Beauty as the Root of Justice

I want to explore the preposition that Beauty is the Root (cause) of Justice.

And that any and all notions of The Good are mere derivatives of realizing this fact.

Therefore, Beauty + Justice = Goodness.

I will start this Philosophical Inquiry with a simple observation of (my) life. Men feel the need to Judge women as either beautiful or ugly. But what this means to me, is different. And I think my meaning is what other men mean, when we consciously or subconsciously deem a woman as ‘beautiful’ or not. To judge that a woman is beautiful, is also a justification for an ideal of her beauty. In other words, beauty is only a method of idealizing what one seeks, and in this case of sexuality, a man seeking out a woman’s beauty, is also a justification for own drive toward her, and his need Of Her.

Therefore men, males, and masculinity is the controller of ‘Beauty’, as a real concept. Beauty is not in the “eye of the beholder”, but more in the eye of Mankind.

Furthermore, this becomes demonstrated by how Beauty is not the same concept, when females pick and choose males to mate with. Females, obviously, decide on a number of factors outside beauty, including access to resources (wealth), social status (aristocracy, nobility, royalty), profession (reputation earned by science, philosophy, religion, or art), physicality (warriors, soldiers, strong men), all which may have nothing to do with a man’s “beauty”. In fact, many ugly, yet comical men, can score chicks and get sex through jokes, alone. This is demonstrative of different sexual compulsions between men and women.

Ultimately though, the sexual conception of Beauty resides within Judgment. And this becomes absolute by matter of what male’s do, psychologically. We determine, rather quickly, whether a female is beautiful ‘yes’ or ugly ‘no’. Then, a male attempts to pursue relations with a female, based upon this immediate judgment. Again, the converse is not true for girls, females, and women.

The nature of a “feminine Judgment” is antithetical to classical, philosophical interpretations of judgment, including female’s place within society, in terms of Law, Religion, and Morality. For example, in the Roman Catholic traditions, there are no female bishops, priests, popes. And throughout united states history, very few or almost none, women serving as a Supreme Court Justice. Also, there has yet to exist a female President of the United States. Feminists will retort that “men have been holding us back”, but how long will this excuse endure, before people quit giving it any faith?

Regardless, Beauty and Judgment, in terms of logic, must coincide. Some will say that beauty is objective, while others say beauty is subjective. But both, whether objective or subjective, must be realized at least as judgments of the very essence, nature, and identity of another person is. And this is a very powerful ideal, if you really think about it for a few minutes. I hope you will have the concentration to do so, as this is a forum of thinkers.

But this is only the beginning. This presumption counts as a potential exploration of both what Beauty is, and what Justice is, and how the two of these concepts produce the very ideal of The Good.

Have you actually ever studied any real cases of law?

Extrapolation: During the formative stages of youth, males and females enter puberty and adolescence, at what particular time, the male begins to develop a sense of lust and yearning for sex with the opposite (female) gender. Females experience this stage as a surprising notion of Attention and Attention-seeking. While boys and girls used to get along without the concept of sexuality in the midst, before the sexual formative stages (younger than 13), childish ‘play’ consists of asexual activities. Or at least this can be contended without resistance. Females are surprised that these breasts are growing on their chest, their vaginas are bleeding, and that males look, er…stare at them with a new fixation and “Evil” intention in mind. The old playtime that young males and females were once accustomed becomes changed. This is just about when males and females take to opposite sides of the Middle School dance ballroom.

There has been a divorce during this stage of sexual development, and that is, that a boy and girl can no longer be “friends” as once defined. The very ideal, and realistic application of friendships, in the form of social relationships, changes for the male, but not for the female. The female doesn’t understand that in the male minds, the sexually lusting minds, that their (feminine) worth has changed. They are no longer Compatriots in a hostile world, but are themselves hostile between the newly formed essence of their Sexuality.

