The devastating impact of classical aesthetic feminine beauty and allure.

[bmews]

Note: I tried to post in the philosophy forum but it won't let me. If a moderator can redirect this post to the philosophy forum this would be great!

 

The enjoyment of pleasure derived from basking in the meditative presence of an alluring beauty is perhaps one of the most emotionally salient peak moments of experiential life. And while it is a positivistic (good) hedonistic pleasure, it can also be a curse.

 

Most of us are perhaps well aware of the biological and evolutionary reasons and explanations on how physical beauty and our perception of beauty evolved in tandem for both genders. Yet, understanding the underlying mechanisms of how such a process works does not alleviate the affective intensity that emerges from being so emotively influenced and poignantly moved by said subjective qualitative states of experiences.

 

I am having trouble coming to an emotional grasp and to personal terms with this quasi obsessive compulsiveness that I seemed to have developed. And it mainly has to do with the ethereal aesthetics of feminine beauty, grace, and elegance. As a male sure I'm naturally (genetically, culturally, environmentally, etc) hardwired and predisposed to the influences of feminine beauty (and predominately the visual and physicality aspects) just like any other XY chromosomal biped should be. But I feel – due to several factors – it has become more pronounced for me than most other people in general.

 

We've probably all heard the trite cliché: "Don't judge a book by its cover" or "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder". And while beauty is certainly subject to our individual tastes, preferences and perceptions it does indeed seem empirical self-evident that there exists this perceptive threshold in a range or continuum of varying intensities of beauty; and that any form of beauty that falls above this categorical-perception threshold immediately becomes something of great value and importance to us. We might not agree on a standard or metric as to what features count as being "greatly beautiful" but surely we all admit "we know it when we see it"… A sufficiently beautiful girl or woman, (a female whom is lucky enough to possess the highly sought after qualities that are universally acknowledged and esteemed to be the exemplary epitome of the idealistic archetypal templates of such distinctive forms and essences of beauty) , inescapably and without fail always captures the attention of males – even if it is just for a few fleeting ephemeral moments in passing – in a more captive and instinctive way than perhaps all other forms of pleasurable experiences in life. To me, feminine beauty is the highest qualitative essence any male could ever experience in life.

 

On rare occasions I would, in the course of daily life and mundane events, happen to come across such distinctively attractive women (as we all do from time to time) and it would always be a double-edged ordeal. On one hand I'm exceedingly thankful to be lucky enough (even if it is just odds and stats rather than 'luck') to come near the presence of these attractive women, on the other hand it always vexed me immensely to be so affected and helpless.

 

Beauty and the enjoyment of beauty is a hedonistic pleasure in its own right, and this need not always be associated nor correlated with other things like love, lust, infatuation or the want of a relationship. Like most people, I am just compelled to take it all in, to imprint the unique impressions of that sort of visual aesthetic pleasure and engrain and etch it into my consciousness and memory forever. There seems to be this overarching neurological or biological imperative to view as many distinctive instantiated instances of the resplendent varieties and forms of supreme feminine aesthetic beauty as existentially possible.

 

For example, I would sit in a class and try to get pass the boring tedious lecture and by sheer luck (or misfortune) an exceedingly (by any stringent standards) physically attractive and visually alluring girl would come in late and sit next to me simply because it was a large class and most seats were already taken. I never allow myself to directly stare and always maintain and uphold propriety. Getting caught would be utterly embarrassing and totally humiliating for me. Even before she finishes taking her seat the encounter has already become nerve-wracking, distraughting, and emotionally devastating for me. Within a split second later I'm totally overwhelmed by and painfully aware of the state-of-mind she has unknowingly put me in, and suddenly all my other cognitive processes and senses have been seemingly displaced, and instead my focus lost and thoughts have peripherally and completely shifted on her. Even though I know absolutely nothing about this girl (or next to nothing, except how she looks) subliminally I am already actively equating her physical beauty to "value" and conveniently both extending and projecting her physical beauty to other areas such as her personality, character, identity and the way she carries herself. I become helplessly stranded on my own island of existential dilemmas of both wanting to look and afraid of getting caught and of being happy that the universe afforded me another stamp-collecting instance of a distinctive type of female beauty to savor and remember; whilst simultaneously cursing the universe for yet another distraction that will cause me to be distraught and leave me with disappointment of not being able to capture a satisfactory glance. The end result is I'm left with an empty feeling.

