Is it better to be fugly and talented or beautiful and incompetent?
Jake Farr-Wharton 56 comments
Some people develop late. They endure years of hardship due to chronic ugliness during their schooling, only to turn into a smoking hot picture of perfection in their later years. Insecurities developed due to their physical awkwardness and instead of ‘hanging out with mates’ and flirting, they studied. They eventually became hot and successful. These are not the people we’re talking about.
Some people are also naturally plain and beautiful. They have plenty of drive, they have plenty of intelligence and are regarded as being attractive to the opposite (and same) sex. They do well in life, in business and in love. These are not the people we’re taking about.
Have you ever interviewed a stiflingly attractive member of the opposite sex who was completely unqualified for the interviewed position, then caught yourself trying to rationalise hiring them? I know I have.
While this may not apply to those hiring into IT type roles, have you ever interviewed a hideously ugly person who was perfectly suited to the position and caught yourself attempting to rationalise hiring the next best person, just so you didn’t have to look at them every day? I know I have.
These are the types of people we’re talking about. The type of people who either cruise through life with their stunning good looks, get everything they desire, even though they may not be deserving, just by flaunting their sexuality – the kind of person you just want to be seen with... anywhere… everywhere.
On the other side of the page is the immensely talented, but physically unattractive person; the one who has to work ever harder, just to be accepted – the kind of person that you would rather listen to far more than look at… ever… even while inebriated.
Last week the world was introduced to Susan Boyle, a chronically ugly 47 year old Scottish singer who brought millions to tears with her angelic rendition of “I Dreamed a Dream” from the musical “Les Miserables” on “Brittan’s Got Talent”. This is a woman who has never been kissed, never had a boyfriend and, by her own admission, has had to work harder than any other performer, just to be taken seriously.
On the other side of the zoo, we have any of the backup singer/dancers from pop group, “The Pussycat Dolls”. They don’t write the music, and they rarely sing, they don’t do the choreography, they just flaunt. Don’t get me wrong, I’m sure they have a great deal of talent, you would just have to get to know them well enough to get them (preferably all of them, but even just one would do) into bed to experience said talent. With their little to differentiate the Pussycat Dolls brand of pop from any other pop group, it is their incredible use of lingerie that has catapulted them to their relative level of fame.
So, all objectifying aside ladies and gentlemen, what would you rather be:
- You’re gorgeous, sexy, and incredibly attractive, you get everything you want just by being overtly sexual… but you’re incompetence illustrated?
- You’re fugly, pug-ugly, hairy-nose-mole gross, but so talented that people would willingly close their eyes to experience you?
Which do you chose?
Jake Farr-Wharton
Monday 20th April 2009 | 12:12 PM...in response to this comment by RYan. So do blowup dolls, which one would you prefer to be though?
Yeah well, video did kill the radio star
Kissthis
Monday 20th April 2009 | 01:36 PM
First of all, beauty is SUBJECTIVE. Secondly, not all less attractive people are smart, and not all "attractive" people lack intelligence. There are plenty of people who are "attractive" with above average intelligence. While beauty is only skin deep, and ugly is to the bone, someone who appears attractive at first sight, can quickly lose their appeal after a revealing conversation. Likewise, some people who may not initially appear overtly attractive, can become more attractive after getting to know them. I've encountered both types.
Thirdly, Nicole Scherzinger, lead singer of the Pussycat Dolls, is not only SMOKIN" HOT, she's incredibly vocally talented and college educated. So EAT YOUR HEART OUT. :-b
And finally, some of us don't have to choose. So PISS OFF!!! :)
Rodney
Monday 20th April 2009 | 01:44 PM
Very interesting topic. Well done.
I saw this story on the news and thought "that's pretty disgusting". The way everyone assumes she will suck, just because she's not pretty, is revolting. Then follow this up with the fact that it's somehow supposed to be a "good news" story, just makes it even worse. It's not good news. It's bad news. The lady had to struggle for decades and has had a crap life, despite talent, just because she's not pretty. It's actually a textbook case of discrimination and by everyone acting surprised that she can actually sing, we just reinforce that discrimination.
Basically, in answer to your question, I will have to go with option C; I'd rather be talented and sexy. :-)
Jake Farr-Wharton
Monday 20th April 2009 | 01:55 PM
...in response to this comment
by Rodney.
Righto fruitloop, just like a woman to bring up the whole "beauty is subjective" or "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" crap.
While we each have our tastes, our likes and dislikes, there are still people out there that can hypnotise en masse just by pouting their lips and flipping their hair back.
I know plenty of people that are naturally beautiful and very intelligent - I work in a laboratory afterall - but they'll never make it to stardom unless they find themselves on the arm of a miscelaneous celebrity.
Seventhly, I was talking about the backup dancers/singers of the Pussycat Dolls. I read the bio for the smoking hot beauty front lady before I wrote the article...
Jake Farr-Wharton
Monday 20th April 2009 | 02:02 PM
...in response to this comment
by Rodney.
She has a beautiful voice, but she was not just rejected in the past because of her outright uglyness, she has a really crass attitude. I've seen a couple of interviews with her now and she really comes across as an arrogant angry cow. That said, that is the side that the media is portraying, though I still don't think that she has had a hard life just because she is not pretty.
For the record though, I choose option c also.
I am option C.
Kissthis
Monday 20th April 2009 | 03:55 PM
Who you callin' a frootloop, you LINTLICKER! :-b
Since when did the fact beauty is subjective become "crap"? And who died and made you boss anyway? You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but you know what they say, opinions are like @ssholes, everybody's got one. And I must congratulate you on doing a great job of making yourself look like one with your own admission of your superficial nature and ridiculous questions, for which the most popular choice is not even given.