Boys begin their fantasization of the opposite gender during these years. The Ideal of Beauty, the very seeds of it, I suspect, begin to grow out of this period of maturity. The aspect of a sexual, beauty Judgment comes much later in life. Meanwhile, the adolescent male, with testosterone raging, and his body of a boy changing into the corded strength of a man, begins to learn the harsher realities, while females remain cushioned, and protected, from their own nature. Young men “show off” to protect young women, and also, to seduce them. Also the Evil intentions, harbors of the rape instinct, are repressed in males. Males are disallowed, socially, to enact their sexuality against the social limits of society itself.

Repression of masculinity begins at this stage. In today’s degenerate american society, this repression remains permanent with no relief. The american male no longer has any “Rite of Manhood”, as is common in almost every culture, society, and religion throughout the world. Thus, the american male tends to stay transfixed into a ‘boyish’ state. And we are not encouraged to “transcend” this state into the identity of “Man”. Or at the very least, this has become an exponential challenge, in terms of an evolving world, and evolving cultural oppression.

Extrapolation: At the beginning of the formulative sexual stage of males, males lack the Experience to properly “Judge” beauty. Thus type of beauty cannot be called “Beauty Proper”, but rather an immature and undeveloped form of it, and therefore an immature and undeveloped form of “Justice” as well. Both of these concepts, Justice and Beauty, will become defined by the masculinity nature itself, through its expressed sexuality, and imposition against an entire world of repression. The only relief from this type of repression, is the sex act itself, and the willingness of one female to accept a particular male, over others, through the sex act. This imposition is realized in many different ways.

Regardless, young males feel the urge to have sex, and cannot. Therefore, sexual repression begins as the struggle in a male’s life, that he will endure until the day he dies, and is sent to his grave. Or he becomes castrated. Or he becomes mentally, emotionally, or spiritually castrated, by the various and endless different types of social institutions designed to control his sexual libido.

Social taboos, and social relationships, including adult work relationships, revolve around a congruence between childhood playtime between males and females, adolescence curiosity, and the responsibility of adulthood. So the work-relationship of american males and females must take on these three different parts: childhood, adolescence, and adulthood. Males still feel sexually attracted to coworkers, but the relationship has changed once again.

We’ll return to this point much later, hopefully after we inquire into the nature of Justice itself.

Extrapolation: the reason ‘Beauty’ becomes distinct between males and females, between our conceptions, is due to the nature of sexual lust. When males and females begin the initial phase of sexual development, and begin to desire sex or express sexuality, both males and females realize this in different ways, beginning with different qualitative types of restriction and repression.

I have addressed aspect of sexuality here: The Usurper Complex

Although adolescent boys and girls, teenagers, want to have sex with each other undoubtedly, the core essence of sexuality is, always has been, and always will, exist within the family dynamic, and how sexual control over oneself is rooted in a child’s relation to his/her parents. Parents are the epitomized beings of sexuality, as, they are the actual producers of biology, whereas The State (public school) is merely the metaphorical and figurative replacement of it. This fact represents underlying religious and cultural trends, in how Surrogate Parents and Extended Family operates.

The State has also attempted, over the previous century, to wrest control of “sexual education”, by entering into a new competition against Parents.

This, I believe, is due to the overwhelming failure of american religious traditions, and the inability of Christian faiths to reassert the more vital aspects of their core beliefs, concerning sexuality, against other cultural institutions.

Mankind controls the concept of Beauty, because it is a need rooted in the masculine gender itself, and is itself foreign and absurd to females. Because a female’s capacity To Judge the world is presumed to be Unreasoned and Illogical. Many feminists will disagree with this, yet, history proves my case quite readily, obviously, and adamantly. If I am right, and it’s almost undoubtedly true that I am, then the feminist and female stance that “Society controls Beauty” is flawed in the sense that males and men may not represent society itself! Because males are at odds with the very function of “Society”. As society is the ultimate force that seeks to oppress male sexuality, and use a male’s lust against himself. This causes Self Hate, and will lower the self esteem of men who are unintelligent enough to escape or endure sexual oppression.

