SHAVING IT ALL OFF

[Humpty Dumpty]

>>>Well this is scemantics at its best. You value certain qualities which you deem important and I guess, by definition, not shallow. You deem other qualities (like a full head of hair) as "shallow."

No, I emphatically think it is not sematics. Its the why I designate personal qualities important (or at least, more important) and physical appeareance not so, that determines whether something is shallow. This designation is not arbitrary. The privileging of personal attributes relating to CHARACTER as important, and those relating to APPEARANCE, by and large, as less so, is because in the final analysis we don't have much control over our appearance, beauty being a fleeting thing and hardly something on which to build a meaningful relationship. To state that I would only consider a partner who had a full head of hair or a six pack or would be pretty shallow, because these aren't qualities that can particularly what kind of person they are, only how they look. On the other hand, to seek in a partner someone is who is good, kind, well intentioned, compassionate etc, etc ad nasium is not without an element of self interest, but I would defend it against the accusation that this is somehow 'shallow'. These are the the kind of qualities against which we should be judged, over which we have a far greater degree of control, and which give a far greater indication of how successful a relationship is likely to be, rather than something as trite as "does he have a good sixpack?"

 

[Guest]

>>>Well this is scemantics at its best. You value certain qualities which you deem important and I guess, by definition, not shallow. You deem other qualities (like a full head of hair) as "shallow."

No, I emphatically think it is not sematics. Its the why I designate personal qualities important (or at least, more important) and physical appeareance not so, that determines whether something is shallow. This designation is not arbitrary. The privileging of personal attributes relating to CHARACTER as important, and those relating to APPEARANCE, by and large, as less so, is because in the final analysis we don't have much control over our appearance, beauty being a fleeting thing and hardly something on which to build a meaningful relationship. To state that I would only consider a partner who had a full head of hair or a six pack or would be pretty shallow, because these aren't qualities that can particularly what kind of person they are, only how they look. On the other hand, to seek in a partner someone is who is good, kind, well intentioned, compassionate etc, etc ad nasium is not without an element of self interest, but I would defend it against the accusation that this is somehow 'shallow'. These are the the kind of qualities against which we should be judged, over which we have a far greater degree of control, and which give a far greater indication of how successful a relationship is likely to be, rather than something as trite as "does he have a good sixpack?"

That may all be true for you and I would ask,. ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL, wouldn't you take the handsome and wealthy guy with some pretty good qualities over the balding and tubby metrosexual who has a low income?

Be honest, I think you would take the first guy with just a few less of those personal qualities you so value.

Black and white comparisons are easy, grey, not so!

BTW- many appearance issues are a reflection of the person's character. Anyone who allows themselves to get very fat, have bad teeth and so forth is making a huge character statement in my opinion.

 

[Humpty Dumpty]

>>>That may all be true for you and I would ask,. ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL, wouldn't you take the handsome and wealthy guy with some pretty good qualities over the balding and tubby metrosexual who has a low income?

What in the name of the little green folk is a 'metrosexual'?! :?

And your question is disingenous. As far as I can see, it makes no mention (unless this is what 'metrosexual' means which somehow I doubt!) of any qualities pertaining to moral character which I mentioned in the previous post. So to answer the reworded question, would I take a balding and tubby guy with a good personality and moral qualities I admired over some morally indifferent handsome and wealthy guy with the personality of a wet lettuce leaf? You betcha! And by the same token, I'd take the handsome and wealthy guy with a good personality and fine moral character of a balding, tubby and morally corrupt guy any day.

>>>Black and white comparisons are easy, grey, not so!

A black and white comparison is the very thing you just made above, in the case of bald/fat guy and wealthy/handsome guy. You didn't allow there to be any considerations of personal character factoring into the decision but attempted to compel me to decide on looks alone, when I already made clear this could never be a deciding factor.

>>>BTW- many appearance issues are a reflection of the person's character. Anyone who allows themselves to get very fat, have bad teeth and so forth is making a huge character statement in my opinion

Do you really think a person's weight can have much bearing (never mind a "huge" one) on a person's moral character, Bruce??