Edited February 19, 2011 by bmews

[SMF]

Bmews, you are reporting your experiential perceptions regarding personnel interactions that, we all, males have to go through, but you are revealing this on a physics forum. Your actions are not appropriate. Suck it up and go on about your life. Make as good decisions as you can, and if they are actually good you will make it to where I am, much older, with a smile on my face. Really! Sm

[lemur]

Bmews, you are reporting your experiential perceptions regarding personnel interactions that, we all, males have to go through, but you are revealing this on a physics forum. Your actions are not appropriate. Suck it up and go on about your life. Make as good decisions as you can, and if they are actually good you will make it to where I am, much older, with a smile on my face. Really! Sm

Still, it was not a bad description of the phenomenon, was it? I wish I could write as good of a description of the resistance you gain with age by being able to see through the superficial physical appearance to recognize the often weak soul inside the body that is simultaneously enshrouded and empowered by the physical beauty of the exterior. Hopefully you will find the ideal mate whose physical beauty slowly gives way to a spiritual side that impresses you even more than the physical and gradually leads you to look beyond the exterior. Only at the same time be careful to protect yourself against the shock that you may never be as moved by any external impression as much as you were by your own youthful reaction to beauty. In other words, you may be inescapably imprisoned in the worship of feminine beauty. A general burka requirement for all women may be your only hope.

[bmews]

Still, it was not a bad description of the phenomenon, was it? I wish I could write as good of a description of the resistance you gain with age by being able to see through the superficial physical appearance to recognize the often weak soul inside the body that is simultaneously enshrouded and empowered by the physical beauty of the exterior. Hopefully you will find the ideal mate whose physical beauty slowly gives way to a spiritual side that impresses you even more than the physical and gradually leads you to look beyond the exterior. Only at the same time be careful to protect yourself against the shock that you may never be as moved by any external impression as much as you were by your own youthful reaction to beauty. In other words, you may be inescapably imprisoned in the worship of feminine beauty. A general burka requirement for all women may be your only hope.

 

 

SMF, I tried to put this into a philosophy section but it would not let me post in that sub forum.

 

Lemur,

 

There will always be a natural and instinctive/intuitive impulse and compulsion to "look". And yes, it is guided by the evolutionary forces of life and cannot be avoided. Even when we try to override (or at least curb) our genetic predispositions, there remains the problematic fact that we adapt and become desensitized to pleasurable experiences over time. Familiarity breeds indifference and contempt, and as human beings we are always on the lookout for new, fresh, exciting experiences and emotional states. Men, just like women, do things based on how it makes them feel. Rationale and logic are blunt instruments deployed retroactively and after-the-fact in the rear-view mirror once we have already made our decisions and based on actions on subjective emotional desires. Then to make it seem less straightforward we use these convoluted justifications as pretext. The problem is desires evolved, change, and are often conflicting, mutually exclusive and divergent. We run on this red queens hedonistic rat race treadmill.. and when the only constant is change.. even if a guy were lucky enough to obtain an attractive girl as his gf/wife/etc.. over time diminishing marginal utility/pleasure will dictate that even though her objective attractiveness stayed the same, the subjective intensity waned and cannot be long-lasting.

 

I'm simply seeking emotional understanding of an existential dilemma. I'm sure there is an underlying biological and evolutionary explanation (there always is or seems to be.) I am more or less looking for a mechanism to emotionally cope rather than for a scientific explanation of the phenomenon.

 

This explanation may not apply in every case, but I think in general terms men are hardwired to copulate and impregnate as many different varieties of high fitness and healthy, youthful, beautiful (and thus of excellent reproductive quality) women as possible. Since men compete with each other for access to desired mating opportunities, obviously in general the average man is less able to have sex with as many attractive females as his biological hardwiring would ideally like him to achieve. (Just like women want men that are both exceedingly good looking and nice and domestic and faithful, yet these Disney Prince attributes are always never juxtaposed within the same man, thus they have to compromise by promoting sperm warfare) In modern times this is compounded with the whole "marriage" thing and the social stigma that comes with cheating and infidelity. Beauty is one of the most valued signals that a female can send to a male, it is an efficient proxy indicator of other desirable traits like fertility, etc.. and so men evolved to place beauty and youth above all else.

 

So by wanting to "look", this compulsion of visual aesthetic is a means of short circuiting one's own biological imperatives, and instead of going into the trouble of trying to score with women, men who are satisfied with merely enjoying a variety of attractive women visually and from afar in effect are providing their emotional sensors with the decoy that they are perhaps "genetically successfully implanting their seed into attractive women" but without the added expense of actually attempting to do so. Like masturbation, this could be yet another form of simulation/emulation. Since obviously only the most attractive top echelon of men can "bed a lot of attractive women".. this invariably leaves most men (the vast remainder majority) unable to satisfy their genetic imperative of manifest destiny, so the ones that evolved appreciation for aesthetic beauty can emulate the overall happiness factor of those successful alpha-males without expending the futile energy and resources in unsuccessfully trying to woe and mate with women who are outside of their reach. This is my understanding of it (the appreciation of feminine beauty) from an evolutionary perspective. But understanding the biology of hunger doesn't make one less hungry, understanding why it hurts when you put your hand on the stove doesn't make the experience less painful.

