Swimming in Shallow Water, Aren't We?

Over the holidays, my brother and sister-in-law flew into town to spend a few days with the family. At a pub in the afternoon, we sat down to eat and were approached with a question from my brother, as he asked, "Do you think God has a reason for making people ugly?"

I responded with, "Well, it's all rather subjective, don't you think?"

He fired back with, "Yeah, I guess so. But, I mean, people that most everyone would consider ugly, do you think God has a reason for making them so?"

I kind of stared in disbelief and said, "Well, you point to any one person you may find unattractive and while the vast majority may agree with you, I can guarantee you that someone will find them appealing."

My mother talked about Fred Astaire and how he wasn't kind to the eyes, but was extremely talented and his talent is what made him attractive.

I talked about Larry Bird and Kid Rock and how I know women who find them good looking and he responded with, "Well, that's because they're famous."

I kind of rolled my eyes and decided not to discuss the matter any further, but it got me to thinking, why are some people so obsessed with appearance? How shallow are we as a people?

Now, I, for one, am not a big believer in a higher power many refer to as God, but suppose for a moment that he/she/it does exist and let's presume he/she/it is benevolent, omniscient and omnipotent, as many believers suggest, what purpose would there be for him/her/it to intentionally create individuals whom are not appealing to the majority? What lessons would be learned from that? Also, if there is this higher power and the sacred books are accurate, what difference does one's physical appearance make in this life, as it would be irrelevant in the next? It befuddles me when extremely religious individuals are so hung up on appearance, that they resort to these shallow observations and judgments on people they don't know. To say that's hypocritical would be like saying Rush Limbaugh believes in pain pills.

I think what irked me the most about the question and the discussion was the fact my brother and so many other people, for that matter, think of the concept known as beauty as something that can instantly be seen with one's eyes, a first-impression of external beauty. But, how can one be so simplistic with their perception of beauty? Like I said initially, isn't beauty rather subjective? Just because the majority see a person as attractive, that does not mean everyone agrees on the matter. My brother brought up his theory that women find Kid Rock and Larry Bird attractive, because they're famous, but what about the reverse angle? If people find celebrities attractive, why then do many people not find celebrities attractive, even those that make the top 40 sexiest males/females' lists? I know some men whom don't find Angelina Jolie attractive and know some women (yes, I'm talking about heterosexuals here) whom don't think Brad Pitt is very good looking. So, I see that "They're-famous-so-people-find-they-attractive" theory to be rather moot.

What I think my brother and many others miss is that beauty is a complex creature, which can be seen from many different perspectives and which can be interpreted an infinite number of ways. Just like no two people may see a certain painting or read a particular poem in the same light, no two people will have the same idea of what constitutes a person as beautiful.

As I mentioned, it seems that many see beauty as that which can immediately be seen with the eyes. I agree, this is a type of beauty, but not the only and not the most genuine. It's a very artificial beauty. I mean, how do we consistently measure it, since we all have different sets of eyes and thoughts? Do we grade based on how the person looks when first waking in the morning? If they possess a natural beauty? Do we grade them before, during and after getting ready and applying make-up and such? Do we grade them before, during or after procedures such as liposuction, plastic surgery and botox? With all that humans do to cover their actual appearance, how then are we to judge based on what we initially see with our eyes, when what we see initially may be a far cry from what we see when waking in the morning?

It's human nature to find people attractive or perhaps unattractive, but there's no universality on physical attraction. We all have different tastes and it isn't a black-and-white issue. There are many shades of gray. But, while our eyes and other areas may be pleased when first seeing a person, or the artificial person they present themselves as, we won't have a genuine picture of their overall beauty until we speak to and get to know them. I can't count how many times I've seen someone whom I found to be attractive initially, but once they opened their mouth, that attraction faded faster than the New York Giants a couple weeks ago against the Philadelphia Eagles. There have also been times when I may not have found a person physically appealing at first, but over time, through getting to know them, I have found them to be beautiful.

The thing is there are different types of beauty, different avenues to which we find a person attractive. Kid Rock isn't found to be attractive because of his being famous. His music connects with some people. Fred Astaire was a great dancer. A person's talent, their communicating and relating to people, can often times be appealing to many.

There's someone right now that I find to be extremely beautiful, but this isn't because of her appearance. I find her to be physically appealing, sure, but the reason for her being so attractive to me is because I actually know and care about her. If I didn't, she wouldn't be nearly as beautiful to me. Beauty is a complex, subjective and many-layered concept and I wish more people would be able to see it as such, before rushing to judgments on people they know absolutely nothing about.