The people in your lab would have to possess some kind of entertaining talent to have any chance of attaining "stardom", because, I hate to break it to you, but working in a lab is not all that exciting, unless you discover some miracle cure or secret of origin; for which there are widely publicized awards, i.e. the Nobel Peace Prize.
Granted, you did stipulate a direct reference to the backup singers of the Pussycat Dolls, however, you also stated it was "their incredible use of lingerie that has catapulted them to their relative level of fame." I beg to differ. It was there infectious dance beats and relatable lyrics, in addition to their well choreographed videos, albeit in scantily clad clothing, not "lingerie", that catapulted them into the spotlight.
Bottom line, I find your article offensive. And putting Susan Boyle's picture next to the title that reads "Is it better to be fugly and talented or beautiful and incompetent?" is just plain BAD TASTE!!! But that's just the kind of guy you are. :-b
I watched this video a few times and her voice makes the little hairs on the back of my neck stand up. What an absolutely gorgeous voice. I love that she is so unassuming and unexpected, and the judges were gobsmacked within the first few seconds of her singing. One of the judges summed it up perfectly with her comment about it being a wake up call.
While she's not right for that competition, if some producer doesn't do something with her then it would be a crime.
Check it out if you haven't seen it already: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lp0IWv8QZY
Slightly more on topic, there's already too much 'beautiful and incompetent' out there. That's why I haven't watched or listened to commercial top 40 bullshit in over 20 years.
Shamen67
Monday 20th April 2009 | 04:58 PM
I have to agree with Mikey,
Top 40 now is disposable crap and a vast majority of the so-called "artists" can`t actually sing or hold a note. Once they have a hit or reach the ripe old age of 25 they are never heard of again....
Getting back to the article someone on FB sent me the link and I thought it was a joke but I watched it and was gobsmacked as I presumed like everyone else "another fat chick acting like a tool with a profile from The big book of british smiles"..
I had a look for some interviews you related to Jake but unfortunately have found none - if you could send me some links or videos I`ll call a judgement. Some of the interviews I have seen tend to show the lady (yes - she is a lady) as being slightly socially awkward and lacking vocabulary and confidence. Personally I think she is brilliant and has a very trained voice and a very natural persona - sadly lacking in a lot of the molls we see on television now.
Yes, she is not pretty and I know exactly how that feels after years of bullying at high school and feeling like committing suicide by the time I was 16. Once I left high sachool and was out and about I got by on my wits and my sense of humour. When I reached 21 I had a good physique and could get what I wanted and could punch back hard.
You only know what it`s like when you have been bullied for your lack of social graces and for your stature over a period of years and I`m sure she has been bullied for her appearance over the years.
I hope she sticks it up their arses as she is about to become as famous as Elaine Paige if not more famous.
She certainly has the talent.
Kissthis
Monday 20th April 2009 | 05:15 PM
"Not pretty" does not constitute "Fugly" as the title of this article implies, or "her outright ugliness" as so indelicately stated by Jake,.
Susan Boyle is a modest looking woman with an unassuming character and the voice of an angel. I've seen several of her interviews and read many articles about her and I see nothing pointing to a "crass attitude". She's a lovely woman in my eyes, and I wish her the success that has eluded her up to this point.
It's the public's loss that her talent took so long to be recognized. But now that it has, I fully intend to enjoy it! :)
Shamen67
Monday 20th April 2009 | 05:21 PM...in response to this comment by Kissthis. Actually I thought Jake had the "crass" attitude with his terminology but then again we are all different.
Laiste
Monday 20th April 2009 | 07:42 PM
To be honest I think this whole story highlights some rather nasty aspects of our culture- among them is just how shallow we have become and how we have learnt to equate "goodness" with "beauty". The last few decades have been so focused on uping the ante visually with 'sexier' everything (even inanimate objects are deemed sexy these days) that i think the whole idea of sexiness is totally lost in the noise. So when someone like Susan Boyle comes along and has the sexy/ attractive/ amazing voice that she has but not the physical features to go with it way too many people are stunned. What about singers like Luciano Pavarotti? He was no Adonis but he certainly managed to pull some pretty hot chicks based on his fame, money and voice rather then his perceived 'sexiness'.
While I admire you Jake for taking on such a politically incorrect topic, (I agree with you that its something that should be talked about) did you really have to make a point of sounding so .... shallow?
Maybe there's one main lesson to take away from Susan Boyles story. There is more to beauty then our current pop culture would have you believe. If Susan's success can help expand the definition of beauty then more power to her.
andrew
Monday 20th April 2009 | 08:00 PM
if she comes across as an arrogant angry cow could it be because of her brain damage just after she was born..? yeah jake did you have to make a point of sounding shallow?
facial hair can be ugly as well!!!!
andrew
Monday 20th April 2009 | 08:06 PMsimple saying" do not judge a book by its cover" and it has proved it in this instance...
Gail
Monday 20th April 2009 | 10:08 PMYou can't fake talent like hers. And Susan's looks could be largely improved by proper grooming. If she plucked her eyebrows, lost some weight, dyed and restyled her hair and got some proper, clothes she'd look fine.
Rodney
Monday 20th April 2009 | 10:28 PM...in response to this comment by Gail. Or in other words: if she didn't look like herself, she'd look fine...
Kissthis
Tuesday 21st April 2009 | 03:11 AM
...in response to this comment
by Gail.
The only thing Susan needs to do is be true to herself. If that includes making changes, then that's fine, but not necessary. However, the point is, as Laiste pointed out in her comment, our society has become far too shallow. The association between looks and talent is too pronounced and unbalanced.
