The Death of Pretty (an article on how many women want to be seen now)

[Debora123]

A lot of the early feminists - Mary Wollstonecraft, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, the Pankhursts et all - certainly didn’t leave an impression of being weaklings or objects in any way. But they still, as far as I know of them, kept to very high standards as far as speech, dress, behaviour etc.

Besides which, Jesus enjoined all his disciples (not just the females) to be as well as seem ‘innocent as doves’. It’s not a female thing, it’s a godly thing.

Perhaps people are getting confused with the term “innocence.”

There’s innocence as in submissive, docile, and quite,

…and then there’s innocence as in pure hearted and sincere.

The latter is what we should all truly strive for.

Either way, I don’t think either of these have much to do with outwardly appearances and clothing.

 

[chevalier]

With all due respect, we are sexual creatures. In my opinion, all women are sexy in their own way, regardless of how she dresses. I certainly think my husband is very sexy and I am very sexually attracted to him, and vice versa, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. (Don’t you think your wife is sexy??)

I’d certainly only marry someone I were sexually attracted to and then only someone who were also attracted to me sexually. On the other hand, I wouldn’t exactly like to be referred to as a “sexy beast” or anything of the sort. And I’d rather be referred to as handsome or dashing than sexy, to be honest.

My point is basically that sexuality, at least taken to that point, is something we live out between the husband and wife, we don’t need anybody else to desire us sexually, and certainly not multiple people. This is related to monogamy.

Sexuality becomes wrong when it is exploited and used in the wrong way, but it is not wrong in and of itself. It is actually very good, and is part of who we are as human beings.

Again, as far as sexual desire goes, it should only be awakened consciously between husband and wife, perhaps with the allowance that there’s nothing wrong attracting people to marry us, in which attractiveness plays some role. But we really don’t need to be widely desired or desired by everybody we meet or anything of the sort. And we definitely shouldn’t want to desired inordinately, i.e. lusted for (as in Mt 5:28, i.e. committing adultery with us in their hearts).

As I said, it all depends on how it is worn and the nature/intention of it. Where I come from, 2 piece bathing suits are perfectly normal and acceptable. (a lady would get much more stares and attention if she showed up wearing one of those muslim swim suits) The modesty line at my beach doesn’t usually get crossed unless someone shows up topless (if female) or wearing a thong.

No specific examples please! It’s not about inches or centimetres. It’s about the intent to provoke lustful thoughts or, within limits, acting despite the knowledge that this is taking place (e.g. an attractive person can’t really say he or she doesn’t have need of clothing any more because the sun is great and he or she doesn’t care about any temptation others might be having… even then, such a person could actually pose less temptation than people wearing some of the things modern designers design).

The problem here is chastity, modesty etc. That we confine our sexuality to living it out with one chosen person (of the opposite sex, naturally) for as long as we both live. That we don’t attempt to command or control people using our sexuality (this includes proving to them that they can’t resist desiring us). That we don’t engage in imagining sex in our mind, that we don’t attempt to have others imagine having sex with us (Mt 5:28 issue), that we don’t awaken in people desires they have no means of fulfilling. That we don’t say “it’s not my problem” when we run a real, serious (not just remote or imagined) risk of leading a fellow human being into temptation (this isn’t a male vs female issue or a war for power between the sexes, it includes also a person suffering from same sex attraction, who may be forced to use the same locker room). The exact size or shape or other parameters of clothing are a secondary issue and differ from culture to culture to a large extent. What doesn’t change is the underlying modesty and chastity.

 

[Luna_Lovecraft]

A lot of the early feminists - Mary Wollstonecraft, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, the Pankhursts et all - certainly didn’t leave an impression of being weaklings or objects in any way. But they still, as far as I know of them, kept to very high standards as far as speech, dress, behaviour etc.

Besides which, Jesus enjoined all his disciples (not just the females) to be as well as seem ‘innocent as doves’. It’s not a female thing, it’s a godly thing.