 

[lentara]

Might it also say something about people in general that we do NOT want to be shallow...that we actually will discuss, as we are, things like this. That though there is always an element of self-interest (which is not necessarily bad b/c we relate to the world through our experience) we DESIRE and WANT to be "better" than that and more than we are?

 

[Humpty Dumpty]

>>>Might it also say something about people in general that we do NOT want to be shallow...that we actually will discuss, as we are, things like this. That though there is always an element of self-interest (which is not necessarily bad b/c we relate to the world through our experience) we DESIRE and WANT to be "better" than that and more than we are?

Lol! Some people would call that godliness!

Seriously though, I studied the concepts of psychological egoism (the belief that we cannot abstract from considerations of self interest in our decision making) and ethical egoism (the idea that we should not abstract from such consideration in the decision making process) as part of my undergrad degree. The problem with such arguments is that it is impossible to prove either way. Even the most seemingly selfless act can be interpreted in such a way (I almost said 'twisted' there! :wink that it appears the agent had only his own interests at heart in the final analysis. I'm willing to accept that many, if not most of our actions, spring from some kind of consideration of self interest, but that we are capable of setting aside our own welfare and acting in a way that may be entirely antithetical to those interests. And I think its utimately a mistake to run together two distinct concepts such as self interest and shallowness together. :freaked2:

But maybe I'm just a romantic at heart. :lol:

 

[Guest]

[quote="Humpty Dumpty
But maybe I'm just a romantic at heart. :lol:[/quote]

Well of course you are! That is the way of western society in general.

I don't have an issue with selfishness and I don't think you can avoid it no now matter how hard you try.

There are a few acts out there where you can say, that was self-less.

Many of them ocurred on 9/11.

Having said that, in my own experience, when I have acted that way in the past, upon reflection, it was obvious that where the SELF came in, was in the holding of oneself as someone who OUGHT to act that way, ie. as a hero.

So, in my view, there is no way around it and it is not bad. The notion of a romantic, selfless hero running around saving the world without consideration of one's own needs is really the stuff of fiction.

I think we would be better off if we stop denying this and simply more rigorously worked on how to make this self referential point of view work more effectively for all.

What do you think?

:hairy:

 

[lentara]

Both of you make valid points. (yes, I have a highly annoying habit of looking at both sides and going...hmmm, those are both good ideas.)
It can be said that all acts are related to the Self...however, as an example, during 9/11(as you pointed out, Bruce) people were going in to try to save lives whilst losing their own and I highly doubt that any of them were thinking "oh, I can be a hero". It was a situation where Self was the last thing on most people's mind.
The relation of our life choices and experience to Self is something that most major religions and philosophies try to teach us to overcome. (IE "godliness") Which may be why many of us find that being called shallow, selfish, or self-involved really irks us.
Humpty...when you say that any selfless act can be analyzed later to reflect self-interest (paraphrasing here) I totally agree. Things can be analyzed to the nth degree therefore losing the essence of what the thing really was..."twisting" it per se.
And, yes, Bruce, I would hope that we could learn to use our self-interest to better benefit all.
Oh, and yeah, what IS a metrosexual?? :?

 

[Guest]

Oh, and yeah, what IS a metrosexual?? :?

As I understand it, a man that has both masculine and feminine qualities and attitudes. He is not a homosexual, but relates to things like cosmetics, and the like.

I am not making this up. Do a google and laugh. Howard Dean declares he is one and I am not surprised. We used to call these guys pantywastes.

:freaked2:

 

[lentara]

Well, sh*t. You actually DO learn something new everyday :freaked:
That's gonna be my new word. Metrosexual!!! Watch out world, I am now armed and dangerous! :2gunsfiring_v1: WOOO! :excited:

 

[athleticmom]

LOL!!!!!!!!!!

Oh you guys (gals) are on a roll today! WOOHOO! I LIKE it!!!

Okay, but back to the original deal about shaving it off. I am up for it eventually, but I have this other unsightly problem with my forehead, which my bangs cover up at present. Without them, I will need something no less than expensive Botox injections at extremely regular intervals.

