|
|
 |
|
Getting Support : Speaking Out
The Beautiful People | from GoldenMic - Wednesday, April 28, 2004
accessed 25244 times Asking some questions about the significance and prevalence of physical beauty among current and former Family members, and if true, its meaning and effect on ex-cultites. I am a guest here, not exCOG but from a small cult (Isot) that started at the same time under the same general conditions, and with the same disgusting features, but MINUS the emphasis on blatant sexuality (our little cult always kept the rampant affairs, sexual predation by superiors, and child molesting behind closed doors)...
That said, I have an observation. It appears to me, from almost every picture of the Children of the Children on this site, that the Family has/had a disproportionately large number of physically attractive members. Obviously, people who think they are ugly would probably not submit a picture here, so my viewpoint is skewed, but I am always kinda shocked by the sheer number of members here who are physically good looking...
I do not say this from some shallow delusional belief that "outer beauty" actually means anything, and this is not meant as some kind of blah blah compliment, but because if its true, this feature would certainly have unexpected and unusual ramifications for current and former cultite's.
This brings some questions to mind. First, am I right? Do you think that the COG has an above -average number of physically attractive people? Second, if there is an unusual level of physical beauty among the COG, is this related to the initial emphasis on the use of sex for attracting and holding on to adherents, so that physical beauty was a sought-after commodity in terms of proseltyzing? Third, do you think this physical attribute, if it IS a distinctive characteristic, has resulted in tendencies that often characterize people who are attractive AND screwed up (i.e. lots of narcisstic behavior, a "disconnect" between self-esteem and the esteem of others, and a strong tendency to act out self-destruction through nihilistic activity)?
Also, is it possible that, if beauty was (if it was) a major factor among the COG, does its shadow show up here in a kind of elitism and dismissal of others, a reenforcement of the feeling that one is different and special, further complicating integration into "the system"?
(a brief aside... see, I have been paying attention to the buzz-words here, and I always enjoy finding what key words this cult used that have a parallel in my own cult... Isot's name for "the system" is "the world" with similar implications)?
One reason I ask this is because my own little cult is a much more average-looking bunch, with few truly beautiful adherents. This has not resulted in any less screwing and molesting, oh no, but it does seem to me that the excultites from Isot are less likely to engage in nihilistic self-destruction and self-abuse through drugs, sex, and rock 'n roll, and tend more towards pleasuring self through massive over-eating (resulting in chronic obesity), obsessive and slavish serving of others, and listless depression.
Any thoughts? Mike Martella. |
|
|
|
|
Reader's comments on this article Add a new comment on this article |  from GoldenMic
Tuesday, May 04, 2004 - 11:56
(Agree/Disagree?)
I have really appreciated this discussion, albeit on a rather light subject. Even though there was some sniping, it was actually pretty cool to watch people flare up, then deliberately apply the brakes as needed, no "upper management" necessary thank you.
Jules, I imagine it must be somewhat difficult to negotiate your own role here, maintaining a balance between a sense of responsibility to keeping the website functional, while also exercising your right to be authentic. It made me realize that, while YOU have a right to feel that sense of responsibility, I have no right to demand it of you on a site where you function as a peer first, and only as a moderator of last resort. I admit it was an odd sensation to be "your little Mikey" for a bit (Many thanks to Nancy for that, I really did feel honored).
I cannot begin to say how honored I feel to be among a group of ex-culties that put their money where their mouth is, respecting freedom and open-ness even when things get rough. From this outsider's perspective, looking in, I am impressed by the strength of character and ultimate decency, and invigorated by the repartee. Thanks, Mike M.
(reply to this comment)
| from Haunted
Monday, May 03, 2004 - 05:29
 (Agree/Disagree?)
Jules, I'm a little disturbed that some comments of mine ended up in the Trailer Trash section of the comments for this article.
I know you decided to create a trashy section for those comments which are offensive and/or abusive, and I fully supported that. However, since I take care to edit out anysuch derrogatory 'flaming' etc... in my posts, why should they end up in the Trailer trash section just because they happened to be part of a rather insipid thread that got a little out of hand and ended up becoming quite personal to a few?
I think that there are a few comments in that thread which are not offensive or crass and IMO deserve to still remain on the main site.
Again, just my opinion.
(reply to this comment)
|  From Jules
Monday, May 03, 2004, 06:56
(Agree/Disagree?)
I agree. Some of the comments were not obscene or flames and were just people's opinion. I have never seen you write anything crass at all. Unfortunately, due to the way the threading of the comments was coded, the comments have to be displayed in order and when an initial comment is moved, all the replies have to follow. I doubt I will ever have the time to change this. Most web sites simply delete offensive material, but I really don't want to do that. (reply to this comment) |
| | From nAuty
Monday, May 03, 2004, 07:46
 (Agree/Disagree?)
