Beauty, Love... Which one needs the other most?

[vagabond]

This question came from a dream I had (that was a bit like nibbed's poem).
And who better, I thought, than poets to ponder the abstracts? So I posted it.
Considering the immense generalities involved, I think it's a bit like a koan:
something to be meditated upon without any expectation of resolution.

In my dream love was creating beauty.  So my reasoning, when I posted the
question and voted, was that beauty needed love. But now I'm thinking it's
the creator who has the need.  

Psalm 8:3-4
When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained;
What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him?

going back from concepts to persons this would mean we create beauty (in perceiving it) because we want to love  and we create beauty (for others to perceive) in order to be loved.
this is why i think adoration is part of love.
for the other part i d come up with care and i think care is necessary to create something beautiful.

[just mercedes]

I don't agree with Keat's assessment. I'm more in tune with Rilke - beauty is the beginning of terror. Though if truth is terror, then it all somehow fits.

Some societies value the beauty of elongated necks, some the size and shape of women's buttocks. Nothing to do with The Golden Mean, which is purely a European abstraction. And remember Europeans were still living in caves when great civilizations flourished in Africa, China, India, even in Australia.

Both beauty and love alter according to each society's needs. I'm still not sure whether truth is an absolute, either. Sorry I can't help with your question!

[QDeathstar]

Love needs beauty more than beauty needs love.


A mother will always love their children, sure, but before there can be children there has to be attraction and that takes beauty. Even if that beauty is seen through 6-pack deep beer googles or lonely desperation.

On the other hand (the left one), there are plenty of hot whores hawking their fresh waxed vaginas on the internet for my personal pleasure. They are beautiful, but i don't love them. Beauty doesn't need love. And please don't bring up some bullshit about abstract beauty on the inside. As that's love, not beauty.

[vagabond]

Love needs beauty more than beauty needs love.


A mother will always love their children, sure, but before there can be children there has to be attraction and that takes beauty. Even if that beauty is seen through 6-pack deep beer googles or lonely desperation.

On the other hand (the left one), there are plenty of hot whores hawking their fresh waxed vaginas on the internet for my personal pleasure. They are beautiful, but i don't love them. Beauty doesn't need love. And please don't bring up some bullshit about abstract beauty on the inside. As that's love, not beauty.

i think beauty always is internal, that is it´s created inside the perceiver. 
the different beauty ideals (that make up only a small part of beautiful things) on which humans agree are bred into us by instinct or learned in different societies. but that doesn´t matter.. from an individual point of view there is no definition of beauty.
and everything needs love even the whores on the internet.

[rowens]

Why are whores on the internet so uptight in real life?

[billy]

the ones i know aren't more uptight than most other people. and i know a few, though to be honest they're not whores on the internet apart from me.; and of course yourself

[rowens]

I don't mean the ones you can order. I mean the ones who video themselves for money. If you're the kind of person who would spend money to watch them stick beads in their anus live they would never go out with you.

---

And if I masturbated live for people to see, no one would want to see it but deranged men. So it's a damned if you do scenario.

[QDeathstar]

Love needs beauty more than beauty needs love.


A mother will always love their children, sure, but before there can be children there has to be attraction and that takes beauty. Even if that beauty is seen through 6-pack deep beer googles or lonely desperation.

On the other hand (the left one), there are plenty of hot whores hawking their fresh waxed vaginas on the internet for my personal pleasure. They are beautiful, but i don't love them. Beauty doesn't need love. And please don't bring up some bullshit about abstract beauty on the inside. As that's love, not beauty.

i think beauty always is internal, that is it´s created inside the perceiver. 
the different beauty ideals (that make up only a small part of beautiful things) on which humans agree are bred into us by instinct or learned in different societies. but that doesn´t matter.. from an individual point of view there is no definition of beauty.
and everything needs love even the whores on the internet.

The question isn't if everything needs love. The question is does beauty need love more. There is a definition of beauty. I saw it in a book once. The fact that beauty exists in different planes for me and you doesn't change the fact that is skin deep and external. Any other definition of beauty is a trick of the mind, an illusion of beauty where love is.

The fact that the mind creates beauty where love is only proves that love needs beauty. On the other hand (again, the left one) i've squeezed one out to many a beautiful lady. Unless your some delusional stalker rarely does beauty trick the mind into creating love. Beauty doesn't need love.

[Lizzie]

Judas Priest, all this obsession with bodily proportions, shaved vulvas......