Reason, I will theorize here and now, is the result of this very sexual oppression. And the male need to acquire Reason, is also rooted in his desperation to understand the full essence of the force that seeks to control his Sexuality, and oppress it, from the outside-in.

This point is sufficient already.

Exception: The exception to this above rule, is the lack of experience a male has, upon the introduction of his sexual libido during his adolescent state. He has no experience of sexual feeling, and also no manner of sexual catharsis or relief. Masturbation is the predictable outcome of this occurrence, unless introduced to males alternative means for sex. This is where true, real, and practical “Sexual Education” exists. Furthermore, if a father does not ‘guide’ the sexuality of his sons, then emasculation must follow. Because the male urge to have sex is universal and Non Discriminating.

In fact, males, by this observation are the least discriminating type of creature to exist, by and how, the male urge “to fuck” also exists. Males are known to have sex with, literally, anything, including dead people or animals (Necrophilia).

Sexual perversion, obviously, is a sign of a complete lack of sexual “guidance”. Whereas religious institutions such as the Roman Catholic Church used to harness this masculine sexual power of bygone ages, now degenerate american culture has replaced Control for a complete lack of Control or direction. Homosexuality is the inevitable result of males who want to have sex, yet no cultural force exists to placate them. Why not have sex with other males, and sodomy becomes rampant in a degenerate culture, when that is the “very purpose of sex”, as educated by a new clergy of sexual perverts, all reiterating similar perverted principles throughout society? The truth is, however, is that american culture has been infiltrated by, and subverted by, those “Feminists”. And adult women are attempting to “control male sexuality”, whereas this is a job and role for a Father figure (“God”), not a Mother figure (“Nature”). When a mother attempts to control male sexuality, dysfunction will arise. Just in how a father attempting to control the sexuality of his daughters, will also result in an inevitable perversion.

The Father ought to direct the sexuality of his son.
The Mother ought to direct the sexuality of her daughter.

The Postmodern, degenerate american metanarrative no longer allows for this as a “Father” and “Mother” have both become non-engendered “things”. Father is made into a “parent” and Mother is made into a “parent”. So two things see their sons and daughters as things. And things are what the formerly human race has become, non-engendered “things”. And things reproduce, somehow, although people seem to have forgotten how.

Nevermind that.

The Deconstruction of Gender, induced by this foreign, outsider mentality to western culture, cannot properly conceive of Beauty or Gender by non-engendered objects. It will not make sense in the end, and I will prove it an absurdity, by the propositions I have yet to unveil. Beauty is an extension of Judgment. And it is a rendering of Man’s will against a foreign and unknown environment. The divorce between males and females, teenagers, in their formulative stage, eventually result in the very conception of “Judgment”, by males, over what he deems beautiful. And this very notion of Beauty will direct the majority of his life, in learning to discriminate, what type of female he ought to pursue, over another, in an age of plentiful sexual “choice”. In fact, over population may be a positive thing, in terms of Beauty, and therefore in terms of Judgment and Reason.

This question will go unanswered, as feminists are intellectual cowards and weaklings.

If women admit Self Responsibility, then the very statement of this, by women, and the repetition of this, will also exist a logical proof of it.

But the lacking statements, and (spiritual/religious) Conviction of females, prevent them from doing this. It comes down to a matter of Faith.

And…self esteem.

Extrapolation: Whether Beauty is objective or subjective ultimately will not matter, as beauty becomes grounded in the notion of Male Judgment over his Female Environment. In fact, the dichotomy can become reasserted as: Male <> Female, Judgment <> Environment. Judgments are Artificial for this reason, and exist “outside of nature”. Males are logical, rationale, reasoning agents.

Due to the psychology of judgment, and beauty.

Seems like you havn’t made any real life studies of law.


The topic of Law will follow much later in this philosophical inquiry, after we have sufficiently broached the conceptions of Beauty, Judgment, Reason, and Justice. Because Law is an extension of Justice. And I will eventually claim that these concepts proceed from each other in a set order, all based upon the sexual catharsis of Beauty, and why it exists within Nature itself. I will explain the Cause of beauty, and therefore, connect Beauty to Justice, and hopefully even The Good.

