jsb58 Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 I passed this article on to my daughter, and thought I'd post it here too. I hope it gives something to thing about. This post is intended as a lament of sorts, a lament for something in the culture that is dying and may never been seen again. Pretty, pretty is dying. People will define pretty differently. For the purposes of this piece, I define pretty as a mutually enriching balanced combination of beauty and projected innocence. Once upon a time, women wanted to project an innocence. I am not idealizing another age and I have no illusions about the virtues of our grandparents, concupiscence being what it is. But some things were different in the back then. First and foremost, many beautiful women, whatever the state of their souls, still wished to project a public innocence and virtue. And that combination of beauty and innocence is what I define as pretty. By nature, generally when men see this combination in women it brings out their better qualities, their best in fact. That special combination of beauty and innocence, the pretty inspires men to protect and defend it. Young women today do not seem to aspire to pretty, they prefer to be regarded as hot. Hotness is something altogether different. When women want to be hot instead of pretty, they must view themselves in a certain way and consequently men view them differently as well. As I said, pretty inspires men’s nobler instincts to protect and defend. Pretty is cherished. Hotness, on the other hand, is a commodity. Its value is temporary and must be used. It is a consumable. Nowhere is this pretty deficit more obvious than in our “stars,” the people we elevate as the “ideal.” The stars of the fifties surely suffered from the same sin as do stars of today. Stars of the fifties weren’t ideal but they pursued a public ideal different from today. The merits of hotness over pretty is easy enough to understand, they made an entire musical about it. Who can forget how pretty Olivia Newton John was at the beginning of Grease. Beautiful and innocent. But her desire to be desired leads her to throw away all that is valuable in herself in the vain hopes of getting the attention of a boy. In the process, she destroys her innocence and thus destroys the pretty. What we are left with is hotness. Hotness is a consumable. A consumable that consumes as it is consumed but brings no warmth. Most girls don’t want to be pretty anymore even if they understand what it is. It is ironic that 40 years of women’s liberation has succeeded only in turning women into a commodity. Something to be used up and thrown out. Of course men play a role in this as well, but women should know better and they once did. Once upon a time you would hear girls talk about kind of women men date and the kind they marry. You don’t hear things like that anymore. But here is the real truth. Most men prefer pretty over hot. Even back in 6th grade I hated the “hot” Olivia Newton John and felt sorry for her that she had to debase herself in such a way. Still do. Our problem is that society doesn’t value innocence anymore, real or imagined. Nobody aspires to innocence anymore. Nobody wants to be thought of as innocent, the good girl. They want to be hot, not pretty. I still hope that pretty comes back, although I think it not likely any time soon. For every Taylor Swift, there are a hundred Megan Foxs, or Lindsay Lohans, or Miley Cyruses etc. Girls, please, bring back the pretty.
Philosoraptor Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 I much prefer beautiful Pretty on the norm and hot in the bedroom.
Emilia Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madonna%E2%80%93whore_complex I'm sure it hurts you OP to think of your daughter as someone else's hottie but a lot of us don't want to be put on a pedestal and would like to be just appreciated for our sexuality if that's all the same to you.
silvermercy Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 OP that was a wonderful article. Most logical people (men and women) would agree if they really thought about it. Of course you can still be both. Today however we are used to have myspace cam-whores, promiscuity, and for women especially (according to modern feminist dogma) that's supposed to be "empowerment". I'd better book my photo-session with a lads mag soon to get my tits and other things out so as to feel "hot" admired and empowered. Well, that's the thing though, whatever "hot power" you have is indeed only temporary (the real-life facts only speak for themselves). "Prettiness" can last a lifetime, though, even long after it's gone.
EnigmaticClarity Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 The author of that article isn't using the right word when he describes his notion of pretty girls as being "innocent." They MIGHT be innocent, but even if they aren't, they're humble. I suspect humility captures more of what he's actually trying to describe. I much prefer pretty girls using his extremely subjective definition and I agree with him that's what most men want. However, "pretty" doesn't imply the personality traits he's attempting to assign to the word. I'm not sure there is a single word for what he's trying to describe--it takes a bunch.
Taramere Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 OP that was a wonderful article. I thought it was quite dreadful. Cherishing "pretty" over "hot" doesn't commodify women any less. It simply places a higher value on lack of sexual experience....and I think most women (and men who spend any time around women) are well aware that the same woman can be hot and sexy one moment, sweet and "pretty" the next depending on her mood, circumstances, clothing and make-up.
silvermercy Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 I thought it was quite dreadful. Cherishing "pretty" over "hot" doesn't commodify women any less. It simply places a higher value on lack of sexual experience....and I think most women (and men who spend any time around women) are well aware that the same woman can be hot and sexy one moment, sweet and "pretty" the next depending on her mood, circumstances, clothing and make-up. I totally disagree. I don't think it places more value on lack of sexual experience. It simply disagrees with the stance of what "hotness" means today and also questions the effect it has on men and women. As I said, real-life facts would confirm why this is bad: for example, does "pretty" usually require D-cup sized implants by surgical mutilation? On the other hand, does "hot" in this society usually require them?
