Masculine beauty and suchlike

Well, the furious (by the standards of this blog) commenting on the previous post led to much thinking on beauty, and masculine beauty, and lots of other things. And ever notice how sometimes everything you read and watch and hear seems to tie up neatly with what you’re thinking? Well, that happened too.

It wasn’t just On Beauty, but also Guess who’s coming to Dinner and an article in yesterday’s Times of India and then a conversation with Daddy Long Legs. And, of course, the furious commenting on the last post.

So, beauty is definitely about attractiveness. So what makes men attractive? Blr Bytes pointed to a link that said it had something to do with evolutionary theory – characteristics associated with strength and all that. And Mr. Nair points me to an article about changing standards of male beauty. Clark Gable was attractive because he radiated sexual aggressiveness, present-day male movie stars are much more passive, it says.

So, masculine beauty. Again, a lot of ‘norms’. Much more activity-oriented, though. Strength, for example. Sexual predatoriness, or a lack thereof. And these are supposed to be linked to the ability to survive/procreate. But I really doubt that.

First, if the idea of beauty is linked to the ability to survive/procreate – sort of aiding the process of natural selection – then how come it is still linked to the ability to survive in forests and primitive civilisations: strength, predatoriness, et al? Hasn’t it evolved at all?

Second, how do you explain the fetish with slimness? For women, I mean. Surely, large hips and pelvises should be more beautiful than anorexically thin figures?

And third, how come men have to survive and women have to procreate? I mean, why isn’t strength beautiful in women? And what are the outward characterisitcs to judge whether men are fertile (virile?!)?

In any case, my proposition from the previous post continues to hold good: the moral authority to determine what is ‘beautiful’ lies primarily with the person whose beauty is being assessed. Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder only in the case of objects, things. Not in the case of persons, people.

And that brings us to ‘objectification’ – when the norms are set by the beholder, we are objectifying: whether it is John Abraham or Bipasha Basu, Clark Gable or Katharine Hepburn. So we expect them to measure up to an invisible standard (She’s so fat in that movie but-of-course-not-as-fat-as-me-but-I’m-not-fat-really) and make that invisible object-standard a norm for actual, real human beings.

Self-loathing, of course, results.

Advertisements

3 Responses

  1. Can I try and be deep?

    Beauty is as beauty does.

    No?

  2. 🙂 Of course! Just a different kind of beauty?

  3. “Men who look more masculine have higher levels of male hormones and also show a better ability to fight off disease. This makes them attractive as potential mates because their children will inherit this useful characteristic.”

    -Not too many women like what this research says.
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/376321.stm

    “Hypothesis: The female nubile hour-glass shape is the product of sexual selection and represents the most desirable visual cue for males. In addition to the hour-glass appearance the hallmark of the nubile shape is its relative thinness compared to older females.”

    -can be annoying. Too many logical flaws. Do with it what you will, just don’t shoot the messenger. LOL
    http://cogprints.org/800/00/eatdis~1.htm

    And…you really have to pick a moniker. You’re confusing me.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: