SniggerOctober 12, 2013 Tim WorstallSex24 CommentsA march for “rights for munters” would at least be one in which SWP members would blend in well previousMurphy Richards and Poe’s LawnextTimmy elsewhere 24 thoughts on “Snigger” Ian B October 12, 2013 at 1:31 pm It already exists. It’s called Feminism. So Much For Subtlety October 12, 2013 at 1:37 pm I think pretty women are pretty good at working out who the successful males are. Thus they are always found at the forefront of any growing movement. I am sure the feminists of the Sixties were honeys. In fact I know they were. It was only when they started losing that they all turned out like Dworkin. Thus the SWP is in terminal decline. I would watch for Greenpeace volunteers. They have been pretty little popsies up to now but I am hoping they are in decline as well. As with the RSPCA. Which means the soft porn pictures the Daily Mail is running of one of Dave’s little moppets can only be good news for the Tories. Ian B October 12, 2013 at 1:48 pm I’d like to see a list of Feminists who were “honeys”. Okay, Steinem on a good day with her slap on. And, um, er… my list, it is very short. See how short my list is! I’d also like to see your criteria for “losing”, considering that Feminist dogma now dominates the Western world. Dave October 12, 2013 at 2:12 pm The suggestion that attractiveness is wholly, or even largely, innate is utterly bonkers. Aside from the obvious physical taking-care-of-oneself that can be the difference between an obese, greasy smellpot and a fit young man, it’s actually fairly unusual to meet people whose physical attractiveness is entirely divorced from their inner attractiveness. If ugliness comes from the inside, it’s no surprise that ugly people earn less and are less successful. Ian B October 12, 2013 at 2:27 pm Well, I think that’s a bit hard to sustain as an ideology. Certainly, personality plays a strong element in “attractiveness”, but we’re talking about ugliness here, and that is a matter of physical form as a consequence of genetics. Some people are handsome/beautiful, and some people are ugly. You can work with what God gave you in a positive or negative sense, accentuating the best or dowdying down, use makeup and foundation garments, watch your weight and so on, but ultimately there’s a genetic lottery and that’s just the bottom line of it. Which is why, by the end of this century- probabl much sooner- it’s going to be the norm for parents to carefully select the genetics of their offspring including their physical form, and then we’re going to want good quality technologies to modify that form during your life (something better than the crudity of current “plastic surgery”). And why, also, the next big project for humankind is abolishing ageing, the one sure ruin of beauty, amongst other negative consequences like getting ill, and dying, and shit like that. Anyhoo, there is pretty compelling evidence that good looking people are just treated better by everyone else than ugly people. Despite them often being less deserving of good treatment. A beauty with a lousy personality will receive greater general kindness and attention than an ugly with the most wonderful personality. Because we are drawn to attractiveness, which is in a circular sense the very definition of attractiveness- “that which attracts”. Out of a general kindness, we try to pretend that this isn’t true. But it is. Being ugly is a definite disadvantage in life. Dave October 12, 2013 at 4:32 pm Ian> I direct you back to my first sentence. I didn’t say that there is no influence from genetics, because that would plainly be ridiculous. I said that the inverse – that genetics is the only influence – is equally ridiculous. Obviously ‘making the most of yourself’ can only go so far, but it can go far enough to render the argument irrelevant in almost all cases. An ugly face but a great body rates at least average in most people’s eyes, for example. In any case, though, much of what we actually consider attractive isn’t physical at all. Ian B October 12, 2013 at 4:51 pm Yes, but this is specifically about “ugly” not “attractiveness” anyway. Obviously ‘making the most of yourself’ can only go so far, but it can go far enough to render the argument irrelevant in almost all cases. That’s not really true though, is it? If you look like Ed Balls, you look like Ed Balls, and however much you make of yourself, you’re still going to be cursed with looking like Ed Balls. Dave October 12, 2013 at 5:01 pm “this is specifically about “ugly” not “attractiveness” anyway.” Eh? “That’s not really true though, is it? If you look like Ed Balls, you look like Ed Balls, and however much