 

I realize the irony, but cannot escape the influences. Some say that variety is the spice of life. And certainty as human beings we do all inevitably/invariably adapt to pleasurable sensations and become desensitized to similar experiences over time. If life boils down to experiences and the pursuit of such profound experiential essences, then perhaps the only "constant" is perpetual "change"; and in this red queen's race the best any of us can "do" is to endlessly run on this hedonistic treadmill and just passively enjoy each infinitely unique experiential moment to the next.

 

Maybe it is the intensity of a particular "feeling" (whether it be the pleasures or happiness derived from the aesthetics of beauty, the intimacy of love or the exhilaration of passion or lust, etc) that moves us to declare (when poignancy, passion and wonderment seemed like truth itself) that basking in the realms of romantic beauty, love, and passion was the greatest, highest, more refined and noblest way of life.. and that it alone was the highest truth, the greatest purpose, cause, meaning, etc.. After all, everything else we do in life just serves this one ultimate teleological purpose... Growing up, learning and education, work and career, the chores of daily life, dealing with society, etc; all for those fleeting little moments of heaven on earth.

 

And yet even when one narrows down the focus and scope of what it is to live a rewarding life there are still ample conflicts and contradictions.

 

Human nature is inherently (albeit slightly) polygamous. The whole social construct of "marriage" goes against the natural instinct for members of both genders to stray and seek new/fresh opportunities for different varieties of experiences. No one can reasonably deny that there is indeed a natural impulse and effortless compulsion to look at, interact with, and perhaps fall in love, have sex, etc with many different attractive members of the opposite gender. For me, the existential conflict and dilemma stems not so much from the constraints of religion or the mores and norms of society.. but from an intrinsic struggle for unity..

 

Part of us actually wants (on our own volition, and not because we were told or instructed to do so) to be with "one" special person and love that individual forever... there is a sort of endearing, gingerly, intimate and fervently intense "immersiveness" that emerges when one delves deeper and deeper into the essence and being of another person.. and although such highs are so high, this can only be achieved at the expense of exclusivity and by being totally dedicated and devoted towards one singular person through commitment, attachment, devotion, loyalty and dedication.

 

Yet on the other hand part of us wants to seek variety, we enjoy associations and interactions with multiple different and distinctively unique individuals. It seems "not enough" just to be with someone "good enough" or even someone truly great and awesome, someone who by any standards would exceed our threshold of compatibility and we'd count our blessings or our lucky stars to have found them.. we seek not only attraction and love, but also the excitement of new and refreshing scenery, of resplendent beauties and distinctive varieties.. it is like an innate, intrinsic or instinctive compulsion to discover and explore and to expose ourselves to as many different expressions and manifestations of combination of experiences as possible.

 

Yet these two overarching goals and desires are divergent and at fundamental odds with each other. We perpetually want what we can not have. And therein lies the supreme irony of it all.

Edited February 19, 2011 by bmews

[lemur]

bmews, you have tapped into some psychological truth about at least some people's experience of sexuality. Yet you avoid the thought of really combining generic heterosexual attraction with monogamy, for example by recognizing a difference between non-sexual and sexual interaction. You can have the potential to desire attractive women without actually orienting to them in that way, the same way you can see an attractive image in the media without thinking that you need to find, meet, and engage that woman sexually. The biggest hurdle you will find in heterosexual relationality, imo, is to be able to totally admit any and all feelings you have regarding other women to your partner, and to have your partner be honest and open enough to feel comfortable with telling you about any feelings of desire she has for other people as well. Some people will tell you that this is neither necessary or good to discuss with your partner, but I don't see why two people who really love each other shouldn't be able to open up about such things. Sure, it can bruise egos, but isn't love ultimately about overcoming the ego? Needless to say, I think that people (some at least) do long to transcend the biological compulsions of private sexuality and have a partner to truly share their outward AND inner life with. At that point, I think the biological/physical desires become like a source of inspiration for the more fulfilling interactions with a true partner whose companionship is more meaningful than beauty or pleasure alone could ever be.

