Friday, March 28, 2008

Femininity, Attractiveness, and the Cult of Pious Beauty

So in my time, I sometimes listen to occasional piece by Jack the Johnson. One is called "Posters." Some telling lines speaking of many typical girls:

"Looking at herself but wishing she was someone else
Because the body of the doll it don't look like hers at all

So she straps it on, she sucks it in, she throws it up, and gives a grin
Laughing at herself because she knows she ain't that at all

It was said by a University of Minnesota Professor that Brigham Young University is a campus that is "sexually charged." What makes for a campus of this brand? Is it obsession over body image, over dates, over hairstyles? What makes the romantic soul of BYU tick? Do LDS compare favorably with other college age students in terms of how they view themselves...do they have heatlhy attitudes about romance? I do not have answers to these question; however, they do present a begged question: "What does the gospel and the prophets have to say about body image?" Indeed, it is a real issue, and it is hard to simply brush off with a "Well, you just need to know that you're just fine" or that "Boys aren't THAT concerned with your waistline." Unfortunately, few believe such advice, and in the case of the latter, the woeful truth is that some actually are concerned. However, as Elder Packer noted, doctrine understood changes behavior best. Let's plumb the depts...see what we can find on this current social problem.

President Faust has declared that "femininity is not just lipstick, stylish hairdos, and trendy clothes. It is the divine adornment of humanity." President Faust continued, decrying the presence of women boxers and wrestlers in the sports arena. Therefore, to President Faust, femininity seems to rest on making distinctions between the sexes. Is there anything inherently wrong, immoral about women boxing or wrestling? I would suggest that its wrongness comes not in its substance but more as a symbol that walls between the genders are breaking down...the practical outcome of which means that gender roles are blurred.

But I digress...the reality is that females are encouraged on the grassroots level to enhance femininity. While we constantly hear about the need to avoid vanity, there coexists with that teaching a similar drive to get married...indeed, even President David O. McKay noted: "It is not my purpose to discourage efforts to enhance physical beauty. When given by birth, it should be nurtured in childhood, cherished in girlhood, and protected in womanhood. When not inherited, it should be developed and sought after in every legitimate and healthful manner."

Therefore, where is the "golden mean" between the doctrines against vanity and for pious beauty? And more importantly, how can these pro-beauty sentiments be kept in check, lest they spiral into the harmful influences of self-centeredness, elitism and outright brattiness? Some of my female viewers may question whether it is so bad that beautiful people tend to cluster together...after all, should not we associate with those who resemble most our values? We don't actually have to be friendswith those poor souls who are plagued by less-than-attractive features, do we? Of course, you act pleasant enough around them, but we all know that deep in your gut, you're looking around you thinking: "If a cute guy/girl walked in here, I could outflirt any guy/girl in the room..." You know that when another guy/girl might talk about how a guy/girl was flirting with her, you're thinking that the other guy/girl must've been 1) desperate, 2) charitable, or 3) of that school called the "recreational" school of flirting...

Maybe we justify these tendencies by dropping some tripe about how we know our own talents and magnify them. Yeah...just like Washington lobbyists "magnify" their talent for persuasion and Mafia hitmen magnify their talents of marksmanship...

Their must be an element of pious beauty...and one that does not deny the realities of our physical beauty and our gospel. Brethren and sistren, please do opine...President Kimball (and in some ways, the Proclamation) suggests that learning about what it means to be a man/woman is a key element of our lifetime in mortality. Maybe we could have some light shed on it via scriptures, quotes, and especially personal experience.

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

I guess I don't know the audience he was addressing, but I find it interesting that President McKay only discusses physical beauty in women (that it should be protected in womanhood, etc.). To me, that sends an odd message. Why just women? If we are expected to preserve said physical beauty, shouldn't it be on both sides then? What gets men off the hook?

I agree that if you want, you should beautify yourself in a healthy manner. I don't agree, however, that it should be forced upon you. Using BYU as an example, many unattractive people find eternal companions and physical beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I guess what I'm saying in a long-winded fashion is that I'm surprised at his comment.

I agree with President Faust though, there needs to be a boundary of what is considered feminine and masculine. There are too many examples today, many even more subtle than women boxing, that give evidence that these lines are increasingly blurred.

Good post.

Russtafarian said...

That is an interesting comment, Elizabeth...and thanks for posting! How the heck are ya?

You raised excellent points, so I will try to respond. I might take up a bit of room, so hold on to your hat :)

As far as audience goes, I just got the quote from an article in a 1906 Young Woman's Journal...so given the publications, it doesn't surprise me too much that he didn't address male attractiveness.

But it raises a good point...and my experience has been that male attractiveness is encouraged as well...even if different language is used. We hear much of talk of maintaining the standards of missionary dress after we have returned from the mission (I can drop you some references if you would like). So the sword cuts both ways, methinks.

And the blending of the sexes, that is also interesting (an excellent point as well)...I ask why is that important? It most certainly is important, but notice that we have to set these boundaries and that they don't set themselves...further, how can this be reconciled w/the Proclamation on the Family? (no worries, I have opinions on this, I just want to throw it out there).

As a side note, if indeed physical beauty is a totally subjective notion, then we would probably do well to drop the term altogether. If we cannot even communicate it to each other as a coherent concept, then it becomes useless for discourse...but yet we don't give it up...which leads me to think that there is SOME consensus on what beauty...even if that consensus is borne of a media construct.

On how this interplays with prophetic counsel, I see a definite In Brent Barlow's books What Husbands/Wives expect of Husbands/Wives (two books, each treating what the spouse expects of the partner) he devotes a chapter to attractiveness (you can access it on gospelink w/your old user ID and password). He cites President Kimball saying something to the effect as President McKay and an interesting quote from a psychologist, Joyce Brothers, who argues that the only common thread in her surveys of important elements in relationships was "looks." According to her, you simply can't trust folk wisdom about how looks don't matter.

Syphax said...

The fact of the matter is, looks DO matter, and they ARE completely subjective. I think that's one way that God guides us to certain people. I think the term "beauty" doesn't need to be dropped just because it means something different to everyone, in the same way that we don't need to drop the word "love" just because it means something different to everyone. I think the problem is the feedback loop between the cultural standards of "beauty," and the people trying to attain them.

Russtafarian said...

Yo Arthur...thanks for the props on your blog...preciate ya!

And likewise to your comments...except for one thing...

I think that while beauty is largely subjective, we must admit that there is a quasi-consensus about what makes a girl attractive...I would suggest that any reader of this blog point out a (modest) cover girl image to another guy? Ask him if he thinks they are beautiful/hot/attractive (I recognize the nuances in these words, for the record)...almost certainly he will say yes.

Not very scientific, but hey, as a good humanities man...why "confine" my self to such mundanities? ;)