Investment in Aesthetics

[7Wannabe5]

Edith Keeler said: Overall, I'm satisfied with how I am. I have no idea where I fall in the continuum of women my age, but I don't really care. I'm pretty content with how I look and feel.

BTDT. This is how I am dealing or responding to the stress of being in some kind of relationship with 3 very attractive men at the same time, and feeling like they are kind of circling in, or establishing set orbits, due to increasing proximity, intimacy and duration of relationships. Here are the kinds of things that are happening in my world. Because I will not have sex with the Peacemaker in a situation where his wife has rescinded open contract, his blood pressure went up so he started biking twice as much as he usually does and he lost 10 lbs. He bikes over to my camper-garden even when I am not there and chats with my neighbors. Last time I was there when he biked over, he took his shirt off to show me his now flat abs below his already buff upper musculature. Meanwhile, the Permaculture Manager is no longer attempting to have sex with me, but he is maintaining tight control over the management of my permaculture project, so he drives his pick-up over to my camper-garden even when I am not there, and drops off bales of hay, and then calls me up to give me a lecture on how I am not following his instructions properly. He makes derogatory comments about the way I am dressed almost every time I see him. He also removes his shirt when he helps me with manual labor. Meanwhile, the Cowboy,with whom I actually spend the most time lately, also comes over to my camper-garden to help me or give me stuff, and when he was pick-axing the hard-scrabble bed that the Permaculture Manager had previously worked on, he asked me "How big is this guy?!!" (all 3 are over 6'1" /190 lbs.) Also, relevant is the fact that due to this situation I am being fed too much because I am not doing a good job of sticking to my rule about only eating 2/3 as much as any man with whom I share food. I have shrunk down to somewhat less than 5'9", and I do not bike 36 miles a day, and I do not want to weigh over 190 lbs.

zalo said: how did you determine the top 5% or 15% or any percent for that matter?

Not super scientific, but you can run an artificial intelligence rate my photo app, or you can allow your photo to be rated by the general population or just your age peers on a dating site. Also, if you are female, hits per hour when you are logged in to your dating profile are a pretty accurate indicator that has been statistically analyzed with age as a factor. Doesn't work as well for males because females are more conservative in their hits. Of course, people are more or less photogenic, and in person chemistry/behavior is hugely influential, so take with serious grain of salt.

I imagine it does become harder and harder to find compatible people in the higher echelons of aesthetic as we age, though! Something I'm definitely not taking for granted as I'm surrounded by pretty, college-educated women in their 20's who currently eat predominantly processed diets & drink more-than-moderately on weekends.

General Snoopy said: It is easy to be better than average. About 2/3rds are either overweight or obese. Don't be fat and you will be in the top 1/3rd.

True and not true. It's mostly just different rather than worse or harder. For instance, I could dial up a buff guy in his 20s to deliver himself like a free pizza to my door, if that was what I wanted. However, if I am semi-consciously scanning a crowd for attractive men, I am usually going to "see" fit men in their late 30s or early 40s. It is ridiculous to attempt to look like a 19 year old when you are 69, but what will work to some extent is to try to look somewhat like somebody in their early 30s when you are in your early 50s, and then when you are in your early 70s you can attempt to look somewhat like somebody who is in their early 50s and attempting to look like early 30s-lol. Sort of an infinite semi-successful regression to latest-phase fertility appearance. IMHO, although it is absolutely true (and bad on me) that not being over-weight is helpful in this regard, being too skinny without seriously working on muscular maintenance past a certain age can also be quite detrimental to your appearance. My late 40s sister looked 10 years older and like somebody who was quite ill when she weighed 129 lbs. as opposed to 149 lbs at 5' 8". Of course, this varies with your inherent phenotype, somebody with a smaller frame, more delicate features, and more mesomorphic or ectomorphic figure might still look their best at 129 as they age. I am lucky because I actually look my best at an even higher healthy weight than my shorter-waisted and longer-limbed sister (our anti-competition contract formed when we were 14 and 15 is that she is the thin brunette artsy one and I am the curvy blonde nerdy one, our 3rd sister is the popular jock domme, and our 4th sister is the cute little baby/brat. We occasionally fight over clothing and cookies, but never over boys or men.) , but I shouldn't use that as a rationale for being somewhat overweight at the moment (sigh.)

[Ego]

One of the things I like most about this place is that those who come here are very much unwilling to mortgage their future well-being for immediate gratification.

