From: ibshambat@gmail.com   
      
   The Greeks extolled beauty as an ideal, and any number of others today dismiss   
   it under the claim that it is only taste-dependent, culturally relative or   
   “in the eye of the beholder.” Both are part-right and part-wrong.   
      
   Judith Langlois, an American scientist, ran an experiment that showed that   
   people cross-culturally will all regard a face with a certain set of   
   proportions as being beautiful. Another experiment showed 500 faces to 20,000   
   participants resulting in every    
   face being picked as the most beautiful at least once. The first shows the   
   existence of absolute beauty; the second shows the existence of relative   
   beauty.   
      
   Both studies validate the correct claims on each side while invalidating the   
   wrong ones. The existence of absolute beauty shows that the artistic search   
   for truth in beauty is a valid one and invalidates the abuse by feminists   
   against women who are    
   physically attractive. The existence of relative beauty shows that there is   
   someone for everyone and invalidates the abuse by bad parents and stupid   
   teenagers against those they regard as being unattractive.   
      
   I had a girlfriend whose neighbors never saw her as being attractive, but many   
   others did. I had another girlfriend whom everyone saw as beautiful. In the   
   first case we see relative beauty; in the second case we see absolute beauty.   
      
   There is nothing at all incompatible between the two.   
      
   Many artists are known as being arrogant; and while some are in no way do they   
   begin to own arrogance. When you are in a field that is not appreciated, as   
   opposed to a field that is appreciated, sometimes you have to blow your horn.   
   This may be regarded    
   as egotistical, even narcissistic; but the process demands it.   
      
   When I was writing on the Internet in favor of beauty, people accused me of   
   thinking with my penis. That is completely not the case. I have no sexual   
   attraction to my female relatives; but all of them are very beautiful.   
   Appreciation is not the same    
   thing as lust. For that matter I can also appreciate the build of a man with a   
   good physique, but I am not a homosexual.   
      
   Stating that “beauty is in the eye of the beholder” or anything along the   
   same lines is like saying that it does not exist. In fact, true beauty takes   
   talent and effort to produce and deserves respect. There is nothing “in the   
   eye” about Sistine    
   Chapel, Burmese stupas or the works of Monet. All these are amazing   
   accomplishments. They deserve respect.   
      
   I see no reason at all why the Renaissance Italy, with 3 million people and   
   per capita GDP of $1500 a year, would have better art than America, with 300   
   million people and per capita GDP of $45,000 a year. We should have 300   
   Sistine Chapels. American    
   people are in no way less talented than the Italians. The problem is one of   
   values. If you do not value beauty, you will not create a demand for beauty,   
   and most artists will either go starving or have to do something else.   
      
   What we do see in many people who regard beauty as solely being relative is   
   self-refuting behavior. They claim that beauty is relative; then they attack   
   women who are beautiful and do not attack women who are not. This shows that   
   they, like everyone else,   
    know what beauty is and what it isn't; and their claims are therefore refuted   
   by their own behavior.   
      
   When beauty is under attack, anything that either possesses beauty or loves   
   beauty will be in one or another bind. This reinforces the slander that   
   something is wrong with beauty. The real reason is that these people are under   
   attack. When women or    
   blacks are oppressed, they do not accomplish very much, which then reinforces   
   the slander that women or blacks are inferior. When beauty is oppressed, it   
   will be found in all sorts of bad ways, which then will reinforce the slander   
   that something is    
   wrong with beauty.   
      
   Beauty is innocent of its abuses by stupid teenagers and unscrupulous plastic   
   surgeons. It existed long before they existed; it will continue existing after   
   they are gone. That something can be used for wrong does not mean that it is a   
   bad thing.    
   Anything that has appeal to people will have someone wanting to use it for   
   wrong. That is as much the case with intelligence, money or patriotism as it   
   is with beauty.   
      
   Then there is the case that valuing beauty destroys women's self-esteem. This   
   is completely an invalid claim. That some students get D's does not mean that   
   nobody can get A's. That some people are poor does not mean that nobody can be   
   wealthy. Different    
   people will be endowed differently, and they will go to different lengths to   
   develop or not develop their gifts. In no way is such a thing limited to   
   beauty.   
      
   The women who are regarded as unattractive by bad parents or stupid school   
   cultures can take heart. If every face in an experiment gets picked as the   
   most beautiful at least once, then someone will find even them beautiful. They   
   have no business however    
   at all attacking women who are more good-looking than they are. It is valid to   
   look outside bad cultures that treat the person like dirt. It is wrong to   
   attack beauty.   
      
   Once again, there is absolute beauty and relative beauty. Search for truth or   
   goodness in beauty is valid; so is search outside of the place that treats you   
   like dirt for people who would appreciate you. Take what is right with each   
   side and discard what    
   is wrong with them. Value beauty for what it is. And if someone does not value   
   you as being beautiful, look for someone who would.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)