Jules, it seems that anyone can "vote" to have something placed in the trailer trash section. Can a single person vote multiple times? I'm sure the puter is being tracked on how many votes a person can make. However, what if you have enough computers in the vicinity of your home to vote off comments, not because they were offensive, but because you just don't like that person. I've been looking around at some comments on this tread & folks like sarafina made decent comments, not to controversial or offensive & she has half a thumb left before her comment is moved to the trash section. Just my observations, but it seems a little unfair.(reply to this comment) |
| | From frmrjoyish
Monday, May 03, 2004, 07:33
(Agree/Disagree?)
I think the censorship is going a little overboard lately, Jules. This site is supposed to be for adults so I think the majority here can handle a few threads that may get out of hand. Only two or three of the comments placed in the trailor park really deserved to be there. If it was just the way the threads were coded, then why was Xena's comment to Cultie's Ex placed there while Cultie's Ex's comment was allowed to remain on the main site? Reffering to the way a particular member of this site "tastes or swallow's" is disgusting and certainly more inflammatory than Xena's comment (I'm not saying that person was offended, but I would've been). Now before you go getting all pissed and defensive, I'm merely wondering why the censorship seems to have been stepped up a bit lately, so don't take it personal!(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | From Jules
Monday, May 03, 2004, 10:36
(Agree/Disagree?)
Luckily for me I don’t have to please anyone at all.
Thank you ladies for your opinions.
Sandbox Play 101
A discussion thread means the replies to a particular comment. When a user posts a comment and someone writes something in reply that is a thread. You can see the comment hierarchy by the indenting of the comments. If a particular comment has been moved to the trailer park then the children in the hierarchy are moved there as well.
People cannot vote multiple times on a comment. There are some things built in to prevent users with multiple computers voting multiple times. The rating shown is the average (the sum of all ratings divided by the number of votes) of all ratings on a comment. Users can no longer rate their own comments because the number of people doing this was getting to be ridiculous. A vote to move something to the trailer park can be done independently of a particular rating on a comment, but there is still only one vote per user. Five votes from the users will move a comment. The administrators can move comments immediately, but cannot change comment ratings.
The “censorship” (moving inappropriate and offensive content) is indeed steeped up. As I said, this web site has become an embarrassment to me of late and I don’t see the need to spend my time and effort maintaining something that is overrun by petty bickering. I have decided to treat this web site as though it were any other that I maintain. Basic on line etiquette guidelines can be found all over the Internet but there are some explanations already posted here: http://www.movingon.org/trailer.asp
http://www.movingon.org/editors.asp
If a user disagrees with the opinions expressed in a comment or article, an appropriate response on line is to explain their own opinion and the reasons why they think this. An inappropriate response is to call the poster names. There is also a difference between being witty and being mean or cruel. Granted what is or is not humorous or insulting is very subjective but some of the comments have clearly been way over the line. If the recipient is offended or hurt rather than amused or mildly annoyed then that is a likely indicator. If the intent is to offend rather than entertain then that is another indicator. Every interactive web site faces similar issues between balancing free speech and descending to the lowest common denominator. Ultimately it’s up to the administrators.
Finally, some users have been abusing the ability to post anonymously. Some people have started fights under an anonymous name and have then kept it going by participating on both sides of the ensuing flame war. Others have posted obscene insults anonymously and have then, once other people jumped into the fight, supported the person they were initially insulting using their own nickname. I have removed the ability for these people to change their nickname when they post comments and will do the same for any other users who do this in the future.
I'm confident that this present phase of rudeness is temporary and the web site will soon be back to being the interesting discussion forum that I have enjoyed being part of. If anything this is my fault for letting some of this go on for so long. (reply to this comment) |
| | From Joe H
Monday, May 03, 2004, 10:48
(Agree/Disagree?)
I think that is an excellent policy, Jules. I know I went a bit overboard last month, and I realized that I was starting to just be gratuitously mean, rather than funny. My apologies to all.
I especially like your policy of taking away people's ability to post anonymously if they abuse the priveledge. I think if you're going to insult someone, you should have the balls to show your face, as it were. Granted, I use the pseudonyms of the Grammar Nazi and the Pedantic Prick, but I'm pretty sure everyone knows it's me, so that doesn't really apply. (reply to this comment) |
| | From Jules
Monday, May 03, 2004, 12:50
(Agree/Disagree?)