EnigmaticClarity Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 I thought it was quite dreadful. Cherishing "pretty" over "hot" doesn't commodify women any less. It simply places a higher value on lack of sexual experience Yes, his focus on innocence was off-putting. Other than that I thought it was interesting...but then again I'm fine with commodifying others or people doing it to me. It's realistic, everyone does it to varying extents.
Emilia Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 I totally disagree. I don't think it places more value on lack of sexual experience. It simply disagrees with the stance of what "hotness" means today and also questions the effect it has on men and women. As I said, real-life facts would confirm why this is bad: for example, does "pretty" usually require D-cup sized implants by surgical mutilation? On the other hand, does "hot" in this society usually require them? I think the author of article values innocence and that in turn puts higher value on sexual inexperience. I think it's fair to say that a lot of men feel more comfortable with traditional gender roles and this article is an example of that.
Author jsb58 Posted January 17, 2012 Author Posted January 17, 2012 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madonna%E2%80%93whore_complex I'm sure it hurts you OP to think of your daughter as someone else's hottie but a lot of us don't want to be put on a pedestal and would like to be just appreciated for our sexuality if that's all the same to you.I feel really sorry that you don't strive for more depth.
Taramere Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 I totally disagree. I don't think it places more value on lack of sexual experience. It simply disagrees with the stance of what "hotness" means today Here's an excerpt The merits of hotness over pretty is easy enough to understand, they made an entire musical about it. Who can forget how pretty Olivia Newton John was at the beginning of Grease. Beautiful and innocent. But her desire to be desired leads her to throw away all that is valuable in herself in the vain hopes of getting the attention of a boy. In the process, she destroys her innocence and thus destroys the pretty. What we are left with is hotness. Based, of course, on clothing, hair and make-up styles of the 1950s. What was she "throwing away" when she decided to experiment with a different, more daring look? To me, the essence of superficiality would be to seriously believe that by wearing make up, curling her hair and putting on some different clothes, a woman could suddenly be transformed into a completely different person. If that were really the case, then how much of a "self" could she have had to begin with...for it to be lost so easily, with the aid of a few clothes and some make-up?
verhrzn Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 There's another spin you could put on it. Your article suggests that being pretty has something to do with innocence, to 'inspiring' 'better' qualities in men. But these 'better' qualities all have a veneer of paternalism. Men want to protect and defend the 'innocence,' put it on a pedestal and treasure it. And of course, let's not ignore the cultural linkage between 'innocence' and 'virginity.' In other words, being this particular definition of pretty (innocent) is all about putting the woman on a pedestal and creating a dominant-submissive relationship between the man and the woman (man as the protector and rescuer, woman as the weak and naive damsel.) Hot, on the other hand, could be a form of empowerment. 'Hot' recognizes a woman's natural sexuality and sensuality, and gives the woman the upper hand... by calling a woman 'hot' the culture is subscribing her an amount of sexual power. 'Hot' also comes, fairly or not, with some connotation of knowing what she's doing... that a woman is sexually experienced, or at least aware OF her power. The woman is not necessarily an object to be worshiped by men, but has control over her interactions (being as she is aware of her power.) That at least puts her on more of an equal footing with men than her 'pretty/innocent' sister.
azsinglegal Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 Please men, bring back the intelligence. Sheesh...why are women being looked at as a commodity in the first place? Goodness our society is pathetically materialistic.
Taramere Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 Yes, his focus on innocence was off-putting. Other than that I thought it was interesting...but then again I'm fine with commodifying others or people doing it to me. It's realistic, everyone does it to varying extents. Well that's the question for people to consider. To what degree do they personally commodify others...and at what point is it not okay to commodify other people? I mean I think most people would consider slave auctions, (where tall and muscular young men and pretty, innocent young girls fetched the highest prices) to be beyond the pale. But then there are other modern methods of commodification over which society seems more divided. Those hideous beauty pageants for tots, for example....which demonstrate, so well, how some parents' tendency to commodify human beings extends to their own children. I think the author of article values innocence and that in turn puts higher value on sexual inexperience. I think it's fair to say that a lot of men feel more comfortable with traditional gender roles and this article is an example of that. A while back I went through a spate of reading up on Victorian prostitution. It was after reading Clarissa (which albeit was set before Queen Victoria's day). Middle class virgins commanded a very high price. The notion that STDs can be cured by having sex with a virgin persists to this day in some cultures...and was certainly popular throughout Europe back then.
kaylan Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 Well Im a guy and Id rather be hot than handsome lol. Plus I dont have the cheek bones to be a handsome guy, and still have a boyish face so I get called cute if anything. But yeah, I like being called hot...which is part of why I work out xD
EnigmaticClarity Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 Well that's the question for people to consider. To what degree do they personally commodify others...and at what point is it not okay to commodify other people? I mean I think most people would consider slave auctions, (where tall and muscular young men and pretty, innocent young girls fetched the highest prices) to be beyond the pale. But then there are other modern methods of commodification over which society seems more divided. Those hideous beauty pageants for tots, for example....which demonstrate, so well, how some parents' tendency to commodify human beings extends to their own children. Realism about people's preferences isn't indelibly tied to institutional slavery. I agree that doing it with kids is a bad thing...it's a crapshoot as to what effect it has on their still-developing persona.
