Just like the matter of sexuality in previous discussion, there seems to be more to what some people consider an attractive person or not. In reading some of the previous posts, I have witnessed how some of the classmates view attraction in their own experiences. Based on their discussions, a physical attraction is the most prevalent in making the decision to pursue someone further. This is a basic characteristic of a shallow and free America; to much of the free world, this concept is true, but to the conservative world, inner beauty plays a much greater role. Do the arranged marriages of many societies around the world depend on physical attraction or more on social, political, and economic expectations of those who are negotiating those marriages? Stories like The Importance of being Earnest seem to point in the direction of the latter.
What constitutes a success or failure in a marriage? Do people grow bored with the company of their spouse over time or does the physical attraction of one or both mates dwindle to a level that is considered unworthy of the other? I believe that marriage is the paramount relationship level that portrays the love two people share with each other on a physical and emotional level. Without emotion and love, marriages are usually rare (except in Las Vegas), and without physical attraction, many relationships will never even develop long enough to discover those emotions. What constitutes physical attraction and what constitutes love? Are they inseparable? Do they completely complement one another or are we destined to find someone who satisfies both of our self proposed standards before we can settle down? Is there such thing as a beautiful mind and personality hypnotizing another soul into making them perceive the physical body of that beloved as more attractive than previously concluded? If someone were to ask me what was more important to me in developing a relationship with someone, I would tell them that it is not just how I depict physical beauty or emotional feelings, but how I piece together all the little pieces of my mental position, the “connection” between us, their physical attractiveness, intelligence, personality, etc. etc. etc. We cannot define a personal attraction with two equal characteristics.
As noted before, many people regard physical attractiveness as the preliminary step into pursuing someone. This is not a cultural or social phenomenon. It is inherent in human nature and is vital to the continuation of human life through facilitating reproduction. Without a population with a majority physical attraction to the opposite sex throughout most of human history, of which more than 99% is categorized as hunter-gatherer and primal, our species would not have reproduced and evolved to the state we exist in today. For the most part, mental note; think of this as not much different than what we see on the discovery channel, where instincts are critical to continual existence. Most of what we consider “attraction,” beyond physical, is a fabrication of modern society which is manipulated by economic, political, and cultural desires. In today’s free society, this is the norm, and for those who were born with the unfortunate genetic composition that human society has rendered substandard, are encouraged to have lower standards themselves. When this person sits on the couch watching the Victoria Secret fashion show with bewilderment we look at them and say, “sorry for your luck” or “not everyone can be a model.” On the other hand, Hugh Hefner has 3 playmate girlfriends. Who hasn’t looked at the “unfair” society we live in and questioned the morality involved?
In The Girl Who Was Plugged In, Tiptree leads us into a world on the verge of a Cultural Revolution. I believe one of his messages was that the free world was beginning to become so obsessed with “luck” and self greed that it began to push aside the belief in even the most simple welfare needs of the less fortunate. When our liberties are compromised and free trade is regulated by the government, this has an affect on social and political situations. The concept of society and economy as becoming interlinked and inseparable was vigorously demonstrated by the social economist Karl Polanyi in The Great Transformation, written in 1944. In his work, Polanyi reassured the world that capitalism will eventually lead to a society that will become so intertwined in the free market belief that developing sociological problems will breed global revolutions as people realize that their communal priorities are becoming the forgotten shadow of capitalism. Delphi and P. Burke resembled the vast inequalities that we treasure in our world, and how the future will be on the path we have chosen: Delphi the beloved and P. Burke the Waldo closet nobody. The GTX Corporation is the loophole seeker/capitalism conformist with no conscience whatsoever, and Paul the revolutionist confused about what part of his significant other he truly loved; the outer skin of capitalism or the inner beauty of society. I’d continue the relationship analysis, but I think I’m getting carried away.
No comments:
Post a Comment