you make of yourself, you’re still going to be cursed with looking like Ed Balls.” What are you on about? You could be fat, smelly, greasy, unwashed Ed Balls, or hunky, superfit, well-groomed Ed Balls. The first is unattractive in anyone’s book, but the second would be tolerable to most (as long as it didn’t speak). Conversely, a fat, stinky, wheezing Brad Pitt wouldn’t turn many people on. Ian B October 12, 2013 at 5:18 pm But you would still look like Ed Balls. Some people may find that “tolerable”, if they are mentally disturbed, but that still doesn’t alter the fact that looks count, and there is a very clear distinction between handsome and ugly, or beautiful and ugly. There just is. “Best of himself” Brad Pitt is much better looking than “best of himself” Woody Allen. I mean, saying that some hypothetical worst case Brad is less attractive than a best case somebody else, is like saying that mouldy, putrefying cordon bleu food is worse than fresh Sainsburys Basics. Sure it is, but to isolate the “tasty” variable you’ve got to make all the other variables equal. Mouldy haute cuisine vs mouldy Basics, or fresh haute cuisine vs fresh Basics. Likewise, “best Brad” vs “best Woody”, etc. Dave October 12, 2013 at 6:37 pm We must be talking at cross-purposes. “to isolate the “tasty” variable” Why would you want to do that in this context? Of course it’s true that, other things being equal, who is most physically attractive is purely genetic.But other things not only aren’t equal, they’re actually dependent on things that would tend to influence (lack of) success. It’s not that ugly people don’t do well, but that people who don’t have the character traits like drive and self-perception required to maximise their attractiveness in one area – physical appeal – aren’t likely to show those same characteristics when it comes to maximising their professional attractiveness. Ian B October 12, 2013 at 7:36 pm Except that it does seem that, in a nutshell, ugly people don’t do well. There’s an interesting similar variable that has been studied; tall men do better in careers and business etc. Of course, there are exceptions (Bernie Ecclestone) but on average and all that. One could argue that people who lack drive and self perception fail to maximise their heights of course. But the more reasonable argument is that tall men are simply more admired, and this helps their promotional prospects in organisations where it helps to- to coin a phrase- “stand head and shoulders above the competition”. I think really there is another issue here, in your analysis. You see, if there is something “intrinsic” that acts as a handicap, and you decide to blame lack of success on some failure of behaviour, that’s really rather cruel. It’s effectively a form of blaming the victim. Dave October 12, 2013 at 7:48 pm Sorry, not following you at all. Your sentences seem individually coherent, but they make no sense at all in context. “Except that it does seem that, in a nutshell, ugly people don’t do well.” For starters, why are you beginning with ‘except that’ and then continuing with part of what I said? “There’s an interesting similar variable” That you think height is in any way similar to, say, cleanliness, is simply bonkers. “One could argue that people who lack drive and self perception fail to maximise their heights of course.” QED. “I think really there is another issue here, in your analysis. You see, if there is something “intrinsic” that acts as a handicap, and you decide to blame lack of success on some failure of behaviour, that’s really rather cruel. ” It’s not in my analysis. Did voices in your head say that? I sure as hell didn’t write anything of the sort. I don’t know why you’re so insistent on denying the obvious fact that someone’s appearance is largely in their own hands (barring very rare unfortunates like Joseph Merrick). Unless it’s because you’re a slob with repellent personal habits, of course. Ian B October 12, 2013 at 7:57 pm “Except that it does seem that, in a nutshell, ugly people don’t do well.” For starters, why are you beginning with ‘except that’ and then continuing with part of what I said? In reply to- It’s not that ugly people don’t do well, That you think height is in any way similar to, say, cleanliness, is simply bonkers. They’re both appearance things. It’s you with this bizarre theory that ugly people don’t wash, or whatever it is. It’s not in my analysis. Did voices in your head say that? I sure as hell didn’t write anything of the sort. Your strange analysis so far as I can tell is that ugly people are only perceived as ugly because they are doing bad things like, um, not washing or something. The consistent