It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Downsides of Being Beautiful

page: 20
27
<< 17  18  19    21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 12 2016 @ 08:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Bluesma




For other readers here, take a look into the findings on the halo effect, which has shown up in studies beginning in 1915, and have been numerous since then. We are not talking then, about sexual attraction!
We are talking about peoples tendency to associate positive characteristics with appearence that is attractive.
Some studies were done with babies, some were done with same sex observers. Officers in the military judging photos of soldiers.

It is subtle and the bias might not even be obvious. But it makes children develop differently, because they are very sensitive to the feedback (verbal and otherwise) that they get from adults around them. It can limit their lives as adults. It effects the work place and how well one can evolve in it or not.

The difficulties, in my mind, are everyones - this is not about feeling sympathetic to one "group" over another.
(what a typical american polarisation). The difficulties are all of ours - no matter what part we play in this each day.
We have seen people in a more positive light than is realistic, and have been seen so; we have discriminated against and been discriminated against.



It is a very fascinating subject, and I find it very interesting how the OP is reacting so intensely to any exploration deeper into the subject or any branch of thought that goes beyond her limited view on the subject. But that is what happens when you invite a bunch of strangers to discuss something that you are well aware is going to garner attention, both positive and negative. It is a multi-faceted topic because the complaint of being mistreated due to being "beautiful" is simply an opinion (and a highly subjective one, at that) based on alleged personal experiences, while the studies' findings themselves actually invite further discussion as applied to real life opinions and experiences from a variety of people...it is, after all, meant to make us think, right?

However, despite the attention-seeking nature of the OP itself, this conversation has become quite intriguing to follow; it has a very real societal impact on us all, and I want to thank you for all of your thoughtful and insightful posts on the thread. I always enjoy reading your posts; you are very articulate and it's obvious that you have a gift for seeing things from many different angles at the same time, which is refreshing.

edit on 31378America/ChicagoTue, 12 Jan 2016 20:37:11 -060031pm3111America/Chicago by tigertatzen because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 12 2016 @ 08:49 PM
link   
a reply to: tigertatzen

That's what continues to fascinate me about this website. There are so many intelligent and interesting people with fresh, unique perspectives to consider. Even if we don't all agree with each other, there is much to be learned.



posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 12:47 AM
link   
a reply to: tigertatzen

Tiger, I think you have a good head for discussing this and I appreciate reading your input here.

I think I am done with this thread. Even when trying to argue for the OP, she has a way of coming in to ruin all chance of rational exchange each time.

Now it is Bach.
Was he sexy?



posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 03:24 AM
link   
Bluesma, you haven't answered my question, perhaps you didn't see it.


originally posted by: Anaana

originally posted by: Bluesma
Even so, it can still become a problem for you, when we get to these people who have been treated unfairly, and can do actual harm to yourself, your possessions, your career, your relations...

There will also often be the assumption that your choice to deny what happened is a choice to USE and profit off that effect- not that it is coming form a belief system that "if I ignore it, it won't happen anymore".

The only action I have found that solves this dilemma is, in such circumstances, to speak up and insist on justice, immediately. To do so, you'd have to acknowledge that what the coworker saw really happened, be aware of such subtle unfairness that happens without anyone making an effort or being aware they are doing it.


Having read the above, I was somewhat surprised to then read this...

www.abovetopsecret.com...


originally posted by: Bluesma
I am pleasantly surprised. Turns out that all the people who applied are young women, who either have young children, or might choose to soon.

So my age is a really big factor for him, plus it is not full time, and means being available for emergencies whenever they happen. I live close to the office as well.

So it is rather unconventional for him to consider me over these people with diplomas, a sort of lucky combination of elements, for which I am thankful!!!


At what point do you intend to stand up for this injustice?


originally posted by: Bluesma
I am getting old (late forties) so this makes me want to say to younger women- you just never know! Sometimes you are busy raising your family and all, afraid the train has passed you by, but that is not necessarily true!
You still might be able to do work you dream of, or learn a skill you always dreamed of doing!
Just keep busy, going forth into new things all the time, and see what comes together later as a result.


