So, I am not certain I agree. I understand the point being made and tend to agree but I do not know that beauty is a talent like art, writing or playing an instrument. Those things are much more structured and defined; you cannot redefine what is considered good in them. Pollock, Marquez, and Davis took liberties with the definition and were successful. But the group of people who could do that is very small. Beautiful is an extremely subjective term, unlike the above mentioned things. So, to say everyone is beautiful is to tell the truth. Your definition of beauty may be quite different, or limited, than mine. I often, albeit a bit simplistically, to the Johnny Depp line in Don Juan DeMarco: When I say that all woman are dazzling beauties, they object. This ones nose is too large... the hips of another are too wide, perhaps the breast of a third, they are too small. But I see these women for how they truly are: Glorious... radiant, spectacular and perfect because I am not limited by my eyesight. Women react on me the way that they do Don Octavio because they sense that I search out the beauty that dwells within them until it overwhelms everything else. And then they cannot avoid their desire: to release that beauty and envelop me in it. This implies that our shallow definition of beautiful does not include the energetic aura of the woman. (This also applies to men, yet men tend to get more of a free pass in the appearance issue.) And so, I stand by my statement that all women truly are beautiful and that some simply do not realize it or have been permitted to know it because of predefined parameters. Those parameters cause us to mis out on a hell of a lot of beauty.
Posted on: Sun, 22 Jun 2014 21:26:04 +0000
Trending Topics
© 2015