Some "procedures" are not all that different from dental work while others like the lap band procedure with the high complication/failure rate seems to be bordering on mortgaging future health for aesthetics. Same goes for maintaining extra pounds because plumpness looks healthier or younger. In the distant past the ideal beauty was plump, not because it signaled health but because it signaled wealth. Today we know better. Now everyone has the wealth to maintain plumpness and the challenge is in the opposite direction.

Plumpness stretches skin causing wrinkles to disappear, so plumper old people don't look all that different from plump young people. Youthful appearance vs health. Seeming vs being. Mortgaging future for immediate gratification.

Those who maintain a healthy weight are now outliers in the same way that those who are not in debt up to their eyeballs are outliers. Freaks. They are easy to caricature as cookie-cutter health freaks in the same way EREers can be caricatured as tightwad misers who don't know how to have fun .

The world is changing fast. Be careful of the new social comparisons you buy into without thinking about the consequences.

Now, I've got a mile to swim. ...

[7Wannabe5]

@Ego: According to the more individualized and complex calculators, the payoff in longevity for ME if I lost 20 lbs. would be approximately 1 year. The payoff for every year I delay menopause is 1.7 years. There is some level of mutual exclusivity in body fat percentage/bone density/estrogen-maintenance. I am not going to throw myself into a statistical pool with middle-aged men with skinny shanks and hard-high paunches and declining testosterone when I make decisions about my future health. I absolutely believe that I should lose some weight, but I also absolutely believe that for ME losing weight down to a BMI of 19 would be a very poor decision. It might actually be the case that for any given individual the circumstances under which they look the most attractive are pretty damn close to when they are the most healthy. Blind adherence to the extreme limitations of medical research and statistics at this point in history seems like highly risky behavior to me. If you can show me clear evidence that lowering BMI once a waist-to-hip ratio of .7 or less and a waist-to-height ratio of .42 or less is achieved increases longevity and vigor in middle-aged to elderly women then I will consider undertaking such a task. I also refuse to give a damn about my ability to perform a pull-up so long as I am able to attract others with relatively more upper body strength to wield a pick-ax. Also, given the clear statistical evidence I have offered that increased sexual frequency, corrected for other cardio-vascular risk factors, improves heart health statistics for men over the age of 40 by 45%, maintaining oneself as buff enough to attract females may be a good decision for any aging man even though it may have some mutual exclusivity with BMI. Lastly, the most "alive" woman in her 90s I ever met, showed up to a party we both attended a bit tipsy after preparing tiramisu to share, she was rather plump and not completely steady on her pins, but she was still living by herself and gardening all day long, and she told me about how she met the Dalai Lama when she was 49, and she thought she was an old lady among the young hippies then, but now she was twice that age. So there! (insert imaginary tongue-sticking-out emoticon.)

[BRUTE]

Same goes for maintaining extra pounds because plumpness looks healthier or younger.

is the type of plumpness that looks like baby fat already dangerous? brute would imagine that it would be at most 10-15lbs before it looks worse rather than better to most humans. brute thinks that health implications at that level would be relatively small.

talking of age and fitness, one of the most muscular/shredded men brute has ever met was late 40s or even 50s. it might just have been impressive because it's so rare, but this guy had popping veins on his biceps and everything. when asked by brute how he got this lean, he answered intermittent fasting and powerlifting. he actually followed the leangains.com protocol.

[Ego]

Most of the women my age in my realm who would be deemed to be very attractive, look the same to me. I see them walking through the Whole Foods in the wealthy suburb north of me, and they look just like a row of McMansions. Like they all do the same workout at the same yoga or pilates studio, pick up the same assortment of prepared healthy stuff from the buffet, go to the same hair salons, buy their clothes at the same boutiques. B-O-R-I-N-G.

It's funny but this is how I imagine most of the women who post here, without the B-O-R-I-N-G . They look similar (like McMansions as you say) because healthy people actually do look similar to one another, especially when they've just come from an exercise class and are wearing the requisite attire. They've figured out what they need to do to be healthy (and wealthy) and they do it, no excuses or rationalizations requiring mental-gymnastics or individual, complex calculators. They pay attention to what's going into their mouth in the same way they pay attention to the line items on their budgets.

I guess the thing that struck me is that some of the women here are worried that it is not enough to be a McMansion/provider/smart/capable/fit/funny/strong woman and they are actually concerned about holding onto their men and their marriages. I wonder if that thought has even occurred to any of the men.

I also refuse to give a damn about my ability to perform a pull-up so long as I am able to attract others with relatively more upper body strength to wield a pick-ax.

Ability to attract others. Is that a healthy gauge? It is definitely a currency so an investment in aesthetics might very well be justified. But is it healthy?