Did you read the article? Pat Archbold isn’t talking about decorum (speech and behavior), or the state of our souls. He’s talking only about physical appearance. I quote:

'For the purposes of this piece, I define pretty as a mutually enriching balanced combination of beauty and projected innocence."

“By nature, generally when men see this combination in women it brings out their better qualities, their best in fact. That special combination of beauty and innocence, the pretty inspires men to protect and defend it.”
**

“As I said, pretty inspires men’s nobler instincts to protect and defend. Pretty is cherished.”

The Pankhursts, Cady Stanton and her pal Anothony would have taken umbrage with his ideas.

One of my favorite Cady Stanton quotes is, “I thought that the chief thing to be done in order to equal boys was to be learned and courageous. So I decided to study Greek and learn to manage a horse.”

I don’t think appearing innocent and in need of protection was high on her list of priorities.

Luna

 

[LilyM]

Perhaps people are getting confused with the term “innocence.”

There’s innocence as in submissive, docile, and quite,

…and then there’s innocence as in pure hearted and sincere.

The latter is what we should all truly strive for.

Either way, I don’t think either of these have much to do with outwardly appearances and clothing.

You want to talk about submissive, docile and quiet? Look no further than the example of Christ who, Paul tells us, was found in the form or a slave (not just a man) and was obedient unto death. And who tells us that the greatest of all mist be last of all and servant of all.

 

[chevalier]

Luna, please don’t equate “innocent” with “subdued” or “childish” or “helpless”. We’re talking about “innocent” as opposed to “unchaste” or “ready to behave in an unchaste manner” here. A woman riding a horse while talking ancient Greek is not necessarily not innocent (neither is a woman in uniform blasting a terrorist hideout apart with a bazooka). In fact, horse riding and Greek are quite innocent hobbies (as opposed to gambling, drinking or womanising) and this is a good thing). In the context of sexuality innocence essentially means chastity. It does not have the twisted meaning given to it by people who think you need to be crooked in order to be wise or that you need to become unchaste as a rite of passage into adulthood.

Myself I’m male and I’d love to be innocent. I definitely wouldn’t take offence being seen as it (rather sorrow that I’m not sufficiently so).

 

[LilyM]

Yes I read the article. Firstly, speech and behaviour are all part of ‘projecting innocence’ - physical appearance can only ever be one part (and a small part) of it.

Many a woman can try to imitate the physical look of an Audrey Hepburn (who exuded waifish innocence if any woman ever did!) but unless they have the same behavioral traits of facial expression and bodily movement, not to mention her manner of speech, they will fail miserably.

Secondly, I don’t think Archbold is suggesting women need be like this all the time, 24 hours a day. Just enough that the men in their lives sometimes get an opportunity to feel manly, important, capable and needed (at least in arenas beyond sex, sport and warfare).

And I totally agree. Men are more confused and directionless than ever.

Decreased use of manual labour, among other things, has enabled women to make huge strides forwards in the workplace, in areas men have traditionally dominated. Women’s insistence on THEIR reproductive “rights/freedoms” mean that, for the most part, men have little to no real say in whether the babies they father are aborted, or indeed even whether they get to father children at all. The casualisation of relationships and ease of divorce often leaves them with little chance to build a real relationship with those children they do father. Men can’t even be sure whether the little courtesies like opening a door or offering a seat to a lady will gain them thanks or a withering tirade which they surely don’t deserve.

So not a lot is left for the poor old male of the species. I’m sure as much as Ms Stanton loved managing those horses, she probably at least sometimes let a gentleman help her into or out of the saddle, either because she needed help or liked being helped.

Did you read the article? Pat Archbold isn’t talking about decorum (speech and behavior), or the state of our souls. He’s talking only about physical appearance. I quote:

'For the purposes of this piece, I define pretty as a mutually enriching balanced combination of beauty and projected innocence."

