MetabolicTrash
Member
I get the idea of those more spiritual and such, but logically you can't discount the fact that we are all visual beings and rife with biases.
I think it's pretty silly and lacking of self-awareness if one states that a passion like romantic love, attraction, fondness of others, etc. is "deeper" than the visual when -- without visual -- it wouldn't be there. You would not love your husband if his nose and eyes changed shape -- or he shrunk excessively/lost his masculinity. You would probably not like your wife if she became manly looking, sickly, lost her mind -- you'd feel sad and probably that would mark the end of the true "connection." You see how easily & for the silliest of reasons people get divorced -- yet marriage is seen as some holy union but people can discard each other for any slight change that "ends the fire."
Would you be with your husband, girlfriend, wife, etc. if you didn't see them? No -- we are visually-driven creatures -- the appearances largely account for our desires to even see under the surface. No, I'm not saying some insane reach like, "Only GigaChad male-models can attract women." I know this is false, but the sentiment behind it isn't.
I don't understand why people still deny the power of looks in life -- they literally explain everything, both at a surface-level and deep manner (because the surface is what stands between deeper consideration). You'll rarely ever "learn the inside" if you don't "like the outside." You can't tell me you disagree with this, can you? Will you buy a product if it had absolutely unappealing packaging, walking randomly down a store aisle? Will you buy pregnenolone if their was a turd on the label? Will you have ever "loved" anything if nothing of its material being was acceptable enough to have around/close to/"in-sync" with you? You have to be okay with their exterior to love them.
Kids love their pillows -- probably due to their shape, design, feel on the outside, etc. They say that this "love" is internal -- yet why can't that "love" transfer to another pillow? The love is ALWAYS bound to the conditions of which make up the material form of whatever said thing a person bounds to then love or "connect" with.
From personal experience as a man I can tell you first-hand that no woman ever loved me without knowing what I looked like. If love was not "superficial" then I'll gladly await someone telling me they loved someone without ever seeing, touching, feeling or making out what their material structure or presence is (as in the case of the blind).
All people who have engaged with me -- I believe -- did so solely because of what my outer appearance or "vibe" presents to them based on my material self. If this was all spiritual then us humans would not have eyes. We judge what we see, and what we see can judge us -- so it's pretty foolish, I'd say, to believe love starts inside first when it's all filtered through the outside first ALWAYS. It is so wrong to say love is deep and hate on "superficial" attraction when all attraction is superficial somewhat.
All "lust" easily becomes "love." The idea of "love at first sight" destroys the myth that love is a slow, deeply-established connection. The first girlfriend I had said she basically "fell in love" with me once I first exchanged pictures with her (we met online). Another girl PURSUED ME and I did not do anything -- and she proclaimed her love to me eventually. So right off the bat I've had MULTIPLE EXPERIENCES where "love" really just meant "appreciation for my form as a man in her eyes deeply."
I have never seen or believed anyone who has said they can love or has loved without a physical, hard aspect to it that determines it very strongly. You can say after the fact that you "fell more in love" but we humans are eye-driven animals -- I have yet to see any love that didn't have a hard, surface-level "threshold" of sorts that needed to be surpassed at the least. If you could love any "right person" & the outside didn't matter, show me some very loveable, wholly attractive but deformed people that have seen this. Not some rarity/fame-pressed "ugliest person on Earth gets married" headline, but a case where someone observably deformed can observably have this effect on others.
So I find it a bit hypocritical or just from a bad place to call love superficial if it's based on looks when ALL ATTRACTION TO ANOTHER PERSON must at least partially come down to looks, therefore you can't say love has some magical property lest you're willing to fall in love with someone WITHOUT SEEING THEM and then meet up with said person time later and not feel anything different. Maybe all love isn't super heavy & instant attraction, but to say the looks aspect of it is the least is contradictory.
I know I'm not a stud, but I'd be a fool if I told myself that any women who have loved me didn't at least partially feel that way due to my looks/characteristics observed from my exterior like my way of motion/presence, voice/speaking and perception of sound, clothing/contrasting of fashion to my appearance & so forth.
