Tuesday, May 29, 2007

The Body Issue

In a previous post I wrote about how much a sunny day can do to whittle away angst and bad spirits. This, it occurs to me, is not always the case. In fact, there is a way in which warm weather can produce a whole new set of anxieties, and they usually have to do with bodies. That is, there is some point every year, as temperatures start to rise, when the masses of people around me in New York City stop being people and start being bodies- long, short, dark, light, thin, heavy, smooth, wrinkled bodies. Walking down the street becomes this giant flesh fest (the kind our tznius literature warned us about) and I can’t help but be absorbed by it. Joining a gym this year has added to the onslaught, and I am constantly in awe of the rich variety of bodies and faces that can be contained within one species (let alone one locker room).

At the same time, mixed up with this sense of awe is the inevitable feeling of inadequacy, as the surplus of exposed body surface makes me measure my own in comparison, and find myself falling short. Of course these concerns pale in contrast to the kinds of things that should be concerning me like pain and poverty and global stuff. But we live in our bodies, and whether we admit it or not, most of us are mildly obsessed by them. My gym is filled with hordes of highly educated, affluent people, sweating and exhausting themselves for hours a week entirely for the purpose of having nice abs. And I don't even care about them, I care about my people (highly educated, not so affluent...) the majority of whom also spend loads of time and energy choosing food and clothing and that will make them as thin as possible. I care because it upsets everything we’ve been taught to think matters in life- namely kindness, sensitivity, intelligence, social consciousness and the like. Weight has nothing to do with these things, and yet it matters, and I’m still at a loss for a way to synthesize that knowledge into the general way I think about people.

For example: Boy meets girl. Boy thinks girl is sweet, smart, interesting. Girl thinks the same. They make each other laugh like neither has laughed in ages, and they both get the sense that if something serious came up, they would be equally on the same page. But girl is rather heavy and this puts boy off. He ends up asking out inferior woman he is attracted to. Girl feels like crap. I could construe this scenario a million other ways (and someone, somewhere is upset that I have used “girl” instead of “woman”), but the point is a familiar one. Looks matter in the cruelest ways. You (all of you) will not end up with the best person for you. You will end up with the best person to whom you are attracted, and who is attracted to you in turn (along with all the other necessary demands).

Perhaps the most convenient way to think about this would be to get away from the archaic mind-body distinction. We are our bodies, hot people have hot personalities, likewise for plain people, looks condition the way you grow up and the way you think about yourself. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and reflects a million other amorpheous attributes (like vibe and attitude) that run much deeper. I’ve heard this line of thought plenty of times before, and much of it rings true. But how can we say, in this age of crash diets, cosmetic surgery, and TV makeovers, that your appearance is at all a stable part of your persona. And even if it is, it can still hurt.

I know because I see it all around me. See it with friends who cannot get a second date no matter how well the first one went. See it with genuinely great guys who would never consider dating me because I am a head taller than them (to be fair, I am not completely guiltless in this regard). See it with people who will always be noticed and paid attention to at parties, and people who simply will not. Hopefully everyone will find their special someone, and I wouldn’t say that successful relationships are even remotely dependent on objective attractiveness. But some are. Bodies are our greatest tools, but they can also trap us, limit our possibilities for love and connection. The gym bunnies at Equinox are probably a little too conscious of this, but they are more honest than we are at our Shavuot Torah learning retreats (which, by the way, was super fun!). The liberal Jewish philosophy I’ve been most exposed to regarding this matter has been-if you ignore it, it will go away. To a certain extent, this is true. If you are given literally no room to obsess about your body out loud, then you will feel ashamed to make certain choices based on that, maybe even feel compelled to give someone a shot who you’d rather not. But in order for this to actually work, we’d have to stay away from movies and television as well, not to mention sweltering New York City streets. Until then, we will continue to occupy this weird space where bodies matter more than they should and we talk about it less than we should. We will make the decision of who we want to spend the rest of our lives with, in part, because of a few inches here or there, or some other genetic coincidence that could have gone a million different ways; and we will go on thinking that what really matters is kindness and sensitivity etc… What other option is there?

16 comments:

littlefoxling said...

Good luck in your attempt to undo 5 billion years of evolutionary biology in one blog post.

Also, you seem to favor kindness, sensitivity, intelligence, social consciousness and the like as being more important.

But, in what way?

Is it because these are chosen and bodies are not? But, surely, that is not true. Innate IQ is not chosen and while one can study to improve one’s intelligence, one can also work out in a gym. Even with regards to kindness and the like, we are who we are largely due to our DNA and influences on us in our life that were not our own doing.

Is it because these things are more important in life in a practical way? In what way is it important to have a sensitive partner? So that he or she will make you feel good? How is that different from attraction? The need for attraction is practical enough for me.

Is it because these qualities are altruistic ones and physical qualities are not? And, besides, how is intelligence, for example, altruistic. And, besides, not everything we do needs to be altruistic.

Drew_Kaplan said...

Sarah,
In your description of "Boy meets girl. Boy thinks girl is sweet, smart, interesting", I would have included the point about her looks. Guys tend to factor in the looks rather than leaving that out in their [at least] initial assessment.
You are clearly expressing your value when you say "He ends up asking out inferior woman he is attracted to", though she may be only inferior in the personality areas, but as a complete package - looks and personality - she may be a superior option for him.
Why do you think, for you, that "bodies matter more than they should"?
However, I must commend you on your comment that "we talk about it less than we should".

Sarah said...

Thanks for the comments. I agree with both of you that I am making somewhat of a leap when I say that attractiveness is less of a value than intelligence and good character are, but its probably because its an issue I actually come up against. That is, I rarely meet someone and think-gosh, he would be so great for me, if only he had a good head on his shoulders. No disjunct is felt, Im not attracted to them, period. Physical stuff can really complicate things, you can be crazy about someone and still have that "but" (at least I can). And I dont think evolutionary biology is all that relevant here, 100 years ago men would be singing a different tune in terms of body preferences, all different barometers of attractiveness have come in and out of style over the years. I recognize that I could be wrong, but in the face of all the complications of navigating through life, all the support and intelligence thats needed from a significant other, I still maintain, that "bodies matter more than they should."

Tova Stulman said...

Sarah- a great, great post. I agree with you that bodies matter more than they should, and I think it's a little scary that you won't end up with the person best for you, but the best person to whom you are attracted.Who knows what we could be missing out on because our society has instilled certain notions and ideas of attractiveness in us? And it is society instilled- look around the world, every culture has their own ideas of what is attractive, be it toned abs, tiny feet, long necks- what have you.
Just yesterday I saw a very good-looking guy on the train with a less than beautiful woman, and he was obviously enamored with her. I confess I did a double take, and then spent some time mentally congratulating that guy for seeing past the surface.Then I spent some time feeling silly that I was cheering that guy on for something that shouldn't be so rare or commendable, but is, unfortunately, in our society.
Finally, there was a great editorial in Time magazine a few weeks ago about mixed marriages- marriages with one "conventionally" attractive mate and one less than conventional beauty. It was a funny and interesting read, and probably online if anyone wants to read it.

Ellie said...

I found the article, if anyone is interested:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1615172,00.html

roller said...