“By nature, generally when men see this combination in women it brings out their better qualities, their best in fact. That special combination of beauty and innocence, the pretty inspires men to protect and defend it.”
**

“As I said, pretty inspires men’s nobler instincts to protect and defend. Pretty is cherished.”

The Pankhursts, Cady Stanton and her pal Anothony would have taken umbrage with his ideas.

One of my favorite Cady Stanton quotes is, “I thought that the chief thing to be done in order to equal boys was to be learned and courageous. So I decided to study Greek and learn to manage a horse.”

I don’t think appearing innocent and in need of protection was high on her list of priorities.

Luna

 

[Debora123]

I’d certainly only marry someone I were sexually attracted to and then only someone who were also attracted to me sexually. On the other hand, I wouldn’t exactly like to be referred to as a “sexy beast” or anything of the sort. And I’d rather be referred to as handsome or dashing than sexy, to be honest.

Well I hope you’re saying you wouldn’t be offended if your wife said she thought you were sexy.

My husband calls me sexy and hot, but he calls me beautiful, gorgeous, and pretty as well. They are not all mutually exclusive. He is attracted to me in multiple ways, and once again, there is nothing wrong with that.

My point is basically that sexuality, at least taken to that point, is something we live out between the husband and wife, we don’t need anybody else to desire us sexually, and certainly not multiple people. This is related to monogamy.

But we need to be sexually attracted to the person we marry, meaning the sexual attraction is there BEFORE we marry them. There is nothing wrong with sexual attraction, the wrong is in how we choose to deal with that attraction. Yes, we ACT on it only when married, but that doesn’t mean we don’t FEEL it before hand.

Again, as far as sexual desire goes, it should only be awakened consciously between husband and wife, perhaps with the allowance that there’s nothing wrong attracting people to marry us, in which attractiveness plays some role. But we really don’t need to be widely desired or desired by everybody we meet or anything of the sort. And we definitely shouldn’t want to desired inordinately, i.e. lusted for (as in Mt 5:28, i.e. committing adultery with us in their hearts).

I never said we need or should make people lust after us, all I said it that sexual attraction is good, that everyone is “sexy” in their own way (because we are sexual beings), and that there is nothing wrong with that. Of course, sex should be acted out only in marriage, and I never said otherwise.

No specific examples please! It’s not about inches or centimetres. It’s about the intent to provoke lustful thoughts or, within limits, acting despite the knowledge that this is taking place (e.g. an attractive person can’t really say he or she doesn’t have need of clothing any more because the sun is great and he or she doesn’t care about any temptation others might be having… even then, such a person could actually pose less temptation than people wearing some of the things modern designers design).

Reread what I said. I specifically mentioned “intent”… along with how someone carries themselves and the nature of the whole thing. Why can’t I use examples? You obviously don’t quite grasp what I’m trying to say anyway.

The problem here is chastity, modesty etc. That we confine our sexuality to living it out with one chosen person (of the opposite sex, naturally) for as long as we both live. That we don’t attempt to command or control people using our sexuality (this includes proving to them that they can’t resist desiring us). That we don’t engage in imagining sex in our mind, that we don’t attempt to have others imagine having sex with us (Mt 5:28 issue), that we don’t awaken in people desires they have no means of fulfilling. That we don’t say “it’s not my problem” when we run a real, serious (not just remote or imagined) risk of leading a fellow human being into temptation (this isn’t a male vs female issue or a war for power between the sexes, it includes also a person suffering from same sex attraction, who may be forced to use the same locker room). The exact size or shape or other parameters of clothing are a secondary issue and differ from culture to culture to a large extent. What doesn’t change is the underlying modesty and chastity.

I never said anything that contradicts the above, so I’m not quite sure where this is all coming from. The last thing I wanna do is turn this into another modesty thread when my only intent was to stay on topic and point out that we shouldn’t be so judgmental on physical appearances (hot/pretty/beautiful/innocent-looking… blah blah blah) and that there’s nothing wrong with being a naturally sexually attractive person (since we all are in our own ways).

