Is Physical Appearance Completely Irrelavant?

I was also starting a new topic for this discussion but see Lola has already started one. I'll transfer a generic version of the discussion here that isn't specific to any one gathering, along with questions.

Internet Gatherings - The Day After

Participating in gatherings through the years, I've observed that after gatherings of internet buddies, before the photos are available, folks have a great time talking about impressions such as personality, common ground and new discoveries about each other.

As soon as photos are available the talk turns to judgment of looks with little or no mention of a person's personality or intelligence. Does this make the people it is aimed at uncomfortable? I know when I've been the focus of talk about my looks, I've always yearned for someone to take the time to look deeper to get to know me.

Do people feel uncomfortable when the chatter focuses too much on appearances? If yes, is it because you feel there is more to you then your looks or do you feel left out if you aren't included in the chatter?

Does meeting a person change your internet interactions with them? Have you experienced changing interactions after people have met you? Is it a positive or negative change?

Would a photo gallery of board member photos change your interactions with people you have yet to meet in person? Would you post your own picture on such a gallery?

Interesting!

No time just now, but looking forward to seeing how the discussion develops.

I will start by adding what I didn't add on the aforementioned thread, and I have a few tweaks since. I am not entirely unopen to butryfly's pov, just got defensive re the ping at an old woman in a sundress, which hit me as real zinger.

But the discussion needs to be larger and should be open to butryfly's view.

So, perhaps out of context for those newly tuning in...

here's my self edited post sitting in my Mac Stickies column, admittedly short -

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And someday - it is said - we will all view each other by our spirits, and I would dread that if I believed in it, because I love physicality, of all kinds and ages, all kinds of ableness. Finally it comes out, osso is a materialist, philosophically, to the extent she has any sense of philosophy at all.

I can see where butryfly is coming from, see her post as a cry, don't agree with her, but see her need to comment. Think the sundress comment was meant to wound, but it wounded the commenter. We have all made comments we would like to take back.

Butrfly, I think there's too much enphasis on looks, especially for people in our age group. You would think we would have learned a thing or two about personality and character by now. I'm more of the liberal in viewing of people; I love all peoples, irregardless of their national origin, culture, race, age, gender, fat, skinney, tall, short, handicap, or clothes . What may turn me off is the way they treat other people or disprespect of others. I'm fortunate to have people I call friends in many places across this globe. Our family is made up of many cultures and races. I abhor discrimination of any kind. I'm not yet perfect, but I still haven't learned to walk on water. I know that day will never come, but I keep trying. c.i.

The skill of the surgeon is in a race with the vanity of the patient and the removal of the stigma (if there ever was one) of having "a little work done" as well as the prevalence of even teenagers augmenting their appearance leads me to suggest one of two things:

1. The question has become almost moot, or,

2. The bar has been raised, and should one make a distinction between "natural" and "enhanced" beauty?

Gotta do laundry but I'll come in ass-first later on. :-)

buterflynet

I think, actually, that you place an emphasis on appearance which is not justified. Personally, I am no less discomfited by discussion of, for example, my writing style than I am by discusion of my appearance.

If instead of photos being available (on the thread) it was audio recording of voices, I'm sure folks would leap on that in precisely the same manner..."Gosh, I did NOT think you would sound like THAT".

The written word allows a wonderful insight into a person, but it sure as hell isn't the only thing. One need only consider all of the incredibly beautiful writers who were real jerks in social situations.

In the instance of the Albuquerque thread, that was not only my first get together with others I'd know only online previously, it was also the first time where a clear photograph of me was made public to this community, many of whom I've know online for years. There is a definite vulnerability attendent.

But what the hell...we humans are a package deal. We ought to be brave about this stuff, and damn the torpedos.

addendum...thus I will also forward unwashed tshirts to any who might be interested.

Was brought up in San Francisco where there is a richness in diversity of people and cultures. When meeting people, for me, the connection is more with personalities than looks. Do we notice how people appear physically? Of course we do! However, it's the exchange of the spirit
which sustains, not the exterior facade.

Thinking hard - be back.

I must start out by saying that my experience of the process of the discussion on the SW Gathering thread was very different than the experience butrflynet describes above. I didn't think anyone was being excluded or seen as less than a whole person. And I was surprised to learn that she thought this was the case.

How a person puts his/herself together is one of many forms of communication we have as human beings in a groups. It's often the first communication we have with others. How we arrange ourselves tells much about who we are and is open to the interpretation of the beholder, but no more so than other forms of communication.

I'm not one to disparage others for their priorities (unless the other is GW.) We each have our interests based on many variables and I've always been more interested in knowing what another's priorities are and why than I am in judging whether they should have arranged them as they have.

It's true that we meet each other on the internet without privilege of knowledge of physical appearance. And we often go for long periods before we know how others look, if ever. This makes the pattern of the relationship different in many interesting ways. But I can't agree with those who think this is somehow better than the more traditional method of getting to know another. Eventually there is curiosity about how another person looks, how old they are, where they live, etc. It's a natural curiosity, I think and understandable for those who like to know.