While physical beauty has always been perceived as an advantage, in today's society it seems to trump every other quality we as humans have to offer. That's wrong! I can't begin to imagine what my history would be without Barbra Streisand, one of my FAVORITE vocalists of all time. She was told she was too unattractive to make it in the business, and I'm so glad she didn't let that stop her. I could list several other talents that don't fit today's standards of beauty, but I think you get my drift.
I hope we can at least agree, there exists some disproportion in today's society, as this article clearly illustrates. :(
Jake Farr-Wharton
Tuesday 21st April 2009 | 07:05 AM
...in response to this comment
by Kissthis.
Well, KT, while she may not be a super model, she sure ain't pretty... and she is hardly unassuming, have you listened to the interviews with her? She is (or is portreyed as being) a contankerous and angry cow, which inevitably I would be too if my tallent was being stiffeled just because I was ugly. Again, this could just be the interviews that I've seen.
That said, this article, KT, if you read between the lines, is making an observation that in order to be successful in such an industry, you need to be lingere clad and able to flaunt your sexuality.
Invariably, if Ms Boyle wanted to make it big with her voice, she could have easily gone into the theatre with such a voice. I can think of a dozen roles that she would be brilliant for, not the least of which are the many Gilbert and Sullivan comical operas.
Nonetheless, I am prone to bouts of sensationalism, and if you choose to get swept up on the face value, that is your choice, and it is probably because you're a woman and just want to fight for the sake of it (I'm just stiring KT).
Marvin the Martian
Tuesday 21st April 2009 | 07:10 AM
Being from another world, I have often been asked what is beautiful.
Frankly I am at a loss. Runway and fashion models are skin and bones, celebrities are far too often left with only two brain cells while truly beautiful women are left feeling ashamed of their bodies because they don't match up.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
Jake Farr-Wharton
Tuesday 21st April 2009 | 07:22 AM
I totally disagree Laiste. Brittan's Got Tallent, Idol and those other gay franchises are really to find the next Brittney or Aretha. They're there to find the next big thing that is able to do the same old thing in a new or more provocative way. These shows aren't about bringing tallent to the fore, they're about bringing money to the coffers.
Susan Boyle has a bone chillingly angellic voice. It is so sweet and melodic, that if applied appropriately, she would be worshipped on Broadway.
If you are asking the question, "why hadn't this woman been discovered until now?" then the answer is that she simply didn't apply herself.
There are roles in the Gilbert and Sullivan comical opera's such as HMS Pinafore and Mikado, Pirates of Penzance, or indeed Les Miserables, that she cold be cast in immediately. Or if she is indeed the fundamentalist christian that she is being pegged as, she could have done a million and one religious rock opera's and made it huge in that scene. The fact that she has been waiting all her life for "her big break" is only indicative of her lack of confidence in her own ability.
You make a good point, as always, though Laiste; there most certainly is much more to the arts than our current pop culture would have you believe. I myself am a lover of all things fine. My daughters and I have been to dozens of productions, from small community ones to the spectacular of QPAC (which is still pretty small - but hey, that's Queensland (Australia)). While they may not be able to appreciate it today, I fondly remember being taken to such productions when I was their age by my mum and had such a wonderful time. It was where I developed my love for all things melodic. Little do you know, I have a splendid, classically trained, singing voice.
Nonetheless, I sincerely hope that she is cast in a good opera that comes to Australia, I would love to take my girls to see her work her magic.
Jake Farr-Wharton
Tuesday 21st April 2009 | 07:24 AM...in response to this comment by andrew. Andrew, again, I stipulated that this was how she was portreyed, I didn't say "this is how she is". Obviously I've not met the lady.
Jake Farr-Wharton
Tuesday 21st April 2009 | 07:54 AM
...in response to this comment
by Kissthis.
KT, as a fellow fan of Streisand, how can you make the claim that "our society has become far too shallow"?
Become too shallow? It has always been shallow. Unless you can name a time in history when society has not been endemically shallow, I would love to hear it.
What I think you're trying to say (without being too patronizing) is that society needs to lower its standards and stop judging people based on initial impressions. Mind you, I think that such assertions are whoreshizzle and totally simplistic and idealistic.
As the population grows, the endemic response is to evolve to become further and further removed from those we do not associate with. I don't particularly have any troubles with this, it is natural.
Whether the judgmental aspects of society are based on prejudices or pop culture remain to be seen, but I can't really see how these are negative, even though they may be preconceived misconceptions based on arbitrary observations.
Kissthis
Tuesday 21st April 2009 | 10:58 AM
Dear Jake, IT SUCKS TO BE YOU!!! (just stirring) ;-b
There is no mistaking the tone of your article. It wreaks of superficiality punctuated by the title, which contains a very poor choice of words debasing a picture of a woman who you clearly view as "fugly", and for which you have used various other unflattering terminology in subsequent comments.
I've already stated I've seen a number of interviews conducted on various programs in the U.K. and the U.S., and I see no evidence of her "coming across as an arrogant angry cow" as you claim. If you have evidence to support that claim, please provide me with the appropriate links. Until then, your words are simply an extension of your superciliousness.
How unfortunate that Susan didn't have you as a manager to guide her career. Your arrogance is confounding! Who are you to presume the why's and how's of anyone's career? The only reason she auditioned for Britain's Got Talent was to fulfill a promise she made to her mother, who recently died. Instead of making assumptions, which everyone knows, makes an @ss out of you and "umption", you can read more about her history by following this link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Boyle
There's no room to read between the lines when you've blatantly made your point by slinging insults. There's a fine line between "sensationalism" and just plain rudeness, and you've clearly crossed it. :-b
Jake Farr-Wharton
Tuesday 21st April 2009 | 11:43 AM
...in response to this comment
by Kissthis.
Thanks be to you, KT.