Almost every person on here has insulted or wound someone up anonymously at some point. As long as it's in good fun and not malicious then I don't see too much of a problem with that. Some people really do ask for it sometimes. I understand that's easy for me to say and if it is something that upsets users than perhaps this is something we should consider making a policy here. My issue right now is mainly with those who misrepresent themselves. The people in question know who they are and what I am talking about. I have already gotten an apology email and reinstated the anonymous posting for one of them. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Jules
Tuesday, May 04, 2004, 08:16
(Agree/Disagree?)
Ah yes you do Alf. In fact you are the king of the windup, with the funny version of Joe H and Neezy in close second. I suppose I am culturally biased but you are a perfect example of someone who is witty, often annoying, sometimes infuriating, but never malicious. That's what used to make this site fun. Personally I respect and enjoy interacting with people who challenge my opinions and intellect, not just my patience. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | from banal_commentator
Friday, April 30, 2004 - 11:22
(Agree/Disagree?)
It is important to have a symmetrical face
It is important to have wide set eyes
It is important to have straight, white teeth
It is important to have arched eyebrows
Above all, it is important to be thin!
If you cannot have these things, then it is vitally important to have an education.
(reply to this comment)
| | | | | | | | | | From frmrjoyish
Friday, April 30, 2004, 17:39
(Agree/Disagree?)
It is important to be healthy!
It is important to have inner beauty as well as outer beauty!
It is important to take pride in your appearance!
It is important to be selfconfident enough to be proud of your appearance!
It is important to have eyes that can see beyond physical beauty!
Above all, it is important to be educated enough to know that beauty and brains are not mutually exclusive!(reply to this comment) |
| | From Joe H
Saturday, May 01, 2004, 01:24
(Agree/Disagree?)
Joy, dearest, I agree whole-heartedly. But, I read something on a link that someone below suggested I visit, and I thought it was really amusing: "I heard a song today that said 'If beauty is on the inside, I wish you would turn inside out'"
(Please rest assured that I am just posting this for laughs and it is not directed at anyone in particular.)(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | from anovagrrl
Friday, April 30, 2004 - 10:52
(Agree/Disagree?)
I don't think that the topic of physical attractiveness is (in and of itself) a trite subject. Who we find attractive--and why--is very useful information. The current reseach on objective standards of beauty is also fascinating stuff. There are certain symmetries and proportions in the face & body (regardless of race or gender) that are recognized and preferred by very small children who do not have extensive exposure to cultural standards of beauty. Why is this? The research suggests we are hard-wired in ways that make us more open and responsive to attractive people. The reason for this is simple: certain physical symmetries and proportions indicate a healthy state, and health definitely provides a competitive advantage in reproductive selection.
Didn't you ever wonder why some people with unimpressive work skills get promotions while others don't? Or why some dim-witted, good-old-boy can get elected prez of the US while more qualified and intelligent people can't even make it out of the starting box get a party nomination? Like it or not, perceptions of physical attractiveness explain A LOT of selection behavior among human beings. Yes, it irks me to think that a presidential candidate has an advantage over his opponent simply because he is more photogenic. But that's reality, and a difference in physical attractiveness may be something that tips the balance in a very, very close election. If John Kerry is doing botox and getting camera-friendly makeup jobs, it may not be because he's a shallow, vain man. It could be he's a very competitive realist.
Perhaps it is inane to speculate on whether TF has a significant number of attractive people, particularly among the young adults & adolescents. But the fact is, most standards of beauty are linked to youth and there are thousands of young people in and out of TF. On the face of things, TF appears to be a subculture that places a lot of emphasis on physical attractiveness. All you have to do is check out the official websites and artwork, and images of attractive people jump out at you. The same is true for this site, and I don't think that's a bad thing. Very often I'm drawn into reading stuff because the photo that boots up makes me thinK, "Geez, what cute little kids" or "Hmmm, what an interesting face."
What's really interesting (to me, at least) is how this topic hit a raw nerve with some folks. I suspect TF generated some some very toxic messages about this, where being physically attractive was one of those damned-if-you-are and damned-if-you-aren't conditions.
(reply to this comment)
| from sarafina
Friday, April 30, 2004 - 09:57
(Agree/Disagree?)
I think nAuty here has come up with probably the most logical and practical answer to your question so far. In the family we weren't allowed to shave , cut or color our hair, wear makeup or wear anything cute or sexy. We were dressed in forsake all and leftover clothes from good will. I always felt so yucky and homely. Some even had to wear huge thick provisioned eyeglasses that would distort their otherwise gorgeous eyes. So I agree a lot of us when we left became extremely self conscious of our looks and went to the opposite extreme to look good. It usually wasn't to hard such as a decent haircut some make up and maybe some contacts instead of glasses. I think a lot of us would have been great candidates for the "extreme make over" show when we first left..lol
(reply to this comment)
| | | | | | | | | | from nAuty
Friday, April 30, 2004 - 08:08
(Agree/Disagree?)