Yes, don't bother working hard and making sacrifices for your education, because as long as we tolerate it, there will always be employers who are permitted to by-pass recruitment laws aimed at protecting women, and children, by older women willing to accept that discrimination as long as it benefits them.


Those laws represent generation after generation of women making sacrifices so that other women could benefit. Women who gave up their lives to make it better for their children, to give them options and opportunities which by gender alone they had been excluded from. Women who had to fight for equal access to an education and the workplace, equal pay for the same work, protection against sexual harassment, or from having to choose between children and fulfilling their ambitions. Do you not think that those laws are worth protecting? In Europe you will find that there are as many men as women who think so.

I am eager to see if you are capable of seeing any perspective but your own, despite you studying yourself from numerous angles, all that does is reaffirm or justify your perspective. I see little evidence of awareness in relation to the experience of “other”, and your sources of “wisdom” on the topic appear derived from the self-help and New Age section, hence their only serving to re-enforce that view.

There seems to be a real danger that this Princess syndrome, that I think it was Flyingclaydisk described, is allowed to seep back into European society. It is already apparent, but the work place is largely protected, except from those who will use their position to by-pass laws. Your new boss has admitted to you that he is contravening French and European law to employ you, you are the cheaper alternative, which is why he doesn’t want to employ the young women who have families to support, who have taken the time and effort to obtain those Diplomas, because he doesn’t want to have to pay them the benefits to which they are entitled, which they have earnt. Instead he has opted to outsource his work to a friend who is compliant and willing to screw over other women to get what she wants. It is horrifying to me that another women who does not need a job, would support a man in breaking the laws that women fought for in order to protect women who need to work to support their families.

edit on 13-1-2016 by Anaana because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 03:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bluesma
Now it is Bach.
Was he sexy?


Ask any organist, and that would be a resounding "YES!"

And, vastly beautiful too...




edit on 13-1-2016 by Anaana because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 05:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: Anaana
Bluesma, you haven't answered my question, perhaps you didn't see it.


No I didn't. But then I am not really looking for opportunities to exchange with you either.
So far, you spend a lot of time insulting me, making a lot of characterisations based on your imagination, and changing your stance on the issues from one post to the next.



Turns out that all the people who applied are young women, who either have young children, or might choose to soon.

So my age is a really big factor for him, plus it is not full time, and means being available for emergencies whenever they happen. I live close to the office as well.

So it is rather unconventional for him to consider me over these people with diplomas, a sort of lucky combination of elements, for which I am thankful!!!

At what point do you intend to stand up for this injustice?


This has NOTHING at all to do with beauty.

Yes, there is a certain injustice in this country that is happening, that I have written about before on this site, but since there are few french people here, it is somewhat unconstructive to discuss here. I bring it up amongst french people often. That is, the maternity rights have been pushed to such an extent, it is becoming a problem for women.
They have three years fully paid maternity leave, and legal guarantee to have their job back whenever they want.
This has resulted in a lot of abuse - it has become common for young women to get pregnant as soon as they get a contract, then simply get pregnant again three years later, in order to not work and get full pay for many years, (depending upon how many kids they decide to have).

A previous employer of mine had three secretaries he was paying at the same time - two were on this sort of extended maternity leave, getting pregnant each three years. He only needed one, but each time had to hire another to replace the last. This sort of abuse has made it difficult for employers to hire young women. I think such abuses of the laws are not even necessary, as this country has a good social security net, in which mothers get a pretty good financial aid from the state. I pay into that, and don't mind them benefitting from it.

Yes, that does mean that it increases the value in the workplace for older women, even if they have spent earlier years being a stay at home mother. ....which these younger women will be later, so.... I am not so sure they see this as something they want to change. There seems to be a majority who prefer raising their kids at home and having a good chance of getting a job later.

But in any case... my job doesn't circumvent any laws. Why make up crap like this? It is more traditional for people in such posts to have gotten some sort of diploma (CAP, for those who quit school at 16 and go into technical training, or a private home study program) but there is NO law concerning this! The person I am replacing had no such diploma and had never worked as an assistant before... one of my best friends who is also a vet tech had no previous experience, though she did pay for one of those home study programs, and never finished it because she learned more at work than in the books.