[7Wannabe5]

Ego said: They look similar (like McMansions as you say) because healthy people actually do look similar to one another,

Oh, bologna. There isn't as much variability in the human species as has, for instance, been bred into dogs, but one person might naturally look more like a St. Bernard while another might naturally look more like a Chihuahua. Guess what? Some breeds of dogs do live longer than other breeds of dogs. Short humans live longer than tall humans. Quite possibly naturally lithe humans live longer than naturally stocky humans. What I am seeing in the realm of the 5% are affluent women who have purchased what looks like healthy and attractive on today's market. You are perhaps not as privy to the secret not-so-healthy practices of the tribe of healthy-in-appearance women as I am. Smoking on the sly, 80% of calories obtained from sulfite free white wine, weekly colon cleansing appointments, prescriptions for metabolism increasing thyroid medication for non-existent condition, borrowing some of the kiddo's Ritalin, etc. etc. etc. Turn of the last century they would purchase worms to swallow and corsets to tighten. Wealthy Romans had vomitoriums for similar purposes.

Ability to attract others. Is that a healthy gauge? It is definitely a currency so an investment in aesthetics might very well be justified. But is it healthy?

Depends. Appearances can be deceiving, but I think on some level looking like you are still fertile is indicative of the fact that you aren't about to dry up and crack like a brittle pod, now empty of seeds, and blow away on the wind. I truly believe that hormonal factors are as important as the factors best revealed by BMI.

I guess the thing that struck me is that some of the women here are worried that it is not enough to be a McMansion/provider/smart/capable/fit/funny/strong woman and they are actually concerned about holding onto their men and their marriage. I wonder if that has even occurred to any of the men.

I don't think anybody here ought to be worried. For better or for worse, I have heard or read a great many midlife divorce and marital affair stories. Significant change in "market value" of one spouse vs. the other, always leads to tension and often leads to divorce. Good stress can be as destructive as bad stress. For instance, among my cohort group and older, if/when the wife starts making significantly more money than the husband, one or the other of them frequently has an affair. Men are usually pretty forgiving of a wife getting out of shape physically or showing signs of natural aging, but if she combines that behavior with shutting down sexually because she doesn't feel attractive anymore or her hormone level has declined, the marriage will often be put at significant risk.

[Freedom_2018]

This thread is sad in so many ways.

M

[7Wannabe5]

@Freedom_2018: True, but we rational Stoics must not tolerate any sort of weak slide into the realm of feelings. If babies must be allowed to let starve in Africa, and all other comforting, romantic notions about the way the world really works swept aside, so be it !!!

Actually, I apologize if I am coming off even more obnoxious than usual, but I am on a diet, it is like 90 degrees and super humid here, the IRS wants me to prove that I don't owe them $3500, and my only remaining in-service lover just left the country for 3 weeks. I am pretty much down to coffee and debate.

[TopHatFox]

about holding onto their men and their marriages.

Interestingly enough, I think possessiveness in relationships--or even saying "my" partner, or "my" wife, or "my" body--are all potential happiness pit falls. In all of my relationships, I remind myself that people or even my very body are not "mine". Instead, I am deeply appreciating and experiencing their and my own transient company, whether that is for a lifetime or a few more nights.

Perhaps aging people would be better served by reminding themselves that their partners will indeed leave at some point (whether biologically or socially), and work toward nourishing those relationships (as I'm sure many people on here already are).

[BRUTE]

I am on a diet

what kind of diet?

[Freedom_2018]

@7wb5

As someone intimately involved for the past 8 years (24x7x365) with a woman who turned 60 this year and is 17 yrs older to me and has lost 160 pounds in that time (yes loose skin and all) and continues to amaze me with incredible character, gentleness, intelligence and the playfulness of a little girl still alive inside....my apologies if I do not fully comprehend all this angst over looks etc. I get it intellectually but there is a whole other range of experiences on the other side of mere physical appearance, especially in a primary partner.

And no babies don't have to die, at least not when and where we can help it (they do but what counts is the starfish we throw back in the ocean).

Sorry about the heat. Seems like a cooling thunderstorm is in order. I have nice memories of St Ignace and Copper Harbor in the UP.

M

[Noided]

In response to the original post/question, my approach to looks and aesthetics is to reach a level where I am not excluding myself from daily social activities. For example, wearing almost the same thing day in day out, is not exclusive. Wearing all black when you have poor social skills is (I switched my black t shirts for grey t shirts for this reason).

Beyond clothing, I shower everyday, try to have a nice odor and trim my beard once in a while (I am kind of lazy on this).