I can't find a link though, I just watched it on midday ABC news while I was blasting neutrons in the gym. I think it was a CNN interview though and the reporter was being blatently rude. I had to laugh at the akward pause after the interviewer (a manufactured blond American woman) asked the question [paraphrasing] "Competitions like this often offer the opportunity for contenstants to have a complete makover"... long pause... "do you think you would be open to this"... long pause and Susan glares at the interviewer.
KT, I am a total sensationalist, totally, also - yes, I admit - a bit of an ass. Maybe even a rude and insensitive ass. But there you go, she put herself out there, warts and all - err, so to speak - for public scrutiny. While I may be a loud, obnoxious and occasionally sweaty critic, I do it because I love the debate.
In your opinion KT, is it 'wrong' for me, or anyone for that matter, to make a judgment about people such as Boyle before they open their mouths? Is it wrong to have let pop culture influence me to such a degree?
Kissthis
Tuesday 21st April 2009 | 12:21 PM
There was a time before the advent of MtV, when recording artists were judged on their vocal talents. This might be before your time, as I have no idea how old you are. My guess would be 8 or 9, based on the preadolescent tone of your articles i.e. "Dear inconsiderate fat person" and "Is it better to be fugly and talented or beautiful and incompetent?". (just stirring)
Artists like Janis Joplin, Bette Midler, Barbra Streisand, Carole King, Joni Mitchell, Joe Cocker, Led Zeppelin, Bob Seger, Meatloaf, KISS, Alice Cooper, Bob Dylan, Bad Company, The Eagles, Pink Floyd, RUSH, Lynyrd Skynard, The Grateful Dead, Eric Clapton, Billy Joel, Elton John, AC/DC, Chicago, The Rolling Stones, Ozzy Osborne, Simon & Garfunkle, James Taylor, Van Morrison, James Brown, Parliament, The Commodores, Earth, Wind & Fire, Barry White, Al Green, Stevie Wonder, Sly & The Family Stone, Gladys Night & the Pips, Patty La Belle, Aretha Franklin, and on and on.....all made it in the recording industry without a hint of glamour.
There were a handful of attractive recording artists such as Linda Ronstadt (one of my favorites), Carly Simon (also a favorite), Diana Ross, etc., but it wasn't a prerequisite like it is today. It wasn't until MtV came along that looks became a major factor in the equation. So yes, I can say with certainty that the focus of the industry has changed from talent to glamour. That does not demean the talent of SOME of today's recording artists, but it does demonstrate there exists an undeniable standard of beauty that has permeated the industry since the 70's. The problem therein, lies at the expense of the exclusion of talented people because they don't measure up to that standard.
Kissthis
Tuesday 21st April 2009 | 12:28 PM
...in response to this comment
by Jake Farr-Wharton.
"In your opinion KT, is it 'wrong' for me, or anyone for that matter, to make a judgment about people such as Boyle before they open their mouths? Is it wrong to have let pop culture influence me to such a degree?"
YES! It's WRONG! It's UNFAIR! It's a form of PREJUDICE!!! STOP IT!!!! (still love you, Jake) :)
andrew
Tuesday 21st April 2009 | 02:04 PM
is she that ugly? i wouldn't have thought so.. watch the american show " make over" now on there you will see some uglies..
she has been offered million dollars to do porno
Dave VB
Tuesday 21st April 2009 | 02:50 PM
Why is everyone so surprised about how this world is shallow? It comes down to natural selection and the long suppressed human instinct. We are attracted to the attractive (yeah I know what I said) because of our primal instinct to reproduce with the most superior specimen. Favourable phenotypes seek out other favourable phenotypes to create superior offspring. It's Darwin's theory of evolution in its purest form. Typically, attractive people are healthier, more virile and less likely to have genetic disorders, which is probably why they are more attractive. (I acknowledge that there are exceptions on both sides to this statement, but I am talking in majorities.)
What is really disgusting, is that if this woman wasn't so damn ugly (In the opinion of the masses, I'm sure someone out there thinks she's better than Heidi Klumm) then this story would not have made it past the judging panel. What makes it so disgusting? It’s so disgusting because society has demonized even our basic instincts on selective reproduction with political correctness.
She’s ugly, most know it, most think it but it’s just not politically correct to voice it. Alas, it’s just human nature.
Beautiful voice though.
Dave VB
Tuesday 21st April 2009 | 02:54 PMOh, and to stay on topic, I'd probably choose option number 1. Ignorance is bliss and at least it would be easier to get the things you want.
Kissthis
Tuesday 21st April 2009 | 04:00 PM...in response to this comment by Dave VB. FOR THE LOVE OF HUMANITY!!! SHE IS NOT U-G-L-Y!!! I don't see YOU winning any beauty contests! :-b
Laiste
Tuesday 21st April 2009 | 04:29 PM
Dave and Jake, whats scariest is that her looks are now far more talked about then her singing talent. Thats the problem. Why should her looks have come into it at all? Its because of the way pop culture is nowadays. Hot attractive looks = something worth paying attention to. KT provided a long but hardly exshausitve list of awesome recording artists who made it on talent and not looks alone. Can you make a list of similar artists today?
Jake, yes those shows are all about the almighty dollar, but they are the recording industries equilvalent of a paint-by-numbers movie. Zero talent, lots of explosions, nothing intelligent to add to our cultural psyche. As for why she hasn't been discovered until now, there are a lot of factors. Not taken seriously both for her looks and the fact she came from a small scottish town (who in a small town in scotland is going to take anyone who wants to be a singer for a living seriously?). Plus I've read quite a few reports that she was the carer for her sick parents. That sort of thing takes up all the time one would otherwise spend on chasing dreams. Besides, I imagine that not one single person would have ever supported her in her desire to be a singer. The hot young things that are currently centre stage come with battalions of people supporting them and encouraging them and later mooching off them.
