Jump to content

"Shallow" - The Contemplations Of Dante Reign (18-)


Recommended Posts

Posted

For those who do not want to read this entire post, I have clearly stated my definition at the very bottom.

 

Usually with long posts like this, the author would warn you that it will take a while to read. This is that warning. This post, I would suspect, is a literary equivalent to an hour-long lecture. This post is the somewhat condensed thoughts and notes of more than a year of pondering; aptly named "contemplations". I have done my best to clearly and concisely explain my thoughts, but leveling with you; there is a hell of a lot to read. This is mostly for the sapiosexuals who enjoy more than just a bit of light reading.

 

While this is a passionate post, I did not pump it out in ten minutes. It took me multiple hours, over multiple days within weeks and months, to write. Even then, I read and reread it, proof-read it and came back to it days later, before I finally decided it was ready. I apologise for rambling so much, but I want people to appreciate how much effort went into this.

 

How it all started…

 

I have, on occasion, been accused of being shallow. Am I shallow? I had considered the possibility that, to an extent, it might be true. Mildy, perhaps.

 

Upon googling the meaning of the word shallow, I discovered that there is no definitive description within the context of this post. There were definitions mentioning short bodies of water, various other geometries, and a generalised meaning of thoughts.

 

I have spent approximately two years, infrequently yet actively contemplating this misused word, trying to figure out the best possible way in which to word what I have to say. All I ask is that everyone who reads this, does so with an open mind. I could very well be wrong. My aim, though, is to get others to think before making such a hurtful accusation.

 

I actually resent people for calling me shallow. It really is not a nice word to hear, and I think I have the right to defend my opinion. Especially since my thoughts have not come from the surface. Maybe that is part of it? That being shallow is a semi-literal phrase for someone whose opinion is based on thoughts that have no depth. In which case, how can you know that someone has in fact not thought before saying their comment? Would calling someone shallow therefore be shallow in itself?

 

The confusion with using the word...

 

If you tell someone they are not attractive, you could get called shallow for judging them by their appearance. If you tell someone they ARE attractive, you could get called shallow for judging them by their appearance. My first thought would be that this cancels both out, as a lose:lose situation. This is not about first thoughts, second thoughts, or even third, fourth or fifth.

 

Instinctive judgement. Some of you may know that I often refer to the Adam and Eve concept. This time I am literally referring to old times. Primitive times. When cave-people lived, judging someone based on nothing but their appearance was a natural instinct. Of course for the most part this was to determine friend from foe, but it was also a mating instinct. Cave-people did not communicate with each other as we do now, so they would not have gotten to know each other the way modern people do. A man would have judged a woman on her physical body, and a lot on her appearance, because it was a necessity back then. These days it is not so important, but I still believe that many of our brains are hardwired for the same instinctual behaviour. I appreciate that many who read this will probably not agree with the mention of cave-people, for various reasons, but think about this. Regardless of the reasons, we all do, in some way or another, find some people more visually attractive than others. We do consider physical attraction based on sight, but the important thing is not acting solely on that judgement.

 

Sometimes all a woman wants… all anyone wants; is to be told that they are attractive. Other times people are confident in their bodies or simply do not care about physical attraction. There are so many people in the world, all unique. Some focus only on personality, some only care about what others think of their appearance, and some people like a bit of both. None of these people are wrong; they just need to find someone who matches their ideals. It was pointed out to me, and I think I agree, that perhaps it is not that people want to feel attractive, but to feel valued. Be it physically or mentally, people want to know that someone is interested in them. I know I would like that. To feel wanted by a submissive woman, whom I reciprocally am interested in.

 

Everyone has an idea in their mind of what they do and do not find attractive. Nobody is going to be attractive in the eyes of everyone, yet I think that is part of the misconception. You do not need the approval of everyone, and certainly you will never achieve such a feat, but too many people get offended by one person’s opinion. Rather than getting hung up on negative opinions, go and find some that are positive. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, so go find your beholder and do not get so upset about the wrong person’s opinion.

 

A few people pointed out to me the stating of an opinion matter-of-factly. “You are beautiful” instead of “I think you are beautiful”. I personally believe that this is a little bit too pedantic. As I mentioned before, one person’s opinion does not count for everyone else. “You are beautiful” is subjective to that one person only. That said, if enough people are telling me that those two words are important, then I will put that into practice. Perhaps it is a case of stating the obvious, for those who cannot realise for themselves; it is only one person’s opinion.

 

Another point was mentioned to me. We can wear different clothes, we can cover various areas of our skin in different ways. “Maybe it is to do with commenting on something that someone has no control over, like beauty.” This would be natural beauty, which again is subjective to each person’s individual opinion, which again is not something to get hung up on. If you do not like a person’s opinion, focus on somebody with a better one.