The answer is simple! In TF we couldn't wash our hair except once a week that totalled 7 minutes in the shower. If we looked in the mirror longer than several seconds we were corrected because we were being vain and primping. Hair dye, gel & blow dryers were hard to come by . . .make-up even harder. Our lives were filled with forsake all clothes and memories of hairy arm pits & bushy legs. And I'm sure the list goes on and on and on . . . .
Now that we're out we're about the vainest bunch you could come across. Buying all sorts of products that we never were priviledged to have access to when we were teens and young adults. Hell, my closet has one of the largest make-up collections I've seen . . .except my mothers who is equally as vain as I. Not to speak of the various assortments of hair dryers, flatteners, diffusers & curlers.
And if all the clothes & make up doesn't cut it . ..well, then we just buy our body parts & call it a day. :-)
A quote to live by:
"Vanity, my favorite sin" Robert Deniro, Devil's Advocate
(reply to this comment)
| | | | From Cultinvator
Sunday, May 02, 2004, 03:04
(Agree/Disagree?)
I have to say, Yes Joe is right! Technically... At least about the Al Pacino part. That was a movie I got shit for before it came into the rating list of 'watchable movies' but in terms of the larger picture, audy has an honest opinion, but solely subjective, or at least from a female perspective. I don't give a flying fuck about physical appearance when it comes to making a point, I don't even know what half of the membership lookes like. Look but don't touch, touch but don't taste, he's an absentee landlord... one of Sarafina's favorite lines. Taste but dont' swallow. Until we have a major get together, and really get to know something about our real personalities, I don't think anything about each other's true characters will surface above opionon and character underating.
We're concerned about how we look but we don't know what we look like to those who are like us unless we find a way to bridge our way of looking at our day to day realities.
So all we can do is either agree or attack to understand, not to villify, althogh many a battle has been waged in name of truth, and not true understanding of really what the fuck we are saying, because in the long run we're often looking for a lot of the same things.
So back to the original points, there makes no sense to suppose that pictures portray a real image. The original post is right in a verly limited way, because people will dress up to accepted, but often there is veruy little appreciation for the more consistent self. The projecte self seems to take over, be be recognised and I even feel like want that type of acknolegement to some extent.
People want to feel like the now is better than the 'geeky' before, but we atack our before characters in each other instead of seeing what we've arrived to being. Ok I'm a bit buzzed, so take it or ignore it.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From Joe H
Monday, May 03, 2004, 11:18
(Agree/Disagree?)
You know, it's really unfair to warn us "I'm a bit buzzed, so take it or ignore it" AFTER we get done reading your ramblings. Granted, I should have known from the word "Cultinvator" at that top that the comment was going to confuse and irritate me, but this was the most nonsensical of all your ramblings that sheer morbid curiousity sometimes compells me to read. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Banshee
Monday, May 03, 2004, 08:09
(Agree/Disagree?)
Al Pacino and Robert De Niro: I'm a fan of them both (and a movie fan) so I find it hard to mix them up, but I have heard others say they get them mixed up. You are right, though, they both act in "The Godfather", but Robert De Niro only plays in "The Godfather II", whereas Al Pacino is in all three. Here are their filmographies from yahoo, so they might not be complete:
Al Pacino:
Gigli (2003)
People I Know (2003)
The Recruit (2003)
Stuck on You (2003)
Insomnia (2002)
Simone (2002)
Any Given Sunday (1999)
The Insider (1999)
Devil's Advocate (1997)
Donnie Brasco (1997)
City Hall (1996)
Looking for Richard (1996)
Heat (1995)
Two Bits (1995)
Carlito's Way (1993)
Glengarry Glen Ross (1992)
Scent of a Woman (1992)
Frankie and Johnny (1991)
Dick Tracy (1990)
The Godfather Part III (1990)
Sea of Love (1989)
Revolution (1985)
Scarface (1983)
Author! Author! (1982)
Cruising (1980)
And Justice for All (1979)
Bobby Deerfield (1977)
Dog Day Afternoon (1975)
The Godfather Part II (1974)
Scarecrow (1973)
Serpico (1973)
The Godfather (1972)
Robert DeNiro:
Godsend (2004)
Shark Tale (2004)
Analyze That (2002)
City by the Sea (2002)
Showtime (2002)
15 Minutes (2001)
The Score (2001)
The Adventures of Rocky and Bullwinkle (2000)
Meet the Parents (2000)
Men of Honor (2000)
Analyze This (1999)
Flawless (1999)
Great Expectations (1998)
Ronin (1998)
Wag the Dog (1998)
Cop Land (1997)
Jackie Brown (1997)
The Fan (1996)
Marvin's Room (1996)
Sleepers (1996)
Casino (1995)
Heat (1995)
Mary Shelley's Frankenstein (1994)
A Bronx Tale (1993)
