Posted by 10derHeart on October 9, 2009, at 21:27:39
In reply to Homely then, posted by Dinah on October 9, 2009, at 21:05:24
I didn't say I was uncomfortable, did I? :-) I just plainly disagree and I probably have the most basis/evidence of anyone who has posted here so far, so there!
I just don't see the vast majority of people that way. Rarely anyway, unless they are disfigured or something, we as humans sorta can't help it, we aren't hard-wired to find distortions of features pleasing. I wish that weren't so, as our initial reactions probably really hurt those who have suffered genetic probelms, or had a surgery, accident, etc., but it is the way we are made, it seems. I'm not pretending we don't see some people as better looking (hard to say waht that is, exactly, or why as we are all so different, like Deneb mentioned) or more attractive than others, I suppose, but *ugly* is pretty extreme, IMO. Just as gorgeous is pretty extreme.
Homely? I dunno what it really means. A kinder ugly?? {shrug}
How come you wish to interpret it as awful, this unattractiveness which I cannot see? Isn't this kinda like everything else, where we can't see ourselves as others do, and we are harsh on ourselves? I mean, what if I told you I look an awful lot like the pic I have seen of you? If you and your T. have agreed that "that" look is ugly, homely and unattractive, then it would have to follow I am, too, right? If I look really, really similar to you?
You would not deem me any of those things, I'll bet. (If you would, well, that's okay, too) Why? Because I am not you. We only place the really harsh and most extreme descriptors on ourselves, as usual. Inner OR outer descriptions.
But, if you wish to be those words, of course it's not awful. It is just is what it is.
poster:10derHeart
thread:920257
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/psycho/20090907/msgs/920326.html