I think it's pretty silly and lacking of self-awareness if one states that a passion like romantic love, attraction, fondness of others, etc. is "deeper" than the visual when -- without visual -- it wouldn't be there. You would not love your husband if his nose and eyes changed shape -- or he shrunk excessively/lost his masculinity. You would probably not like your wife if she became manly looking, sickly, lost her mind -- you'd feel sad and probably that would mark the end of the true "connection." You see how easily & for the silliest of reasons people get divorced -- yet marriage is seen as some holy union but people can discard each other for any slight change that "ends the fire."
Would you be with your husband, girlfriend, wife, etc. if you didn't see them? No -- we are visually-driven creatures -- the appearances largely account for our desires to even see under the surface. No, I'm not saying some insane reach like, "Only GigaChad male-models can attract women." I know this is false, but the sentiment behind it isn't.
I don't understand why people still deny the power of looks in life -- they literally explain everything, both at a surface-level and deep manner (because the surface is what stands between deeper consideration). You'll rarely ever "learn the inside" if you don't "like the outside." You can't tell me you disagree with this, can you? Will you buy a product if it had absolutely unappealing packaging, walking randomly down a store aisle? Will you buy pregnenolone if their was a turd on the label? Will you have ever "loved" anything if nothing of its material being was acceptable enough to have around/close to/"in-sync" with you? You have to be okay with their exterior to love them.
Kids love their pillows -- probably due to their shape, design, feel on the outside, etc. They say that this "love" is internal -- yet why can't that "love" transfer to another pillow? The love is ALWAYS bound to the conditions of which make up the material form of whatever said thing a person bounds to then love or "connect" with.
From personal experience as a man I can tell you first-hand that no woman ever loved me without knowing what I looked like. If love was not "superficial" then I'll gladly await someone telling me they loved someone without ever seeing, touching, feeling or making out what their material structure or presence is (as in the case of the blind).
All people who have engaged with me -- I believe -- did so solely because of what my outer appearance or "vibe" presents to them based on my material self. If this was all spiritual then us humans would not have eyes. We judge what we see, and what we see can judge us -- so it's pretty foolish, I'd say, to believe love starts inside first when it's all filtered through the outside first ALWAYS. It is so wrong to say love is deep and hate on "superficial" attraction when all attraction is superficial somewhat.
All "lust" easily becomes "love." The idea of "love at first sight" destroys the myth that love is a slow, deeply-established connection. The first girlfriend I had said she basically "fell in love" with me once I first exchanged pictures with her (we met online). Another girl PURSUED ME and I did not do anything -- and she proclaimed her love to me eventually. So right off the bat I've had MULTIPLE EXPERIENCES where "love" really just meant "appreciation for my form as a man in her eyes deeply."
I have never seen or believed anyone who has said they can love or has loved without a physical, hard aspect to it that determines it very strongly. You can say after the fact that you "fell more in love" but we humans are eye-driven animals -- I have yet to see any love that didn't have a hard, surface-level "threshold" of sorts that needed to be surpassed at the least. If you could love any "right person" & the outside didn't matter, show me some very loveable, wholly attractive but deformed people that have seen this. Not some rarity/fame-pressed "ugliest person on Earth gets married" headline, but a case where someone observably deformed can observably have this effect on others.
So I find it a bit hypocritical or just from a bad place to call love superficial if it's based on looks when ALL ATTRACTION TO ANOTHER PERSON must at least partially come down to looks, therefore you can't say love has some magical property lest you're willing to fall in love with someone WITHOUT SEEING THEM and then meet up with said person time later and not feel anything different. Maybe all love isn't super heavy & instant attraction, but to say the looks aspect of it is the least is contradictory.
I know I'm not a stud, but I'd be a fool if I told myself that any women who have loved me didn't at least partially feel that way due to my looks/characteristics observed from my exterior like my way of motion/presence, voice/speaking and perception of sound, clothing/contrasting of fashion to my appearance & so forth.
Last edited: