![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/84\/2014\/06\/bernini1.jpg\" "\\"bernini1\\"")
<\/a><\/p>\nNathan Biberdorf would like us all to stop affirming each other by asserting that\u00a0everyone<\/em> is beautiful<\/a>. \u00a0It\u2019s doing more harm than good.<\/p>\n There are plenty of people that are not physically appealing to look at, the primary and most widely used meaning of the word \u201cbeautiful\u201d. So why do we use the word as a catch-all for any sort of positive attribute?<\/p>\n Nobody says, \u201cEverybody is a good listener.\u201d Nobody says, \u201cEveryone is athletic\u00a0to somebody.\u201d Nobody says, \u201cYou are an amazing writer, whether you know it or not.\u201d I keep waiting, but they never say it.<\/p>\n Beauty is the only trait that everyone gets free access to. Why?<\/p>\n Because we have created a culture that values beauty above all other innate traits\u2026for women, at least.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Marc Barnes (Bad Catholic) took aim at a similarly pernicious umbrella term<\/a>:<\/p>\n This trend \u2014 \u201cSmart is the new sexy!\u201d \u2014 is the best thing that\u2019s happened to men who objectify women since feminists began calling prostitution \u201csex-work.\u201d Why? Because now we can reduce women to sexual objects\u00a0while<\/em>\u00a0fighting sexual objectification! We\u2019re\u00a0feminists,<\/em>\u00a0see, we value and respect women for more than just their bodies. Look!<\/p>\n Hopefully the full stupid of the situation is obvious: You cannot fight the problem with the problem. The net result of \u201cennobling\u201d our view of women by saying their \u201cbrains\u201d are objects of sexual arousal is to make women more completely and totally sexualized \u2014 to further reduce the number of female characteristics valued for reasons other than their effects on genitalia.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Except, I could imagine swapping Marc\u2019s word into Nathan\u2019s essay without anything having to be changed but couldn\u2019t quite make it work if I made the exchange the other way around. \u00a0It makes more sense to say that all human beings persist in the form of the Beautiful than in the form of Sexy.<\/p>\n Sexy is an instrumental attribute; it triggers an appreciation in the viewer that usually falls into the category of what C.S. Lewis would call Need-Love. \u00a0Sexy causes the viewer to\u00a0want<\/em> the viewed for the sake of intimate congress. \u00a0The initial attraction isn\u2019t complete in iteself; it seeks a further consumation.<\/p>\n But beauty can be transfixing without triggering any desire but the chance to keep looking, or even simply the desire to give thanks for having been allowed to look at all. \u00a0There\u2019s nothing\u00a0more<\/em> I want to do with one of the geometrical construction games<\/a> I play but to marvel at the beauty and elegance of a solution, once I work it out. \u00a0What it ultimately feels like is the pure, joyful note sounded in the final line of the song below: \u201cI could look at him\/her forever\u2026\u201d<\/p>\n<\/p>\n