is consistently, incessantly fed to us as beautiful, we are likely to believe it. If only a few limited types of people are shown in the same positive and sexy light, the result will be that those types are the most favoured by us for such contexts. If other types of women are not to be seen in such scenarios at such consistency, few will recognise or appreciate their beauty as much as they do that of those who are seen as beautiful more often. It's quite simple, but you make it complicated.
I love this girl.. sorry, woman
The major-majority of South/East/West Asian men+women believe that the only people in the world who have specimens of beauty that rival their own are 'whites' and other Asians. That means, that most of them believe that no 'black' / Negro (hate the word NeverGro, we need sutn else) woman / man can be more beautiful to them than one of their own... but a 'white' woman / man can. Pretty odd.

 I'm undecided, myself. 
Being brought up to lust primarily over other skin-colours, my true queen could be an Avatar Navi. People always talk about how historical cultures lionised the beauty of the lighter - and the trend of "Animals Favour Bright Colours" - as support for their distaste for the dark and distinctly featured. Under-seen shows like C4's recent Chewing Gum show (to some) a discomfortingly jarring reality we (the world) aren't used to but is as normal as any of what we normally see.
A SUPER model
From what I read, hear and see, I'm led to believe that a race of people are more beautiful than others, that a blonde-haired blue eyed girl is too good for someone like me (a bumbling brown sloth) and that, despite the popularity of brunettes, they are the epitome of 'white' beauty. In reality, I have never been crazy about a blonde girl, even in my youth, partially due to the recognition of that all too often-sent message. "Ooh, how beautiful, what amazing blue eyes...". 

If I was messing with a hot one, I would be most happy about everybody's jealousy. I don't honestly believe that a blonde girl is too good for me, we are all equal, because we are all different and therefore of undefinable capability - and I know know that these beauty biases are just that: Biases. It’s all about what 'too good' means, ask yourself… it really has no objective meaning when talking looks.
It’s not hard to make something or someone look beautiful. You can start with the good use of lighting, minimal lines, strong definition and, if possible, striking colour (ever noticed how black+white colouring can make nearly anyone look X times 'cooler' / cleaner). We all know that looking straight headed at the camera isn't recommended, sucking in the cheeks and pouting the lips out are effective moves and looking upward towards the camera with eyebrows lowered is a trend for men in advertising and women in social media. 
The same person as the one in the above picture.
Any face is presented better framed. It’s a hard thing to describethe key to beauty in a face – but, after much research and consideration, it appears to be a mixture of personal preference moulded from environmental reactions + viewer-perceived contextual simplicity in facial features that are prominent on the clean and contoured skin of a face + the face's shape and features non-extreme deviation from 'the Template'; the facial features have to be interesting and stand out but not be too alien or disgusting (unhealthy or old). Alien meaning too far away from ‘the Template’ – which is the direct opposite of a bad face. I'll spare you the image of that, but it involves things that are too big or too small.
These are what 'scientists' made up as the most beautiful faces. I will use them as the definition for 'The Template'. Notice how the female's eyebrows are higher, making her eyes look bigger, and her face shape is curved softer.
We all have our images of what would be the most beautiful M/F specimens of each 'race', which factually are biased aggregations of all we have seen – the thing is, there are things that 98% of people don’t include in those conceptions. Things like wolf-man eyebrows, rabbit teeth, shark jaws or bird noses. Think normality. We anchor our ideals in normality and health, modified by our unique but not too dissimilar tastes. It's not so much: the closer to the template, the better. It is somehow provable that: after a certain amount of difference, 20%-40%, the further away from the template the lesser the amount of people  that will be attracted. 

The main problems with this are:
1. An unhealthy favouring of European aesthetic traits by media and henceforth societies, marking others as lesser.
2. Acted-on self-hatred in individuals and communities.
3. Supremacy of specific aesthetics by way of defining other normal 'uniquely-beautiful' traits as inferior, fuelling sadness, disorder and dysfunction.
4. Imbalance in the values of racially local aesthetics.
The thing is, 'white' people are no longer the problem. It's the 'other races', continuing to desire interaction with one race over all others, due to art.