Dave, to the best of my knowledge the studies of attractiveness have always indicated that there is far more variation then you seem to be saying. Some studies found that people are naturally most attracted to others that they percieve are a similar level of attractiveness as themselves. Pop culture/ society does skew these tendencies. How many times have you heard people say things like "she can do better than him" or "whats he doing with her?" There is societal pressure to try to catch the most attractive person you possibly can but only if that attractiveness is socially acceptable. Also, I disagree that most people are thinking its un-pc to speak about how ugly she is. If anything that ALL people are talking about. Its a shame really.
Shamen67
Tuesday 21st April 2009 | 04:56 PM...in response to this comment by Laiste. Nicely put Laiste.
Dave VB
Tuesday 21st April 2009 | 05:59 PM
...in response to this comment
by Kissthis.
Hey KT, if she wasn't U-G-L-Y we would not be having this debate, how many other articles get 35 comments within 24 hours of posting? I don't win beauty contests because I don't enter, ever thought of that? (Jk) Looking at your bio pics I'm surprised you’re not winning any either :P
I've been on the raw end of bullying throughout my school life too. No one liked the nerd with buck teeth (Since fixed) who is skinnier than a rake. I was never overly popular with the ladies and have been known to 'date' people in and above my own ball park. On a personality scale I find people in my own ball park to be better suited. That doesn't mean I'm blind to the beautiful. If you have read my previous article on evolution (which you have) you would know that I now draw into question whether natural selection still applies to us. Unfortunately that does not stop the primal human instinct that causes us (maybe majority male?) to judge and dismiss people on their appearance. Yes beauty is in the eye of the beholder, it’s just that the majority of beholders find her U-G-L-Y. If the majority did find her attractive, she wouldn’t have made the headlines.
I suggest (If you haven't seen already) you watch the BBC documentary by Prof. Robert Winston called Human Instinct. Very interesting documentary where in one test he had the same group of women observe a possible male suitor (Himself) dressed in a variety of styles and grooming based on class and measured how they instantly judged him on appearance. Very different results were achieved all from the same group of women judging the same person. When it comes to the instinct of mating (which invariably drives us all) appearance and attractiveness is everything. As a matter of fact, I think I might watch it again since it has been years since the last viewing...
Laiste, get a grip I was generalising, there is too much info to put in a comment. :) There are many things that make us find a certain someone attractive. There is sight, smell, speech and many more that are a lot more subtle. I would suggest you watch the same documentary I suggested to KT. Oh and why are her looks discussed more than her singing talent? Well we all wouldn’t have known about her singing talents if she wasn’t so ugly. If she was just another beauty, would we have heard about her half a world away? No.
You know what, you probably could make a list of people not attractive yet still famous, maybe not all in our top 40 singles performers but of successful bands, yes definitely.
This is a simple fact of human instinct. Maybe, one day, when we all reach that ideological utopian world that cannot exist due to the human condition, these instincts will not apply.
Laiste
Tuesday 21st April 2009 | 06:22 PM
...in response to this comment
by Dave VB.
You're still missing the point that attractiveness is something that only makes sense in the context of a society. There's that tribe somewhere I can't remember right this instant where the most beautiful feature is a long graceful neck. They highlight this with ever increasing amounts of golden rings to elongate the neck. Other tribes wear the extened lip thing. I remember hearing a story about an anthropologist who travelled to Papua New Guinea and showed a photo of one of Hollywoods most beautiful women to the tribesmen there and they all thought she looked awful, like a pale slug that had crawlled out from under a rock. Their idea of beautiful was far different, something the anthropologist couldn't agree with.
We may have a biological urge to mate with the most attractive person we can find but attractiveness is cultural. There may very well be a culture that finds Susan Boyle their epitome of beauty.
Dave VB
Tuesday 21st April 2009 | 07:00 PM
...in response to this comment
by Laiste.
Yes Laiste, you are correct. I have also seen, I think on national geographic, such tribes that idolise the long necks and extended lip thing. But I think we are arguing two different points. I was outlining my views on why the human race are so quick to judge on appearance, where I believe (correct me if I'm wrong) you are arguing on where the ideal picture of attractiveness is derived from.
I agree with your point, that the society we belong to is a major influence on what is percieved beauty. You just have to look at fashion throughout history to see that this is an ever evolving preception. What I think is happening now is that with globalisation, what is one's perception of beauty (or several) is rammed down the throats of all of us until our perception is aligned. This creates a whole world of problems, especially for our youth, who feel the requirement to fulfill this preception.
I stand by my argument on why we are so quick to judge on appearance, it's a lot more to do with instinct that you would first assume. Perception of beauty on the other hand is a different matter, but I would suspect that it still does have an element of human instinct involved.
Dave VB
Tuesday 21st April 2009 | 07:18 PM
Hey Jake,
Is this the leading interview you're talking about?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yhok8mZPoAs
If so, I personally think Susan handled herself quite well for having an interviewer who was looking for some tabloid news headlines press her on some obviuosly personal issues.
andrew
Tuesday 21st April 2009 | 07:34 PMshe is not ugly, ordinary yes..after a make over as they will probably do to her you wouldn't think it was the same person....
Kissthis
Wednesday 22nd April 2009 | 06:42 AM
...in response to this comment
by Dave VB.
LOL....your wit does not go unnoticed. The reason this article has so many comments are as follows:
1.) There is a picture of the most famous woman in the world right now next to the title.
2.) The title of the article is so APPALLING it triggers a reaction.
3.) The Susan Boyle phenomenon brings an important issue into focus. Never before has "Don't Judge A Book By It's Cover" ever been so profoundly illustrated on such a large scale.