How you look is strategic in my opinion. I want to signal simplicity, a bit of excentricity but also friendliness. I don't want to signal wealth, status (or not the kind of status that is mainstream) and impracticality. The understand the last one, picture a woman on high heels + this kind of floor that is common in Portugal:
https://aventadores.files.wordpress.com ... .jpg?w=640

Yeah, those are hundreds of little rocks stacked together and not perfectly leveled.

[7Wannabe5]

*****************************************************************************************************************************

[Ego]

Interestingly enough, I think possessiveness in relationships--or even saying "my" partner, or "my" wife, or "my" body--are all potential happiness pit falls.

This way of thinking is certainly becoming more popular today. Popularity does not make it correct. It is not a solution. It is a symptom of a much larger problem. In fact, it is the lack of investment in a relationship that causes attachment problems to flourish in the next generation. Instability breeds increasing instability. Generationally, security breeds increasing security.

See both....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attachment_theory
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attachmen ... lts#Styles

Consider that from a consumerism perspective, the more atomized, frightened and insecure we are, the better consumers we are. It is no secret that this is why "The News" has flourished from a half-hour in the evening to 24/7 on hundreds of channels. Can you think of any media portrayals that mock what you call possessiveness in relationships or those that encourage (and even celebrate) atomization? There is a reason this idea is becoming more popular. If you've got a high-profit, highly-advertised product to sell, you want to create as many insecure, atomized eyeballs as possible.

And if you've got a few hours to spare....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJ3RzGoQC4s

[7Wannabe5]

Ego said: There is a reason this idea is becoming more popular. If you've got a high-profit, highly-advertised product to sell, you want to create as many insecure, atomized eyeballs as possible.

I think this argument is somewhat confounded by the fact that there are more practitioners of poly-amory on this forum than in the general population. The way it works is that if you live in the post-Freudian world, and you and your partners can all say "post-Freudian", and talk over coffee about attachment-theory, then there is a level on which you don't have to engage in the process discussed in attachment-theory. Of course, there remains another level on which you still do have to engage in the process discussed in attachment theory.

For instance, I was often cared for by my grandmother, my great-grandmother and another older Polish woman who lived next door when I was very young. So, in one of my earliest memories, I am running on bare chubby toddler feet up and down the wooden hallway in an old house because my Great-grandmother wants me to come cuddle in one bed with her, and my grandmother wants me to come cuddle in another bed with her, and they are both laughing and calling to me with Polish pet names. It was a situation in which I felt very much loved and wanted, but under a bit of tension to choose. So, I can relate this memory to any or all of my poly-amours, and discuss how it pertains to our relationship and/or my choice to live in a Polish enclave as I enter into my pre-grandma phase of life.

OTOH, I could choose to have a discussion on the basis of sibling-peer-relationship theory rather than attachment theory. I could talk with one of my partners about how that theory suggests that I might have difficulty in relationship because I had no brothers. This theory also suggest that only children will have difficulty forming relationships as adults, so this growing demographic might be a partial cause of atomization of the non-self-aware.

I can also discuss a relationship, or multiple relationships, on the basis of power dynamics, economic exchange, sexual dichotomy theory, etc. etc. etc.

When you practice poly-amory, you are purposefully choosing to be relaxed in your attachment, in a similar manner to the way you can purposefully choose to relax your anxiety center when you engage in S&M type interactions. OTOH, I don't think it is appropriate to assign moral superiority to either of these practices, such as scoffing at people who prefer "vanilla" sex, or stating that polyamory is akin to graduate school level relationship practice. They're both just nerdy things to do that will serve the self-interest of some people some times and other people not at all. I would agree that engaging in either practice can tend towards causing a bit of "what is really real?" nihilistic depression at times, but that's pretty much the downside of being a nerdy deconstructionist in any context, and just requires re-centering yourself on the always very real moment and your presence in it with another person who will always be both known and unknown, and never truly possessed by you.

[7Wannabe5]

BRUTE said: what kind of diet?

