The Good, the Beautiful, and the Ugly

by Nicholas Philip Keesing

Our beloved Auckland university 'Craccum' magazine editor Chris Garland informed me on how good his campaign was last year. I said rubbish, youre a bimbo, thats why you got elected. He bitterly disagrees with these generalisation theories. Most b/himbos like to think that people, especially the opposite sex, like them because they have better personalities than the less attractive people. (The opposite tendency exists.) He didn't realise that most university students vote with their eyes and their pants. Three years ago, the womanizing advertising manager of that same magazine Craigo, leant over and said to the Christian student rep. chair, "It would be better if we could shoot all the ugly people". His slightly less good looking friend agreed, laughing. I laughed at them, wondering what they would be like at fifty years of age when they both would look like utter shit themselves. Long ago, in my hey-day, anything that was good enough to be interesting and interested in me, cute or otherwise would stand a chance. I was an equal opportunities rooter and I got more than my share of what you would call babes. I think that the cute ones used to bonk me because I was non discriminatory! Naomi Wolf wrote an appalling book called 'The Beauty Myth', which was more or less a twisted apology for those women unfortunate enough to not be the supermodels of this world. It sold less copies than Cleo or Cosmopolitan and certainly less than Penthouse. Cross-cultural beauty studies confirm the universal nature of beauty. There is no popular nude magazine called Mort or Pog weekly. Physical beauty is not in the eye of the beholder, I assure you. Sociologists say otherwise, soothing propaganda to justify their egalitarian agendas. To find the real truth, one has to follow the money that always reflects human will and desire. Look in the magazines, on TV, and at the film industry to see what comprises beauty. They all offer the same conclusion, that the same kinds of people are beautiful.

Good looks are easy to spot but hard to quantify. There are several reasons why people are thought to be good looking or not. A lack of resemblance to old age is one. Resemblance to cute animals or non resemblance to shockers (like the hippo) is another. The law of averages as regards human phenotype, a balance is a third. Importantly, there is the phenotypic resemblance to various emotional expressions. Then there is the socialisation when one is young, undergoing first sexual experiences, and the memories of those partners. And the exotic, the presence of rarity, such as dark skin and blue eyes. And there are others too. There are combination effects; 'good head, bad body', and 'Bad head, good body', attracting less suitable partners, poorer and less cuter. Or you could be a front rower for the NZ rugby team and have to switch to the carpet-munch just to get a bit of loving action.

Nice guys dont finish at all

There is a hierarchy of attributes desired in potential mates. Men are forced to select mates with a slightly lower level of attractiveness. But this is only the base of the equation. There are influences that will differ for each gender due to various reasons, mainly to do with the differentiation in gender roles within society. Women look for the following in this order; money, fame, power, looks, butt, personality. Nice guys do indeed finish last. Mens priorities are worse. Women dont even have the options that men do. Forget the power and money thing. Its straight to the looks, then the body and then again, personality languishes down there with money in the case of a female. Perhaps that why the rule is that the guy, often is better looking than the girl in any given relationship. Its natures way of balancing things. Steffi Graf and Barbara Streisland were often asked, Why dont you get nose jobs, you have talent, and great bodies, why not be perfect. In the case of Streisland, she was worried that the operation would change her voice. Graf laughed, and said that she was quite happy with herself. Andre Agassi obviously thought a lot of her, choosing Graf over actress Brooke Shields. Or perhaps she ran from him, tired of down dating.

Resemblance to various animals can also affect how one is treated in the sexual marketplace. The hippo has less choices than the cat. Any resemblance to a Pig is not good . Woman who facially resemble cows or other critters are not as attractive as cute creature resemblances. The same goes for guys. The ability to be or pretend to be the perfect sexual partner is very important. Long legs on a woman maybe promise satisfaction of some sick Freudian daydream of returning to the womb, or more likely its a body ratio thing from youth. Small hips promise vaginal tightness, and hearken back to the first days of sex with smaller partners. Youth, or a lack of its opposite, old age, is a factor. In old people, noses and jaws continue to grow until the day of death. If these features are preternaturally big then you will be considered less cute. Likewise if they are smallish and less prominent, your looks may well last into the fourth decade but when the bones continue to grow beyond certain average constraints, ugliness appears. Uniformity of features as in a younger person will help smooth imperfection and make someone more attractive. Many women enjoy their best days of sexual power at the ages of 14-18 before their brows, noses, and jaws, become prominent. Thats why they are fertile at 12. Nature doesnt lie, only men. We all get pretty rough by the time we are fifty. The resemblance to young people only moderately influences attractiveness. There are still plenty of ugly schoolgirls and quite a few cute 35+ housewives so its not all due to a Skinnerian paedo buzz. Balance plays a part. People with all features that are slightly out of whack may well appear more cute than someone with mostly smaller bits and one shocking feature. Just look at Gerard Deipardeau. The important one is resemblance to emotion. When people smile they get dimples. A person who already had them but is not smiling will appear cuter. When a girl likes you her irises go big. People with coloration mimicking big irises, and bigger eyes naturally look more attractive; the common term is fuck me eyes. Innocent is young, and young is short, which alters the visual angle so that the person is looking upwards. People with oval faces, upturned noses, up-wards looking almond shaped eyes and the like, look cuter. The opposite is also true. Scowling features are bad even on a smiling face.

Goths in the garage

Its rough though for young women in their early teens when they realise that no man is ever going to give them flowers or tell them that they are beautiful. They see all their more attractive mates getting asked to school balls and the like, and endure the most hideous insults from young guys who are simply appalling in their behaviours. The suicide rates for females are at their highest in teenage years. They either grow up, or suicide as make-up smeared Gothic punks occasionally do, hanging from the garage ceiling or by vehicular gassing. Socialisation plays an important part. Being predominantly visual creatures, our first sexual experiences as young adolescents influence our later choices. People are experiencing their first orgasms at age 18 (just to keep it legal) and these form deep impressions lasting for a lifetime. The population is being programmed for young teens. Pornographic hit rates back up this theory.

This is compounded by the apparent superficiality of American television which considers a good nose more important than a good personality. British TV used to be far more sensible, but because of TV being a visual medium, eventually the inescapable psychology of desire will win out. Already there are too many bimbos in Coronation street, and other UK programming is starting to reflect the American paradigm. TV culture is at its most pervasive in the US and its spreading. Perhaps thats what Craigo and Alexis were talking about when they were going to go shooting, I dont know. The rate of divorces and other marital anomalies indicate something in society has changed in the last thirty years. The choices we use to choose mates are increasingly based upon the U.S. paradigm of beauty. If you cant talk to your partner, then how happy will you be at forty when they start to deteriorate? The botox and plastic surgeons have never had it so good. Women are locked into a mindset of paranoia about their appearance and why not, when it dictates the kind of car they own, the house and the future of their children. Money can buy you almost anything. Trophy wives are the norm. There are no ugly mall rats in the Hollywood Boulevard shopping centre. Check it out.

Until next time folks,

Nicholas P Keesing.