4.) Because both beauty and ugly is subjective, there's going to be substantial debate, as clearly illustrated here.
I'm so sorry to hear about your tormented childhood. Had I been there I would've inevitably kicked some @ss in your defense. My instincts to defend anyone being victimized are very strong. Hence, my defense of Susan Boyle. One would think someone who has been victimized, because of the way they looked, would possess enough empathy to not victimize someone else in the same way. After all, our physical appearance is largely based on genetics. In that sense, it just seems callously cruel to call someone ugly.
It's not a matter of political correctness. It's a matter of manners. Today's society seems to have forgotten what manners are. It's one thing to have your opinion, but to voice it in such a hurtful manner is unacceptable. I think the saying "If you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all" has been all but forgotten. It's an issue of self-control. Just because you have a feeling, doesn't mean you have to act on it. Just because you have a thought, doesn't mean you have to voice it. If you feel compelled to voice it, then make an effort to do so in the least hurtful manner. i.e. instead of saying "she's ugly", you could say, "she's not attractive to me". This would actually be a more accurate statement because beauty is subjective.
Since Susan appeared on Britain's Got Talent, she has received many gentleman callers. Largely because she inadvertently exposed herself to the world at large, as compared to the small community she has lived in her entire life. I'm sure some of them may have less than honorable intentions, but this just might be the exposure she needed to find her one true love. I'm rooting for her! ;-)
P.S. Thanks for the 411 on the BBC Documentary. I'm a huge fan of the BBC and subscribe to their channel on YouTube. I will look for the Human Instinct program you cited. :)
Dave VB
Wednesday 22nd April 2009 | 08:32 AM
...in response to this comment
by Kissthis.
Well KT they are very admirable instincts to have. To rush to someones defence without fear of reprisals is very admirable indeed. Yes, you are correct, my manners have been very lacking when discussing this topic, since as I said previously, she's not attractive to me but to someone else she's probably better than Heidi Klumm. Please don't get me wrong, I could never be so cruel as to call someone ugly or even un-attractive to their face or to their friends. Unless their personality is as equally ugly and if they have been cruel in turn.
Yes manners are ever so rapidly degrading in our society today, it's such a shame. After watching the video interviews with Susan Boyle, she seems to have such a nice personality too, maybe more in a mumsie way, but nice none the less.
I tried searching for the Human Instinct on youtube so I could post some links, but I had no luck. If you do, please let me know as otherwise I will be trekking down to the Video Store.
Jake Farr-Wharton
Wednesday 22nd April 2009 | 10:34 AM
...in response to this comment
by Laiste.
Laiste, you can't say that just because she was from a small town she wouldn't have been taken seriously. Had she wanted to have made it big, she would have applied herself and gone for it, but for whatever reason (sick parents, complacency, whatever) she didn't... but that was her choice.
You can not seriously tell me that with a classically trained voice such as hers, that if she would have been knock back for aesthetic reasons if she auditioned for broadway. Again, half of the Gilbert and Sullivan operas have parts specifically for someone that looks and sounds like her. Even Les Mis has parts for her. Roles where she just stands and sings, no dancing, no coreography... or closeups.
Laiste
Wednesday 22nd April 2009 | 04:18 PM
...in response to this comment
by Jake Farr-Wharton.
I think you are assuming that she is as self confident as you. Not all of us are. Most of us come with much less chutzpah. It's ridicuolous to assume that if she had just "applied herself" that she would have made it big. Most of the people who "apply themselves" don't make it, even the ones with talent. Thats what shows like American/ Australian Idol are based on, narrowing down the thousands of people "applying themselves" to just a handful which keep getting narrowed down. But anyway, whay has that got to do with the question at hand? Has her rise to fame so late in life made any difference on her percieved attractiveness? Is this an ageist thing? Could we accept her being plain (or ugly) if she were young?
I agree with you that she probably would be best suited to musical theatre. From the brief seven minute clip of her that I saw, I think she'd be both good at it and enjoy it. But what we think she'd be good at is neither here nor there. At this point it boils down to what she makes of this sudden world fame, which opportunities she makes the most of, how she handles herself in the media.
But I'm curious about the assumptions you make about what she would be capable of. Because you think she's ugly you don't think she could sing and dance at the same time? Because you think she's ugly you don't think she could dance at all?
Laiste
Wednesday 22nd April 2009 | 04:34 PM
...in response to this comment
by Dave VB.
If our quickness to judge others based on attractiveness was as instinctual as you say then you would think that there would be a universal ideal of beauty, something that goes past our conditioning and comes soley from our genes. I don't think there is. There isn't even a universal ideal of "healthy". In some cultures slim is considered healthy in others its the curvier the better.
I do get your point- (correct me if I'm wrong) you think that its fair enough that we judge people based on their looks because its human nature. I'm arguing that it isn't human nature. At least not the genetic variety. Its cultural. Therefore it is taught and it can be changed, maybe not for an individual but for a culture. As you pointed out, fashions change all the time.
I agree that humans are taught to (and need to) make quick judgements about others from what we see, sometimes for only moments. We are actually doing it now more then ever. Have you ever heard of, or been on, Hot or Not or Facebook's Are You Interested? Both these sites and countless like them are based on a split second judgement of one photo of a person. We decide everything we feel we need to from that split second. But I don't think these judgements are instinctual in the way I think you mean the word. I think those judgements are based far more on experiences and cultural conditioning then on any genetic coding.
Kissthis
Thursday 23rd April 2009 | 12:34 AM
...in response to this comment
by Dave VB.
Dave, this is the only working link I could find:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I05IpCne6Og
Dave VB
Thursday 23rd April 2009 | 08:16 AM
...in response to this comment
by Laiste.