tenor of your comments is that they are perceived as ugly simply due to failing to maximise their appearance rather than because, as I am suggesting, they are actually ugly. I don’t know why you’re so insistent on denying the obvious fact that someone’s appearance is largely in their own hands (barring very rare unfortunates like Joseph Merrick). Unless it’s because you’re a slob with repellent personal habits, of course. Because that is not an “obvious fact” at all and is in defiance of the reality that some people are beautiful and others are not. Brad Pitt and Ed Balls. Gwyneth Paltrow and Claire Short. They really are intrinsically of different levels of beauty. And yet I have no doubt that Claire Short and indeed Ed Balls do actually wash themselves, clean their teeth, and so on. It is utterly bizarre to suggest that everyone is basically the same unless they look like the Elephant Man. It simply is not true! Thornavis October 12, 2013 at 8:39 pm “I don’t know why you’re so insistent on denying the obvious fact that someone’s appearance is largely in their own hands (barring very rare unfortunates like Joseph Merrick).” Utter bollocks. There are a substantial number of people who have some disability or less serious physical impediment that reduces their level of attractiveness, I know because I’m one of them. I don’t much care about that now that I’m knocking on a bit and never really did that much but I take great exception to it being implied that if only I’d paid more attention to my personal grooming no one would have noticed. Dave October 12, 2013 at 10:17 pm Thornavis> There’s no such implication there. What I said is, applied to your case, that simply having some such disability/abnormality/whathaveyou isn’t enough to make you ugly. It may make you less attractive than you’d otherwise be (at least to most, because there are some odd sorts out there), but it isn’t some kind of stamp of ugliness. To be rather crude for a moment, we could adopt the marks out of ten rating scale of teenage boys, but applied to normal adult tastes. On that scale, being clean, well-groomed and dressed, and physically fit, is worth at least a five or six. Having a really great body might push it up to a seven, even an eight in extreme cases. Being slightly disfigured might take a point or two off that, but you’re still well in the middle of the bell-curve. ‘Ugly’ is a one or two, three at most, and you’re not getting below a four however you look at it. You’ll note that there’s only a few points left for facial prettiness. What that means is that for almost everyone out there, there are enough things they can do to enhance their own physical attractiveness that they can be more than averagely attractive. Still, though, it’s beside the point. We’re not talking about deformity, but about ugliness. They’re not the same thing, at least to me. A burns victim might be unattractive, but they’re not ‘ugly’. I’d have thought anyone with the sensitivity not to call someone like that ‘ugly’ would use a similar definition. Ian> “Because that is not an “obvious fact” at all and is in defiance of the reality that some people are beautiful and others are not.” That doesn’t conflict in any way. You clearly haven’t understood a word I’ve written, so this is thoroughly pointless. As a demonstration of what I’m talking about, though, it’s rather good. Your arguments are ugly – that is, lacking in wit and style – for the same reasons they’re unsuccessful; I’m not dismissing them because of their ugliness, though, but because they fail to convince. So Much For Subtlety October 13, 2013 at 12:54 am Ian B – “I’d also like to see your criteria for “losing”, considering that Feminist dogma now dominates the Western world.” Feminism got mainstreamed. Now even the Socially Conservative born agains are feminists. But the feminists lost. No one takes them seriously any more. You want to insult a 15 year old girl, and who doesn’t?, call her a feminist. So Much For Subtlety October 13, 2013 at 12:59 am Dave – “The suggestion that attractiveness is wholly, or even largely, innate is utterly bonkers. Aside from the obvious physical taking-care-of-oneself that can be the difference between an obese, greasy smellpot and a fit young man, it’s actually fairly unusual to meet people whose physical attractiveness is entirely divorced from their inner attractiveness.” Hard core Dave! Way to go. Of course this argument is utterly nuts. First of all you are cheating by looking at men. Women find a wide range of things attractive in men apart from physical appearance. Their salary for instance. Men are more shallow. It comes down to physical appearance and