Something Sarah's implying and Tova makes concrete bothers me. There is no such thing as a person who is "right" for you on one hand and a person who is "less right but more attractive" on the other. It doesn't exist. I feel adamantly about this. Saying you could be with a person who is "more right" if not for beauty is like saying you could be with someone "more right" if not for love. It's absurd and ends up negating the whole concept of "rightness" and renders relationship almost utilitarian. Why do we look for spouses or
boyfriends anyway? Company, emotional support, someone to develop with and give to, all that, but if you're going to claim aesthetics aren't part of that and that they're "more important than they should be" you're kidding. A house may be four walls and a roof, yet humans seem to consistently (we probably need to) decorate and beautify them. Same for our clothes. All they need to do is protect us from the elements. But then you have the universal (and I'm pretty sure it is universal) of fashion and decoration. Taken in this light, the suggestion that this should be something we discount in a partner seems inhuman and cruel, like mandating the color of everbody's walls or forcing everyone to wear a uniform. That may be fine if you want to run a military unit, but if you're dealing with the realm of human happiness and what will make a person feel good, how could I know what was right for me at all (whether it is a new apartment I'm looking at, a new suit, or a new friend) if the thing's appearance is not something I can think about? These things matter and they should matter just as much as any other factor that goes into deciding is "right" for you. The man whose aesthetic choice is to only date models may be shallow, but I don't think it can be said that he is not with the "right" person. I know i'm making a lot of unqualified things and that this needs further thought so I welcome questions and look forward to seeing how this develops.

Avi said...

I'm with Aaron on this one (actually on many things, now that I think about it)-- if you have to willfully ignore your biological impulses and aesthetic preferences to be with someone, that someone is not "right" for you.

But, while you need to be attracted to your spouse, there's a distinction between objective and subjective attractiveness and attraction. You can find someone attractive even if you are aware that most other people would not agree with you. Tova's guy on the train is probably attracted to the girl he's with, even if she's not conventionally good-looking, in which case he's not overcoming or overlooking something to be with her. So, on that count he probably shouldn't be given any credit at all. On the other hand, he is overlooking everyone else's perception of his girlfriend's looks which is not easy, which is where Sarah's point becomes most valid: Society's ideas about bodies, as they change all the time, matter more than they should.

I don't think it's rare for people to rate themselves at a certain aesthetic level and determine to date people only at their level or above. And that, I think, is a product of TV, movies, magazines, and gyms, though I'm sure it existed beforehand. By that model, you really could have people dating people only because of other people's perceptions about the disparity in their looks, or, more likely, people who would never date someone because of the perceived disparity, no matter how otherwise "right" (including potential attraction) the someone might be for them.

So, while I don't think bodies can matter too much in relationships, I think the opinion of convention (i.e. society as a whole) or the people around you about bodies can matter too much.

rochalka said...

sorry about the delayed reaction, but what caught my interest was this: "We are our bodies, hot people have hot personalities, likewise for plain people, looks condition the way you grow up and the way you think about yourself."
I beg to differ.
I have found time and again that "objective" looks do _not_ make the biggest difference in the way a person, in this case a girl, is perceived. The symmetry and delicateness of the facial features are rarely all that it takes to make a girl the center of attention, and even a toned body is not enough, or even necessary. I have repeatedly observed that the one most important contributing factor to how a girl is perceived is presentation - or how she carries herself, i.e. how she puts herself together, how she moves, how she speaks, how she flirts.
In fact, a girl can be not too bright, not too kind, and not too pretty either, and she will still collect swarms of guys around her. While a very sweet, very feminine, pretty girl, wearing a button-down shirt and laced up keds will always stay shyly on the sidelines, receiving no attention.

Yes, I grant you, our genetics can play cruel tricks on us, giving stunning looks to the most depraved of us and depriving the most upright of a narrow waistline and pretty face. Still, as much as men care about bodies, I have often seen them under the spell of feminine charms, forgetting about the magazine model they'd been imagining.

Just an observation - take it or leave it :)

rebecca m said...

I think we all can agree that physical attraction is essential. The problem is when people forget just how subjective attraction is, and don't give a person a chance.

There is a world of difference between refusing a first or second date because someone isn't "attractive enough" and entering into a long term relatonship with someone you aren't attracted too.

Anonymous said...

Superb post!

Question: At what point do looks not matter?
i.e. Does a (straight) man respond to another man - in business for example - according to his looks?
There are many incredibly influential men who are bad looking. Ben Gurion, Churchill, even Hitler! They were quite ugly! How does their charsima play? How about a Rabbi who guys think is inspirational and amzing but may look quite ugly! When do looks not matter?
And do women overlook the physical when they interact with other women, or are they also inflenced by the image concept?