Hey Lasite, now you are weighing in to my side of the debate. I have to disagree when you say that if attractiveness was more instinctual, then we would have a universal ideal of beauty. In a study undertaken by Dr Marion Petrie and Dr Craig Roberts of the University of Newcastle, they asked female volunteers to wear the same shirt for several days. They then asked their male volunteer subjects to choose which one smelled more attractive to them. They found that men invariably prefer the smell of a woman with immune systems that are very different from their own. In more subtle ways, this could be applied to your visual appraisals as well. After all, opposites do attract. This would explain why there is not a universal human perception of beauty, since we are all different. Maybe a long neck or elongated lip is a sign of health and adaptability, so that is why their race finds it more instinctually attractive.
When looking for your ideal mate (whether consciously or not) humans use a whole range of signals to arrive at their outcome. For woman, a narrow waist and wide hips are an instinctive indication of fertility which has been proven to be highly attractive to men. Women are instinctively attracted to body shapes that signify good genes. Therefore, women are more likely to be attracted to men with wide shoulders and narrow waists. This is a sign of both a good immune system and physical strength.
Another study by Ian Penton-Voak of Stirling University and David Perrett of the University of St Andrews showed that if women happen to be ovulating they overwhelmingly prefer a more masculine face. A masculine face was defined by thick necks, broader jaws and chins; all these are indicators of strength, health and virility (in the form of testosterone).
David Perrett has been working on the essence of facial attractiveness for the past decade. He has taken his studies of facial attractiveness one step further and applied it to perception of personality also. He has found some amazing results on how people can judge someone’s personality virtually instantly from only looking at their face. He believes that this evolved from our ancestors to assist in the Fight or Flee instinct.
During the late 90’s Robin Dunbar of Liverpool University studied the hidden evolutionary signals in love classified ads. Dunbar found that the majority of desired traits can be summarized into five categories. He found the following:
Men’s Preference: 1. Attractiveness, 2. Commitment, 3. Social Skills, 4. Resources, 5. Sexiness
Women’s Preference: 1. Commitment, 2. Social Skills, 3. Resources, 4. Attractiveness, 5. Sexiness
Dunbar argues that, far from being conditioned, these preferences have developed over millions of years of evolution. They are based on crucial instinctual qualities to enhance the fitness of their offspring. As you know, pregnancy takes 9 months and breast feeding even longer, so women instinctively seek men who are going to stick around to ‘protect’ them the longest. This may also explain why men and women disagree so often about what is important in their ideal partner.
I could go on...but I don’t want to write a bigger comment than the article.
In closing, they say that it takes 3 seconds to judge someone on their appearance. I believe, despite millions of years of evolution, it is due to basic human instinct. The instinctual desire to mate, create offspring and continue the human species with the strongest specimen possible. The picture of beauty is influenced by society which in turn is influenced by our instincts. Different races and societies would have developed different variations of that instinct, hence the no universal picture of beauty. In our western culture, Susan Boyle does not fit into that instinctual picture of beauty, hence the amount of judgement that has been passed on her so readily. I think our conditioning is derived from our instincts based on our genes.
I look forward to your reply Laiste.
Jake Farr-Wharton
Thursday 23rd April 2009 | 08:35 AM
...in response to this comment
by Laiste.
Remember that this argument was brought about because people thought assumed she was being held back because she was not "tradionally beautiful". My argument is that it is not that factor at all, more likely it was because she didn't attempt a career with her voice.
Also, I made the assumption that she likely couldn't sing and dance at the same time because of her size... in the theatre, typically, if you have a larger framed performer, their roles involve very little movement while they're singing, though that is likely because their need to be upright and immobile to hit the awe inspiring notes. Nonetheless, this is total speculation, and I guess we're pretty unlikely to ever find out.
Laiste
Thursday 23rd April 2009 | 08:50 AM
...in response to this comment
by Dave VB.
All these studies were done in a modern western cultural setting. Were there any controls done to see if the same applied to cultures very different to our own? For it to be true then the same resullts should be found be found in tribal cultures from around the world that have little to no contact with western society. Does the same hold true in Chinese society? What about Indian?
I agree that people are more attracted to those whose smell they like. I know I've always liked men who's sweat smelt nice to me, but even that instinct is under a cloud of cultural adaptation. For one, people think you're weird if you like the smell of sweat (I know this from experience) and two its hard to tell what someones real sweat smells like under all the deodorant, perfume and colonge we wear. That 'instinct' is often decieved.
I agree that people can become remarkably good at judging anothers personality based on facial features alone. Babies find faces the single most fascinating things in their world. But they find all faces fascinating, not just attractive ones. They become attached to even the ugliest of faces if that is where their love and security is coming from. And while I agree that humans became good at judging the personality of others, I think that has more to do with the development of culture and consequently war. We have learnt in the last 10,000 years or so that we need to work out quickly whether the guy standing in front of us is likley to hack our heads off with a sword, or in the last 75 odd years whether he is going to shoot us. Before civilisation people lived in small family tribes and rarely encountered strangers. At least not enough for them to develop a seperate genetic response to humans they didn't know. The fight or flight instinct is real, and our judgements about others trigger that instinct, but the judgements are cultral, based on our previous experiences and what we are taught, about men with scary eyes and strong chins for example.
I agree that it is instinctual to want to mate and create offspring with the best mate possible. But what is the best mate possible? Because of cultural conditioning and a cultural ideal of beauty many people are finding themselves having to change and adapt themselves to be more attractive. In some cases this is a good thing (healthy diets, exercise and personal grooming) in other cases its not (eating disorders, vanity plastic surgery). If attractiveness was as instinctual as you say then I could be walking down the street in smelly clothes without a wash and my hair unbrushed and my Mr Perfect would see me an instantly know I was the one for him. Clearly it doesn't happen this way. Our instinct to find the best mate is filtered through our perception of what that "best" actually is. I still think its cultural.
