Beauty and Worth of a Person
On the right hand of this blog, I say that I am single and ready to mingle. Indeed, I am, but I grow weary of it. Recently, I had become attached to this woman, and I thought about dating her. We had a few conversations about it, but I stopped when she said, "I am not attracted to you. You are everything I want in a man, but I just am not attracted to you." And, you know, that's definitely not easy to hear. It's had me up a few nights, and I've been thinking, so this here is just what I have so far. Nothing too organized, but some ideas for fodder.
It is true, I am not an attractive man. I can't deny that. I'm not fit, I have a porous nose, and I have a round face. She has said that she can't be compatible with someone she isn't attracted to, but I've already written about such slogans before. So, that part is nonsense. I mean, in her view, I am a virtuous man, a faithful man, and a son of the Church, which, in my opinion, is really all a person should need. Heck, it's all I need (in a woman).
Now, I am tempted to say, "Wow, you're incredibly shallow." But, in an attempt to be understanding and objective, there might not be anything wrong with this type of shallowness. So, objective beauty (and ugliness) exists. I am not beautiful. But, there is a kind of value that beauty has, and it probably is intrinsic (though I'm not 100% on this. It seems like every galaxy is beautiful, even though no one but God sees them). So, conversely, there might be something lacking in value in something that is not beautiful. So, since I am not beautiful, there is some value seriously lacking in me, and the desire for this isn't, suddenly, irrational or what we might call "shallow". I lack something seriously good, and that might be a legitimate cause for concern. This makes sense if you believe that truth, beauty, and goodness are like the same thing.
It still might be tempting to say, "Well, no, you're just illegitimately trying to justify (is that a contradiction?) some insecurity." Okay, maybe, but consider that when we recognize someone who is not fit, and who is not ugly, try to shed this ugliness and try to get in better shape and try to be better looking, we praise them. But, we don't praise those who go from the latter to the former. So, there seems to be a general consensus that being beautiful is a good.
It's what I've written before. We desire beauty because it is good. Now, I just have to awkwardly accept the implication it has for me personally, which doesn't really work out in my favor (heh...work out).
So, now, with that being said, maybe I don't have to be so harsh on myself. I've written before about the phenomenon of perceiving someone as more beautiful over time, even though nothing really changed about them. So, maybe I am not beautiful in this way, but in some other way I am, and so, not being beautiful in this way isn't really a big deal. So, in an episode of King of the Hill, where Bobby decides to grow roses, there's this scene.
BOBBY: This one's pretty.HANK: Not if we go by the book. According to the checklist, this one's perfect.BOBBY: But I like how mine's a little off-center. It's got Wahbi-Sabi.HANK: You can't win an argument by making up words.BOBBY: Wahbi-Sabi is an Eastern tradition, Dad. It's celebrating the beauty in what's flawed. Like the crack in the Liberty Bell or the mole on Cindy Crawford's face.HANK: The Liberty Bell is great. But come on, if it was in a competition with a bunch of other bells without cracks, it would lose.BOBBY: But sometimes it's the imperfections that make you love something even more. So what if this rose is a little short, a little wide? It's got more personality than those other ones.HANK: Uh-huh. But we're out to win.
While I wouldn't say that the imperfection, giving it more personality, is what makes it beautiful in it's own respect. Rather, I would say that you are considering this aspect of the thing in a different light that makes it beautiful in a way that you didn't see it before. To make sure that I am not just trying to find a way to make myself feel better, consider that when considering something that is beautiful in another way, it suddenly isn't so beautiful anymore. Like, I've never been to New York, but in the first X-Men movie, there's a scene where they are fighting inside the Statue of Liberty. And it looks industrial and ugly. I had never considered what it had looked like before until I saw the movie, but of course that makes sense, that it looked that way. But on the outside, it encourages feelings of patriotism and pride in our countries history and heritage. On the outside, it's kinda pretty. On the inside, not so much. In this case, it's not what's on the inside that counts. So, in another way, some way not seen to many people apparently, or any people at all actually, I just can't express my beauty in a way that is beneficial for getting married.
And that's okay.
Adrian,
ReplyDeleteI had to break this up into two comments because of the character limit so bear with me.