 

[Debora123]

You want to talk about submissive, docile and quiet? Look no further than the example of Christ who, Paul tells us, was found in the form or a slave (not just a man) and was obedient unto death. And who tells us that the greatest of all mist be last of all and servant of all.

I honestly wouldn’t peg Jesus as merely a quiet, docile, submissive person. He stood up for his beliefs, spoke out against the pharisees, shouted at the people selling things in the house of God, and broke a lot of the “Sabbath rules” of the time.

He did enough to get himself into some pretty serious trouble, and even then still stood his ground and didn’t give in.

 

[severus68]

I am grateful that adult women are no longer forced to concern themselves with other peoples’ preferences when making decisions about what clothes to wear or not wear, or what makeup to apply or not apply.

I am even more grateful to live in a time when we understand that girls and women are not objects to be consumed or defended, despite what the author of The Death of Pretty suggests. He wants to make women commodities the same way he asserts feminism did, albeit commodities beyond the direct control of men.

Moreover, “innocence” is an affect projected by people with little to no power or autonomy. By lamenting the fact the women no longer look “innocent,” I think the author wishes for a time when women had diminished roles in society and were seen as childlike and harmless rather than powerful. I mean, who would describe Wangari Maathai, Indira Gandhi, Yingluck Shinawatra, Meg Whitman, or any other female leader, as “innocent?”

Luna

Bravo for this great post. I agree totallly.

 

[Luna_Lovecraft]

Luna, please don’t equate “innocent” with “subdued” or “childish” or “helpless”. We’re talking about “innocent” as opposed to “unchaste” or “ready to behave in an unchaste manner” here. A woman riding a horse while talking ancient Greek is not necessarily not innocent (neither is a woman in uniform blasting a terrorist hideout apart with a bazooka). In fact, horse riding and Greek are quite innocent hobbies (as opposed to gambling, drinking or womanising) and this is a good thing). In the context of sexuality innocence essentially means chastity. It does not have the twisted meaning given to it by people who think you need to be crooked in order to be wise or that you need to become unchaste as a rite of passage into adulthood.

Myself I’m male and I’d love to be innocent. I definitely wouldn’t take offence being seen as it (rather sorrow that I’m not sufficiently so).

I’m not equating anything with anything, Chevalier. I simply read The Death of Pretty and find many of Archold’s ideas objectionable.

Had his thesis been that all men and women should aspire to innocence or have a certain level of decorum in dress or behavior I wouldn’t have a problem with his essay. But he didn’t. He addressed women - only us women and girl - and asserted that because we no longer aspire to be pretty - by his own definition a combination of physical beauty and projected innocence - men like him no longer feel the need to protect us. Go back and look at my second post (#42 I think).

Frankly, I could give two figs if Pat Archold and his ilk feel some paternalistic need to defend and protect me. If I need his help I’ll ask. Until then he needs to keep himself to himself, if you know what I mean.

And his whole notion of physical beauty and innocence… I dunno… It creeped me out,
frankly.

 

[Nate13]

@Debora123
I think what they are arguing is that using the word “hot” or “sexy” has inherent intent to it much of the time just based on the use of term alone, without even having to look into the heart of the person saying it. Thus the person calling them sexy could have pure and good intent in saying so, but the word itself to them has intent inherently attached to it that is wrong in their opinion.

For instance if someone used the f-word to describe something, even when they had a pure and good intent it would be bad. Whether that person knows/cares or not the f-word has inherent bad intent to its meaning.

However the word hot or sexy is not anywhere on the same level as the f-word, the idea of how words work still stands. For you “hot” and “sexy” have no mal intent but for others they do. I am personally not a fan of “hot” because I feel like its a cheap word that lacks any depth of meaning. For me calling a woman hot would be similar to saying “my your showing a lot of cleavage today”.

