Beauty and Mind/Body integration

A few recent threads here on SOLOHQ, together with certain events in my life offline, have set me thinking about the whole area of relationships and attraction. One particular point has struck me which I would be interested in reading other SOLOists' opinions on.

While I enjoy ogling most Playboy centrefolds as much as the next (heterosexual) male, the great majority of ladies, through no fault of their own, have little chance of appearing in a magazine of that sort. However, it seems to me that girls can often come to appear much better looking when I hit it off with them and become attracted to them on a personal level. In other words, a girl who isn't strikingly beautiful at first sight can come to appear much more physically attractive if and as a relationship develops.

I'd be interested to know whether any other SOLOists experience this, and how you think it relates to the idea of mind/body integration. I'm figuring other SOLOists will have experienced it and that its a consequence of rejecting any mind/body split.

(Though I am writing as a heterosexual male, if this has any validity I imagine female and homosexual SOLOists will have experienced it too, so I'd be interested in your thoughts also)

Cheers
MH

Post 1

Tuesday, June 1, 2004 - 11:26am

I have experienced the exact same thing, Matt.

I think that the mind often follows the body, especially for people who value their thought processes and rational thinking. For an Objectivist especially, when you find someone that embodies the values that you want in yourself and your mate, mental attraction will develop, and the body will follow. Sex isn't just about physical pleasure, although sometimes it can be enjoyed that way. When it's expressed as an affirmation of love, it's also a bond of intimacy. In a way, you're physically bonding yourself to the values that you mentally value in the other person.

For example, there is a girl I know from school, who is the same age as myself and just graduated with me. She isn't ugly, but she's not a Playboy centerfold, either. In the past couple of weeks, our relationship has really started to grow tremendously. We've begun sharing thoughts and words that we never shared before. Even thought we're total opposites in many areas, she has a lot of qualities that I value in a friend/lover. As a result of our budding friendship, I've noticed that I've started to become more physically attracted to her as well. Albeit, I'm not going to make a move, because she's interested in someone else. The amusing thing is, she experienced somewhat of the same thing towards the person she would like to pursue a relationship with. We first met him when he came to work as a staff member with our marching band. Almost all the girls had a crush on him immediately, but she didn't think he was anything special. It was only after she began to talk to him and understand his personality that she found him extremely attractive.

Many people say the same thing about myself. I have lots of friends, and lots of friends that are girls, but I've only ever had one girlfriend. I've been told by most of my girl friends that they think I'm cute/attractive, but I'm not the kind of guy that someone would just "pick up" off the street. In other words, I'm not Hollister model. But I have also been told that once they get to know me, they find that I become more attractive.

Now, to get to the consequences of ignoring the body/mind intergration. I'll start with the mind. If one pursues a girl purely out of physical lust, it's obviously a bad thing. Physicality only lasts so long, and once you're done fulfilling that desire you will want to move on to the next thing. It's like those cheap toys that we all get as kids, where it's fun for about 30 minutes but soon it gets thrown in the closet or under the bed and forgotten for years. They have no substance.

And on the other hand, if one pursues a girl purely for her mind/personality, but you find her physically repulsive, your life will become a living hell. As my mom has told me, when you marry a girl it's the face you're going to wake up to for the rest of your life. If you're not physically attracted to your lover/wife then you're going to begin to harbor deep-seated emotions of aversion. Your mind will begin to focus on the repulsion, and the attractiveness of her personality traits will begin to lose their luster.

Ignoring either side will lead to grief in a relationship. The body and mind have to be on the same page, for both parties, for a healthy relationship to function.

Just my thoughts.

Jeremy Nix

Post 2

Wednesday, June 2, 2004 - 4:53pm

MH,

Like you, I have found it is possible to find a woman to be more attractive after getting to know them better, but a woman should be at least be attractive in the first place for me to be interested in getting to know them better. I cannot imagine being with someone whom I find physically repugnant. I do not think of dating and sex as an either-or proposition, that is, either the mind or body. There are enough women in this world that are beautiful inside and out that there is no need for me to scrape the bottom of the barrel before anything else. As much as I liked the animated films "Shrek" and "Beauty and the Beast", they were too simplistic in their denial of beauty's value, in the same way their less politically correct predecessors were too simplistic in placing beauty above all else.

You are also right that there are obviously not that many women who are physically attractive enough to be Playboy centerfolds, just as there are not that many women who run a transcontinental railroad (Taggert, not Amtrak). In addition, the possibility of someone like me winning the heart of a Playboy centerfold or the woman who runs a transcontinental railroad is slim to none - at least at this point in my life. I think romantic love, and how two people are attracted to one another, has as much to do with psychology and biology as it does philosophy. I do not think this is a subjectivist argument at all, especially since I have read and experienced that standards of physical beauty do not vary much between cultures. I already know that there are those who contribute to this forum who may strongly disagree with this, and may even call me a whim-worshipper. Oh well.