Mad Dog and Glory (1993)
This Boy's Life (1993)
Mistress (1992)
Night and the City (1992)
Backdraft (1991)
Cape Fear (1991)
Guilty by Suspicion (1991)
Awakenings (1990)
Goodfellas (1990)
Stanley & Iris (1990)
Jacknife (1989)
We're No Angels (1989)
Midnight Run (1988)
Angel Heart (1987)
The Untouchables (1987)
Untouchables (1987)
The Mission (1986)
Brazil (1985)
Falling in Love (1984)
Once Upon a Time in America (1984)
The King of Comedy (1982)
True Confessions (1981)
Raging Bull (1980)
Line of Fire (1979)
The Deer Hunter (1978)
The Last Tycoon (1977)
New York, New York (1977)
1900 (1976)
Taxi Driver (1976)
The Godfather Part II (1974)
Bang the Drum Slowly (1973)
Mean Streets (1973)
Addict (1971)
Born to Win (1971)
The Gang That Couldn't Shoot Straight (1971)
Bloody Mama (1970)
Hi, Mom! (1969)
The Swap (1969)
The Wedding Party (1969)
Greetings (1968)
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | from exister
Friday, April 30, 2004 - 07:38
(Agree/Disagree?)
GoldenMic,
First, let me point out that there were and are still some pretty hurtin' faces in the Family. I'm talking the ones that fell out of the ugly tree and hit every branch on the way down. Ugly as homemade sin. Ones that made it on my "Gald I Never Fucked Her" list.
That being said there were also many physically attractive people. Though when I see pictures of current members that may be physically attractive I am always put off by the spaced out look in their eyes that results from the total absence of an inner self.
The acquisition of new members in the Family has always been based on one-on-one proselytization. If the proselytizer is given a choice between witnessing for hours to a raging hottie are an abject, pimple faced geek which do you think he will choose? The implications of your answer lead to the conclusion you have made above.
Sincerely so hot for myself, exister
(reply to this comment)
| from Just a girl
Thursday, April 29, 2004 - 19:25
(Agree/Disagree?)
Actually, I think a lot of the young people in the Family now are very attractive. You can see some of them here: http://www.netlinkup.com/pictures/ Of course this is self-selective also, for the same reasons that the pictures here are.
Beauty is only partially genetics; it takes a lot of work as well. Physical attractiveness is a matter of components. Mix together a fit, toned, smooth body, great hair and teeth, soft smooth skin, good grooming and flattering clothes and you have a hottie. Maintaining all that takes work, sometimes money, and I think it’s a matter of your priorities.
We lived in a very sexualized environment where, among our peers, how we were rated in terms of attractiveness meant everything, uniquely so because we were only allowed to date or interact with the tiny amount of people that we lived with in the group. How many polls have been posted here now asking people to rate the hottest girl/guy? We grew up with sexualized images everywhere and the TKs, which were basically soft porn, portrayed nothing but women with porn star bodies (skinny with huge plastic breasts). These images had a major impact on me. It was ironic that my mom threw away my Barbie because it was a bad influence, but gave me The Love Of God TK to read.
Even if our lame attempts then now seem rather embarrassing, I think many of us did care a great deal about our physical appearance. While many of the FGs were happy to be Revolutionary Women and let their underarm hair, leg hair and eyebrows go to forestation, I did not know any younger girls who did this (willingly). Most of the young girls I know were concerned about their looks to the point of obsession. The girl who was the most attractive to “the boys” was the queen bee among the young females and everyone wished they could have that position. What is ironic is that the qualities that were attractive in the Family, being short and tiny, being submissive and docile, putting out aka being a total tramp, being bright enough to understand what “the boys” were saying but not bright enough to challenge them, are things that are not very attractive to healthy and decent men in the real world.
The males too concentrated on their looks, clothes and bodies to a point that I have never seen outside of the gay community. Don’t get me wrong, I love Queer Eye for the Straight Guy and think every male should pay a bit more attention to his personal hygiene and fashion. When men actually do this it’s fantastic. It’s just that in my experience, most heterosexual men can look like Homer Simpson and still think they are god’s gift. Besides worrying about whether or not their genitalia is large enough, most men are clueless about how they look and certainly do not obsess over their bodies the way Family boys or women do. The Brazil Video Ministry boys (http://www.kidzvids.com/nathan/video/LOL%204%20U.mpg )are certainly a bit over the top, but that type of behavior that seems so gay to us, is, I think, just extreme narcissism and parading their wares around in a way that, among humans, usually only females do.