EnigmaticClarity Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 Please men, bring back the intelligence. Sheesh...why are women being looked at as a commodity in the first place? Goodness our society is pathetically materialistic. It's life, people, and organisms in general (not just humans) in an environment with limited resources--society just reflects the truth of existence. I roll my eyes every time my girlfriend attributes shallowness or vice to "society." We've always been like this...modern society and technology have just accelerated what has always been true, making us think something is different. Yea, things are different--yet they're not at all for the most part.
Taramere Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 (edited) Realism about people's preferences isn't indelibly tied to institutional slavery. No, of course people have their individual preferences. I don't see that as the same as commodifying people is. For me, I think about other people in terms of "do I connect with this person and generally feel happy around them?". You can't quantify that, but prettiness, hotness etc evidently does get quantified all the time...as evidenced by women being routinely graded on it. I think commodification sets in when somebody finds it possible to grade potential partners on a scale according to things like looks and salary. Then they wonder why somebody seems perfect on paper, but it just doesn't click. The guy who wrote the article, "cherishing" prettiness....yet all it would take for his adoration to crumble to a pile of dust would, it seems, be for the woman to one day apply a bit of thick make up and experiment with a more slutty dress style than usual. You mention in your last post that you roll your eyes when people talk of shallowness...but surely you'd agree that suddenly losing all feelings for people and regarding them as worthless because they experiment with a different dress style one day would be the epitome of shallowness. A sign that you had no sense of who they were beyond how they appeared on the outside. Edited January 17, 2012 by Taramere
musemaj11 Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 Every man wants a Taylor Swift at home to provide for and who will take care of him and his kids and a Megan Fox on the side with whom he can unleash all his carnal desires. Nothing new. Ideally every man needs to have at least two women. One as his protege and another as his lover.
xxoo Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 Ideally every man needs to have at least two women. One as his protege and another as his lover. Nah, just one woman who can be both, at the appropriate time. Just like every woman wants a stand up kind of guy on the streets, and a bad boy in the sheets. Gotta be versatile to keep a mate happy!
O'Malley Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 It is ironic that 40 years of women’s liberation has succeeded only in turning women into a commodity. Something to be used up and thrown out. Of course men play a role in this as well, but women should know better and they once did. Once upon a time you would hear girls talk about kind of women men date and the kind they marry. You don’t hear things like that anymore. The oft trotted-out notion about the 'good' old days. It's natural for people to want and seek out validation at times; that isn't terrible or shallow in itself. Believing that a particular gender is obligated to use this as a framework for their lives is. What is so lamentable about women and men bringing a healthy sense of self reliance and awareness to the table, rather than primarily basing their worth upon their marriageability, or their appearance, or their sexuality?
monkey00 Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 If it's a hot girl, I'd just sleep with her. A pretty or above average girl to hangout with, date, sleep with, and possibly be in a R with. A sitcom I saw a few years ago had a male character that said "you sleep with the hot ones, but marry the cute ones."
Els Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 (edited) *shrugs* I always did find what some people consider to be 'empowering' to women pretty amusing. Sky-high stiletto heels 'empower women' - um, sure, if you like hordes of guys looking at your behind, taking 3 steps to a man's one and not being able to run if required. Having sex with random guys is 'girl power, babe' - really? In what way? Going out with a guy, dressing up to the nines (in ways that conform to all society's expectations of what a woman -should- look like, no less) while he shows up in a tee and khakis, and then insisting to death on footing half the bill is empowering - okay, if you say so. I'm not judging anyone who does any of the above, but I -am- judging people who do the above just because they want to be 'empowered', or do all the above and boast about being 'an empowered, modern female' because of it. Trust me, NONE of the men around you are thinking 'oh, she's such a powerful gal' just because of that. I doubt most of the women are, either. If you feel good about yourself doing all that, by all means do so, but believing that people view you as 'empowered' because you do that is just... being deluded. It could possibly be 'empowering' in the way that women are able to make the choice to do that. But in that case, basically anything a woman chooses to do for herself is empowering - be it sleeping with random guys and dressing scantily, or dressing conservatively and waiting til marriage to have sex. On the contrary, doing all the above just because you feel an 'empowered' woman should, constantly calling yourself that, and judging other women who don't do the same things, is pretty much the antithesis of empowered. Edited January 17, 2012 by Elswyth
silvermercy Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 If it's a hot girl, I'd just sleep with her. A pretty or above average girl to hangout with, date, sleep with, and possibly be in a R with. A sitcom I saw a few years ago had a male character that said "you sleep with the hot ones, but marry the cute ones." But that's assuming those pretty/above average girls (as apparently average are not good enough) would WANT to hangout with, date, sleep with, and possibly be in a R with you, after messing around with the "hot" girls all this time. Times have changed. I know many modern women who would find that notion insulting, me included. I'd rather date a guy who is not a hypocrite and who I won't feel like he's actually settling with a non-hot girl. Why would I want such a man in the first place?
Recommended Posts