Anonymous said...

I would just like to point out the difference between the guys' comments and the girls'/women's comments on this post. Everyone can draw their own conclusions.

Sarah said...

That IS interesting! What should we make of that? Writing this post I felt like I had a grip on what I was saying but now I have no idea.

Anonymous said...

While elypticizing at an UWS equinox, I pondered the body issue, and I think I may be able to shed some light on the nekudat hamachloket.

I think we, as sensible human beings, try to rationalize and simplify matters in a world that is infinitely complex. Even the greatest minds of our time were honest enough to throw up thier hands upon entering a quandary which is beyond thier comprehension. I believe love (and God) belong to the category which is beyond full comprehension.

Enlightenment thinkers, such as Voltaire, believed that everything (including love and God) can be understood using rationality. In the 18th century, as the scientific method began replacing superstition, such thought was highly attractive. But shortly after this period, the romantic era, with writer's like Dostoyevsky, testified to the "fact" that the world is far more complicated than us human folk can fully tackle.

Love, the pinnacle of human interaction, cannot be confined to a body issue. A mother loves her child regardless of body type. A (good) husband loves his wife regardless of postpardom weight-gain.

Dating, in the modern world, is an unspoken business deal. This is what I bring to the table - measured in beauty,intelligence, wealth, popularity, importance... how can you match or exceed me. If you can we wll date, and pleasure together. if not, not.

That is why I don't plan to date. But I will live my life and meet her on the way. I dont know what she looks like, but beneath the wedding canopy, she will be the most beautiful girl in the world.

Elliot M. Kaminetzky

BrownsvilleGirl said...

Seems I'm late to the party, but I'm going to share my bit too.

I'm curious to know what you meant when you said that oftentimes these guys will end up going for a girl who's "inferior". I have a few things to say on that matter, but I don't want to jump to conclusions so I'd rather know exactly what you meant first.
Despite what many teachers in all-girls schools try telling us, guys are neither dumb nor shallow. It's possible that even though you might not see a redeeming quality in the girls they end up interested in, there is one.

Another thing I want to point out even before you explain what you meant is that everyone has their strengths and weaknesses. Some girls, upon finding themselves in a competition, find it easier to exploit the weaknesses of the girls around them than to work on changing themselves. Others will focus more on showcasing their strengths and ignoring everyone else. But either way, no guy is going to land in your lap and you're not going to just land in some guy's lap, so it's always going to require work.

Sarah said...

Umm, when you talk about "some girls, upon finding themselves in a competition" are you talking about me? I agree, as you predicted, that ppl often have redeeming qualities we cannot see,and that noone is objectively "inferior" or "superior," I guess the point of that example was just to crystallize a feeling I think many people have had (but maybe I should have been clearer). Saying that things are "always going to require work," though true, kind of avoids looking at the complexities of a particular issue at hand. Maybe you would say that this issue is not worth addressing in all of its complexity, which I hear, but I dont think I agree.

BrownsvilleGirl said...

Oh boy. Sorry if you were offended--I wasn't referring specifically at you when I said "some girls, upon finding themselves in a competition." I just meant that in general.

As for the rest of your response, here's what I think (and it's all my opinion, so feel free to disagree as much as you care to): there are no complexities. People don't end up with the person who's best for them of the people they find attractive. They end up with the person who makes them laugh the most, challenges them intellectually the most, treats them best, is the most attractive, etc. It's a package people are looking for and even if one of the pieces is filled perfectly (the girl is hilarious or the guy is stunning, for example), that's not enough to sustain a real relationship. Everyone has at least one trait that is stronger than the others and they need to--excuse my chipperness but there's no other way to say this--totally work it. It's hard to figure out how to work what you have without being too overwhelming about it (and I don't mean that if you're a great baker you should bring cookies to every party you attend and mention to every guy you speak to that you make the best challah), but this is something everyone struggles with. I have my own struggles with relationships (or getting one) that until now I wasn't even able to put a finger on, but that's what I meant when I said it's always going to be work.