Anyway, I did want to comment that I was at the theratre the other day in L.A. and all these women were so dressed up and all I could notice was hair everywhere. But many of them were older and had thinning hair (I am beginning to think there is a conspiracy here in SoCal). Anyway, one had lovely (truly) gray hair but virtually NOTHING on top. To me that is more obvious than someone just flippin shaving her head.

Does that make sense?

 

[Guest]

LOL!!!!!!!!!!

Oh you guys (gals) are on a roll today! WOOHOO! I LIKE it!!!

Okay, but back to the original deal about shaving it off. I am up for it eventually, but I have this other unsightly problem with my forehead, which my bangs cover up at present. Without them, I will need something no less than expensive Botox injections at extremely regular intervals.

Anyway, I did want to comment that I was at the theratre the other day in L.A. and all these women were so dressed up and all I could notice was hair everywhere. But many of them were older and had thinning hair (I am beginning to think there is a conspiracy here in SoCal). Anyway, one had lovely (truly) gray hair but virtually NOTHING on top. To me that is more obvious than someone just flippin shaving her head.

Does that make sense?

Sinead O'Connor never did anything for me until she grew some hair.

 

[athleticmom]

Sinead never did anything for me. Period.

P.S. Bruce I forgive you for that psychologist comment (I am one). I am able to forgive you because I am a self-actualized and very together female with thinning hair. Still working on the selfless part, but getting closer everyday.

 

[Guest]

Sinead never did anything for me. Period.

P.S. Bruce I forgive you for that psychologist comment (I am one). I am able to forgive you because I am a self-actualized and very together female with thinning hair. Still working on the selfless part, but getting closer everyday.

Ah, sorry but I do love to poke. Actually, being a veteran of tons of therapy, my personal experience is that I found ONE who was actually very very effective.

The others had more issues than I did.

Isn't life grand!

As for me, I have learned to embrace myself and am for the most part, less lonely that way.

:freaked2:

 

[Guest]

>>>Well of course you are! That is the way of western society in general.

You think?? I don't. Or if it does, then it must be a very warped conception of 'romance' that most people have in mind. And to think most people think I'm cynical. But then, what is cynicism if not idealism not having its ideals met? :lol:

>>>I don't have an issue with selfishness and I don't think you can avoid it no now matter how hard you try.

There are a few acts out there where you can say, that was self-less.

In fact, if you were a true psychologist egoist, you would say there are NO acts out there that are motivated by considerations other than self interest. But you need to clarify your statement. If there are "few" acts out there that are selfless, then there are some. In the previous paragraph however, you say that you can avoid "it" no matter how you try. What is the "it" to which you refer? selfishness? Because if so, and its impossible to avoid acting from a selfishl motivation, then I don't see how you can square this with your next remark that there are a "few" acts out there are selfless. Either we are capable of acting selflessly, or we are not. If we are not, then there can be NO acts which are born of selfless motivations. And in your next paragraph you go on to say

>>>Having said that, in my own experience, when I have acted that way in the past, upon reflection, it was obvious that where the SELF came in, was in the holding of oneself as someone who OUGHT to act that way, ie. as a hero.

which seems to imply that in fact you can and did act, at least on occasion, in a selfless fashion. Where you previously ran together the concepts of "shallowness" and "self interest", now it appears you're conflating the concepts of "self interest", "selfishness" and "self serving". For instance, if we look at the eg of someone like Mother Theresa whose life was given over to noble acts and the service of others, (yes I know she has her critics!) one interpretation of her motives might be "well, she was getting something out of it: she felt good about it ergo she did it to feel good about herself." Now whilst MT might feel good about helping the poor, it doesn't follow that because she felt good about it, thats why she did it. There is a false step in that argument which confuses cause and effect. Her feeling good about it may well have been the motivating factor in her actions, but it could well just have been a byproduct of her actions, whilst her true motives are untouched by this. The fact that something may or may not benefit our self esteem, is not proof of this as being the casual influence in determining which action we take.

>>>So, in my view, there is no way around it and it is not bad. The notion of a romantic, selfless hero running around saving the world without consideration of one's own needs is really the stuff of fiction.