I think a good case study of this is "The Affair". To me, Ayn Rand rationalized (in a bad way) her affair with a man young enough to be her son by explaining it is her mind alone that he should have judged her by, which is why she was indignant when Branden later fell for a woman who was not at Rand's level mentally (not many women were, if any) but was better suited for Branden physically and emotionally. Interestingly enough, Frank O'Connor, the man whom Ayn Rand cheated on, was a man she loved for his physical features alone, not for any of his abilities or achievements.

Byron

Post 3

Wednesday, June 23, 2004 - 2:52pm

Nix and Byron,

I was hoping this would have generated somewhat more interest, but thanks very much to you both for your responses. I was very interested to read your experiences.

MH

Post 4

Thursday, June 24, 2004 - 9:28am

Hi MH!

I agree that a level of physical attractiveness is required for that initial interest. And going the other direction, as a girl, most of the guys I've dated were more attractive after I got to know them also.

I can think of a couple of reasons. First, the initial qualities that attracted you to someone are not the necessarily the same ones that keep you there. So looks might go lower on your list as you realize you have the same interests and outlooks on life. Also, later on you get a response or feeling in your gut when you see or think about the other person, likely as a whole. So the same feeling I initially might have gotten upon seeing a good looking person would be much stronger later on when they're just as good looking but now I also see how smart they are! So as a whole your feelings are stronger for them, I imagine it's not impossible to have some of that attributed to their looks.

It's probably a similar response to your reaction if a random girl burped/farted, versus the love of your life. :) Or how you might not notice any pregnant women, or find them a bit scary, until it's your partner who is pregnant and fat, yet you think it is simply the most beautiful sight in the world. You have hopes, expectations, love, history, etc. with the person and baby-to-be and that is significant in that it evokes a lot more emotion than just another beautiful pregnant girl walking down the street. Or why a hotrod built with your hands is much more 'beautiful' than one machine manufactured.

Don't know if that provides any sort of philosophical explanation you might have been seeking from people, but it's some thoughts on the topic!

-Elizabeth

Post 5

Thursday, June 24, 2004 - 2:22pm

To me, Elizabeth Taylor is very beautiful, and yet I am not physically attracted to her. (It seems the feeling is mutual--she never calls.) I go for the plainer look. Give me, sans makeup, Tracey Ullman or Sigourney Weaver or Bebe Neuwirth (c'mon--you've had them long enough).

A good figure is important. But once that minimum is met, I go for personality. There has got to be life and innocence and vivaciousness.

Post 6

Friday, June 25, 2004 - 10:10am

I like a good figure too, one where everything's in proportion. (A 38D bust with 30 inch hips is not in proportion.) A good figure, a pretty face, a pleasant voice -- that's enough to grab my initial interest. But there's no way I could take a woman to bed if she was poor company out of it.

Post 7

Sunday, June 27, 2004 - 8:39am

Really interesting and complicated topic. I think that even the attraction that comes after getting to know a person for several weeks can still be dangerous for 2 main related reasons: (1) it is easy to intellectualize conscious values or what 'ought' to be valued and losing all of the real aspects of the person that makes them attractive (or unattractive)---maybe a key indicator in the world of Objectivism is to hear an analogous reference to a romantic scene in AS or TF; (2) it is easy to reify initially attractive qualities from the whole person, ignoring all idiosyncracies and mannerisms and everything else, in developing attraction for even the first several months (or more)---a big issue in romance, where some otherwise inessential qualities can be very essential between two people. I think these issues flow ~almost~ naturally, because it is just an amazing feeling of visibility and extension to sense such an opening up and combining of lonely inner-worlds, and that feeling will naturally want to be protected, sometimes at the expense of reality. The fact that there is a great deal of inner-pressure to be people many are not in Objectivism (and I don't mean merely in being 'rational') gives even more weight to the above. Of course a person is fully responsible not to let that happen, but I'm talking about how difficult it still is. That is what I've gathered on the matter.

