What isn't superficial? Options

[*mipadi*]

Last night I was watching Tiara Girls on MTV, because I'm a sheep and I swallow anything MTV throws at me. One of the girls (or "losers", if you will) on the show said, "How can they get to know me in three minutes? How can the pageant judges get to know me in three minutes?" And I thought, "Hm, that does suck. Those judges are pretty superficial." And then I caught myself: What isn't superficial about a beauty pageant?

But then I thought maybe that was unfair. We give other people awards for their in-born talents in certain areas, such as academics, sports, and art. Why do I find giving awards for beauty so distasteful? Civilizations since the ancient Greeks--and probably even before that--have held beauty in high regards (the face that launched a thousand ships and all that). Is physical beauty something that we shouldn't respect or even reward? And if not, how is it inherently different than other traits, such as intelligence or athletics, that we do reward? Intelligence, like beauty, is a combination of both in-born traits and work, so why does winning an award for academics seem so much different than winning one for physical beauty? Why do I still hold intelligence and artistic talent, or even athletic prowess, in higher regards than beauty?

[x1049]

"- is more useful to a people as a whole."

also: beauty does not and SHOULD NOT get you everything.

[*I Shot JFK*]

"- is more useful to a people as a whole."

also: beauty does not and SHOULD NOT get you everything.

well, like michael said, why?

and anyway, even if it should not get you everything, doesnt mean it doesnt, which doesnt mean it is useless

lets ask kate moss, which as a whole has been more useful to her: he rbeauty or her brains, shall we?

Physical beauty isn't something someone has to work very hard for;

bull. the kind of perfection it takes to make it to the top of a beauty-driven profession, such as modelling, ii hugely demanding to achieve and maintain.