 

There are women who’s entire faces are permanently scarred, and their husbands say that they married them for their personality. There are men without limbs, whose wives love them no less than a man in peak physical condition. I asked myself if I would feel the same in their place, and while I know I could not answer that without living it myself, I would say that their perception has been changed by time spent with their partner. I would also say that their relationship probably started with some kind of physical attraction, but remained strong because of an emotional connection. It is also worth noting that for myself specifically, the physical aspect is only half of attraction, but it is still something that I desire. Without physical attraction there can be no physical relationship.

 

Ultimately, everyone is going to have an opinion of me, but many of those opinions are going to be negative. As I mentioned before, you cannot please everyone. All I can do is what I think is correct, and focus my attention on the positive feedback.

 

The meaning of the word…

 

I have been called shallow multiple times, for not getting to know a fat woman before deciding if I like her. Yes, I said fat. It is an adjective to describe an observation of a person’s body; I am not using the word as an insult. Some women are fat, and there are plenty of people out there who prefer larger figures. There is nothing wrong with that. I am simply not one of those people. I was called shallow for having this preference, and I believed that this was a false accusation, but I wanted to know why I thought this. Why do I personally, think it is not shallow to say I do not like a woman just because she is obese?

 

Let us say that a woman has blue eyes. My favourite type is a slim redhead with green eyes. Let us say that I meet a woman. She has the most fiery orange, ginger hair. She has an amazing voice, she is a great singer, she has a fantastic smile, she is smart and funny, kind and sensitive, and she matches my awkwardness and makes me feel comfortable. She is perfect in almost every way, but she has blue eyes instead of green. If I turned her down for this, I think we can agree I would be an idiot. That would be shallow.

 

So why then, is it shallow to not want a blue-eyed redhead, but it is not shallow to not like a fat woman? They are both physical aspects of a person’s appearance. I tried another example. Height. Thinking of this redhead again, only this time she has green eyes that I love, but she is taller than me. Maybe by an inch, or maybe by a foot, but she is taller than me. I have not actually met this woman, so I cannot say for certain, but I think this would be a turn off for me. I think it would not be shallow of me to turn her down. Another example, with the same green-eyed woman, but now she is a brunette. I think I would be shallow to turn her down.

 

Turning down obesity, not shallow. Turning down height, not shallow. Turning down eye colour or hair colour. Shallow. I wondered if it was to do with how noticeable the feature is, since eyes are smaller than the curves of a woman. I do not think this is it, since technically the eyes can be seen easily up close. I wondered if it is about how easily something is changed. A person can dye their hair easily, but losing weight is not always easy and getting shorter is probably impossible. No, I do not think this is it, either. This context is about the appearance of a person in a single moment; not their potential to look attractive.

 

It took me such a long time to figure out what the deciding factor was in all of this. All four examples are of physical attraction towards a person, so what sets them apart? I started trying to imagine myself with each variation of this woman, and I kept asking myself. If this context is questioning physical attraction to a person, why are two of my examples shallow and two not? Physical attraction.

 

Finally, after almost two years of this baffling conundrum, I think I have an answer… my answer, at least.

 

This is about physical attraction towards a person, not visual physical attraction. It is about the physical connection, literally touching a person, that I think dictates whether or not someone can be called shallow. Of course, the visual aspect is relevant to a person’s attractiveness, but when it comes down to being shallow, I think it is about how someone wants to physically feel while touching another person.

 

I am only interested in slim women, so I do not know the reason why many men prefer larger figures, but that reason is related to the physical sensations of touching that woman. When it comes to height, I might in fact like taller women. Until I experience it in real life, I can only imagine that I would feel weird looking upwards into a woman’s eyes or kissing her, instead of straight forward or downwards. That is a physical bodily sensation, not just a visual thing. If I were blind or blindfolded, eye and hair colour would not be a factor in my attraction to a woman, but I would be able to use my hands to feel the shape and height of her body. Being shallow is judging someone based on sense of sight alone, while not being shallow is judging someone based on sense of touch. Take away the ability of sight and think about what you would feel.

 

The whole time that I was trying to answer this question, I thought it was all very complicated. Once I knew the answer, I realised just how simple it really is. Trying to define a word is a factual endeavour, but I thought that using this particular word was purely opinionated, and opinion is entirely subjective; which is what made this so hard to understand at first. Being shallow is actually not an opinion. Just like “various other geometries”, being shallow in this context is only an adjective.

 

Of course these are just my thoughts, and I could be wrong. I am happy to hear any other views and opinions that readers might have, so long as you keep your words polite and civil. Maybe you think I could have written a better definition; comment below how you think it should be worded.

 

The definition…

 

Shallow

 

(Adjective)

 

1. of little depth.

 

2. not exhibiting, requiring, or capable of serious thought.