Oh, granted. I'd agree with that anyday.

>>>I think we would be better off if we stop denying this and simply more rigorously worked on how to make this self referential point of view work more effectively for all.

Nope. I think the cult of individualism in today's western society is hardly something to be sought, (however ineffectively one might want to argue its being practised). Rather I'd like to see more of a balance between concern for self and concern for others. And like you, I'm not advocating giving all one's goods over to the poor or eating locusts in the desert as a lifestyle choice. But to temper one's own interests with a concern for those of others is and to cultivate an ability to abstract from the purely self referential point of view, is indeed something we should be looking at.

 

[lentara]

Athletic Mom~
I think it would look better to be bald than to have tiny wisps of hair on top of me head covering me bald pate. B/c if you have these tiny wisps of hair trying to cover it up everyone notices in a oh-I-feel-so-bad-for her way but if you're bald...well, they might just think you're crazy and I'd rather be thought a bit nuts than to be pitied.
I was thinking of sexy bald women and I can only come up with 2:
From the original Star Trek Movie...the alien chick. They had her bald.
Demi Moore in GI Jane.
Sinead did not make the list NOT b/c she was bald but I was just never into her.
The above list is not to say that many women wouldn't be sexy bald there is just a VERY tiny pool to draw from, so to speak.

 

[Guest]

On your last point, I think we have been deeply ingrained with a sense that we should "do for others." There is no way that governments with the level of intrusion that exists in the US and other "developed" nations could exist if we were not socialized (interesting word) from childhood that we need to look after each other.

So, from my point of view, we don't need any MORE of this collectivist horseshit, but less. However, I am referring to a more rigorous and grounded self interested point of view that mere hedonism.

I would suggest the book, "Freedom to Choose" by Nobel Laureate Arthur Friedman (and his wife).

Outstanding treatise on the power of enlightend self interest.

 

[Guest]

>>>On your last point, I think we have been deeply ingrained with a sense that we should "do for others." There is no way that governments with the level of intrusion that exists in the US and other "developed" nations could exist if we were not socialized (interesting word) from childhood that we need to look after each other.

Interesting how perceptions vary. I tend to think we're socialised nowadays very much towards the "me me me!" world view.

>>>So, from my point of view, we don't need any MORE of this collectivist horseshit, but less. However, I am referring to a more rigorous and grounded self interested point of view that mere hedonism.

And do you actually have some kind of standard in mind?

>>>I would suggest the book, "Freedom to Choose" by Nobel Laureate Arthur Friedman (and his wife).

And sideline my beloved Kant?! Never! Mine's is a jealous God! :lol:

 

[Guest]

I don't see a mass movement to me me me. On the contrary, I see the majority of humanity that is concerned about others almost to the extreme.

And that is where we get into trouble, as we set about to fix things.

Things are fine until humans try to "help." Then the trouble starts.

IMHO.

:hairy:

 

[Guest]

"Food for thought"

Is it shallow for men to desire slim partners? Absolutely not. Here's why.

An overweight friend of mine sent an e-mail to me in which she more or less said that she's perfectly happy being overweight, and she suggested that men who desire slim mates are shallow. My response to her presented a cogent reason why it is not shallow to desire a slim partner. You can read our e-mail exchange (left click to open in a new window), or just read my central argument in the following paragraph:

Marriage isn't just about today ? it's about tomorrow, too. And a lot of tomorrows in the future. Obesity predisposes people to many diseases. Frankly, I don't want a wife who can't take a walk with me in the future because her knees or hips are arthritic. I don't want a wife who died years ago because of breast cancer. I don't want a wife who is tethered to an oxygen tank, and I don't want a wife whose body is destroyed by diabetes. I don't have a crystal ball to peer into the future and see who will be healthy, and who won't. So I judge the likelihood of poor health in the future by looking for the underlying factor (obesity) that is the most frequent common denominator in the diseases most apt to kill or debilitate in the years to come. Therefore, being slim isn't just a matter of beauty; it's a strong indicator of long-term health. I don't have a crystal ball, but I do have common sense. Many other men have common sense, too, and their bias against blubber isn't some shallow desire.

