MovieChat Forums > Hitch (2005) Discussion > I've Never Understood This

I've Never Understood This

posted 16 years ago by Cinemashot
1 reply | jump to latest

Definately a fun movie. However, I've noticed the same issue keeps coming up on every thread: Beauty vs. Personality (why don't more women...?)

The argument is always something about how most men are concerned with looks and physical beauty, while most women care about a "nice personality". What I could never understand is why the latter (personality) is considered the better/purer of the two; looks are superficial, and such.

At first I thought it was about equal opportunity, how some people can't be "beautiful". Not true, not by a long shot. It's much easier to change your appearance than to change your personality (assuming you need to change anything). People can loose weight, shave, shower (please do!), tone muscle, dress appropriately, use more or less makeup, even get surgery if you're so inclined.

Wanting someone to like your personality is an entirely different ballgame.
We've all heard the same pathetically patronizing platitudes (try saying that fast ): "Just be yourself", "The right person will come along", "They just don't know the real you", "You're fine the way you are"...

Uh-huh, and our rebuttal:

1. Being "ourself" is what kept us single all that time.
2. Nobody knows that, and even so why should we have to wait for other people to "come around"?
3. It's on the shelf, but no one's buying.
4. Apparently not (see answer #1).

I'm not saying not to improve yourself. We can ALL improve SOMETHING. It's like Hitch said though, "you can't use what you don't have. If you're shy, be shy. If you're outgoing, be outgoing." Case in point: If my girl want's me to grow a goatee or start lifting, I will. Hey, if she's working to stay thin I should reciprocate (appearance/looks). If, however, she tells me to stop listening to my new wave collection... (change of personality)

Not trying to make accusations or play the victim card (I HATE "victims", martyrs, whiners, etc.). I'm just saying I think picky is picky. The only thing different in the looks vs personality argument is the criteria. We're still judging each other based on our own preferences. Why is one considered more "selfless" than the other?

P.S.
I never get involved in online arguments. Maybe I'm just bored

Only Imperial Stormtroopers are so precise.

[–] unapologetic_mocker 12 years ago

What I could never understand is why the latter (personality) is considered the better/purer of the two; looks are superficial, and such.

Why is one considered more "selfless" than the other?

I get where you're coming from but to be honest your reasoning, while it could initially seem reasonable and well considered, is just silly.

Looks are superficial because that's what the word means, concerned with the surface. Whether it's better to focus on looks over character is a matter of opinion and certainly a point you can debate but whether it's superficial or not isn't open for discussion, it's inherent in its very definition.

As to why it's considered better or more 'selfless', I find it unnerving that this has to be explained but it's because you're in complete control of your character and thoughts but not your appearance. It's purer because it exists independent of your exterior environment, where as the elements of your appearance are at the whim of your external environment and can be stripped away by means outside your control, despite the naïve "solutions" you suggest.