However between you and your husband I’m sure you have a much better idea of the intent behind the words you use because you know each other so well, and the meanings you wish to purvey using the words gets across. The “inherent intent” others see behind the words “hot” and “sexy” is by no means an overruling standard that applies to everyone. Maybe this explanation will shed some light though on why others may have problem with having those terms used to describe them.

Also is it just me or does anyone else kind of see a transition from beautiful to pretty to hot that is based in how a woman dresses and how scantily clad she is? A good looking woman is a good looking woman no matter how she dresses but I some times feel the terms above are used in conjunction to what she is wearing and whether a person is looking at the person as a whole or as a collection of assets. Thus the word “hot” = “you have a nice collection of assets” for some people.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Also Mary Ann could cook and garden and was good at other things.

All Ginger could do was walk around in an evening gown on the island all the time:shrug:

So do ladies miss John Wayne like we miss the Mary Ann’s of the world? Or at least that’s how the one song goes, I forget who sings it: “Where is my John Wayne…”

p.s. Paula Cole, I think!

 

[Debora123]

@Debora123
I think what they are arguing is that using the word “hot” or “sexy” has inherent intent to it much of the time just based on the use of term alone, without even having to look into the heart of the person saying it. Thus the person calling them sexy could have pure and good intent in saying so, but the word itself to them has intent inherently attached to it that is wrong in their opinion.

For instance if someone used the f-word to describe something, even when they had a pure and good intent it would be bad. Whether that person knows/cares or not the f-word has inherent bad intent to its meaning.

However the word hot or sexy is not anywhere on the same level as the f-word, the idea of how words work still stands. For you “hot” and “sexy” have no mal intent but for others they do. I am personally not a fan of “hot” because I feel like its a cheap word that lacks any depth of meaning. For me calling a woman hot would be similar to saying “my your showing a lot of cleavage today”.

However between you and your husband I’m sure you have a much better idea of the intent behind the words you use because you know each other so well, and the meanings you wish to purvey using the words gets across. The “inherent intent” others see behind the words “hot” and “sexy” is by no means an overruling standard that applies to everyone. Maybe this explanation will shed some light though on why others may have problem with having those terms used to describe them.

Also is it just me or does anyone else kind of see a transition from beautiful to pretty to hot that is based in how a woman dresses and how scantily clad she is? A good looking woman is a good looking woman no matter how she dresses but I some times feel the terms above are used in conjunction to what she is wearing and whether a person is looking at the person as a whole or as a collection of assets. Thus the word “hot” = “you have a nice collection of assets” for some people.

I don’t think there’s anything inherently wrong with the word “hot” or “sexy”, and have already explained why.

The F word is a swear word. Hot and sexy are synonyms to sexually attractive, and are not swear words, but you’ve mentioned this already.

…My husband thinks I’m both, I think he’s both as well. And finally, this has nothing to do with what we’re wearing.

To each their own. If you think it’s insulting for your spouse to think you’re hot or sexy, then I guess I hope they don’t think you are?? As for myself, I’m perfectly fine with my husband thinking I’m hot - ie, sexually/physically attractive.

 

[Debora123]

I’m not equating anything with anything, Chevalier. I simply read The Death of Pretty and find many of Archold’s ideas objectionable.

Had his thesis been that all men and women should aspire to innocence or have a certain level of decorum in dress or behavior I wouldn’t have a problem with his essay. But he didn’t. He addressed women - only us women and girl - and asserted that because we no longer aspire to be pretty - by his own definition a combination of physical beauty and projected innocence - men like him no longer feel the need to protect us. Go back and look at my second post (#42 I think).

Frankly, I could give two figs if Pat Archold and his ilk feel some paternalistic need to defend and protect me. If I need his help I’ll ask. Until then he needs to keep himself to himself, if you know what I mean.

