Friday, July 11, 2008

You look so...


Similar to the term "fine" when I ask how I look in "these pants" (knowing they are too tight).

Adorable and sweet are not words I want to be.

I want to be beautiful.
I want to be ravishing.

I want to be stunning in the way only tall, lean women who don't wear make up can be.

I looked cute on my prom.
I looked cute on our first date.
And I looked cute in the pictures from every, single, event I've dressed up for.

But sometimes cute feels like "not quite beautiful."

When I'd rather just settle with pretty.


jovial_cynic said...

Where's the line between narcicism and a healthy desire for mutual attraction?

I can't but see the paradox in peoples' desire to be both desirable and not objectified.

When I graduated from highschool, I came to the point where my actual desire was not to be attractive (what is attraction anyway, but a biological impulse intended to lead to procreation), but rather to forget about what I looked like, and to live life in such a way that ignored how other people viewed my appearance.

And I think this is a challenge for both people who find themselves to be unattractive as well as for people who find themselves attractive... but I think it leads to a more honest life. I would prefer to view the world as though I was blind, so my judgements towards people are not clouded by (ultimately) meaningless sensory input.

I think the blind see the world much more clearly.

Chrissie said...

Oooh! I love this one!!!

A persons desire to be desired is not synonymous with their desire to not be objectified.

At least... I don't think so. Always.

One can want to be found attractive, as a facet of who they want to represent, as a piece of who they wish to be to someone else, not in entirety.

For example, I'd like to found attractive by my mate, for as long as possible.

Does that mean I want to only be this "object" to him?
Does that mean that I don't still want to be found a well-rounded, intelligent, deserving half of our whole?

I don't think so.

I don't think wanting to be found cute or pretty is something to be "fixed" unless it is overwhelming and therefore the only thing that could make a person happy or feel worthwhile.

I don't want to be objectified. But I don't think finding beauty in another person, or finding beauty in anything for that matter is always "objectification."

Discovering a beautiful flower, or landscape, or a piece of artwork doesn't make those things any less "a flower" or "a landscape" or "a piece of art." it simply makes them also beautiful.

Can it not be said the same of people? Does finding me beautiful (or cute) make me any less "Chrissie" or "Friend" or "Sister"?
Does it turn me solely into an object? Or simply expand on what's already there?

jovial_cynic said...

Well, you said, "I want to be ravishing..."

A flower may be delicate, tender, enrapturing, inspiring... but never ravishing.

So I think you are mixing objectification into your language, intention or not.

Yuki said...

Off-topic: Be grateful that there are words to use - you can't really call a man anything but "hot" or "handsome" (which sounds like something his grandmother would say) or the ambiguous "cute". It's just not manly to be called "pretty" or "gorgeous" or "beautiful".

And some days I wish the world was full of Reuben-inspired fetishists. That way, everyone would be happy.