So understanding this correctly, you want to make something up based on free imagination, before actually studying any solid facts.

Seems Cezar now has someone to go medival on.

I have all the arguments, rationale, and logic in my head. I just haven’t written it all out yet. Ever have a novel stuck in your brain, and you just haven’t taken the time to write it yet??

Yes there are many who have some masterpiece stuck in their head, but never wrote it down.

What you need is to write it down for others to see it as a rational thing that makes sense. As of now it seems very illogical and incoherent.

We could perhaps use beauty as an ideal and one that itself doesn’t need explaining.

We aim for beauty in the world, thus anything deemed ugly would be against that pursuit.

A simple example for conciseness; if a mugger makes you feel bad, cuts your face with a knife, then he has made ugliness twice in the world.

Hmm, it seams we have to define ugliness, and that presents the same problems as defining beauty.

If we didn’t attempt such a definition would there remain a problem?

It will make complete sense soon enough, after I lay out the central premises of these hypotheses.

It doesn’t need “explained” as much as it needs Rationalized.

Essentially, yes.

The problem is definition, yes. But what is sought, is not the definition per se, but rather the experience and realization of Beauty.

I don’t need to define a woman, in order for her to become beautiful before my eyes, and for my mind to swim in a swamp of ecstasy within the presence of her.

I walk down the street, and behold, I see her approaching me, a Goddess. I want to seduce her, ravage her, and induce my sexuality into her. By my progeny, I become immortal through woman. This is the proper relationship between Man and Woman. But Man does not fall in complete love with every woman he sees, does he, or do you??? No. Instead, you see one woman, and judge her Ugly to yourself. And you see another woman, and you judge her Beautiful to yourself.

So we can explore why and how this is so. We can understand the very nature of sex, by how beauty and ugliness exist.

Point #1, The psychological development of males and females are different. While the pubescent male discovers his sex drive, or his “Will To Sex”, the pubescent female discovers her Passive Beauty. Some females will begin to “take shape” while others remain lagging behind or stagnant in their adolescent development. This is when true (sexual) beauty first appears. And males begin to Lust after the more sexually attractive females of the bunch. Thus these sexually attractive females, become popular, for no other reason than their innate, passive beauty.

Postulation: But people do not understand the nature of this “Beauty” or sexual attraction, yet. Even today, the concept of Beauty becomes lost to cowardly thinkers, who cannot or will not, dig deeper into this concept. By understanding Beauty, one will begin to understand the nature and dominion of woman over man, in the same way that man develops his own dominion over woman, in kind. Later on, this (male) dominion will appear as innate, human Morality. His sexual conduct will become the normative measure of his worth, as a “human being”.

Point #2, This also appears in the Politics of Males, as young males tend towards Idealism and Liberalism. This represents a social, cultural, and religious denial to access to sex. Because young males are spurned from sex, and prevented from engaging in it, by the Male Authority of the State institution, as well as parents, or religion, or other cultural norms, including racism, classism, genderism, sexism, any type of -ism, the Male Libido becomes repressed into an outlet coinciding with how the world ought to become rather than how it is. During this stage, idealism becomes granted to those already deemed by society at this developmental stage who are ‘Unfit’ or ‘Fit’ to breed into a new generation of becoming.

For example, the High School Football Captain, is ‘Fit’ to breed, and therefore, if he has unprotected sex with a cheerleader, then a pregnancy becomes (subconsciously) forgiven by the larger community. In this way, those young males ‘Fit’ to breed, already exist within a sexually Conservative state of mind. And this becomes exposed later, as young males grow within society, to become Liberals or Conservatives.

Conservative males are those ‘Fit’ to breed. And males who do not, become excluded from the nature of society, via the existence of alpha and dominant males. The overarching institution itself, of Religion and State, ultimately commands who will receive what type of sexuality. Because the position of males within society does not begin or end during this formulative stage of development, but rather becomes an extension of it throughout adulthood and other areas of life.