In the beginning of the year, I was seeing a very attractive, highly intelligent objectivist that had ~many~ of the same explicit values as I, but we were both guilty of those above problems, and really should have realized that we didn't make a good couple at all. I think that she is unfortunately much more connected to those issues (and will continue to be), because she is more of an Objectivist in romantic love (including both the account of femininity/masculinity and the identification with Randian characters and scenes). She would disagree with this assessment, perhaps. Even then, when I still considered myself an 'objectivist', there were several important ways in which we did ~not~ fit together, and I blame myself for not seeing that and having my heart broken when everything just naturally evaporated before my eyes. However, I'm also happy to say that I've learned a lot about myself and what I want in another from it, which was very important. :)

I hope my perspective and experience are of some use in this thread :)
-Dominic

Post 8

Tuesday, June 29, 2004 - 3:27am

I love talk about sex and beauty, so here's a few comments in reaction to what I've read in this thread. I think that beauty centers around consciousness. Let's assume that ants have consciousness, which I actually think they must. Would you prefer a stereotypical ant as your pet, or one with above-average consciousness? The latter, right? The more complex a given consciousness is, the more like ourselves it becomes, and thus the greater interest we'll show in it. So, if an ant existed that possessed, in its odd-shaped head, everything we wished for in a partner's head, we'd almost love it. ALMOST love it. The only problem would be that it doesn't LOOK like a partner, and thus our projections of feeling would be blocked even before they started flowing out. Whereas, what if this once-ant had a human exterior as well, making it all human everywhere? We'd finally be fully open to its inner self, because looks do count when it comes to perceiving another's inside reality. The closer someone else's exterior comes to what you prefer looking at, the easier it is to connect with their consciousness inside, even though you won't know this connection-need is being satisfied as you look at them. And when you do connect, though it may just be via a glance, and may just last a second, their body is what you caste this consciousness-love on to, not their mind, their liver, or secreted dollars. Thereby creating the illusion that their body is ALL you're interested in. Sure, the body you're looking at may attract you, but this lust for it is mingled with another, deeper one. The consciousness-connection. It's never just a blind lust; your feelings always hope for a certain other union, the one that makes you keep staring after every long, long blink. At least, that's what mother told me when I was 8. I'll never forget it.

(Edited by Darin on 6/29, 4:25am)

(Edited by Darin on 6/29, 4:30am)

Post 9

Friday, July 2, 2004 - 2:12am

Thanks to you all for your responses, I do appreciate them. I guess I should be wary of over-intellectualising sexual attraction. Hah! I'm glad though that other SOLOists have experienced the same, or something similar.

MH

Post 10

Friday, July 2, 2004 - 6:43am

I have something different to say.

I'm going to agree resoundingly with all of you, because I've had the same experiences in life, and then, as I usually do, I'm going to point my lens of objectivity in the "sacred cow" direction.

In both The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, the lead male characters were tall and lean, with chiseled good looks and hair, and described with a stature that could only inspire reverence from others... The archetypal Princeton fraternity look.

Howard Roark was not average-looking, stocky... and definitely not short.

In addition, both the lead female characters from these books were the most gorgeous females in the stories, hands down. And again, they fit the same stature: tall, lean, hair and clothes flowing.  The film version of The Fountainhead was produced with much direction from Ayn Rand herself, who had always pictured Gary Cooper for the part, with an equally statuesque Dominique.

There was no stocky or short Dominique, and she definitely wasn't plain-looking.

What this all brings me to, is this:  Why would a writer like Rand -- and I'm sorry that I must say this -- with a, shall we say, "face for radio", have so little faith in the power of a less-than-gorgeous person to be respected by others?

I think the answer is obvious: Because despite all our heartfelt aspirations toward fairness and all our optimistic talk, we still tend to reflexively respect classic, mathematical proportions of body design and facial features. People truly do instantly and more profoundly respect a male who is tall, above all other males, and a female who is shapely and with a child's face, above all other females.

What law says that such people automatically have to be the bearers of superior virtue? Does such a thing tend to actually happen, as a function of their beauty?

If you are born toward the statuesque end of the physical spectrum, does society treat you so well that it bolsters your sense of self-confidence and self-reliance to a Roarkian or Dominiquian degree, where you feel sure that you can eventually triumph over life through bold living? If you are born toward the less-than-statuesque end, by contrast, does society treat you so poorly that it erodes your sense of self-confidence and self-reliance to an abyssmally low Ellsworth Toohey-an degree, where you feel sure that you can only eventually triumph over life by underhanded living?

I'm surprised that no one ever called Rand to task on this, while she was alive... Why would she create characters of nobility that looked practically nothing like her? Why not homely heroes?

In this respect, I think that Shrek has her beat.

For example, notice that the comic book character "Wolverine" has always been a fan favorite... yet he is shortish, stocky, and hairy. A foul-tempered ground animal. And yet still the number one hero in all of comics for many, many years, in reader's polls.

But what did film studio executives do with this particular character when it came time to make a movie? They made him TALL... and not just tall, but the tallest hero on the team. Taller, even, than Cyclops. And Cyclops was always the "pretty boy" of the team, in the comics... he should have been the tall one.