youth and that is it. Second, you are not properly distinguishing what we can control with our physical appearance. Someone who is obese is physically disgusting. Most people have an immediate visceral reaction which then some of those people are ashamed of. It isn’t that they are thinking that there goes a boy who is not taking care of himself. They are thinking that fat people are gross to look at. It is actually physical appearance that counts. The same with being a greasy smellpot. It is the physical nature of that condition – which presumanly signals poor genes – that disgusts people. So yes, if you want to eat your way to obesity, you will not be a sex God any more. Ask Orson Welles or Marlon Brando. But if you are within the range of normal physical condition, attractiveness is almost entirely physical. “If ugliness comes from the inside, it’s no surprise that ugly people earn less and are less successful.” Ugly people, in my experience, are often ugly on the inside but that is probably because they know they are ugly, they are reacting poorly to other people’s reactions to them and they think the world should be fair, but it isn’t. Ian B October 13, 2013 at 2:48 am SMFS- “Getting mainstreamed” is also known as “winning”. The core ideologies of feminism are now legally enforced and requried thinking for decent folks, followers of Feminist ideology now exist throughout the institutions of State, etc. Feminism gets laws passed, while anti-feminism is a divided, outsider minority. TBH, I’m genuinely surprised that you think otherwise. Ian B October 13, 2013 at 2:54 am Men are more shallow. It comes down to physical appearance and youth and that is it. This term “shallow” is itself rather shallow. I’ve never understood why it’s shallow to be attracted to a woman’s physical nature and personality- the two primary characteristics men are attracted to- than to be seeking the biggest wallet, highest status, etc. Sort of as a side issue, the interesting thing is that men seem to be more prepared to commit to long term monogamy than women at the moment. Statistically, most divorces and relationship breakups are initiatied by women whos seem to be motivated by a belief that they can “do better”. That seems pretty shallow to me. The Thought Gang October 13, 2013 at 9:30 am Someone needs to back Dave up, because he’s right. We are all dealt a hand, and we’re stuck with it.. but we do get to decide how to play it. Take someone who’s a bit of a facial munter, give him/her the right haircut and wardrobe, and you’ll probably end up with someone who looks like a bit less of a munter. That’s not a controversial idea… these are ‘tools’ that the human race has been using for most of history. So with physical attractiveness being something that runs on a scale, it follows that people, by their actions, are able to nudge themselves a few notches one way or another. We are not, therefore, all necessarily in our natural point on munterscale. It’s thus fair to say that some people who are unsuccessful in other areas of life may also be uglier than they might otherwise be.. because they lack the motivation/wherewithal to make the best of the face god gave them. Thornavis October 13, 2013 at 10:45 am Dave Thanks for the clarification and put like that it doesn’t seem so unreasonable. PeteC October 13, 2013 at 2:16 pm Take someone who’s a bit of a facial munter, give him/her the right haircut and wardrobe, and you’ll probably end up with someone who looks like a bit less of a munter. Yep. The converse is true too – just look at someone like Matt Damon at his best and worst. Jim October 13, 2013 at 2:45 pm I’m with Dave here: the genetic hand we get dealt in the beauty stakes is highly susceptible to our own efforts to improve (or reduce) our attractiveness. Ergo the majority of ‘ugly’ people are thus labelled because of their own lack of efforts to improve themselves, not just their genetic inheritance. (With the proviso there will always be some people who look like a bag of spanners however much they work out or dress well). Current example I noticed online the other day – Alison Moyet, who in her youth was a bit of a munter, due to being overweight. Now has lost all that weight and looks fabulous. Her actual natural beauty was totally outweighed by her lifestyle choices. SadButMadLad October 13, 2013 at 6:55 pm Just do a search for with before and after pictures of porn stars in makeup. 90% of them are mingers without makeup but slap it on and they earn tons. Leave a Reply Cancel replyYour email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *Comment Name * Email * Website Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.