Point #3, Traditionally, Classically, and Conservatively, the possession of sexuality must always begin with the parents themselves as Progenators of youth. It is not Religion per se, or God, or The State. Rather these secondary institutions attempt to step-in and therefore intrude upon the Privacy of the Home, and the Welfare of Families. The State and Religious power has grown throughout time, as these institutions attempt to impose superior? forms of Morality against people, in an attempt to divide them, their loyalty, and to replace any such fragmented loyalty, with the substitute institution.

Religion, however, has a more justified and legitimate reason for doing this than “The State”.

Point #4, Adults subconsciously ‘hate’ or ‘detest’ the sexuality inherent within children. It is offensive, because, it is Free or a memory of the feeling of complete Sexual Freedom. In a time before socialistic repression, and the time before parental oppression, children cannot understand the notion of sexuality, until it becomes avoided in conversation, made into a taboo, made into guilt, made into shame, until the time for sexual adolescence comes. And when it does come, parents and adults seek to control this sexuality in a way they themselves have bought into the system of their own sexual oppression. Thus emerges the true essence of ‘Society’, as, a complete system of Sexual Oppression.

This even appears between races, and how blacks and whites sexually interact with one-another, or not. For example, it was a great social stigma, not long ago, that blacks and whites should never consider the notion of intermixing, sexually. But this is just one, minor example of the control of sexuality society has over all of “her” children.

Point #5, In a sexually perverse, degenerate, hedonistic age such as ours, with the deconstruction of the American family, by those “Feminists”, nothing is more ‘wrong’ with sexuality, except the typically and normative Male Sexuality. Because feminists have attempted to undermine deeper cultural norms, such as the Christian Ethos. While Christians posit that the nature of Mankind is inherently “Evil”, the Feminists, that foreign element within western society, posits that the nature of Mankind is inherently “Good”. What both of these accounts fails to consider, is that Gender is the differentiation between “good” and “evil”.

Because one group posits that women, females can do no “wrong” within their sexuality. This is a potentially fatal mistake, in terms of child development, society, culture, and religious belief.

I died for beauty, but was scarce
Adjusted in the tomb,
When one who died for truth was lain
In an adjoining room.

He questioned softly why I failed?
“For beauty,” I replied.
“And I for truth - the two are one;
We brethren are,” he said.

And so, as kinsmen met a-night,
We talked between the rooms,
Until the moss had reached our lips,
And covered up our names.

Emily Dickinson

tagicomic, are you saying that sexuality determines the Rule of Law?

Are you saying that a woman’s beauty resides only in her sexuality? And that her sexuality is really nothing more than her ability to re-produce?

Do you really feel that way when you walk down the street and see a woman who appeals to you? If so, I think you ought to excuse yourself from any jury duty in a trial that involves any female–either as witness or as defendant–your thoughts will be just too biased in favor of the female.

BTW, I find your posts in the thread to be denigrating toward both men and women.


Mostly, yes. You’ll see as the premises become unveiled.

Not exactly, but close enough, yes. I have not yet broached the subject about “Beautiful Actions”. Even though a mother can be physically and superficially ugly, she also can have a spiritual beauty within her actions. And if the actions of a person are Good thus Beautiful, then this offers an ulterior opportunity for anyone to become Just. In other words, Beauty can become found in the superficial image of anything, as well as the event of something.

That’s something I plan to discuss in detail.

Are you joking??? You’re a woman, so you can’t know what it’s like for men. But if all males are like me, then yes, when we see a gorgeous or beautiful woman, then we do want to do all kinds of ‘Sinful’ things to them. That is why Man is inherently Evil, and Woman is inherently Good, in our degenerate Western culture. Man seeks out sexuality, according to his libido. Women do not have a libido, but rather a ‘cycle’ of ovulation. They’re entirely different things and entirely different states of minds (psychology).