I have a reasonably high metabolism and a cast-iron digestive system, so what works on spreadsheet level for me is to just multiply my desired weight by 12 and then multiply the difference between my desired weight and my current weight by 3500, and then divide by the days until I achieve my goal and subtract the second number from the first number and that's how many calories I can eat plus calories burned from overt exercise activities. If I can stick with it, it always works almost like clockwork for me. However, the sticking with it part is difficult, so I have to consider some other factors. High fat helps me with satiety, so I try to make my main meal of the day something like catfish, mixed greens and blue cheese. I am also an absolutely irredeemable sugar fiend, so I allow myself some small lower calorie, very sugary treats, like lemon drops, rather than anything resembling a giant muffin, where I am scarfing down a ton of other stuff just to get at the sugar. I don't attempt anything very rigid in terms of either type of food or time eaten etc. because my lifestyle involves sharing food with a number of different people in a number of different circumstances. For instance, yesterday I met the Peacemaker for a bicycle ride and lunch, so I had to make lunch my main meal and compensate a bit for restaurant calories with extra long bike ride. I'm also a distracted eater, so I have to arrange things so that I don't have easy access to anything high calorie I can absent-minded munch on while I am walking around drinking coffee and thinking to myself. I also frugal kedge/reward myself whenever I attempt anything as difficult as dieting. For instance, I will go to the drugstore and browse through a fashion magazine until I see an outfit that I want, then I will go to the Salvation Army where everything costs $1 and scavenge myself that outfit for $5 when I've lost 5 lbs.

Of course, I'm a total baby and a self-aware sensualist, not a Stoic like most of you guys, so I have to work harder at tricking myself with cleverness rather than just powering through. One book I read said that dieting is so hard for the average person, it is best to set in place as many blockades in front of future you as possible. So, if my usual arsenal doesn't work, I will just keep wielding more tools towards creating the illusion of non-existent will-power. In my experience, future me is often a pretty self-indulgent, extremely clever at inventing rationalizations kind of person, who would very much like to have whatever she wants whenever she wants it, so I have to keep reminding, reminding, reminding her what she wants more. I know that the proper thing for a person to desire more when they attempt to lose weight is something to do with health statistics or being able to win a sporting event, but that doesn't usually work the best for me, so I generally tell myself that my sex life will get even hawter if I get in better shape and watch some Shakira or Beyonce videos for inspiration. So, that is one of the reasons why it is highly unlikely I will ever choose to get married again. I will probably get fat and die early if I am stuck with some guy who totally conks out on me drive/desire-wise (ED I know very well how to address.) The other reason I won't get married again is I do not want to lose another garden just because some man exhibits intolerable behavior and I can't afford to keep the property on my own or it does not belong to me. I probably will not even live with a man again for that reason. If I want constant companionate affection, I will acquire a dog.

[BRUTE]

brute has found fasting a very cheap and flexible diet. the reason he asked is that when brute saw that diet post, he had not eaten in 3 days. no cravings. turns out if humans are above 5% body fat, they don't need to eat. for every lb of body fat, there's 3500kcal, which should last over a day for most humans.

[7Wannabe5]

@BRUTE: I was just babbling to myself in my response to your question. I generally diet immoderately enough that it turns out to be some manner of fast, because I do not enjoy the tedium of endless calorie counting. I choose to eat for pleasure more than for pain avoidance. I am about the last person on the planet who would choose to consume a uniform balanced soylent formula in pursuit of a linear goal. I want the most complex, varied inputs possible.

[BRUTE]

I am about the last person on the planet who would choose to consume a uniform balanced soylent formula in pursuit of a linear goal.

brute is exactly the type of person who wants that and tried soylent. stopped quickly, because it's just not that great in any respect. it's not cheap, it's not filling, it doesn't taste good, it's not easy (unless drinking the more expensive bottles), brute showed malnutrition symptoms that went away with regular food, it doesn't have a good macro profile.. just fasting x% of the time is so much better.

[7Wannabe5]

My recent experiment with eating off my "land" was kind of interesting because in terms of calories consumed it was much like a purposeful weight-reduction diet, but psychologically it was completely different because my challenge was to find enough food, not limit my intake of overly plentiful supply. When the Cowboy picked me up and took me to a restaurant, I felt this primitive level response of "Mmmmm. Good food." as I started digging in, and it didn't have so much to do with the taste or my knowledge of the nutrition, but more like a feeling of relief along the lines of "This is safe to eat, and it will sustain me for a while." I think we have lost that primitive feeling about food, both through our affluent over-indulgence and our affluent tendencies towards all manners of being finicky about what we eat. I think that is why people fast for religious purposes. I fasted over Ramadan a couple times, and not drinking any liquid was even a bigger challenge. It was the heat of summer, and I engaged in manual labor, and told myself that the initial signals of thirst my body was offering up were just warnings that would pass, and they did. That first sip of pomegranate juice at sunset was fantastic. Hunger is nothing compared to thirst. Protection from dangerous exposure to the elements, water, a secure place to sleep, then you are right, food can wait a little while if you have some fat stores, but not too long because you might not be able to find any or enough. Then somebody drives up in a brand new car, and you go so very fast to a place where they put a big varied plate of food from all over the world down right in front of you. How did that happen? What a miracle!!! What a delight!!! How lucky we are!!!