 

3. (of a person) to have a meagre opinion of someone’s physical attractiveness, based only on the sense of sight.

Posted

I feel if you keep using those two little words, 'I think' or '...to me', the resultant reactions will demonstrate the difference between an opinion and a judgement. Good for you, Dante! :heart:

Posted

So.
I read most of this and have some observations.

Firstly.  I feel you spend a lot of time defending yourself.
Defending yourself is largely unnecessary.  You, don't really owe an explanation.
That, you have preferences that are important to you.  

Of course; people are going to feel one thing or another about your choices and preferences - and here's a thing.  Whilst someone who doesn't meet your physical preferences is never going to be right for you; you drawing a line in these is mean that you're not going to be right for others.

It's just the way life is sometimes.  

Posted

Speak for yourself. I do not experience physical attraction based on sight, appearance, whatever. Don't say "we all do" in order to justify your own narrow-mindedness.

I shall keep on happily loving and fucking "ugly" people, or non-conventionally attractive people. Yes, I find people who make judgements based on beauty or physical traits of "attractiveness" shallow. It's funny how they are often the ones complaining about not being able to find a long term partner.

Posted
3 minutes ago, MsWhiteRose said:

Speak for yourself. I do not experience physical attraction based on sight, appearance, whatever. Don't say "we all do" in order to justify your own narrow-mindedness

What is physical attraction?

Is it not based on, among other things, sight? Feel, touch, smell, whatever.

Could it not be that it's just your idea of "attractive" is different to Mr Reigns?

7 minutes ago, MsWhiteRose said:


I shall keep on happily loving and fucking "ugly" people, or non-conventionally attractive people. Yes, I find people who make judgements based on beauty or physical traits of "attractiveness" shallow. It's funny how they are often the ones complaining about not being able to find a long term partner.

Ugly is subjective.

 

I want to say, here, that Mr Reign has thought about this for a very long time. He and I have thrown ideas around about this for, literally, hours.

 

What is physical attractiveness? 

Some men like larger ladies, some don't. 

Some like pretty women, some don't.

 

Mr Reign has spent hours considering this, that's not shallow.

 

 

My views are I'm attracted to someone's soul, looks don't come into it, for me. It's how we connect, the bond. 

 

 

Posted

P.s....

Just read that through..

What I mean is, if you disagree, why? I'm curious...

What, exactly, does shallow mean?

Wasn't specifically aiming it at @MsWhiteRose

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, LazyPiratesBounty said:

What is physical attraction?

Is it not based on, among other things, sight? Feel, touch, smell, whatever.

Ugly is subjective.

What is physical attractiveness? 

Some men like larger ladies, some don't. 

Some like pretty women, some don't.

Right on, Bounty!  One person's eye for beauty is another person's eyesore. I believe too that Dante has a valid point regarding instincts:  instinct is our built-in survival tool.  Literally, for survival as an individual and as a species. A caveman may have fancied woolly mammoth for dinner, but he 'knew' it was not a good idea to go out on his own  armed only with a fire-hardened wooden spear. That would not have done a lot for his personal survival, and ended any contribution from him to the human race. The *** world works in the same way: the Australian Bower Bird attracts his ideal lady by building the biggest, best and bluest bower he possibly can.  They will fight, beak and claw, for the last blue plastic drinking straw.  If his potential missus approves of what he's built, then he's in. The wild female budgerigar chooses her mate by the intensity of a 'patch' in the white feathers on his head - we can't see it except under ultra violet light, but she can.  So these creatures choose mates for their ability to build and provide; and on appearance, all of which are indicative of health, stamina and a very good bet for providing a good horde of healthy fledglings - survival of the species.

It would be interesting to know if WE also factor this into our choice of partner at a deeper, more primal  level - so what may appear at first to be 'shallow' may well be a decision or choice based on health,  ability to breed and/or deliver and provide.

11 hours ago, DanteReign said:

“You are beautiful” is subjective to that one person only. That said, if enough people are telling me that those two words are important, then I will put that into practice. Perhaps it is a case of stating the obvious, for those who cannot realise for themselves; it is only one person’s opinion.

It is subjective to that person only but there's two people in this exchange. You - and the lady. She is beautiful - to YOU.  She won't be beautiful to all men. Saying, "You are beautiful to me" makes it  an opinion instead of a judgement. And it goes the other way. 'You are not attractive' tells someone that are ugly, period. Not attractive to anyone.  There's something 'wrong' with the way they look. This can cause a f***load of undue stress, especially in young people who are lacking in  self confidence or who are just beginning to build it. 'You are not attractive to me' tells her that this is the opinion of one man only, and there's billions of men in the world. There will be others who will find her attractive.  Try the experiment - add 'I think...' or '...to me';  turn a judgement into an opinion ; note the different reactions you get, and see how differently you feel about the exchange. Are you making someone happier, more hopeful with the addition of two little words? Judgements give one option; opinions give limitless options.

