My dear young lady, it’s a self-esteem issue, not a biological
issue. You’ve allowed the size of your breasts define your self-esteem
and that’s not really healthy. Breast-size is a genetic lottery draw.
You had nothing to do with it. Your genes determined the size of your
breasts. That genetic scheme manifests cup-sizes, creating a mammalian
alphabet system of measurement. And so you have cup-sizes A to D, the D
and the like doubling in on themselves to accommodate larger cup sizes
like DD.Are men attracted to only women with large breasts? Of course
not. Men’s tastes are not generic despite media impression. Or women
with smaller cup sizes will not be getting married nor have boyfriends.
And that’s the point I’m making to you, that you can’t allow a
biological marker define your esteem and essence. There’s more to you
than your breast-size and if you don’t get that, you’ll be making the
same mistake as a trollop. She defines her worth by her physicality.
You’re doing the same too, albeit in reverse. In other words, you’re
sexually objectivising yourself. Isn’t that a cultural mindset you
attack in men?
Beauty is a cultural phenomenon. It’s always been defined by culture.
The concept of absolute beauty is a moon shot. What is regarded as
beauty in China may not be so considered in Europe. And what is
considered beautiful in Europe may not be considered so in Africa, or
the Arabian Peninsula.
Beauty is also defined by the times and the seasons. In Victorian
time beauty was voluptuous. The Raphaelite conception of beauty held
sway. It’s why the paintings contained full-figured women. But from the
60s on, the European fashion industry began to define beauty in terms of
slimness, even as skinny. Remember Twiggy? If you don’t, Google her up.
She was the sixties super model.
The problem is that nature reproduces from a genetic bank not from
cultural templates we come up with. And so there’s no point trying to
define yourself by the cultural standards out there. You were already
who you are before those cultural policies were promulgated. There’s
nothing you can do. Be yourself. And if it troubles you so much and you
have the money, go for plastic surgery. Or use padded bra. But these
won’t necessarily solve your self-esteem issue.
To be honest with you the people who define those standards are
indeed few. Think of the editors at Vogue. Add a handful of fashion
designers and then some, and you have the arbiters of culture. The only
problem is that the parameters are so narrow and so ephemeral, if not
whimsical. It hardly takes into cognizance intellect, philosophy and
other dimensions of arbiters of culture.
If truth be told, these definers of beauty will themselves fail the
test if the test were applied to them. If you critically analyze the
objects of beauty presented as definition of beauty, you’ll find they
are more of anomalies. They choose women and young girls with peculiar
looks – the ones who don’t look like everybody. In other words, you are
defining your self-worth by rarities of genetic rolling of dice.
These people are nature’s anomalies. Today, it’s unusual long neck,
tomorrow it’s high cheekbones. And day after it’s what we’ll ordinarily
call “ugliness”. They shifted the concept of beauty to “interesting
face”. That can mean anything. The emphasis is rare physiological
feature. The parameters are based on the ability to stand out and so
draw attention to merchandise. It’s wholly commercial. And so the models
can never be average or look like ordinary women. How many women look
like models! It’s why there’s a counter-cultural push for “REAL WOMEN”.
Dove commercials for example feature “real women” – curvy, voluptuous
women with folds and manifolds. I’m just saying be who you are and find
beauty in what you are, not somebody else’s idea.
There was no plebian referendum on beauty, was there? And there are
so many stars and celebrities with small breasts. Lupita Nyong’o, Zoe
Saldana, Gwen Stefani, Kate Moss, Olivia Wilde, Keira Knightley, Cameron
Diaz, Taylor Swift, Kristen Stewart, Claire Danes, Natalie Portman,
Gwyneth Paltrow, Miley Cyrus, Ema Watson, Charlize Theron… These women
have proven over and over again that it’s not breast size that
determines social acceptance.
As an intellectual, I’m particularly intrigued by the Peterist model
of beauty, which in conception is actually transcendent. He cited “inner
disposition” as definition of beauty. To be honest he did recognise
Brazilian hair, jewelry, fashion and what not as beautification
implements. But he insists these cannot be the definition of beauty. And
that makes sense. The Peterist model insists a very wicked woman in
Channel suit and diamonds is as ugly as it gets. Solomon would weigh in
and call the Channel bag and jewelry misplaced ornamentation. That the
contrast of the ornamentation and character renders the wearer of bovine
quality. That’s a nuanced rendering of, “As a jewel of gold in a
swine’s snout, so is a fair woman which is without discretion.” And so
Peter talks of a beauty that “comes from within”.
He also placed beauty on the x and y axis using quality and time as
parameters, and plotted a graph. Mere physical beauty of course fades
with time. No one has ever succeeded in the struggle against time. He
then plotted transcendent beauty – what he called “gentle and quiet
spirit”, as well as humility. He says these – humility, gentle and quiet
spirit, have a much higher potential to last. In other words, a
physically beautiful but temperamental and prideful woman will not cut
it on the Peterist scale. The Peterist conception of beauty includes
godliness by the way.
I will rather you use the Peterist model in your conception of beauty
rather than the Vogue definition. The Vogue model is rather unstable.
The Peterist model has survived millennia. At the end of the day, beauty
is what is inside of us.
No comments:
Post a Comment