 

[Guest]

More good stuff!!



Afraid of marrying a man who might become bald
Pezzi wonders, "Does she think that only men age?"

Q: How can I tell if a man will become bald? It'd be a nightmare for me if I married some great guy, then he lost his hair . . . because my love for him would go right out the window. I can't see myself ever being attracted to someone who is bald, so I want some foolproof way of knowing in advance if he'll keep all his hair. Can you help me, Doctor? Kristen

A: Yes. You need it. I have a number of answers and responses to your question. In no particular order, they are:

1. First, all men and women lose hair as they age. Hair loss in women is less apparent because they usually sustain a diminution of hair density over the entire scalp, rather than in the discrete, progressive pattern that is the hallmark of male pattern baldness. However, even in people who don't "go bald," hair density decreases with age.

2. While everyone has the right to determine what they want in a partner, I hope ? for your sake ? that you don't develop some of the maladies that plague women when they age, such as wrinkles, cellulite, stretch marks, varicose veins, sagging breasts, loss of breast size, a "tummy" that is refractory to sit-ups, and excessive fat on the hips, thighs, and buttocks. Men can get fat, too, but they're less apt to wrinkle, much less likely to have cellulite, stretch marks, or varicosities, and almost immune from sagging breasts ? for obvious reasons. The scorecard? Presuming that a man keeps in shape, his one major sign of aging is hair loss. Women face more risks, which may be why our society thinks that older men can still be very attractive, but older women are rarely coveted. If you disagree with this, don't kill the messenger. I'm just relaying what is common knowledge.

3. Baldness actually complements the faces of some men. Take Dr. Phil (of Oprah fame), or the actor who portrays Admiral Chegwidden on JAG. I am not gay, or bisexual, but I can tell if a man is attractive or not, and I think both men are handsome in spite of their baldness. Furthermore, in my opinion, I think they'd look worse with more hair.

4. Baldness is now more treatable than ever, with hair transplants and various anti-DHT meds and whatnot. The bad news about the anti-DHT drugs is that while they may restore hair, they can decimate a man's sex life by reducing his libido, impairing erectile performance, and inducing a very gradual shrinkage of the penis. Any Doctor who is unaware of these risks is either brain dead, inexperienced, or gullible enough to be hoodwinked by the pharmaceutical industry. One of my pet peeves is stupid drugs ads. One ad that I recall was when the maker of Propecia® (finasteride, an anti-DHT drug) attempted to make men believe that taking Propecia every day was something as innocuous as taking a daily "vitamin pill." How ridiculous. Vitamins are essential for life and generally just beneficial, while anti-DHT drugs have plusses and minuses. However dismal it is to face the dilemma of choosing to benefit one's hairline at the risk of impairing one's sex life, there is good news on the horizon. A doctor in France discovered a way to clone a man's own hair cells, obviating the problems of tissue rejection, and avoiding the quagmire of social issues that plagues other cloning endeavors.

5. Keep in mind that one's perception of beauty changes with age. When I was 15, I thought women aged 40 were antiques. Now that I'm that age, I know some 40-ish women (all married, unfortunately for me) who are mesmerizingly beautiful. I suspect that when I'm 60, women of that age will look a lot better than they do now.

6. OK, to answer your question. There is no simple inheritance pattern for baldness, as people sometimes believe. Many genes contribute to this, so you cannot assume that a man will be bald just because his father or grandfather was. My advice? If you love the man, marry him. In twenty years, you'll probably be more worried about your own beauty problems than his. Plus, as I mentioned above, medical science is nearing the time when people can choose to have as much hair as they wish . . . or can afford (I assume cloning won't be cheap). However, we haven't made comparable progress in combating many of the beauty issues that women face. Consequently, some day you might actually welcome some erosion of your partner's attractiveness, because yours will surely erode, too. If his appearance never waned, he'd probably eventually dump you and choose a younger partner.

Bottom line? I assume you think you either won't age, or that if you do, a man shouldn't care how much you go to pot. Just hope your future husband is a lot more forgiving of human imperfection than you are.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------