Current mood:breezy
Excerpts from a scene from the Movie, "The Truth About Cats and Dogs:"
Abbey (acting as Donna): "The truth is Helen of Troy. Helen of Troy - men die for that sh*t. The truth is, you would not be so enamoured with Abby (female lead) if she looked like... "
Male Lead whose Name I do not recall: "What? What are you talking about? Look, you know how someone's appearance can change the longer you know them; how a really attractive person can become, if you don't like them, more and more ugly - whereas someone you might not have noticed, that you wouldn't look at more than once, if you love them, can become the most beautiful thing you've ever seen. All you want to do is be near them....it doesn't matter what she looks like."
Ok, look at the bolded - is this true? I know we all want to believe this is true, but is it really? As a lark, I'm on a couple of dating sites (one because a friend works there and the other because it is centered around building of friendships with people of the same faith as I). I say as a lark because truly, unless a person is ok with a relationship being built largely on the phone and through emails, I don't have time to date. I've gone into the whys and wherefores of that in previous blogs, so no real reason to get into it again. Suffice it to say, at best, I'm a weekend dater unless it's summertime so that's really the time of year I'll truly look into starting a new relationship. It doesn't hurt that I'm generally very happy with my life and don't feel lonely, so there's no massive urge to MAKE time. Back on point, do people (I'm not going to point just to men, because I don't think it's a gender-specific issue) really feel like that?
On those dating sites, there's always a spot for the description of the physical appearance that people are looking for. Many times, you'll see every type listed or 'any' - however the site has it configured. However, as you start talking with people, or read their profiles further, you realize it's total bullox. Whether consciously or subconsciously, the wide array of accepted body-types, physical attributes and overall appearances has more to do with not turning off potential mates because they appear to be overly-obsessed with a particular 'type' than really the lack of having one. For me, I'm pretty open about it - if you have made it clear what you're physically looking for and I don't think I fit the bill, I'll flat out tell you I don't think I'm what you're looking for- let's be friends and you should move on in your search. I remember clearly talking with one guy who kept talking about his beautiful exes and told me how beautiful I was (clearly sucking up) and how he needed someone who wore well on his arm (he went to a lot of business functions). It became apparent through the course of a month's worth of coffee dates and phone conversations and one rather important business function for him that he was more interested in how I could be done up (did I mention he sent over a nutritionist to help me come up with the perfect eating plan thata would burn calories, minimize pores, and give me a 'glow' and emailed over a workout plan that targeted the 'trouble spots' on my body?) than he was in ME. Not that every guy is like that, but I know a lot of beta-boys that really need a beautiful mate on the exterior more than they need a beautiful soul/partner. Girls too - though, women are still by and large as a sex focused on the stability/career of their partners. Their need for valildation that they are, indeed, capable of having an attractive partner is paramount.
So, going back to the question, is that really true? Do people really care more about the insides than the out?
If you follow the train of thought that they do, how do they get to the point that they're able to look past the superficial, the exterior of appearance? I mean, don't they have to look at them to talk to them - to even get to the point of knowing someone, the first thing you see or have to deal with is someone's appearance. For me personally, I'm not overly hung up on appearances, for a couple of reasons: 1) I'm far from physically perfect and so how hypocritical would it be of me to have physical standards in a man that I myself have not obtained? 2) We all get wrinkled and most get squidgy in the end, anyway, if we're not already - so why hold that against someone? Even still, I have my own set of standards - I can't handle the morbidly obese and though I know in my soul it's wrong to judge someone by their appearance, there are a few people that I can't handle. Typically, they have chests that cave inward and there's just something about that which makes my stomach flip flop in a neauseating way. After three months, the same thing still happened and so I realized, that was probably a physical attribute which would be a deal breaker for me, despite how wonderful they were. Typing that out even feels shallow, but there you have it.
So maybe there has to be some level of physical attraction to get you to the point of where you can love someone - but, then once you love them, their physical form starts to be less and less important. So that, if over the span of a few years, they become less and less attractive either by the natural course of years or perhaps they gain 50 pounds or lose their hair or whatever.. but, it doesn't matter because you love them. Ok, that I can believe.
What do you think? I believe that an attractive person can become less so if their insides do not match their out; and I believe that you can keep loving someone just as much (if not more) because their soul is so attractive that it's very beauty envelops them. I believe that, though it is an awfully gushy notion to type out. :p But, at first glance, or through the first few conversations? I'm not sure I'm sold on that in the by and large. On an exception case, perhaps, but I'm not sure about the general rule. That may be my own insecurities playing out, but I doubt it. I think it's more curiousity than anything else. Can relationships start, develop and subsequently thrive if one of the involved is outside of the other's physical 'type?
No comments:
Post a Comment