Also, as I included, the job is being turned down by those younger women because it is not full time, it is part time. There is virtually no young people who want to take a part time job!



Getting this job had NOTHING to do with my looks. You are going way off subject only to once again try to smear my character and turn this into a personal thing. If you want to challenge me on my current work situation, please go to that thread where it is the topic.



edit on 13-1-2016 by Bluesma because: (no reason given)

edit on 13-1-2016 by Bluesma because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 05:18 AM
link   
... and really? If the topic isn't my personal life as an evil older woman, then it will be Bach?

Even a mods warning does nothing to dissuade these repeated attempts to change the topic??



posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 08:06 AM
link   
a reply to: Anaana

Since my job offer is so completely off topic, I responded to your accusations in that thread where it is appropriate.
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 08:19 AM
link   
a reply to: rukia

Scent has more to do with attraction to a person than do looks and I simply do not buy that looks have anything to do with intelligence, studies or not. Actually, the more intelligent the more you get into the realm of "the nerd" appearance, usually because appearance doesn't matter to the one who spends their days figuring out the cure to cancer and when judging someone's appearance, grooming, hairstyle, clothing ect. is what we take the most notice of, not usually symmetrical features alone.

So, while being symmetrical in appearance is nice - it is not the be all end all of attraction, and alone, is certainly not what causes attraction, at least in person.

Usually, when a person is "attractive" they exude sexuality, seeming to come from their very pores and may or may not be symmetrical in appearance. It is-that sexuality which makes them more attractive, usually something that cannot be helped, and yes, makes men fall at their feet and women at certain ages jealous.

But the truly attractive will almost never see themselves the way others do. They do learn to deal with how others treat them, the same way every one else does. I do see how it would seem just as much curse as blessing, because in the end, you only want to be attractive to the one who truly loves you - no one else matters unless you plan on making a short lived living off your looks.



posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 09:54 AM
link   
a reply to: Dark Ghost




a reply to: tigertatzen

That's what continues to fascinate me about this website. There are so many intelligent and interesting people with fresh, unique perspectives to consider. Even if we don't all agree with each other, there is much to be learned.



I agree wholeheartedly. That's the very reason I stick around!



posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 09:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: rukia
a reply to: AdmireTheDistance

www.economist.com...

No. I'm talking symmetrical beauty. It's a mathematical equation. It's not subjective. I mentioned that already. Sounds like someone's jimmies are rustled.


I get that symmetry has to do with mathematics. And math is not subjective. 1+1 will never be anything other than 2. And so on up to quantum physics+. (Or so ide assume, as I know nothing of quantum physics.) But you get my jist?

symmetry-

symmetric/non symmetric-


However something tells me your not referring to triangles, squares or trees, but rather human or facial beauty. Maybe both, idk. But given the topic and all...

But with beauty, your introducing into the mix a human element. So unlike math, where 1+1 will always be 2, beauty is seen differently from person to person. With the research, am I required to agree with the results of the research? When research is telling people that- hey, this is beautiful, or this is more beautiful than this, based on symmetry or math, am I wrong if I do not agree? If I said 1+1= 4, that is wrong. But would I be wrong by agreeing or giving into something that contradicts my heart?

Im looking at a photo of a symmetrical face, I see some differences, but they are minute, same with the other photos out there on this subject, small differences. People are not photos, but constantly moving, not just our bodies, but our faces. Talking, smiling, frowning, laughing, chewing, facial expression, surprise, fear, what have you etc. Were always seeing others from different angles, like height differences, am I to the right or left of them, straight in front of them. So we're seeing others from all different angles or points of view all the time.

Can symmetrical differences even be noticed when were constantly moving? Makes me wonder how this research is done, with still photos or with moving people? Are we really so focused on these petty differences as a society that so much research is put into them? (That's rhetorical I guess, given there really is so much on this lol) When I see someone I find attractive, I don't think to myself, wow, they got some nice symmetry going on there!