Males and females actually do not “think” the same, at all. It’s completely and utterly different. People seduced into the ideal that all are “equal”, falsely believe that people also think the same too. We don’t. Males and females actually think differently. And everybody thinks differently too. No two brains are equal, ever. Not even identical twins think the same.

No, you have this all wrong here. It is because I recognize the nature of Judgment itself, and its difference between men and women, males and females, that gives me a better capacity To Judge than it would for another person. A person has to practice judgment, in order to carry out Judgment. It’s no trivial thing.

And even if it is rooted in the sexual desire, between men and women, that is beside the point of what we’re talking about. Men and women will be shown to “Judge” different things in different ways. And beauty is not just a composition and quality of a visage, but also the composition of actions, and of souls. Some people have beautiful “minds” and beautiful “souls”. A pretty face sure maybe pretty, but what about a pretty face who is also stupid, lazy, immoral??? Then does this still count as “Beautiful”? I will go on to say: no. It doesn’t.

Because beauty has a dual nature: Passive and Active beauty, kind of like Potential or Kinetic force. Beauty is a quality of personhood that requires Maintenance. This is something that I believe, no philosophy prior, has truly investigated.

That’s because you have “judged” me too early, and unfairly.

As per typical of somebody untrained in judgment, you have Judged my argument without seeing it through.

It should have been clear that I have not even asserted my premises yet. But you are young, probably, and a woman. So I won’t hold it against you. :smiley:

Become patient before making any second Judgment.

A proper Judge must wait until all arguments are “on the table” first. You have to require and demand all the information, evidence, and witnesses, in order to know the truth here.

My upcoming premises which connect ‘Beauty’ and ‘Justice’ through judgment, ought to become persuasive and difficult to reject.

That’s a pretty big if, really, given that (in the words of an astute observer of mankind):

I’m pretty sure I don’t want to impregnate every beautiful woman I see.

Of course, the obvious-to-the-point-of-downright-pedestrian retort is that I really do, I’m just in denial/unable to see the higher truth/socialised to the point of being a eunuch, but that’s a fairly uninteresting line of inquiry as it may be it’s you who are confused/unable/socialised etc.

Pending further explanations, I think the assumption “if all males/intelligent people/whatever are like me” is a fairly dangerous step in any chain of thinking. If philosophy does not challenge ones personal assumptions, prejudices and perceptions, I certainly get suspicious. :slight_smile:

If it were true that you don’t feel that way, then why offer concessions as if it were an excuse to not?? My point is a generalized one here, if not a universal one. Consider the nature of male libido. If a given male is born into the world, and does not develop a ‘libido’, or a “healthy libido” at least, then he will not “perform” when the time comes for him to have sex and successfully copulate. So this is a case of Nature and Evolution. Males who are impotent, and do not have a sufficient sex drive, will not reproduce, objectively so. This is not a subjective case analysis. So when applying this general rule of male libido against a universal principle, it makes more than enough sense to presume the male libido as a standard, and any deficiency or perversion of it (like homosexuality), will not produce in sexual reproduction. That at least is common sense.

So in your case, maybe you have less libido than I do? Maybe you’re older? Maybe your body doesn’t produce as much testosterone? We can get into these fine details, not just in our cases, but in all cases of men too. Rather my point towards a universal proposition, is, that the male sex drive itself is originally setup to have sex with “beautiful” females. Maybe you don’t find many females beautiful? Maybe you find males beautiful? I don’t know, until you justify your own sense of sexual lust, towards any notion of Beauty.

Because some males do find other things “beautiful”, including homosexuals who have come to idealize the male form, in a feminine way.

The outline of this thread will include these types of outliers in it. Because the point is about beauty-itself. It doesn’t really matter whether it’s true that all men have the same libido and sexual capacity. We don’t, obviously. Rather, I can use myself as an example, of a male, and generalize a rule based upon what I observe, experience, and know. And I know that men, generally, almost always, will say one thing in public, and another thing in private, about wanting to have sex with “that beautiful piece of meat”. Males say one thing in public, and another thing in private. So again, I could even use this fact to dispute or doubt your claim.

