From: idx009@cck.coventry.ac.uk (the Crisco Kid)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: Bears and Lookism (was: Marky Mark)
Date: 18 Nov 92 19:25:45 GMT
Organization: Eris's Restaurant

In article <1992Nov17.213558.4677@godel.questor.wimsey.bc.ca> aberno@godel.questor.wimsey.bc.ca writes:
>Interesting discussion. How about the perspective of someone who is ugly?  

But first you'll have to find someone who'll come out as ugly...

>You yourself insulted Marky Mark as being "ugly", following it up by  
>"UGH". The fate of bears is not *nearly* so difficult as those who simply  
>do not have marketable looks at all. Bears have at least some exposure in  
>mainstream gay media, and also have their own cultural institutions. How  
>many porn magazines, advertisements, or TV shows do you see featuring  
>amputees? People with port-wine birthmarks on their faces? Ones that  
>simply are ugly? Your discussions of the marginalization of bears will  
>carry no weight until you stop making such expressions of lookism. 

Reasonable points.  However, amputee porn is available here in the UK,
if you know where to look for it, and very sexy some of it is, too.
I haven't seen any porn with someone with a PWB that I can remember
(though that's not to say that I haven't; it's just not a specific
Yum or Ug for me), though there are plenty of freckled models.  And
that's a point; so many freckled persons that I've spoken to feel
deeply that their freckles are truly ugly, and make *them* ugly, whereas
I feel quite the reverse.  I'd buy them from them if I could!
(Anyone want to do a swap of red curly hair, green eyes and freckles for
straight dark hair, blue eyes and easy-tanning skin?)

>As a person who is very often attracted to those that are *quite* far from  
>what any media source considers marketable, it absolutely kills me to see  
>how absolutely devastating media (and interpersonal) lookism can be to an  
>individual. Personal tastes are fine; like you, I have no sexual taste for  
>the hairless set. But saying "ugh" is just plain cruel. 

Cruel?  I don't think so.  One has to accept that, whatever one's looks,
some people are going to swoon over them, most will be indifferent, and
some will go Ug.  Why should I care if someone doesn't drool over my looks?
it's little loss to me.  The only place where I would think true hardship
over looks might occur would be in the restriction of employment based
on looks (models, and so forth), where someone might be denied employment
because they didn't "look right for the job".  That would be legitimate
cause for complaint.  But devastating?

>So if you are going to complain about the invisibility of bears, think  
>twice about the way you speak of others.

But isn't there here some matter of this Mark chap (upon whom I've never
set eyes, and so I must remain neutral) being a "public figure"?  Certainly
here in the UK, consideration in cases of libel is given to whether the
plaintiff is a "public figure", whose nature, actions, and opinions are
somewhat in the public interest, and who may therefore be legally subject
to statements which, if made of a non-public figure, would have been
libellous?  In plainer words: if he has set himself up to sell his visual
attractiveness, then his attractiveness (or lack of it) is a matter for
fair public comment.  This, I'd say, would include utterances like Ug
as much as those like Yum.

-- 
6'2", dark short hair, blue eyes, bisexual and horny as ....
Kay Dekker, Dept of Industrial Design, Coventry University, Coventry UK
37 Old Winnings Road, Keresley Village, Coventry   |B0 f t+ g++ k++! s+ e r p!
Phone: +44 203 838668 (work) +44 203 337865 (home) |Deflowerer-of-innocents
Newsgroups: soc.motss