What about a beautiful voice? A beautiful fragrance (as in, the animal in me likes the smell of you)? A beautiful way of moving between and among people, a lovely interpersonal style? A grace with others, an elegance, an energy...those things are beautiful too.

Ya'll can only see one color of the rainbow.

[rayheinrich]

Judas Priest, all this obsession with bodily proportions, shaved vulvas......

What about a beautiful voice? A beautiful fragrance (as in, the animal in me likes the smell of you)? A beautiful way of moving between and among people, a lovely interpersonal style? A grace with others, an elegance, an energy...those things are beautiful too.

Ya'll can only see one color of the rainbow.

    Someone who loves to write poetry and/or reads mine... now that's beauty.

[QDeathstar]

@Lizzie there are other forms of beauty as you mention. None of them require love.

[Achebe]

Love needs beauty more than beauty needs love.


A mother will always love their children, sure, but before there can be children there has to be attraction and that takes beauty. Even if that beauty is seen through 6-pack deep beer googles or lonely desperation.

On the other hand (the left one), there are plenty of hot whores hawking their fresh waxed vaginas on the internet for my personal pleasure. They are beautiful, but i don't love them. Beauty doesn't need love. And please don't bring up some bullshit about abstract beauty on the inside. As that's love, not beauty.

i think beauty always is internal, that is it´s created inside the perceiver. 
the different beauty ideals (that make up only a small part of beautiful things) on which humans agree are bred into us by instinct or learned in different societies. but that doesn´t matter.. from an individual point of view there is no definition of beauty.
and everything needs love even the whores on the internet.

The 'beauty ideals' are not that different across societies....too much is made of variations at the extremes.
Women who are in the top quartile of beauty in Ethiopia, China, Lebanon, Sweden, and Brazil will be considered beautiful across all these cultures.
It comes down to facial proportions for the most part.

Beauty is neither a necessary nor sufficient precondition for love, as I've seen enough good looking men with ugly wives and vice versa, but it increases the probability of attraction, as for the most part, good looking people tend to fall in love with each other.
Sorry that evolution isn't politically correct.

[vagabond]

Love needs beauty more than beauty needs love.


A mother will always love their children, sure, but before there can be children there has to be attraction and that takes beauty. Even if that beauty is seen through 6-pack deep beer googles or lonely desperation.

On the other hand (the left one), there are plenty of hot whores hawking their fresh waxed vaginas on the internet for my personal pleasure. They are beautiful, but i don't love them. Beauty doesn't need love. And please don't bring up some bullshit about abstract beauty on the inside. As that's love, not beauty.

i think beauty always is internal, that is it´s created inside the perceiver. 
the different beauty ideals (that make up only a small part of beautiful things) on which humans agree are bred into us by instinct or learned in different societies. but that doesn´t matter.. from an individual point of view there is no definition of beauty.
and everything needs love even the whores on the internet.

The question isn't if everything needs love. The question is does beauty need love more. There is a definition of beauty. I saw it in a book once. 

so what is this definition? i always thought the number of definitions for beauty are infinite (in other words there is no definition)

The fact that beauty exists in different planes for me and you doesn't change the fact that is skin deep and external. Any other definition of beauty is a trick of the mind, an illusion of beauty where love is.

The fact that the mind creates beauty where love is only proves that love needs beauty. On the other hand (again, the left one) i've squeezed one out to many a beautiful lady. Unless your some delusional stalker rarely does beauty trick the mind into creating love. Beauty doesn't need love.

---

Love needs beauty more than beauty needs love.


A mother will always love their children, sure, but before there can be children there has to be attraction and that takes beauty. Even if that beauty is seen through 6-pack deep beer googles or lonely desperation.

On the other hand (the left one), there are plenty of hot whores hawking their fresh waxed vaginas on the internet for my personal pleasure. They are beautiful, but i don't love them. Beauty doesn't need love. And please don't bring up some bullshit about abstract beauty on the inside. As that's love, not beauty.

i think beauty always is internal, that is it´s created inside the perceiver. 
the different beauty ideals (that make up only a small part of beautiful things) on which humans agree are bred into us by instinct or learned in different societies. but that doesn´t matter.. from an individual point of view there is no definition of beauty.
and everything needs love even the whores on the internet.

The 'beauty ideals' are not that different across societies....too much is made of variations at the extremes.
Women who are in the top quartile of beauty in Ethiopia, China, Lebanon, Sweden, and Brazil will be considered beautiful across all these cultures.
It comes down to facial proportions for the most part.