But even accepting it, it begs the question about your conception of beauty. If you see a beautiful woman, that you idealize, and do not want to have sex with her, then does this mean you only want to have sex with ‘ugly’ women, or whatever your sexual preference? Because that’s what you’re implying. You’re implying, that despite a woman being beautiful to you, that it has no sexual connotation. And I don’t see how that’s possible. So you are forced to explain yourself here, how “beauty” does not coincide with a sexual impulse, based upon your own ideals of beauty.

Beautiful or Ugly? … omen_A.jpg

Beautiful or Ugly? … n_bug.jpeg

Beautiful or Ugly?

revelationsinwriting.files.wordp … -swamp.jpg

Your judgments, whether you tell me them or not, are the essence of your soul. What you believe to become beautiful, innately, defines you as a human being, a man, and as a person.

I only need to resort to science on this one, concerning Evolution. If a male cannot produce, due to a lack in his libido, then he will not produce, and is therefore evolutionary unfit, whether of his own “choice” or not doesn’t matter.

Regardless, he will have a notion of beauty, probably. And my claims won’t change. It can be, and will be, as I show it, rooted in his underlying sexual desires.

Women do the same, mostly, but from an entirely different mentality and system of internal justification.

Because this is a discussion board, and certain responses are clearly to be anticipated. So I anticipate them.

Genes that code for reproductively-inferior characteristics can still have a net reproductive advantage. I would be surprised if a conception of beauty is entirely genetically determined, given the speed and spread of fashions and tastes outstripping evolution by an order of magnitude or more.

This begs the question. You have yet to show that “sexually desirable” and “beautiful” are one and the same, you can’t show this by making someone define their sexual preferences in terms of beauty.

I find certain pieces of music beautiful that don’t sexually arouse me. I find certain buildings, paintings, musical instruments and landscapes beautiful without wanting to make love to them. I may find a view beautiful at sunrise on a misty morning, and depressing on a rainy afternoon. Have you never seen a beautiful child?

Maybe you hang out with dishonest, sexually-compulsive misogynists? I know plenty of men who in private don’t talk about “beautiful pieces of meat”. And there are many cultures in which that is what men say in public, whereas perhaps in private they long for (say) companionship and warmth. As I say, you’re welcome to your assumptions, but they’re not assumptions that strike a chord with me.

No, that’s what you’re implying, with the assumption that beauty is merely the name we give to psychosexual incontinence.

I’m saying there is no necessary sexual connotation. Often there is. If we accept the proposition that what I call beautiful is whatever I want to fuck, it’s necessary, but as I said, that’s begging the question. And it’s clearly not the case that that is so.

You need to consider types of beauty. Clothing, for example, and other cultural fads, are not the “essence of beauty” per se, as we would rather state, that women themselves are (entities of beauty). Therefore, you have to focus on the more, or most common association. People generally refer to beautiful things as…other people. There is a reason for this. It’s not out of nowhere. And people don’t just go around thinking or feeling, “ohhhh, that bug is sooo beautiful, ohhh that garbage can is sooo beautiful, ohhh that blade of grass is sooo beautiful.” Think about that type of person, or thought process. What is its discrimination? What is its basis for judgment?

That doesn’t matter. Because men do define our sexual preferences in terms of beauty, sometimes. And the amount of times men do this, is debatable. And we can argue about which men feel what, when, and for whom. But it generally is true, and I bet you believe this, that at least a few men find a woman sexually attractive insofar as she is also beautiful to him.

Now, based on a few, we can then generalize from there. I will state, as I have, that most or all men think this way, and feel this way, based upon their sexual desires. Now you made the counter-claim that “I, Only Humean, find some women beautiful but not sexually attractive.” You need to justify this argument. Because it doesn’t even matter if you’re correct or not. All I have to do here, is take the examples of men who do find women sexually attractive, also beautiful. Because the point of the discourse, is how beauty itself becomes judged, and apparent.