Edited February 19, 2011 by lemur

[bmews]

bmews, you have tapped into some psychological truth about at least some people's experience of sexuality. Yet you avoid the thought of really combining generic heterosexual attraction with monogamy, for example by recognizing a difference between non-sexual and sexual interaction. You can have the potential to desire attractive women without actually orienting to them in that way, the same way you can see an attractive image in the media without thinking that you need to find, meet, and engage that woman sexually. The biggest hurdle you will find in heterosexual relationality, imo, is to be able to totally admit any and all feelings you have regarding other women to your partner, and to have your partner be honest and open enough to feel comfortable with telling you about any feelings of desire she has for other people as well. Some people will tell you that this is neither necessary or good to discuss with your partner, but I don't see why two people who really love each other shouldn't be able to open up about such things. Sure, it can bruise egos, but isn't love ultimately about overcoming the ego? Needless to say, I think that people (some at least) do long to transcend the biological compulsions of private sexuality and have a partner to truly share their outward AND inner life with. At that point, I think the biological/physical desires become like a source of inspiration for the more fulfilling interactions with a true partner whose companionship is more meaningful than beauty or pleasure alone could ever be.

 

"You can have the potential to desire attractive women without actually orienting to them in that way, the same way you can see an attractive image in the media without thinking that you need to find, meet, and engage that woman sexually."

 

Yes I totally agree with this. Beauty, Love and Lust do not need to be mutually inclusive. These neural-correlates-of-consciousness can be isolated and extracted into their own raw canonical qualia components. But often times in life and in relationships, platonic might turn into something more - maybe something explicit or just something leading to a vague and ambiguous grey area. Most of the time it does appear that in the context of a romantic dyadic interpersonal relationship no one attempts to separate the salient abstractions and categories such as beauty, love, lust, etc into their own distinct channels.. It is just all one whirlwind emotional cesspool. Humans are by default social creatures, and we are prone to be weak, and that is why the whole platonic strictly "friendship only" relationship between male and female is admitting rare. Usually if the bond is strong at least one party has the inclination for something more.

 

"The biggest hurdle you will find in heterosexual relationality, imo, is to be able to totally admit any and all feelings you have regarding other women to your partner, and to have your partner be honest and open enough to feel comfortable with telling you about any feelings of desire she has for other people as well. Some people will tell you that this is neither necessary or good to discuss with your partner, but I don't see why two people who really love each other shouldn't be able to open up about such things. Sure, it can bruise egos, but isn't love ultimately about overcoming the ego? "

 

Even though I tend to agree with your stance, I could see how the argument can go both ways. I think usually when you turn something that is on the surface to be nominally negative and add a pleasurable component into it (like make it into a game of sorts) then that alters the dynamics and balance and could make something pleasantly feasible whereas it might have been impractical before.

 

There are some people who might say that "love" (even the 'real' kind) requires a stringent emotional sacrifice (to the point where being so open would not be a good idea) and that jealously, possessiveness, etc of this sort is actually a healthy and desirable thing because it proactively protects the relationship against potential outside threats. Ideally love affords one to open oneself up completely to one other special person, but it comes at the cost of exclusivity and commitment. And within the context of relational commitment, love actually puts constraints and limitations on extra-relational openness. Usually this sort of dynamics occurs when each person in the relationship puts the other above himself or herself, but since vacuous commitment defeats the whole purpose of commitment, usually this happens only when other conditions in the relationships are ripe enough for both people to feel naturally and effortlessly compelled to act and behave in such manners towards each other. In such cases, being too transparent may actually be a detriment. But I'm not exactly sure under which circumstances the transparency that you alluded to would be most advantageous.

 

But taken to the extreme, on the flip side, some couples just have agreements to have de facto open relationships and do away with false pretenses. Their reasoning could be that denying human nature and going against the grain only makes a desire stronger, and allowing an impulse, emotion, desire to take its course actually decreases further motivation to explore that angle.. and perhaps suppressing something could backfire and make it stronger.

 

I guess it all boils down to a personal and individual decision on how one wants to live one's life.

Edited February 19, 2011 by bmews

[lemur]

But taken to the extreme, on the flip side, some couples just have agreements to have de facto open relationships and do away with false pretenses. There reasoning could be that denying human nature and going against the grain only makes a desire stronger, and allowing an impulsive, emotion, desire to take its course actually decreases further motivation to explore that angle.. and perhaps suppressing something could backfire and make it stronger.

You can explore the possibility of open relationships, but you are risking the potential of your monogamous bond to endure. The problem with open relationships is that it requires you to either regard partners as fundamentally unequal, in that none may be treated with as much respect as your primary partner OR you have to deal with the emotional bonding and responsibilities that develop as a result of the physical connections. I have listened with fascination to Muslim Imams on youtube who discuss the philosophy of polygamy. I think it makes sense to take responsibility for your sexual partners by marrying (all of) them, but it also makes you think twice about having multiple partners, imo. Recently I heard someone claim that Mohammed's limitation of wives to 4 from the unlimited harems that preceded him is primitive by modern standards of monogamy, but I wonder if modern western men would be truly limited to a maximum of 4 sexual partners in a lifetime, how many would succeed? You can accept and glorify human nature all you want, but the question is whether you are willing to be on the losing end of it.