I've never minded being admired for my appearance (obviously, have a look at my avatar.) I've never felt it detracted from my status as a thinking individual. I can look good and think at the same time. My ideas and/or appearance stand on their own. And I think others do as well.

I wonder too, if there's a sexual component to the criticism butrfly brings. Is it ok to be seen as a desirable sexual object? Is it ok to wish to be seen in this light? Is it ok to wish to be seen as a desirable sexual object if one is past early youth? Is it ok to succeed in the effort to appear sexually appealing? I personally think it's fine. Sex drives us all and some of us are more interested in continuing our sexual lives for longer than are others.

Also, butrfly seems to believe the focus on physical appearance was from the men toward the women, but I think there was equal emphasis on the men's appearance as well. And is there one way of looking that makes a person a sexually desirable object? I don't think so. People are beautiful for a number of reasons, one important one being, obviously intelligence and sensitivity.

I don't believe anyone should apologize for how they look. We're each individuals.

Those are my beginning thoughts. I haven't had the time to organize them well for tonight. Let's see how the discussion goes and we'll go from there.

I also think it should be noted that the photos were posted at the sencere request of many who wished to see how the gathers looked.

Stradee, It seems some people never learn that looks is only skin deep. As you state, "it's the exchange of the spirit" which sustains friendships and love. c.i.

I really can't remember, anyone start talking about how we at the London meeting looked like - obviously an advantage of
a) age,
b) never having joing a beauty contest.

Something of an aside here...as I age, I find the nuances of human form more and more touching, in ways the media or many even in their thirties or forties might not get - I am interested in the tilt of the head, the wave of the hand (heh), the straightforward look in the eye, the slight movement to pay attention...the physical camaraderie of trying to catch the bus together, or whatever the situation involves. Not only in my age group, such as it is, but both older and younger...I am looking at younger people differently than I might have before, for lots of idiosyncracies...I am finding more about everybody more touching.

The 'sex object' point in Lola's post is a very interesting one to me. For some feminist theorists, the term suggests something completely irredeemable, but I think those theorists (and it certainly isn't all feminist theorists) have it dead wrong.

Each of us, and I think this is a certainty, wish to be physically desired by some partner. If we were all equally beautiful, or all equally successful in experiencing the sort of sex life which we would wish for ourselves, this probably wouldn't be a topic of much concern, but we are varied in this quality as in all others.

No one with any real maturity will hold that physicality trumps all other personal factors. Persons who are so poorly developed that they might hold this notion are bound to be poor companions and even poorer lovers, and experience shows me that is so.

Walter, I do remember some expression of disappointment by some that there were no pictures of the gathers in your group.

OK - I was hoping to gather my thoughts far better than I have been able to - I shall prefer to blame my current virus-ridden state, rather than dementia or pre-existing lack of neuronal inter-connective richness!

First: Appearance is, in my view, important to us as a species. It may not be right or fair, but there it is, and we may as well get used to it.

I think it is especially important to us at initial stages, or when mating - and, when a new bunch of men and women get together, for the first PHYSICAL time, I think there is a flurry of interest in appearance - partly due to both factors - for I believe there is often an element of flirtation in our net relationships - (or at least in mine! - blush) - and in all new meetings between genders who are sexually attracted to each other.

Butrflynet's comment in the previous thread left me absolutely shocked and reeling - and torn - because, on the one hand, I had stopped reading the thread because I had stopped being interested in the content, so I felt that I knew where she was coming from, but I also knew that I disagreed deeply with other aspects of her reasoning, and I was left in shock by the manner of expression, and also by such words by that speaker. My initial impression was that there was something very deep happening behind the scenes of the situation, and I think Butrflynet has let us know what some of this is.

I was left needing to make some sense of what had happened - and my response to it - and I have been mulling ever since.


I have had a good look at the thread which sparked this discussion - and I think it is clear that, for a while, the thread did become very involved with badinage about the folk there who - dare I say it - were the most obviously physically attractive at first sight.

I do not agree that, in this case, the interaction was sexist in nature, since the badinage was about both sexes equally - and participated in by both. Also, I agree (gasp!) with Craven's comment on the other thread that there is a problem with criticizing some of the men in that thread for becoming vacant gawkers - (which I think is the thrust of the accusation) - while none of the women who were also engaging in appreciative badinage weree so labelled.

I realise, on reflection, that I did have a little discomfort about the focus on physical attractiveness, probably because I wondered if the discussion was excluding some - but my response was very mild, and simply involved my not remaining involved. I imagine that all over this and every forum everyday there are discussions that people simply move on from. There was something about this one that, for at least one of us, meant it could not be simply be moved on from.

I wonder if the "ism" operating in this dynamic is not more ageism than sexism - (though it can be argued, of course, that sexism operates in ageism.)



I do hope that people are not more hurt by me speaking frankly about this.

Quick question before I tackle this in earnest:

What's wrong with consenting parties looking at each other as sex objects?

Disclaimer: The thread ceased to be interesting to me right about when hubba hubbas appeared.

I rarely am obvious in appreciation of beauty but don't see a problem with it whe it involves consenting paties (i.e. if the attention is unwanted it can be ugly, if not tis biology).