I think that when our own sexual desirability is something that is very important to us then we are willing to invest a great deal of time, money and effort into maintaining our appearance. I know a number of ex-members, (males as well) who had plastic surgery as soon as they could afford it. Certain substances will shed those extra ten pounds like nothing else and sometimes I think some drug use comes from that. A number of us have suffered from eating disorders like Anorexia and Bulimia, even to the point where it has been life threatening. So many of my friends, and I myself, have been in abusive relationships. When the object is just to affirm that others want us, it sometimes doesn’t matter to us who the people who desire us are. I’ve seen this, even here, that some people need to have everyone they come in contact with be attracted to them, or at the very least notice them, and they will be incredibly obnoxious, ostentatious or flirtatious in order to ensure this.
Something I find very sad is that I see these same patterns in many children today. Kids today are also bombarded with sexualized imagery and sexuality and the importance of sexual desirability is constantly reinforced through the media and the role models that preteen and prepubescent children have now. Children who are eight years old obsess about their bodies the way so many of us did at that same age. Children should be building mud pies, climbing trees and running wild outdoors, not wearing makeup, worrying about their accessories and copying Britney Spears’ dance moves.
(reply to this comment)
| From Joe H
Friday, April 30, 2004, 10:53
(Agree/Disagree?)
Hey, Just a girl, hope you're not too offended by my other comment. Couldn't resist, I don't know why. Anyway, I want to say that I fully agree with your assertion that being attractive is a lot of work. Obviously, for some people, a makeover can only do so much, but it is amazing to see what a little make up and the right hair cut can do for someone. I know from my own experience that women used to completely ignore me when I had long hair and glasses (I was a bit chubbier too).
PS Queer eye is great, though ironically the name promotes the stereotype that gay men are well dressed, making straight men afraid to be fabulous. (reply to this comment) |
| | From Joe H
Friday, April 30, 2004, 10:21
(Agree/Disagree?)
I just went to that website and looked at all 30 photos, and not to be mean, but I wouldn't sleep with any of those girls without at least 4 long island iced teas in me. So, in the spirit of making observations based on small sample sizes and then postulating hypotheses to explain them, I'm going to venture a theory that the reason there are no good-looking women left in the Family is that the cute ones always had guys flirting with them when they went out witnessing, which made them more likely to leave. Plus, it's hard getting a job as a stripper if you're not cute!(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | From a 27 year old chick
Monday, May 03, 2004, 09:29
(Agree/Disagree?)
I can assure you I am not a guy, so I won't be able to help you out with the drinking buddie need, sorry. I am a just a girl who is trying to be honest with you. I didn't write that to insult you, I wrote it to make a point. It might require getting drunk for you to have sex with certain people you consider less than "hot" and that's fine, that's what some people have to do in order to get laid. But what you don't get is that most girls I know (over the age of 16) wouldn't be lining up to sleep with you because of your looks. But that's ok, looks are not everything, right?
On the subject of beautiful people, I do believe the outside says a whole lot about the inside. If you take the time to make yourself as sexy and appealing as possible than you are obviously thinking about scoring with someone equally as appealing. It takes work. I have to admit I can be very superficial when it comes to looks and I tend to place perfect bodies and gorgeous faces high on pedistals, which may not always be the best. But one thing I know is that quote has a certain truth to it, -"tell her she's beautiful and beautiful she'll be". If I find out someone's into me and I know they'll be checking me out next chance they get, I will work out harder, eat less...if I know I'll be seeing them, I'll put on something a little more femine or sweet and do everything in my power to prove to them that they were right in thinking that I'm pretty. And all of a sudden I am looking better then I have in a while. Of course, with girls the power of flirtation and sexuality has so very much to do with how a guy rates you. I've known guys to think of certain girls as really hot soley because of their flirty eyes or the way they walk or carry themselves. Girls, you have to think highly of yourselves! Sex appeal is all about how you feel, how much you enjoy sex, how much you want it. That's what guys are looking for!(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | from frmrjoyish
Thursday, April 29, 2004 - 13:50
(Agree/Disagree?)
