It Has Been Said ; Beauty vs. Ugly

Beauty? Ugly? Serious-ly?


I've recently discovered a rather interesting perspective. Just for the result of it, I moved my point of view just a bit and realized that I was on to something.

I have found that our modern media and advertising machines are not geared toward the female necessarily to play into a want of accentuating their beauty... as much as simply to convince them to try and cover up more ugly.

Now that is not to say that women are "ugly" so to speak.... nor is it in an attempt to imply that men are better looking.... as any can see... men are no where near as aesthetically pleasing as are most females. This I think is due to that extra effort of covering up more ugly.

Consider this for a moment. Look around you in your regular day. How much actual "beauty" is there compared to the illusion of "beauty" brought on through the extra effort of covering up the large percentage of the existing and more prominent "ugly?"


Even the most gorgeous of females or males, possess at least in part, a good portion of "ugly." Consider the groin area for instance. In and of itself... it's just damn ugly.. male or female. That area has a reputation of noxious fumes as well... both male and female. It is something else about existence that makes it seem appealing (which is entirely a different subject)... and I have to say that I think trying to cover up the "ugly" helps this along.


Quite factually, I believe that it is all in an effort to get past the fact of ugly in that area.... through hiding more "ugly" in other places. The reasoning seems to be, that if there is less "ugly" to be worried about in the preliminary stages of any inter-human interaction.... then the absolutely repulsiveness of sexuality... more the sexually related areas, will seem less offensive. Such just isn't the case. It's still just damn ugly.... but.... what the advertisers don't want you to know is that sex would still happen even without all of the effort to conceal the "ugly." Ugly simply is, and must surely be a solid constant.


How can any human look at any other human and fail to see the ugly? Look at super models... all scraggly.. skin and bones..... no less ugly in many ways than the most hideous of "mingers." Same parts in total... simply arranged differently in extremely subtle ways.


To worry about who is more beautiful is not only a farce and waste of life... but is illusion. The real game should be about who has covered up more ugly... which really is what it is anyhow. There isn't much in the world that isn't just plain ugly anyway. Most of what is seen as "beauty" has been doctored up and promoted as such through the media... "beauty" is just "ugly" with allot of distraction and publicists. Spin Doctors.


Something else I have noticed in the more crass areas of modern media... is that they will try and use as much "less ugly" as possible. For instance, in a somber example... the use of death.
I happened upon a story this morning in the news paper that was about two young ladies having been killed in a car wreck.


O.K., so this is unfortunately a common thing... but.... the difference is that these two young ladies were successful in having covered up more ugly than most other people. They got a whole news story AND a large photo of the two of them smiling and exhibiting very little obvious ugly. Front Page Stuff.


If you examine it, there are many more people that happened to have died on the same day. They just weren't as successful in covering as much ugly as were these two young ladies. They got nothing but the average blurb in the obituary column, with a small photo if they were lucky... and that is... if their family thought that they had a photograph that sufficiently displayed their effort at hiding ugly... whether or not they were that successful in such an endeavor.


This brings me to examples in the celebrity areas of society. Take into account the consistencies in history around celebrity and ugly.


When someone like Jennifer Aniston dies... there will be some media coverage.. perhaps even publicized services... but hardly anyone will really care that much and there will most certainly be a multitude in number of similar people to fill her roll... just waiting for her to die even.
Now this isn't to say that Aniston isn't ugly. She, as have many others... has just been more successful in covering ugly a bit more... but as well, has involved herself in the activity of promoting the myth of beauty.


Now then.... when someone like Jack Nicholson dies.... it's going to seriously effect some things. Businesses might even close just to show some respect. There is no hiding the fact that Jack Nicholson is down right ugly. He has never made any pretense to the contrary. Robert Dinero? Same type of ugly, different carcass.


Another example is Princess Diana of English notability. Sure, you think to yourself... "How could you say that she was ugly?" Simple.. yet again this is an example of a successful campaign of altering perception with covering of ugly. Sure, she had a little less ugly than the average person I suppose.... but really... look at some photographs... it isn't as though she was really much more than "plain jane" under the "ugly coverage."


Before you get all offended, remeber that this isn't personal slant... it is simply example in observation.