Look at the ideals of perfection, in terms of what people Photoshop people to look like. If I had time and money, I would substantiate (prove) a theory about most people liking faces that they have seen as beautiful in still and moving art, the simplified, defining lines and formatted arrangements. It's basically all about subjectivity-formed limited variations to "the Template"
Women are beautiful to more \ more attractive with their features pronounced, whereas men are beautiful to more \ more attractive with less pronounced and more obscured features. Think: the third dimension on a 2d plane... for women, flatter at the top half of the face (eyes + nose) is better - for men, a flat face is bad. Eyes nose mouth. Men small-med, med-big, small-med ... Women med-big, small-med, med-big. That's the difference, I get it, unfortunately... because its something we aren't supposed to agree on out loud, so i suffer for the knowledge of it. 
The 2-dimensional 'Template" still applies. Match the sex: big eyes, a not big nose and pronounced lips. Ideal Women. Not big eyes, a pronounced nose and a not-big mouth. Ideal Men. So easy... but still somehow unprovable. Facial shaping is a factor too; women are most beautiful with gentle curves, whereas men are best with hard 'chiselled' curves and angles. Diagrams and tables are needed, but the info can be comprehended, if not shared, by the willing.
"Her face is 'ruined' by her nose..." From 9 to 8 or 7
Despite how things seem to be going, the most beautiful woman does not have manly masculine facial features... and, if we are being sensible, the most beautiful human man on Earth (as is annually tallied) cannot have the face of a woman.

It is not beautiful to have a pale white face and a pink body, objectively because it looks like the different coloured head is from a corpse, lacking blood or sumthin. Also, blonde hair debatably looks better on a non-blonde than it does on a natural blonde, which is quite weird to read.
Monkey talk tempts to hurt. Sadly, along with bears, horses and stingrays a lot of "nice" looking 'white' girls with+without make-up can resemble shaven ferrets or otters, especially when wet, with whispy thin hair, ubiquitous 'moleage' and a typical lack of below-the-waist curviness. 
Woken Up, but won't like this on Facebook
An object of desire has to have good things about it; no shape, thin lips, fake skin+hair colour (the standard 'white' girl) is not an optimal woman - the definition is subjective and subject to objectivity - an objectively optimal woman is one who has a bit of everything. 'Black' women have to be beautiful too, they were made to be that - along with all women. Her (the standard / normal 'white' girl's) only unquestionably redeeming factors are her radiant eye colour, personality, social status and typically buxom bosoms, although small breasts are just as lovable.

Maybe you like your women shapeless because they remind you of children at the pool..” 
Someone else said to me yesterday… 

An object of desire has to have good things about it – Every woman has good thing about them. That’s why I love my woman. That is why I understand that what I'm made to believe, by whatever intent or lack thereof, is not what I have to believe. I know I can find something truer. Like: loving all women, even the short and fat ones with moles all over their bodies. Not the dirty ones though.

'Black' women you aren't free from the honesty-fire. Tell me why, Sista, you would seriously and repeatedly cry over not being able to have naturally long hair, weave it alone. You look better as a woman who proudly respects and appreciates her given aesthetics than a 'black' person with straight hair and shiny tracks, spending a few hundred nuggets every few weeks on more self-disrespect. You do not look better with a weave or wig, you look better when you love yourself.

Resist the lure of eurocentrism. Love yourselves. Remember that you could be in another world, in which you are the most beautiful person-type.
We might serve ourselves better to be Sure that Our Decisions are Not Influenced in Any way by Hollywood. Hollywood and our media systems tells us so much that ’Too Much’ cannot be agreeably determined. 
Love yourselves, not for what or who you are but for who you Really are.

No comments:

Post a Comment

If you disagree, Comment Here. If you don't, Comment Here