Just remember, Mike, that you are seeing pictures of second generation adults after they have left TF. When I look at old pictures or even current ones of people still in, I see tired, over-worked hippieish zombies. I know that when I see pictures of me in the cult, I am horrified at how I look. No make up, frizzy, unhighlighted hair! Definitely not the typical image of beauty. Not to mention the despicable clothes we most likely found in the forsake all. It wasn't until I had been out a few years and experimented with a few looks, techniques, etc. that I began to think of myself as somewhat attractive. The other day I found a picture of myself when I was fresh off the boat!! It was so ugly it was sad. If this site ever gets fixed I'll post it. Maybe it'll give people a good chuckle!!
(reply to this comment)
| | | | | | | from Bonita
Thursday, April 29, 2004 - 12:43
(Agree/Disagree?)
You are right Mike, the second generation of the COG are very good looking and intelligent. This is attributed to the fact that it's rare to find a COG child that isn't mixed race is rare. There are a lot of South American, Italians mixed with German, Norwegian, Swedish, British, Caribbean also from the middle East, India and the Phillipines - you mix these races with white angle Saxon and you get a lovely bunch of kidz! in the COG they believed in breeding, not in "inbreeding" and that is why we came out the way we did! had we not been born in the COG half of us wouldn't be here! thanks for the compliment:)
(reply to this comment)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | From GoldenMic
Thursday, April 29, 2004, 13:56
(Agree/Disagree?)
Thanks, Bonita, at the risk of exposing yourself to Joe's ire, you actually postulated an interesting answer to a question that he doesn't care for! I think you may be right about the relationship between physical beauty and racial blending. In fact, two of the very few beautiful people at isot are the daughters of a woman of Finnish descent and her Asian husband... Of course, I will again acknowledge that this is a generalization, that physical beauty doesn't tell us much, and that Joe knows everything! Michael M.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | from Invisible Girl
Thursday, April 29, 2004 - 10:09
(Agree/Disagree?)
In the Family there was no such assets as education and if you had a unique personality they worked to make you "be like Grandpa and mama," "be like Jesus", be like everyone else.
With the communal living, you didn't express your unique personality and choices in life through your possessions (at one Teen Home I just had a suitcase under the bed that was subject to search at any time and we were supposed to keep the "girls' room" plain as an army barrack).
So take someone like me, born there, no chances to ever have something to single me out -- unless of course I was gorgeous *and* *naturally* thin (when I wanted to diet or start an exercise regime that would have an effect, not just go do what they told I could do for a "get out") I was prohibited because that was "vanity," pride. If a shepherdess particularly had it in for me too, forget it.
They were against vanity (aka grooming, duh). No shaving body hair, etc. Got ancient forsake-all clothes or a cheap item provisioned to wear, nothing I chose. When I scavenged and made something unique, I'm told I'm systemitey.
All you really had was your stark unimproved physical existence.
But the contradiction is that looks were an asset to the group. The striking FGs were FFers who brought in moneyand protection, later tapenessers that systemites had a hard time saying no to. Pretty people were sought after to "share" with and be leaders' main F*** and could get sheltered even if for a spell.
The Family was incredibly "looksist." Just take a look at any poster. But the reality in a Home was that there were plenty moms with straggly hair and bad teeth and tired figures from 10 pregnancies. They were supposed to be content in their role as factory for the slave labor.
If you were an ugly duckling you're expected to suck it up and accept life as an untouchable. No excelling intellectually or artistically, getting rich or developing uniqueness to compensate.
In the Lord of the Flies atmosphere of a teen home, my experience was that I was nonexistent to boys my age because (i) I was not a shepherd's child, so I had no status, (ii) I was a "rotten apple" so people shunned me, (iii) my otherwise not displeasing appearance (as a child I had even been called pretty) was obscured by the lack of fashion or grooming and the needed exercise and also by the fact that in that world I was miserable and the only comfort for me was eating and since the molestation of me began by adults (just as my body developed and hormones added to the struggle) I became chubby...and invisible. And had no outlets as long as I was in that world for becoming a "better catch."
(reply to this comment)
| from Joe H
Thursday, April 29, 2004 - 10:05
(Agree/Disagree?)
Your observation is flawed, therefore all hypotheses that could possibly be used to explain it are flawed as well. Maybe someone could give me a better statistic, but I'm guessing that out of 1415 registered users, less than 200 have posted photos. It's natural to think that the good looking are more likely to put up photos of themselves, but a more careful perusal of the existing pics may surprise you. There are a lot of average looking people, and even a few downright ugly ones. So if you adjust for the phenomenon of good looking people showing off, I think you'll find that the percentage of attractive young people that have left the cult is very similar to that of society at large.
Am I the only one who's sick of people inventing some feature or characteristic that we all allegedly have in common, and then trying to blame it on our upbringing? Jesus, move on, people!
(reply to this comment)
| | | | | | | from anovagrrl
Thursday, April 29, 2004 - 09:52
(Agree/Disagree?)