Beauty is neither a necessary nor sufficient precondition for love, as I've seen enough good looking men with ugly wives and vice versa, but it increases the probability of attraction, as for the most part, good looking people tend to fall in love with each other.
Sorry that evolution isn't politically correct.

no need to apologize for competition, i didn´t blame anything. but really, do you think the beautiful (in the way you interpret it) pairs are happier than the ugly ones as a rule? i do not think so. there´s so much more criteria than looks.

[Achebe]

no need to apologize for competition, i didn´t blame anything. but really, do you think the beautiful (in the way you interpret it) pairs are happier than the ugly ones as a rule? i do not think so. there´s so much more criteria than looks.

Happiness is short lived, and therefore exists in every relationship for some time. But broadly (I should write an agony column):

1. Beautiful - beautiful. The alpha-alpha pairing. Goes on for a long time, but because male ageing has relatively fewer downsides, ends in a messy divorce at 55. Still, great while it lasts.
2. Ugly man - beautiful woman: the best combination, as the ugly bloke pulls out all stops to keep his girl happy, and the girl's already made up her mind once, so not complaining.
3. Ugly woman - handsome man: huge insecurity on the part of the woman, or a complete lack of self awareness. Also, the male wrongly thinks he has a free pass to sow his seed in 25 year old Agatha. Doomed.
4. Ugly man - ugly woman: Both think they're hotter than the other. Ego conflicts, but they stay together because neither has any better options.

[vagabond]

no need to apologize for competition, i didn´t blame anything. but really, do you think the beautiful (in the way you interpret it) pairs are happier than the ugly ones as a rule? i do not think so. there´s so much more criteria than looks.

Happiness is short lived, and therefore exists in every relationship for some time. But broadly (I should write an agony column):

1. Beautiful - beautiful. The alpha-alpha pairing. Goes on for a long time, but because male ageing has relatively fewer downsides, ends in a messy divorce at 55. Still, great while it lasts.
2. Ugly man - beautiful woman: the best combination, as the ugly bloke pulls out all stops to keep his girl happy, and the girl's already made up her mind once, so not complaining.
3. Ugly woman - handsome man: huge insecurity on the part of the woman, or a complete lack of self awareness. Also, the male wrongly thinks he has a free pass to sow his seed in 25 year old Agatha. Doomed.
4. Ugly man - ugly woman: Both think they're hotter than the other. Ego conflicts, but they stay together because neither has any better options.

yeah you got the statistics down well. 
but statistics can never predict the future. 
i think they´re pretty useless for forming relationships and sometimes even harmful. 
like when they suggest to the "ugly" person that he/ she should either pull out all stops to keep the partner happy or that he/ she doesn´t match the partner´s looks and therefore doesn´t deserve him/ her or when they suggest that the "beautiful" should search for better matching partners. 

i agree to the truth in the statistics, don´t get me wrong, it´s all somehow based in instincts, i just think having this knowledge and judgement in the forefront of one´s mind might narrow down the ability to love one another.

[ellajam]

no need to apologize for competition, i didn´t blame anything. but really, do you think the beautiful (in the way you interpret it) pairs are happier than the ugly ones as a rule? i do not think so. there´s so much more criteria than looks.

Happiness is short lived, and therefore exists in every relationship for some time. But broadly (I should write an agony column):

1. Beautiful - beautiful. The alpha-alpha pairing. Goes on for a long time, but because male ageing has relatively fewer downsides, ends in a messy divorce at 55. Still, great while it lasts.
2. Ugly man - beautiful woman: the best combination, as the ugly bloke pulls out all stops to keep his girl happy, and the girl's already made up her mind once, so not complaining.
3. Ugly woman - handsome man: huge insecurity on the part of the woman, or a complete lack of self awareness. Also, the male wrongly thinks he has a free pass to sow his seed in 25 year old Agatha. Doomed.
4. Ugly man - ugly woman: Both think they're hotter than the other. Ego conflicts, but they stay together because neither has any better options.

especially "male aging has relatively fewer downsides" My guess is you're male.

[billy]

i've been in two long term relationships and none ended or began because of beauty. none ended or began through love. both progressed from a friendship into love. the former didn't end because of or lack of beauty or ego. we just wanted different things. we are still best friends.

[Wastrel]

Maybe what love needs more than beauty is truth

[ellajam]

Maybe what love needs more than beauty is truth

Just what the soup needed, another abstraction. That truth is a slippery sucker.

[Wastrel]

It sure is...can never find the damn thing