Does any of this make sense or have I fallen flat lol?
And if this is off topic I apologize, the thread is all over the place.




edit on 13-1-2016 by C84K2 because: (no reason given)

edit on 13-1-2016 by C84K2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 10:04 AM
link   
a reply to: Bluesma




a reply to: tigertatzen

Tiger, I think you have a good head for discussing this and I appreciate reading your input here.

I think I am done with this thread. Even when trying to argue for the OP, she has a way of coming in to ruin all chance of rational exchange each time.

Now it is Bach.
Was he sexy?



Thank you
And yes, it would seem that things are in the degenerative phase as far as this little slice of entertainment is concerned.

I think the running theme here seems to be that it is ok to talk about other things that have very little to do with the original topic, as long as they pertain to someone whom the OP happens to think is physically beautiful...pretty sure that's how this works. Thread drift is absolutely acceptable...as long as it's "beautiful" thread drift.



posted on Jan, 16 2016 @ 02:52 AM
link   
a reply to: tigertatzen
Listen I get this messages in the messages box and sometimes I click on them. Generally if I don't see them I don't bother responding to them, it was bad change that I happened to click on this one.

Golden ratios etc symmetrical proportions, etc. None of it has to do with anything really but a subject you all chose to talk and look at. In real life and by real life I mean the reality you all have created and inhabited, even in that it does not matter. You know why? Because there are a thousand other things which would trump all of that, one of which being plain ol dump luck, and being at the right place at the right time. The whole of human mating game is the elimination of to many factors, the set paradigms to reduce random fluctuations in though processes and physical proximity.

But hey look at it like this. In school middle or high or anything really, on the playground, you have kids who hang out in groups, there are the nerds, the jocks, the goths and whatever other group you want to insert there in. That is how humans operate, hive minds for hive creatures. Now when those same kids get out of school, does any of that group nature or behavior stop?

Nope it does not, you see people copy paste same behavior onto other parts of the lives. At work, they group into like minds, in daily life same applies, and in everything they do the same would apply, in everything that humans do that play out, even lets say looking for a job or applying for something, what are they looking for? Qualifications? Or like minded people? Basically are not the qualifications just a program which was set attract like minded people. In politics what are they doing? In sports what are they doing when people root for a team? In everything else in life why do people group together? Just like in high school and just like on the playground when the bell rings they all go to there calling grounds, with there fellows.


I am wasting my time explaining things to you people. But anyways what I am saying is that there is no halo effect, there is only a minute group out of billions who dither to a set paradigm of credence's, basically its a group of people who all agree that something is true, and because they cant count or think past a few thousand they believe that is the sole priority of the whole world, and considering that most humans are bots set to paradigms it sets itself to be over encompassing, but only as long as that theory does not have to be tested out to far. Its set rules and paradigms.

And there is no magic golden ratio. You know what that is. It is an attempt by a group of people to quantify and eliminate the randomness of chance. By saying oh this here magic number and factors make so and so something or other. Its quite retarded, but as long as a million people believe any number of retarded things, they happen to become true, simply based on the numbers of it.

Why do you think for centuries we have had people believe in a man in the sky and all that when the reality of things have been much different on the ground floor, mass delusions and mass stupidity on a level never heard of before prior coming out of there caves those few thousand centuries earlier.

So yes, for anybody to be true or for anything to be real all that it has to have is others to agree with it. And the group with the most people who agree with a thing they would be in the right.

In effect it does not matter if your good looking or bad looking, it matter much more what group you prescribe to and what there numbers are, for generally the group with the biggest numbers is thought as being in the right. Its a big part what the daily hoopla is about, including this thing you keep on about, what did you call it. Symmetry, or the halo effect or whatever. So in effect the worst thing you can be in human civilization is an individual, because the numbers would be against you the whole time.

There are no perfections in nature and there are no perfections in humans, or human nature, even the fantasy you all subscribe to called the real world is full of plot holes that you would have to be a child to believe any of it, and that only as long as you don't question or think beyond the shapes and patterns put in front of you. But hey, the eye after billions of years of evolution has evolved to fill in the gap in its obstructed line of sight, and much latter the brain has evolved to extrapolate on those probabilities and possibilities, and now in this age the mind is even attempting to fill in a very big gap in its worldly view.

