He is a 10. There is no doubt about it - judging objectively.
Everything speaks to his favor:
Ripped abs - check.
Strong masculine jawline - check.
Facial symmetry - check.
He falls under that tall, dark and handsome category.
Every time he comes by, the girls are throwing themselves at him - coyly giggling and fluttering their eyelashes to catch his attention.
And yet, when asked what I thought about said guy, I blurted out "Him? Why, he is UGLY!". Very classy, yes I know.
However, I was genuinely puzzled that anyone could find him attractive - after analyzing his features, well, it makes sense on paper, that he should be gorgeous.
The thing is I find him truly ugly. Now the paradox here lies in that I know people who have terrible features - on paper - and yet I would never in a million years think them ugly. Because they are not - in my opinion; even though yes, they may be overweight, yes they may have asymmetrical features and no, they may not dress in Armani power suits.
Yet, my initial reaction to this guy, who does everything in his power to live up to this image of what an attractive male should look like, was that he is drop-dead-ugly.
Simply because he is VAIN. He tries too hard. And that makes me suspicious: What is it that he is trying to hide underneath those layers of ripped abs and that perfectly groomed hair? What is his dark secret?
He comes off as a fake. He is not authentic. He comes off as someone who is not comfortable in his own skin, and thus needs to hide his true naked self; spending hours in the gym making up for his shortcomings.
It's like David Beckham vs. George Clooney. Who is the more attractive in your opinion?
You know Beckham has better abs. And he is taller. He is younger. He is stronger. But he tries too hard - an attention whore mesmerized by his own reflection. Only using his fame to feed his ever-growing ego and endless between-the-sheets escapades. In stark contrast to Clooney who understands how to use his fame for a greater good serving others, and then stand from it.
Or Cindy Crawford vs. Pamela Anderson. Who is the more attractive here?
You know Pamela has better curves. And yet... she comes off as a complete rip-off compared to Cindy, who admittedly has some cellulite on her derriere. But it just doesn't matter in the grande scheme. She is authentic. She is confident. She is who she is. Take it or leave it.
But someone who spends fortunes on pumping up the volume of their curves? Vanity. And that is ugly. Vanity is based on a mix of insecurity, pride and selfishness with an inability to show gratitude. A very ugly combination of traits, really. From that perspective, it makes sense that vanity is one of the seven sins. If you think that what you achieve in life is all due to your own glory and vain ego you will hit the ground hard one day.
I remember George Clooney saying in an interview with regard to whether he felt "proud": "You are never quite as good as they say you are, when they say you're good. And you are never quite as bad as they say you are, when they say you're bad."
That is being confident, yet not vain: He knows what he's got and not. And that is attractive.
Everything speaks to his favor:
Ripped abs - check.
Strong masculine jawline - check.
Facial symmetry - check.
He falls under that tall, dark and handsome category.
Every time he comes by, the girls are throwing themselves at him - coyly giggling and fluttering their eyelashes to catch his attention.
And yet, when asked what I thought about said guy, I blurted out "Him? Why, he is UGLY!". Very classy, yes I know.
However, I was genuinely puzzled that anyone could find him attractive - after analyzing his features, well, it makes sense on paper, that he should be gorgeous.
The thing is I find him truly ugly. Now the paradox here lies in that I know people who have terrible features - on paper - and yet I would never in a million years think them ugly. Because they are not - in my opinion; even though yes, they may be overweight, yes they may have asymmetrical features and no, they may not dress in Armani power suits.
Yet, my initial reaction to this guy, who does everything in his power to live up to this image of what an attractive male should look like, was that he is drop-dead-ugly.
Simply because he is VAIN. He tries too hard. And that makes me suspicious: What is it that he is trying to hide underneath those layers of ripped abs and that perfectly groomed hair? What is his dark secret?
He comes off as a fake. He is not authentic. He comes off as someone who is not comfortable in his own skin, and thus needs to hide his true naked self; spending hours in the gym making up for his shortcomings.
 |
| David Beckham: Driven by vanity? |
 |
| George Clooney: Driven by passion |
Or Cindy Crawford vs. Pamela Anderson. Who is the more attractive here?
 |
| What is she making up for with those plastic-fantastic curves... |
 |
| The naked truth: Genuinely strong yet fragile. Confidence in motion. |
But someone who spends fortunes on pumping up the volume of their curves? Vanity. And that is ugly. Vanity is based on a mix of insecurity, pride and selfishness with an inability to show gratitude. A very ugly combination of traits, really. From that perspective, it makes sense that vanity is one of the seven sins. If you think that what you achieve in life is all due to your own glory and vain ego you will hit the ground hard one day.
I remember George Clooney saying in an interview with regard to whether he felt "proud": "You are never quite as good as they say you are, when they say you're good. And you are never quite as bad as they say you are, when they say you're bad."
That is being confident, yet not vain: He knows what he's got and not. And that is attractive.
No comments:
Post a Comment