Edited by Vandalslut
Posted

A very enjoyable read and an interesting conclusion. @DanteReign I'd say you are certainly not a shallow person (my understanding of the definition) as you have clearly spent a lot of time and energy looking into this. I dont believe what physical attributes you find attractive or unattractive make you shallow. They make you a unique, never to be repeated individual walking their path trying to find who they are, just like all of us.  I admire the way you have approached something that has clearly pricked your ego enough to warrant a defensive reaction. You could have ranted and raved about it and told everyone that they are all wrong, but you didn't. You thought deeply and intelligently about what shallow meant and in the absence of an appropriate definition you created a perfectly reasonable one. 

I do question if you might have saved yourself some of that time and energy if you had looked at the situation from a slightly different perspective. Maybe it was not what you find attractive physically or mentally about a person that is shallow. It is how you communicate that information that causes the person receiving it to perceive you as being shallow.  In this situation, the definition of the word is irrelevant. It has become emotional at that moment and logical intellect has left the building lol. You are not being dishonest or any less of a man if you explain to someone that you think they are a beautiful person and that you value and enjoy the time you spend together, but you have specific kinks and you can't fulfil those kinks with them as that would only lead to disappointment and hurt which you don't want them to go through. It sounds a bit less shallow than I dont find you attractive because you're fat 😊

I hope you're not offended by my observations. I am not trying to be critical of you as I truly think you are a deep thinker. Sometimes we need a telescope to see what's happening and not a microscope 🙂

Posted
21 hours ago, eyemblacksheep said:

Defending yourself is largely unnecessary

I do not disagree, and these past few days I have heeded those words and focused less on the negative thoughts of others.

UnfortunatelyI do also get anxious. I do not offend people intentionally and I dislike it when I do. I suppose if I feel I have done nothing wrong, I feel a need to bring myself back into a positive light. As you rightly say, some people will ignore that light regardless.

Posted
On 4/1/2020 at 12:24 PM, DanteReign said:

Other times people are confident in their bodies or simply do not care about physical attraction

@MsWhiteRose I could not agree with you more. I think it would indeed be narrow-minded of me to not mention this point at least once, especially after 2 years of contemplation.

 

On 4/1/2020 at 12:24 PM, DanteReign said:

Everyone has an idea in their mind of what they do and do not find attractive

@LazyPiratesBounty Thank you for your kind words. I am sure you would agree that what someone does or does not find attractive can be about the soul and personality, though of course finding someone *visually* attractive would be more specific and is not necessarily a consideration for everyone.

Posted (edited)
On 4/1/2020 at 12:24 PM, DanteReign said:

Of course these are just my thoughts, and I could be wrong.

Speaking for myself, only, @MsWhiteRose.

 

Edited by Deleted Member
Posted
19 hours ago, Vandalslut said:

on appearance, all of which are indicative of health, stamina

Thank you, Vandalslut. That was essentially what I was thinking; how a large physique is a physical factor, while hair colour etc is a visual, and indicative of no physical abilities or touch-sensations.

Posted
6 hours ago, RowanGreenfire said:

I hope you're not offended by my observations.

I am not offended at all. Your criticism is constructive, your words are polite and civil, and I think you make a good point. I would not quite agree with *everything* you mention, since I believe that everything I said was relevant, but everyone has already pointed out that difference of opinion is natural.

 

The admiration of your first paragraph is also greatly appreciated, so thank you.

Posted

Difference of opinion is certainly natural and to have a preference is not shallow.  What could be called shallow, though, is how that preference is expressed.

Further to the possibility of appearance being a indicator of health and stamina rather than beauty, colour is another contributing factor.  If that patch on a male budgerigar's head - invisible to us, because we don't need to see it - is not very intense, a hen won't choose him. For you, DanteReign, red hair is appealing.  Red is a 'masculine' colour and represents energy, lust, vitality -  if you see a car advertisement aimed at the younger man demographic, the car will be red and the music will be fast-paced rock.  There are famous women in history who had red hair - Boudicca, Queen Elizabeth I - both rulers, both very feisty and vital characters. So it could be said that you're looking, at a primal level, for a vital, energetic, lusty lady with strong leadership attributes.

Posted

You post your Deep musings but then post and post again trying to clarify what you originally stated. Don't confuse yourself with Sapiosexual, seems you're young and looking for identity, which is a good thing. Just remember we're all different, hopefully we're all individual and what's right for one is wrong for another. That's the way we are and, hopefully within the Fetish context, will continue to be. At least you're trying to debate your lack of clarity with older, more experienced people. Good for you.

×
×
  • Create New...