Its quite a huge gap to surmount, most especially considering that not that long ago humans were basically tribal creatures, and each tribe had there god and some even had there own code of conduct ie there believes, there religions, and to make sure that they survived some even encoded there golden ratios which dictated how to continuously reproduce there particular mind set over and over again in books, you know once humans were thought to think in abstract terms and thought writing forms.

So ya! Golden ratios, Halo effects. I think you all should stick to your particular flights of fancy's. There is nothing in this whole thread or in what you or anybody else has said that would make me think this is not just another culture club thing, pretentious people, but hey at least the OP is attempting to troll with her wacky and far out stories. And it just happened you all for some reason thought it was anything but that.

Funny that no?



posted on Jan, 16 2016 @ 05:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bluesma

This has NOTHING at all to do with beauty.



No, I agree entirely, it has everything to do with discrimination and that is the topic of the thread that "beauty" is used as a means to discriminate. Now what the discussion has turned up is that "beauty" is largely subjective, different people have a different perception of what is "beautiful". The hypothesis of the "Halo Effect" is that the more attractive you are the less receptive, or open, or subject, to criticism you are and therefore this induces both a false sense of importance, skills and ability, which as long as those people are never put under stress or called upon to lead in any other way, that is okay-ish. However, in a culture where the appearance of wealth and success is associated with a certain appearance this can lead to a general weakness in the society, and a competitive structure that is self-defeating, and that one of the manifestations of this, is that "beautiful" and intelligent people can be marginalised, in part because it is assumed that they are stupid, or little other than their appearance is considered of value, and in part, because to those who are not considered as attractive but are of equal or competing intelligence, will see those individuals as a double-threat and therefore seek to undermine their confidence.

The majority of the studies used by the North Carolina academics originated in the US, and were market studies in the majority of cases, indicating that much effort had been extended in finding the "perfect" face, just as they look for the perfect selling position, or just the right lighting and shade needed to get people in the mood to buy and when we look at the US through their media output we can see a totally bland landscape populated by people with dull and regular faces, highly styled and liberally made up. Plastic people. I am sure that all of them are very nice people but it is hardly a representative expression of the United States now is it? I don't find that kind of thing attractive in men or women, but I appreciate some do.

In comparison here in the UK we have a different status system, one that is supported by laws that encourage meritocracy. The more commercial channels may have a more glossed finish but the BBC is largely representative of the diversity of the population, no more so than in factual programming. I am currently watching a tv series on the Romanov's hosted by the brilliant Lucy Worsley. No one would ever question that she got her job because she is an attractive woman, or that she used her sexuality to get into the BBC, her obvious and confident command of history, and her ability to communicate that in an accessible way, is clearly why she is where she is today, her looks are irrelevant BUT her class, access to a high quality education and familial support may have given her the edge. And this is what we care about in Europe. People can be whoever they want to be in theory, but some still remain more equal than others.

Therefore, as you recounted it, your vet required an assistant, he advertised that fact giving details of what he wanted in an assistant. People who met the criteria applied for the job but because those applicants were of childbearing age he chose to offer the job to you, who not only did not meet the criteria that the applicants did, but according to your account you had not even submitted an application. I never for a moment suggested that you had been offered the job because you are "beautiful", you were offered it because you are cheaper. If he had wanted you specifically he would have offered you it before he advertised,but he wanted an assistant with a diploma. He was only willing to compromise and go for an unqualified assistant when the applicants with diplomas were also of childbearing age. That is in direct contravention of employment laws that prohibit the discrimination of women of childbearing age.

You had stated that when you think that someone is receiving preferential treatment, based on appearance, you speak up immediately. These women are being discriminated against based on the appearance that because they are of childbearing age they will be a inferior or unreliable or expensive employee. That is discrimination. Have you spoken up, because, true to my word, that is all I am doing.



posted on Jan, 16 2016 @ 05:54 AM
link   
The topic is discrimination based on physical appearence/ attractiveness.