I attribute the amount of attention that her passing received entirely to the amount of "ugly" that she in fact did embody as a human creature. Again, she managed to alter this perception... more... she managed to avoid the contradiction of "ugly/beauty" almost entirely... which.. in my opinion is really an attribute toward the elusive status of true beauty. Seriously, did any of you see the shnoz on her?


I think it's the connection with ugly that really establishes a person in society.


Here, again an example. John Lennon died and the entire world almost stopped. People literally felt it.

Look at pictures of that guy, will ya'! And the naked ones? U. G. L. Y. Period.


When Paul McCartney dies? Sure probably a big parade of pomp and the like. But it won't be anything near that which was actually in the wake of John Lennon.


This isn't favoritism, mind you.. just a comparative example.


John Lennon was pretty damn ugly. Paul McCartney has managed to cover up a considerable amount of ugly. A big difference being that Lennon really didn't try to pander to those efforts of covering ugly... he even used it... where someone like McCartney actually tries to "not be ugly." Big mistake in my opinion for several reasons.


I should point out another interesting facet of this. The perceptions and combinations of those perceptions... and how they equate.


John Lennon... ugly... talented.


George Harrison... considerably ugly, though having less exposed ugly than Lennon... talented.


Do you see the comparison differences? Lennon used more of the "raw" ugly, which turned out to be the "style" that people perceived. Harrison used a bit of the raw ugly, but then "smoothed it" a bit.... thus rendering his "style." McCartney just plain tried to pretend he wasn't ugly in his art... which fell more to the "pop gloss" area of result.


Michael Jackson... UGLY. But neither him or his mother think so... and we all know how hard he has tried to cover up ugly.


Aguilera? Do I really have to say it? I would bet that she is so crazy from having to always worry about hiding her ugly, that she even has a pet name for it.


Britney Spears? Please... Look at that woman... even before the child. Do you realize how much she has to exercise just to keep her natural "hog body" from breaking through? She has tons of ugly hiding out in there somewhere.


It is really a rather interesting subject on the whole. The myth of beauty as we know it, that is.
"Ugly" seems to be the thing that binds humanity. "Beauty" seems to be the illusion that divides it.


Another result from such observation, is that the way to true beauty seems very much through the ugly. Specific parts of the "ugly." Being a part of it in a specific way. Using it.. acknowledging it.... All other attempts at beauty becoming, falling to, the truly ugly in their procession...the type of ugly that can't really be used..... regardless of the amount of effort in covering it up with the un-ugly elements of the illusion of beauty.


From where I stand.... all told... there just isn't enough "ugly remover" to attain beauty as it is widely perceived through the most common mythical path's to it.


Ugly rules in varying degrees. It's just that simple. The biggest problem that I see is in keeping those natural forms of ugly... those that are part of life and can be used as such in a very productive manner....Separate from those manufactured forms of ugly that are similar to nuclear waste. Those forms of ugly that have been produced as result of failed attempts at some false beauty.


Yeah... most of the natural forms of ugly truly rock! It's the "synthetic" ugly that is to be held in contempt and removed.... but that seems like the battle and dynamic we are experiencing with germs and bacteria. The more that germs and bacteria are combated with chemicals, the more they change and become more dangerous.


There is no shortage of dangerous ugly in the world.


How then to battle those dangerous forms of ugly that we as a society have heaped upon ourselves through the facade and attempt at beauty? I'm telling you... the "burnt" results of those moronic and megalomaniacal attempts are truly caustic.... toxic.... a type of ugly that should have it's own word just to differentiate it from our normal, ugly lives.


It's easy to find groups of those synthetic examples of ugly... as they are usually from and around those places where it is that attempts at beauty have been maintained through those artificial means.


It's kind of a hilarious contradiction.... those trying desperately to be less ugly any way that they can... becoming a form and source for a type of ugly that isn't even human... in fact it would be hard to categorize as mineral, animal, plant.... etc.... it's Fugly, quite truly and almost not as ugly as the people and result of the people around them telling them that they aren't. That in itself is a species of ugly that is hard not to laugh at.



Ugly... get a little on ya! The good kind. Even if it stinks a bit.