Is that it attempts to resolve a problem by denying a problem, if that makes sense? Like “everyone is beautiful” is a nice sentiment but at the same time, we all know, that no, there’s a social standard and no not everyone fits it, there is a standard of what beauty is and that’s undeniable. There is “more beautiful” and “less beautiful” according to the shitty standard imposed by society.
And so while I can see beauty in everyone, I still know the standard is there, pretending that “no everyone does fit the standard” doesn’t help or pretending that the standard isn’t there doesn’t deconstruct the standard.
It’s still there, looming over everything and I think honestly it will be until we abolish the idea that beautiful is something you have to be in order to be good or valuable.
Admittedly a lot of my body issues are control ones, I don’t necessarily want to be beautiful, but there is a specific look I want, a look that’s exaggerated, extreme and over the top and the idea of not being in control of my appearance freaks me mightily the fuck out.
However also I currently know that I fit the standard of beauty rather well, and that there have been times in my life (significant portions of my formative years) where I did not fit the standard, and I know how differently people treated me.
Sometimes it feels like beauty is all I have because when I wasn’t beautiful no one heard me or paid me any attention whatsoever and now? people do. I’m still fundamentally the same person and yet? I get treated with so much more patience, compassion, respect and general kindness than I did when I wasn’t pretty and that’s fucked up
This is a topic I’ve given a lot of thought myself, particularly as somebody who wants to change their body and has some more exaggerated concepts of self image, as well as somebody really vulnerable to the potential damage our concepts of beauty can wreak.
And despite all that, I do ask the question; is it possible, or even desirable, to deconstruct the idea of a standard of beauty? Obviously, there’s some real toxicity to the concept as it stands. It definitely needs to be reviewed, retooled. Stripped of it’s racism, ableism and more. And we DEFINITELY need to embrace that beauty is is not something you need to have to be good, valuable or valid.
But we have no issue with the concept of other traits. We are willing to say some people are smart, or even brilliant. We are willing to say this trait is desirable. And, though we’ve made our mistakes (awful, awful mistakes) as people, we finally seem to be embracing that not being particularly smart does not mean you lack worth, or lack the right the a decent life. Obviously, many more examples can be made of almost any other trait.
Why is beauty different? Obviously, I agree that pretending a problem doesn’t exist does not suddenly make it not exist. But outside of codifying beauty based on imperialistic, exploitative standards, why are is it a problem to say that any given physical attribute is more desirable than another? There is certainly subjectiveness to beauty, but there seem to be objectively desirable traits as well, such as clear skin.
It strikes me that the issue is how radically we overvalue a single trait, particularly in women, as a marker of worth, rather than the trait itself.
It seems disingenuous to pretend we all have equal distributions of desirable traits. To ignore that we lack things, not because we’re flawed, but because we simply don’t possess them. It would be fair to say that we are not all particularly funny, or particularly smart, or particularly athletic, or particularly empathetic, or indeed particularly beautiful. And I’m suspicious of the idea that, rather than embrace the worth and worthiness of all people regardless of appearance, ability, talent or otherwise, we deconstruct descriptors of them in order to try to combat the damage our lack of valuing has done.
Because beauty is entirely subjective really, everyone is Helen of Troy to someone
Like clear skin? Desirable to many people, but then there are acne fetishists so like… no?
That’s a category question, though, right?. Do they think it’s beautiful, or do they think it’s sexually attractive? It’s plenty possible to be into things despite their lack of beauty, or even perhaps because of it.
Does desire equate to beauty? That seems like a stretch. But I do suppose, if you follow this road far enough, we get away from “All things can be beautiful. Eye of the beholder. Etc” and we reach “Does beauty exist at all?”
If it doesn’t exist in an objective form, it’s a social construct. If so, it CAN be deconstructed in it’s entirety. But if that’s the case, no-one is beautiful, rather than everyone. And, whilst that DOES mean that everyone is equally beautiful, the purpose of that statement is (to my understanding) validate people who’ve been victimized by power dynamics that state they are less worthy/beautiful. Which, you know, the deconstruction of beauty doesn’t dismantle those power structures.