I repeat-
That has nothing to do with my situation.

Repeat-

The other people who were initially interested changed their minds because they found it was a PART TIME JOB with erratic, unpredictable hours.
People with families, or planning to have families, mostly do not want part time employment, and they want fixed hours to be able to plan around.

(I know nothing about the situation in the UK- that is true in this country. )

Yes, older women, who have less experience because they spent their twenties and/or thirties at home have greater value here in france- the women have struggled long and hard to make that happen, so that they can feel safer focusing their efforts on their childbearing and rearing with the possibility of taking up a career later.

If you have a complaint about that difference in this particular culture, then let's go debate it in a thread where it is more appropriate.

If you have a complaint about those women who were interested in this job, then changed their minds, then I guess that is too bad, I am not going to try to get their contact info for you to tell them so, and I have already given you too much leeway in trying to help you understand their decision.



edit on 16-1-2016 by Bluesma because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2016 @ 06:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bluesma
Even a mods warning does nothing to dissuade these repeated attempts to change the topic??



I believe, though I may be incorrect, that that was due to my sending an alert to the mods because I observed that you had committed a Terms and Conditions violation, as I understood it. In nearly 9 years on ATS it is only the second or third time that I have used the alert function and would not normally have done so on this occasion, however though not intended to be a representative "Test", I did see an opportunity to experiment with the "Halo Effect".

So a few weeks ago, I became aware that it was against terms and conditions to insinuate, or otherwise accuse, another member of being inebriated, or otherwise mentally incapacitated, therefore when you made a similar jibe at Rukia I reported you for doing so. In my alert I stated that I was looking for an even handed approach given my own experience of such a violation of the terms and conditions of "ill mannered posting", I think it was. Anyway, I was sent a written admonishment by two seperate mods who each deducted points totally 1500. I take it from your post above that you were not even notified that you had violated the terms and conditions, let alone penalised for your ill-mannered behaviour.

We can deduce a number of things from this but I am not going to put words into the mouths of the Staff, they are perfectly capable of speaking for themselves.



posted on Jan, 16 2016 @ 06:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: C84K2
Can symmetrical differences even be noticed when were constantly moving? Makes me wonder how this research is done, with still photos or with moving people? Are we really so focused on these petty differences as a society that so much research is put into them? (That's rhetorical I guess, given there really is so much on this lol) When I see someone I find attractive, I don't think to myself, wow, they got some nice symmetry going on there!

Does any of this make sense or have I fallen flat lol?
And if this is off topic I apologize, the thread is all over the place.


Studies suggest that symmetry in female faces is related to fecundity. Women studied were found, at the time of ovulation, to have greater facial symmetry, or at least they were perceived to have greater symmetry (a bit of a gray area there). This applies to all women. However, some women naturally have more symmetry all of the time.

The indication from these studies is that males and females unconsciously respond to the display, implied or literal, to the appearance of fecundity and that those who appear most fecund within any group will receive more attention and status.

That's my understanding anyway. I think that the off-shoot, and why we are encouraging this "blandness" of media representation of women, is that this appearance of fecundity makes people relaxed, secure and more inclinded to spend money, and that certainly in magazines, and other still images, the appearance of symmetry can be manipulated to give greater emphasis to the illusion of prosperity and fertility. It also gives a false aspirationally model, one that is completely without reality, totally made up and in fact, pretty barren.



posted on Jan, 16 2016 @ 07:16 AM
link   
a reply to: Anaana

I think sometimes the t & c's have areas which are foggy and open to interpretation. I think most of us have had times when we were not in agreement with the judgements of the mods.

Using some common sayings which are more figurative than literal is one of those - I didn't mean it literally, and I added that "perhaps you read through all the posts and got confused about who said what" (and later "even the most intelligent people can have bad brain days"). I wasn't making a real accusation of inebriation.

I guess if we want to play word games as if we were lawyers, the case might be made, and I will totally accept loss of points and my post being taken out.