I enjoyed this post, it presented a perspective I had not considered before. I can sympathize with your struggles, as I assume most single men can. However, I think you are on the wrong track here, and thinking about this too much from a man's perspective. It is good that the woman you were pursuing appears to have been honest with you. That can be tough for women, especially in that situation.
I read your post on compatibility as well, and in that one, I think you misunderstand what people want in a relationship. In that post, you immediately rule out sex, because the people you know are not having sex before marriage. However, there is a difference between people having sex and not liking it and not being able to imagine liking having sex with a person, and I would think this is what people mean when they say they are sexually incompatible. For people to date, something other than love is required because love is all that is required for friendship. Love is also all that is required for you to be a good person, to be saved, etc., but I don’t think it will help you much to build sexual attraction.
In case this is still not clear, think about this from two different perspectives. The first we will consider is that of a beautiful woman, who is also a very good Catholic, so she doesn’t need to be constantly corrected on her behavior. Now, she can marry just about anyone she pleases, and not a few of her suitors would do literally anything she asked of them. Do they love her? She has no idea, but suspects they are just doing things for her so they can have sex with her, which is not really love.
The next perspective is your own. You say in your blog that “I mean, in her view, I am a virtuous man, a faithful man, and a son of the Church, which, in my opinion, is really all a person should need. Heck, it's all I need (in a woman).” Now, I suspect this isn’t quite a true. Let’s take an extreme case. If there was a very virtuous, faithful woman, very Catholic and she was 65 years old and single, I suspect you would not be willing to date her. And the primary reason would be that you would not be sexually attracted to this woman, even if you do love her.
So hopefully now I have established that sexual attraction is important in a dating relationship, because eventually the people dating will get married and have sex. From what I have considered, I do not think sexual attraction is rational, but I am willing to be convinced otherwise. However, this appears to be how the world is ordered. For men, sexual attraction is relatively simple. They are sexually attracted to beautiful young women. This may vary a bit around the edges, but the basic premise is pretty universal for men. (And obviously as a Catholic, you would want to marry a woman who is also virtuous, but for now we’re just talking about sexual attraction, rather than who one should marry.) This, I believe is where your post is coming from. When the woman says attractiveness, you immediately think of your personal beauty, because that is generally what men think of attractiveness.
However, for women, sexual attractiveness is not based primarily on looks. Looks can help, but they are much more peripheral than other factors. This is very good news for you and all men, because looks are tough to change, and tend to get worse as one grows older. Women are attracted to men that are mysterious, confident, playful leaders. This means men that are not desperate or put women on a pedestal. It can be difficult to change perceptions of yourself in these areas, as any change is, but it’s not nearly so difficult that you can’t do it. The mysterious part is relatively simple, and should be fairly natural to most men. All you need to do is reveal and explain less about yourself. If you need to have a long talk and work things out, do it with one of your male friends, rather than a female friend, and especially not with a woman you are attracted to (unless she’s married, in which case you might be okay talking to her). If you’re constantly telling a woman about your feelings, she’s going to start viewing you as a friend, because that’s what women who are friends do: talk about their feelings. The confident, playful leaders part can be a bit more work, but the basic idea is just how it sounds. Put yourself in a position where you can lead things, preferably something you are already good at. Confidence can also be tough for someone who is constantly examining themselves as any good philosophy student would, but to start you should not be revealing to women places in your life where you are not confident. Also, always call them out when you know they’re b-s-ing. Playfulness can also be tough especially with beautiful women, because it goes against your instincts, but once you get the hang of it, it’s a lot of fun. Teasing, being goofy around, and making fun of girls are all good ways to be playful and they enjoy it as well. Then something overall you want to keep in mind is that women never want a man who puts the woman as the absolute center of their lives. You should have little problem with this as you have God at the center of your life, but it can be tempting to think that there is a woman or women out there that you cannot live without. That is not true, and you had better never make a woman think you cannot live without her, as this will be a big turnoff for her.
ReplyDeleteOne last thing, if you are really worried about your appearance, and want to get in shape, start by cutting out liquid calories, especially sodas. From what other people have said, this seems to be the easiest and most painless way to lose weight. From there you can start lifting weights if you want or any number of things, but like I have said throughout this comment, I don’t think it’s that important for your marital chances.
