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]

I think that we hold intelligence on a higher pedestal than beauty because intelligence, in the end, is usually more useful a people as a whole.

[EddieV]

^ THen again, if a girl's beautiful, she doesn't need intelligence to succeed or rather, to get what she wants..

[x1049]

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

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

[*mipadi*]

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

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

But why not, exactly?

[*mona lisa*]

You shouldn't get everything because you are blessed with good physical features. Physical beauty isn't something someone has to work very hard for; you can't achieve it during the course of your life (unless you mean losing weight and staying fit or plastic surgery or something). I don't think people should be rewarded for physical beauty alone. I never watch beauty pageants so I may be wrong, but aren't talent and character looked at as well? I do, however, think that beauty pageants are given too much credit. There are tons of them and we need that many. I hold intelligence higher than beauty alone. I like Angelina Jolie because she's gorgeous and a humanitarian. But, I admire Queen Rania of Jordan even more. Why? Queen Rania has brains, to put it simply. I'm not saying Angelina doesn't so no one take it personally.

[*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.

[*mona lisa*]

You can't achieve beauty by going into modelling. Beauty alone is not what gets you into modelling either. And I've seen many models who are nowhere near pretty.

[*I Shot JFK*]

you cant achieve it, but you have to work damn hard to maintain it.

saying 'they aren't pretty' is no basis for an argument... its completely subjective.