it ain't that simple, folx, and never was

[johncomic]

What with all the recent-ish Tiger Woods kafuffle, and now Sandra Bullock... what clearer lessons do we need to teach us that monogamy (or lack thereof) has nothing to do with what you or your partner look like? And, by extension, finding and keeping love has nothing to do with what you look like? But how much you wanna bet that the idea will persist ad infinitum regardless, thanks to all the cultural mechanisms devoted to driving it onward? We need to smarten up and take a deeper and less simplistic look at matters of the heart, people.

Comments

[ginsu.livejournal.com]

I agree it's not that simple, but I don't think I can agree looks have nothing to do with finding love or monogamy. Cases will vary as widely as human psychology.

For instance, a man or woman whose appearance attracts 0% of the population (example: John Merrick) is going to have a difficult time just getting a date, let alone love or a monogamous relationship. The looks are playing a dramatic role in that case. (Merrick's plan, according to Wikipedia, was to find a blind woman, but blind women are a tiny percentage, so you can see his odds were still horrible.)

Most people see physical appeal as one element among many that creates attraction, and consider that a positive thing. So far, so good, but of course appearance often changes and often fairly rapidly. Not all changes are going to be appealing to all spouses.

I don't say they justify cheating -- I'm not sure anything does -- but if cheating happens, I don't think we can categorically say such changes were irrelevant. They may have played some sort of role.

Where I do think we can agree is on this: Tiger Woods and Jesse James did not cheat because they were married to gargoyles.