And his whole notion of physical beauty and innocence… I dunno… It creeped me out,
frankly.

Haha

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

In the modern world “hot” and “I am wanna tap that” mean very similar things

 

[Nate13]

I disagree. I don’t think there’s anything inherently wrong with the word “hot” or “sexy”, and have already explained why.

…My husband thinks I’m both, I think he’s both as well. This has nothing to do with what we’re wearing.

Yes, but can you accept that the terms “hot” and “sexy” do have inherent meanings for other people that they take objection to? The vast majority of the time when I have heard the word “hot” used to describe a woman it has been done with an intent that I don’t* agree with and symbolizes looking at a woman as a collection of parts and not as a person. I know I am far from alone in this opinion, and I’d hope that people with your view and people with my view can respect each others opinion in this regard.

 

[severus68]

You want to talk about submissive, docile and quiet? Look no further than the example of Christ who, Paul tells us, was found in the form or a slave (not just a man) and was obedient unto death. And who tells us that the greatest of all mist be last of all and servant of all.

Didn’t Christ ask his parents why they were looking for him when He had disappeared to the temple? Didn’t He speak out harshly about hypocrites, didn’t He overturn the tables in the temple. I could go on. I agree with Debora123 about Christ. Yes, Christ did preach about humility etc but it was about an honest humility. What has a woman acting submissive, docile and quiet to get, boost a man’s ego or to impress a man have to do with what Christ taught and how he lived? What Christ taught applies to all men and women.

 

[Debora123]

Yes, but can you accept that the terms “hot” and “sexy” do have inherent meanings for other people that they take objection to? The vast majority of the time when I have heard the word “hot” used to describe a woman it has been done with an intent that I don’t* agree with and symbolizes looking at a woman as a collection of parts and not as a person. I know I am far from alone in this opinion, and I’d hope that people with your view and people with my view can respect each others opinion in this regard.

If you take the word “hot” to mean objectifying a person, then yes, in that case it wouldn’t be right to use that wording.

If you take the word hot to mean a descriptive term for a sexually/physically attractive person, then no, there is nothing wrong.

To me, it has always meant the latter. It’s what you DO with that attraction that counts, but not the attraction itself.

 

[severus68]

Did you read the article? Pat Archbold isn’t talking about decorum (speech and behavior), or the state of our souls. He’s talking only about physical appearance. I quote:

'For the purposes of this piece, I define pretty as a mutually enriching balanced combination of beauty and projected innocence."

“By nature, generally when men see this combination in women it brings out their better qualities, their best in fact. That special combination of beauty and innocence, the pretty inspires men to protect and defend it.”
**

“As I said, pretty inspires men’s nobler instincts to protect and defend. Pretty is cherished.”

The Pankhursts, Cady Stanton and her pal Anothony would have taken umbrage with his ideas.

One of my favorite Cady Stanton quotes is, “I thought that the chief thing to be done in order to equal boys was to be learned and courageous. So I decided to study Greek and learn to manage a horse.”

I don’t think appearing innocent and in need of protection was high on her list of priorities.

Luna

I also take umbrage at Pat Arnold making statements like:

“Once upon a time you would hear girls talk about kind of women men date and the kind they marry”.
He appears to be making the Madonna/whore dichotomy, sometime I fine repulsive.

 

[theidler]

Slightly similar - I would like to also bring up this brilliant writer’s other post, entitled “Generation Porno”, found here: http://www.ncregister.com/blog/generation-porno/

Highlight for me (aside from the great message of course) is this line, which made me actually emit a loud, high-pitched warbling laugh:
“Once upon a time, pornography was a rare thing. When I grew up, my only exposure to pornography was from that sweaty kid down the street. He had a mustache at 14 and he kept a few Playboy magazines under his mattress until his mother found them. Then we didn’t see him again for a month.”

Read more: ncregister.com/blog/generation-porno/#ixzz1iYKZwGP6