Anyway, this is fun. Its nice to have a good debate without it degenirating into mudslinging. So yay. I have happy brain muscles, lol.
TVBIZ(BOB)
Thursday 23rd April 2009 | 11:56 AM
The whole thing was a setup from the start to the finish!
I work in the industry and believe me this was set-up!
To capture the reactions of individuals faces in the audience would had to have had camera operators who had lightning reflexes.
I have worked on shows like this as an editor and believe me these reaction shots have been shot after the main show was done and added in Post Production.
The whole thing to me was a fake.
I cannot believe how many people have been swept up in this. Yes the lady has a great voice and the powers at be had known very well before Susan even got onto the stage. The whole show is choreographed and edited in such a way to fool the majority of people into thinking that everything was a huge surprise.
I cannot for the life of me think that so many people in this day and age have fallen for the oldest trick in the book and honestly believe it
PRE and POST PRODUCTION RULE!
Dave VB
Thursday 23rd April 2009 | 01:25 PM
...in response to this comment
by Laiste.
Thanks for your reply Laiste, you sweat sniffing hippy. Sorry, I had to dash your hopes about mudslinging :)
You have a solid point about the studies I cited being undertaken in a Western Culture setting. Since I am a part of the Western Culture, this is the only one I really have any experience with. Since your reply, I have done some research into some cross-culture studies. The one that I am going to cite now is; Sexual Selection, Physical Attractiveness and Facial Neoteny: Cross-Cultural Evidence and Implications. This was undertaken by 10 anthropologists and authored primarily by Doug Jones. This study showed that there are certain signatures of physical attractiveness that do cross cultural lines. For their study they chose subjects from Brazilian, U.S American, Russians, Ache and Hiwi cultures. One portion of this study shows that when women were rating males they found that the more common features chosen as the most attractive were associated with varying levels of testosterone. Universally they rated low-testosterone men more attractive while menstruating and high testosterone men when ovulating. When they had men rate women the most common features they found attractive were associated with youth; such as larger eyes, smaller nose and smoother skin. What also rated highly among men were common traits that are associated with higher estrogens levels; such as the hour glass figure and fuller lips.
Something that I have not mentioned previously is that what both sexes find attractive are physical signs of wealth. (An instinctual example is that a wealthy male’s offspring have a better chance of survival as opposed to a non wealthy male.) But where your argument comes into play is that signs of wealth are defined by society. So when speaking in terms of this instinct, subjective beauty differs from culture to culture. But regardless of the difference in presentation, the one thing they all have in common is perception of wealth. In terms of Western Culture, if a woman is tanned, then they are wealthy enough to go to the beach all day. Another example is being thin; this can be a sign that they can afford a healthy diet, the luxury of physical fitness or plastic surgery. In some cultures, if you are overweight or show signs of tooth decay it means you are well fed and therefore wealthy.
This could be applied to other non Western Cultures as well. Since I am not a part of that culture I can only speculate, but maybe the rings around the neck or plates in their mouths are a social status and therefore a sign of wealth. This in turn may invoke the wealth instinct within the opposite sex and lead to instant attraction.
Even things that are not directly associated with wealth such as blonde hair or green eyes can become as effective as earning large sums of money. If these traits are the culturally preferred, and a finite resource, they become more desirable. This can then become a status symbol like wealth as we attribute wealth to rarities. If a man was able to attract a blonde haired, green eyed, tanned woman with an hour glass figure, he appears desirable to other women as he must have ‘wealth’ to attract such a rarity.
You are correct in saying that beauty is heavily influenced by culture. What I am stating is my belief that the instantaneous attraction we feel when we judge someone on appearance, is based primarily on instinct. Humans are very social animals, our culture leaks into our instincts and our instincts help to define our culture. But I am no anthropologist nor psychiatrist and I admit that there are many other influences that lead to attraction of the opposite (or same) sex, but I have chosen to focus on the instant judgement and attraction that has caused Susan Boyle to be judged so quickly and harshly. Now I’m not saying that instincts will find you Mr. Right, since psychology plays a big part in compatibility of relationships, but in the words of Cameron Diaz in ‘The Sweetest Thing’ instincts will help you find “Mr. Right Now” with a good head start on finding Mr. Right. So please keep showering and washing your clothes! ;)
Dave VB
Thursday 23rd April 2009 | 01:30 PM...in response to this comment by TVBIZ(BOB). Hey Bob, regardless of whether you believe this was set up or not (I'm sure she went through an audition process, so they knew what they had.) she still shocked the world. I don't think any of us are talking about the judge's reaction, we are talking about our own and others around us. So what is there not to believe? What have we fallen for? It's not like it's a hoax, she's very 'Un-attractive' with an amazingly beautiful voice. We have been duped by no-one.
Laiste
Thursday 23rd April 2009 | 02:16 PM...in response to this comment by Dave VB. lol, thanks Dave. I think we've covered all the main points and at this point I'm happy to agree to disagree. You do have some very valid points in your comments. I think I'll check out some of those studies for myself when I get a chance.
Kissthis
Saturday 25th April 2009 | 10:17 AM
Susan Boyle Update:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2hpG6eJJujk
Jake Farr-Wharton
Monday 27th April 2009 | 08:44 AM...in response to this comment by Kissthis. Can we just go ahead and call it an ugly update?
maria
Saturday 13th June 2009 | 01:16 PMThe wonder of beauty, in nature, art or human form is that it penetrates straight to the heart, to the centre of our being.
RYan
Monday 20th April 2009 | 11:59 AMsex sells