At 12:28 AM 5/1/97 -0300, you wrote:
>On Wed, 30 Apr 1997, Bruce L Jones wrote:
>> On Wed, 30 Apr 1997 13:20:33 -0300 Neil Alasdair McEwan
>> <[log in to unmask]> writes:
>> >I have no problem with condemning a man or a woman on the basis of
>> >their character, but to do so on the basis of their appearance would
>> >be cruel, since no-one chooses to be unattractive.
>> 'ehh, Neil, ever been to Southern California? ... [: ) ... I have
>> seen all manner of hideous things done deliberately. To each his own ...
> That's true, but you can probably class the various kinds of cosmetic
>self-mutilation as indicative of bad character -- the desire to starve
>oneself, or to bulk up into a musclebound freak, for example (is this the
>kind of thing you mean?) I still think that in many cases appearance is
>reflective of character, which is why even ugliness can be charming on
>the right person.
Neil, I think Bruce might be referring more to the excessive-piercings-and-
tatoos crowd. It's interesting that you'd say appearance is reflective of
character, though. One of my professors mentioned to me one day when we
were discussing the collective psyche of the punk rock crowd I hung out with
that a lot there is an extremely high incidence of various types of abuse,
particularly sexual, in subcultures where that sort of extreme
outlandishness & off-putting appearance are common. Common rational behind
it is that they don't feel comfortable in their bodies because of the
internal damage so they mutilate the outside to achieve a sort of balance
between inner feeling & outward appearances.
who's trying to remember why she's switching from psych to religious studies..