So if we’re primarily interested in dismantling shitty power structures instead, and we’re embracing beauty as a social construct, then why aren’t we taking a populist view? At which point, we’re back at the point where categorically, it seems like the most sensible language to use is to describe incredibly broadly desired traits as inherently beautiful. Else we’re wasting a lot of time in our speech.
And you know, we love language shortcuts.
So I’m not sure that hashes as an argument, basically. And that’s not even factoring in the neat stuff that our brain does where we think people are cuter if we like them (which I think explains everyone being someone’s Helen of Troy much more aptly than someone having a fetish. Plenty of folks with fetishes that repulse them once they’ve taken off their lust goggles).
It’s not really a category argument, beauty is as subjective as flavor. Some people love fish, I hate it. Some people hate brussel sprouts, I love them.
The thing is abolishing the idea of beauty as anything but subjective means that the answer isn’t “no one is beautiful” or “everyone is beautiful” and more that “beauty is subjective.” and honestly, I think that the monolithic standard of beauty is inherently based in ableist/racist/misogynist/etc bullshit, and classist bullshit how much of the beauty standard is class markers? A fuck ton? No shit. Remove that and all you have left is subjectivity. Asking whether someone is beautiful is like asking whether the Rolling Stones are better than The Beatles, it all depends on what you like. It’s not objective, it’s absurd to call it objective, and the standard itself is harmful to people because like elitist bullshit in musical taste, it turns a subjective matter of preference into an evaluation of worth.
Bit of a delayed response on my side. Sorry.
So, obviously, plenty is subjective. Trying to argue against that is to try to build beauty into a monolith that is inherently going to be racist, ableist, etc. But there are also components that I’m pretty doubtful of their subjectivity. Beauty is after all a relatively complex concept built from a fair few pieces.
Class markers are actually a great example. Good teeth are sort of stand-outs for me on this point. Because, yeah, they’re class markers for damn sure. But outside of fetishization, which I would maintain is about attraction to something (sometimes explicitly BECAUSE it’s not beautiful), healthy teeth are pretty objectively seen as desirable/beautiful.
Deconstructing our class bullshit won’t change this; the class issue is that not all people have the right to access health services for their teeth, rather than some arbitrary valourization of limited access traits.
Thing is, I think we struggle to untangle shit. Like asking whether the Rolling Stones are better than The Beatles. It’s a monolithic question, and we can’t answer it, because it has personal preference built into it. You’re dead right. But we can talk about specific band members being more technically proficient (or more accurately, displaying more technical proficiency), for example. We can answer more finely tuned questions.
And when we talk about beauty, I think we really don’t unpack any of our shit. We’re inherently saying more than we mean to, when the reality is that someone who is not beautiful can still be attractive and desirable, even without the interplay of fetishism. We TALK about beauty not equating to worth, but then still make some pretty value-laden assumptions.
Desirability is subjective, rather than beauty, is what I’m digging at. Without trying to be cruel, I’m going to say that I honestly doubt that the people who are into Steve Buscemi think he’s particularly beautiful/handsome (though it’d be cruel to say anything but). Doesn’t mean he’s not immensely desirable to those people, including sexually.
I really question whether we’re ACTUALLY separating beauty from worth as a human being if we are won’t say that it’s a trait some people lack (and that that’s okay).
Teeth also not universal, why do you want beauty to be objective?
shall we talk about historical Japanese noble women’s blackened teeth which were a sign of beauty? I’m saying it’s a nonsense trait if one makes it objective that exists only to oppress. Also comparing technical skill to artistic merit is terrible and is actually an example of why beauty is different from other desirable qualities. Other qualities like strength are like technical skill, objective, but beauty is like artistic merit. The Ramones were not skilled musicians but they were artistically hugely important
Thoughts From The Peacock Angel 