Therefore, it will be a matter of contention why and how certain men are attracted to certain, specific beauty markers.

Some men prefer women with blonde hair, some prefer women with black hair. Now, even in this example, we have many, many outlets to explore.

Meanwhile, you may justify your counter-argument as you deem fit. I hope you will, to show your active interest and involvement on this topic.

Why? What do you find “beautiful” about a sunset or sunrise. You need to explain yourself.

And, after you do explain yourself, then compare what you have deemed beautiful about the sunset, to also be similar to you deeming a woman beautiful.

I can short-cut your arguments though, and I will. You are objectifying nature. And therefore, you are objectifying women too, reducing the “subject” of woman, into a “woman-object”. Some would claim that this is demeaning to women, and that you are a misogynist for doing so (for claiming some women are beautiful, while others are not). I believe most people disconnect objectification from a judgment of beauty. But it’s a necessary distinction to make here. People compartmentalize, and even deny to themselves, what they find to become beautiful.

What people may not admit, is that they find something beautiful, like an evil person, who once had repulsed them, or still do repulse them. Can one find beauty in Evil??? These are the types of questions which will pop up within this discourse.

I don’t really find children beautiful. But I do find eyes, irises, beautiful. I am most interested in eye shapes and iris colors.

Or maybe I hang out with honest, normally vigorous men?

Are they straight?

So you basically are claiming that you are not sexually attracted to women you find beautiful???

If you are not claiming that, then I don’t see your disagreement here.

You’re going to need to expalin, in detail, how you find certain women beautiful, why, how, and why you don’t want to have sex with them.

With me, it’s very, very easy for me to explain to everybody. When I see a beautiful woman, usually young, usually healthy looking, longer hair preferable than shorter hair, then I do want to ravage her all ways from sunday. I want to Sin against Our Lord, when I see her. The reason I don’t, is also simple, usually because I’d go to jail if I acted out my impulses. I have to repress them, constantly, all the time in fact. Everyday, I have to repress and repress and repress. I believe all males feel this way, about our sexual impulses, based on how high your testosterone levels are. Maybe you don’t have a high testosterone level? I probably do. And maybe it sucks. But it also does have some (genetic, evolutionary) benefits, including, having lots of sex. Sex feels good. That’s why it’s sinful.

Pleasure is bad and evil. But this is neither here nor there. Nevermind that.

That’s not the extent of it. I will claim, already, that beauty is a psychopathic reaction to life, in such a way that objectifies certain experiences, and relates these experiences to the premise of the sex drive, based on Pleasure.

This, I’ve heard, is referred to as “The Pleasure Principle”. The problem is when people confuse the meaning of the word and concept, of “beauty”. Beauty, like many other words, does not mean the same thing to many different people. This problem will also need to become clarified, by investigating beauty itself.

I can see that. My premises ought to deter your disbelief about this.

So let’s investigate and see why this is. Why are beautiful women also sexually attractive? And are ugly women also sexually attractive?

And what is beauty anyway? Are things and images only beautiful, or can actions themselves be “beautiful”? Can a person act beautifully???

It’s not the case to you. But it is the case to me. So this can become reduced to subjectivity. But I won’t entertain that.

We’re going for an objective definition of Beauty here, otherwise, there isn’t much of a point to discussion, or even inquiry into the nature of beauty.

Most people probably believe that beauty is subjective and “in the eye of the beholder”. I don’t necessarily believe this.

I don’t even think that this is the case. Is beauty a more significant descriptor of people, or of the arts? Or is it simply the case by assertion?

Wait, I need to justify something but it doesn’t matter whether I do or not? I don’t think I’ll bother, since you’re not interested.

Simply put, men often find women sexually attractive who they don’t find beautiful. Try going out to a bar sometime.

My point is that there is nothing physically similar, and the subjective feeling they both generate in common is not sexual desire.

Haha, you reduce a woman’s beauty to sexual desirability and I’m the one objectifying them? Nice try. I’m out.