What is the "test" here? You wanted to see if you'd be treated specially because you are beautiful?

You know repeated attempts at defamation and slander towards me personally, at some point, is the context in which your claims shall be examined, and might color the judgments more than your looks - ESPECIALLY in this medium, where written word is what we're looking at - not your face.



posted on Jan, 16 2016 @ 10:31 PM
link   
Oh wow this thread has gone from the irregularly hilarious into what the what?

Cant we all just agree that if anybody thinks they are so super symmetrical or have a halo around there head the only option in figuring out what is what is to have a competition. Who know what! A walk off is as good as any I say. But they can post pictures of there faces or whatever, and we can take out our rulers and see if there nose is the same centimeters distance on one side as it is on the other side, or maybe they have a wobbly eye, or there nostrils are a bit off. We shall be the judge of that.

I dont know what you two ie bluesma and Anana are arguing about, but from reading this thread. I would say that ya, maybe looks had a tinsy winsy bit to do in bluesma job position, however it also much more likely that birds of a feather flock together, so horse people are likely to go with like minded horse people simply because they would feel less friction then the other routes. Like everything else even in jobs, when anybody is hiring its merely a matter of convenience for them, I would think females know this since its what they are all about, there conveniences.

I don't know whats the big deal, the last time I heard such a thing was from some people who were arguing on the best way to cook horse meat. Nobody eats horse here in the states or not that many, but I heard they do it up in Canada, you could buy horse meat up there at markets I heard. I also herd tell that when you cook it, it really stinks, one guy was even saying they have to spray with air fresheners to mask the smell. So don't know on this dispute of being a chef is about, or who the funk knows what french people eat besides snails and frogs and things, maybe they even eat french fries, who knows.

Or maybe you all are not talking about being a chef and cooking horses here? I saw a word "vet" in there. I assume none of you are Veterans? So maybe this is about veterinarians as in animal doctors. In which case that is even more weirder thing to argue about.

In which case I am pretty sure that looks may have had a bit to do with Bluesma new part time job, but likely it was only one thing in a list of many other things. I think its pretty self evident that in women at least that is a factor in everything they do. But what is also a bigger factor is that all of that was created by them this whole look at me constant game after all most women get dressed up to impress other women in the social aspects of things and that game and not necessarily to impress men.

Because really most men wont even notice, and nobody has time for any of that nonsense, thats all for people with to much time on there hands. In fact you could ask men who have been married for ages what color there wife's eyes are and I would not be surprised if a great percentage would not know and just start spouting off random colors.

You all have created this paradigm. And now you have to create laws to see your way around it. Oh ya! Quite redundant. Conclusion. None of this matters in any way what so ever, just two people online arguing using words, in a day or two even that will be irrelevant, pretty much everything online is irrelevant, most especially in social medias one being social sites on the net...Its all just dust in the wind.

The whole looks and social status thing is something which was created by females, its how they judge anything, our socity is based on it, and maybe you should ask yourself why you care what some stranger online is doing in some part of the globe which you will likely never ever meet, or will ever see face to face, and what job they have would not effect you what so ever in any way. It is like worrying what is going on the dark side of the moon. You could life a hundred lifetimes and that little tid bit of information wont matter one way or another to anybody in particular.

In conclusion attributing things to others is a waste of time and effort.



posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 02:14 AM
link   
Sadly I have no clue what it is like to be beautiful or attractive, I generally land in the "lights off bag-over-head" category. But there is one thing I know, crazy.

A "beautiful" person has a functioning brain and its more intelligent etc, lets stipulate that is accurate. Well, what is intelligence? Intelligence as in book smart and fitting in to society really well and never being more than just a cog in the well oiled machine?

Or is intelligence imperfection? Isn't that what genius us? A bit of insanity, a bit if asymmetrical brain wiring? How many "smart people" are sane? How many "brilliant people" are insane?

So would you rather be an ugly person with the mind of a genius? Or an attractive person with a so so mind?

Honestly I would want to be attractive with a so so mind, I got the worst of both worlds.



new topics

top topics



 
27
<< 17  18  19    21 >>

log in

join