Finally, I know free advice is worth the price you paid for it and I hope I have not sounded condescending in this comment. I think you and I share many qualities, and I have been where you are before, and so I wanted to help out.
Ichmagnet,
DeleteThank you for your reply. Definitely a lot to think about.I want to make some comments, so first things first.
You gave an example where I might date someone who is older than I am, and you say I probably wouldn't marry her because of physical attractiveness. Well, funny enough, I've actually written about that very subject.
http://christianvanguard.blogspot.com/2014/10/marrying-age.html
In that post, I say I wouldn't marry someone who is significantly older or younger than I out of a sense of propriety, not because of a lack of physical attractiveness. And in fact, I have been very attracted to women who have a considerable age difference.
I hate to bring this up, but since we're talking about carnal pleasures, cougars are a thing. Or, put more crudely, MILF's are a thing as well. And from what I understand, coming from the female perspective, Silver Foxes, that is men who are significantly older than the girl infatuated with him, are a thing as well. So, sexual attraction to someone who is in a different age category, and thus looks noticeably different, doesn't seem to be an issue.
Consider too that I've pondered Josephite marriage for myself, and would be okay with that as well.
And finally, I know sexual attraction isn't that big of an issue for me because I support arranged marriages, which can be valid and fruitful, even though we have little to no knowledge whatsoever about the other person, sexually.
http://christianvanguard.blogspot.com/2015/10/arraigned-marriages.html
I know, with most other men, it's a big issue. Not really with me. It'd be nice to be sexually attracted to my wife, but I recognize it isn't a necessary aspect.
I thank you and God for your advise, and I will meditate upon them! Thanks!
Adrian,
DeleteIt's taken me too long to get back to you. Just a couple things for this one. I am surprised you would be attracted to much older women. I should have been more careful to speak in generalities rather than your specific case. As far as cougars go, I'd say they fall into two categories: women who were extremely beautiful, and so still are somewhat attractive, which is rare, and women who are not so attractive but are down for anything, which means men will prefer them sometimes for easy action. Silver foxes go to exactly the point I was making which is that good looks don't matter as much for women. I am curious if you know of a good source on Josephite marriages. I don't see the point of them any more. I think they could have been good in Joseph's time if there was a particularly virtuous woman, who would have been a burden on her family or not had as many privileges as she was entitled if she had not been married. Why wouldn't you just join a religious order?
No worries, I'm sure you were occupied with more important things. I certainly have been through a lot since your last comment!
DeleteConcerning cougars and silver foxes. The original counter example you gave said to consider the older woman. You suspected I would not be willing to date her because she was older and so probably not as sexually attractive. Here, I think you are using two terms throughout your reply interchangeably that shouldn't be: sexual attractiveness and physical attractiveness. There isn't a correlation. So, say on a scale of 1-10 I am physically attracted to Addie with a 9. And say I am physically attracted to Brianna with a 6. I could easily see myself being more sexually attracted to Brianna than Addie, even though I find Addie more physically attractive. The reason is because sexuality is not solely physical. Sexuality, and marriage, is the comprehensive union of two people, not just physical, though it is physical. But what motivates this physical union needn't be physical attraction, but a proper romantic one, which cares little about age. So, silver foxes and cougars are attractive (which may or may not be physcial, but attractive nonetheless) even though they have lost the distinctive youthful look. So, youthful looks don't matter, and in my case, it's because looks don't really matter.
I don't know of any good or systematic works on Josephite marriages, just a few paragraphs here and there in different books. But obviously the church approves of it. My priest married a couple who decided to have a chaste marriage. Pope Francis just canonized Ss. Louie and Zelie Martin, who were initially married in a spiritual marriage. However, as penance one day, they were told to consummate, and God rewarded them with children who all grew up to be nuns, the most well known being St. Therese of Lisieux. Holy Roman Emperor Saint Henry II also had a chaste marriage. You can be called to marriage and called to be chaste. I don't view the two as inconsistent. And it isn't an ancient relic either, as I have named a few modern examples. I encourage you to see women virtuous enough or worthy of these spiritual marriages.
Religious order is a service, not just a sacrifice of sexual activity. I do not think I am called to that service. I am open to that if God wills it, but it has not been made apparent to me, and I did set aside some time from dating to listen and focus if God was calling me to it. So, I have sincerely tried.