OH THE RAGE

[puddingcat]

Via faerierhona, a link from The Times Online.

Ok, there's a related article with a different point of view as well, but still THE RAGE. IT BURNS.

(Worst of all, I suspect it burns most because I have a deep-rooted belief that he's telling the truth. I dislike my RAGE being directed at myself.)

Comments

[skorpionuk.livejournal.com]

This has exploded all over my f'page today. I'm in two minds about it - I think the article is extreme, and the various points people have made as to why this is so are fair.

However, I like well-groomed people. Not the fake tan and the plastic tits, no, but I prefer to look at someone who is clean, with a nice haircut and well-kept hands and all the rest, to someone who looks like a slob. It's not important enough to instigate or cut off contact in itself - personality goes a long, long way with me - but overall, I would prefer not to spend my life with an unkempt genius if I could have a well-groomed one instead.

[puddingcat.livejournal.com]

Yes; this is why I can't *quite* convince myself he's wrong. I like looking at pretty things; I find well-groomed people more attractive than those who haven't made an effort, and I don't believe I'm the only one.

Personality counts for *more* than appearance in relationships, but physical attraction is necessary as well.

[professoryaffle.livejournal.com]

I think the point to realize here is where the bar is set.

While I don't take as much time with my appearance as I should I also agree that a well groomed person is more attractive than a slobby person.

I think the problem here is that this screen writers definition of what is well groomed is set to only those who spend vast sums of money getting other people to make them look good rather than those who make an effort with their appearance using less time and money but still look good

His bar for personal appearance seems unfortunately set to Everest height when in reality for the majority of people most of the time Ben Nevis is more than plenty.