Why make him so tall? Because the studio executives know what so many of us just can't depressingly bring ourselves to admit; that most of society can only find a tall male heroic.

But is my criticism fair?   Well, in the movie "Hero" with Dustin Hoffmann, Hoffmann's character was the actual hero, but Andy Garcia's character got all the credit. Why? Ultimately, it was because Garcia was better suited for the limelight, and everybody knew it. He was taller and better-looking.

Now, perhaps you could argue that Wolverine as a short, stocky, hairy male could be applauded as heroic... just not sexy. And since so much of Hollywood revolves around sex, you have to make your lead character sexy. Personally, though, I'm more cynical than that. I don't think he would have been as easily viewed as sufficiently sexy or heroic, were he not tall.

And notice that out of those three physical attributes that I used to describe the comic book character of Wolverine: shortish, stocky, and hairy, the first two combine to really create the impression of "short", while the last attribute -- "hairy" -- was the only one kept in the final Hugh Jackman character.  Apparently "hairy" was acceptable to audiences... perhaps as a sign of virility or something.

My point in all of this is: let's be objective.  Would Howard Roark, John Galt, Dominique, or Dagny have been nearly as heroic were they not painstakingly, physically described to us the way that they were?

On an end note... here's a link to a study that dispels the notion that height doesn't matter in other people's eyes: http://www.napa.ufl.edu/2003news/heightsalary.htm

Enjoy.

(Edited by Orion Reasoner on 7/02, 7:11am)

Post 11

Friday, July 2, 2004 - 10:32am

Orion, speaking as one who writes in his spare time: sure, it's possible to write a hero who's short, stocky, and surly, but what's the point? If you're going to portray an ideal man or an ideal woman, why would you want to give a hero the mind of a Titan and the body of a commonplace schmuck? Why would you endow a heroine with Athena's mind and Medusa's less than charming looks?

Post 12

Friday, July 2, 2004 - 5:16pm

Why wouldn't you?

Friday, July 2, 2004 - 8:22pm

If I wanted to write about an ugly protagonist, I'd write my autobiography, Orion.
(Edited by Matthew Graybosch on 7/02, 8:22pm)

Post 14

Friday, July 2, 2004 - 9:02pm

Less-than-statuesque people with inner fire and objectivity do make compelling heroes.

Post 15

Sunday, July 4, 2004 - 9:49am

Orion

In the Romantic Manifesto, Rand states that art is a SELECTIVE recreation of the aspects of reality the artist finds essential to convey whatever idea intended by the art piece. It is life as should and could be. She wanted to fictionalize a perfect human. A hero. Focusing on the ordinary, average, homely, or ugly would have been a destruction of heroism and a slap in the face to you and I. Like saying "here is perfection" and handing over a steaming pile of crap. Read the Romantic Manifesto because she addressed this exact topic. She states that a painter who unnecessarily includes a zit on the face of a beautiful lady in a portrait wouldn't conveying beauty in its ultimate romantic form. Maintaining flaws in the intended "ideal" destroys our concept of the ultimate in life. Of course, a less than flawed character who overcomes adversity has appeal, but it is not the IDEAL MAN Rand wished to capture with her fiction.

Dave

Post 16

Sunday, July 4, 2004 - 12:29pm

Well, I just disagree that a statuesque person is necessarily more noble... I've met a lot of truly unethical parasites who know that they can constantly get away with murder because of their looks and build... many people put them on a pedestal of unaccountability, where they can do no wrong, no matter how much damage they cause.

Post 17

Sunday, July 4, 2004 - 1:04pm

We are talking about a fictional character in which an artist (this case Rand) is explicitly trying to embody the most heroic and romanticized concepts of beauty. It would be unfortunate to fall into the postmodern, pessimistic worldview that since pure beauty is rarely (never) found in reality it is therefore a worthless presentation of unrealistic values. Rand called that school the "naturalistic" one which sought to present the pseudo-heroic in the context of a "slice of life" or fictional account of life only AS IT IS (aka the mundane). Her artistic style was one of ROMANTICISM where man is presented in his ultimate form despite its empirical scarcity in the real world. Sure, many attractive people in the world suck, but what does that have to do with creating a fictional hero?

Post 18

Sunday, July 4, 2004 - 2:28pm

Remember though that when Dominique remarked about Roark to Kiki Holcombe at a party, "I don't know what one could say for him, unless it's that he's terribly good-looking, if that matters," Kiki's response was "Good-looking? Are you being funny, Dominique? ... he's not good-looking at all, but extremely masculine." The point being, as Toohey later observes, that what Dominique saw was the style of Roark's soul in his face.

Post 19

Sunday, July 4, 2004 - 6:55pm