I've thought many times that the movingon participants who post pics are an unusually attractive group of young adults. I've wondered why that is, also. It's probably a self-selection effect working on a number of levels--the good looking folks post their pics more readily than those who don't feels as confident about their appearance. Also, good-looking SGs may have found it easier to get out and make it on their own, as research on physical attractiveness indicates this personal characteristic increases the likelihood of being hired and/or helped by strangers. The cult's emphasis on sexual attractiveness may also have enhanced the selection of more attractive people in the competition to breed. This last hypothesis is reasonable, but processes of natural selection are really complex and difficult to establish.
(reply to this comment)
| | | | From jez
Tuesday, May 04, 2004, 12:16
(Agree/Disagree?)
It is a medical fact that women are more likely to get pregnant by someone they're physically attracted to, regardless of how many sexual partners they have. I don't know all the necessary jargon, but it's something to do with hormones and pheremones, heightening their sexual arousal.
One of the results is better chance of attaining orgasm, which can cause the female reproductive organs to dip into and retrieve sperm, then depositing it deeper and closer to its intended target; the egg. This is evidenced by a rippling motion of the abdomen and easily observed/felt from the outside, although I've seen a documentary which depicted this from the inside via an optic fibre camera.
This is of course on condition that all of the men have equal sperm counts, virility etc. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | From GoldenMic
Thursday, April 29, 2004, 13:30
(Agree/Disagree?)
Joe, you are certainly a jerk! I asked a simple question, and you automatically define me as some kind of ignorant gereralizer. In fact, at Isot there have been about ten truly beautiful members in the last 1-2 thousand, and that's why I was interested in the startling number of good-looking people among those COG members I had seen. You used very lazy thinking to assume I was simply stating a prejudice, especially since I pre-acknowledged the limitations of my observations and was simply asking experts like you to give me feedback. What it is, are you the resident trash-talking cynic here on this website? Michael M.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From anovagrrl
Thursday, April 29, 2004, 11:12
(Agree/Disagree?)
OK. I see your point, and I stand corrected on any generalization I made about people who grew up in TF. However, it is accurate to say that the majority of pics posted on this site give a general impression of physically attractive people. I also think that initial impressions can be deceiving. I've known people who appeared really attractive at first glance. After I got to know them, I didn't think they were such good looking people. Just the reverse is true about people who didn't seem so great looking to me on first impression. After getting to know them, I found them extremely attractive. Who we find physically attractive has a element of subjectivity, but there are also some objective standards on which all humans evaluate beauty. The studies on this are interesting, imo, because this factor alone--physical beauty--appears to explain a lot of what happens through processes of natural selection. (reply to this comment) |
| | from Nick
Thursday, April 29, 2004 - 08:28
(Agree/Disagree?)
I really don't know if the COG has more beautiful people but I do agree that there were not that many overweight people due to the diet and all the "Junk food" rules. Also the "get out" probably didn't hurt.
One thing that I have noticed though is that a lot of exer guys are very picky with the women they date and have high standards as far as looks go. Anyone have any thoughts on that?
(reply to this comment)
| From jez
Friday, April 30, 2004, 09:46
(Agree/Disagree?)
It might have something to do with the fact that we've had sex thrust upon us (literally) from a young age and it's never been held in awe by us. Whereas out here in the real world some lads are so desperate to get it wet, they'll do it with anyone with a pulse and not worry about the consequences.
The worst of which is to get a reputation as a dog-shagger, then no self-respecting fit woman would be seen dead in their company. In this highly image-conscious society we live in, many women judge men by the competition (his former/current partner/s).
In my case I'd rather go without, than wake up the next morning next to someone I wish I hadn't. I used to get rebuked when barely a teenager, for not wanting to 'share' with some heinous hag old enough to be my mother. When rebellious, I would be told this was a result of my being sexually frustrated and if I said that was impossible as I'd already had a wank, then that was me being selfish!
Because I've had sex pushed on me so much from the age of 11, it no longer has such a hold on me. I still enjoy it and if I'm going to do it, I'm willing to wait out for someone worth doing it with over and over again. I don't consider myself to be god's gift, but then I've also realised that us men are lucky in that it's not a prerequisite. We don't have to be good looking, just not ugly (especially on the inside).(reply to this comment) |
| | From frmrjoyish
Friday, April 30, 2004, 13:21
(Agree/Disagree?)
Your so right, Jez! I recently read a study comparing the evolution of female mate choice in guppies and humans. It seems that in both species, females will choose males who are surrounded my more females regardless of physical attractiveness. Despite popular opinion, this study also found no significant difference in the weight placed on physical appearance between the sexes. It would seem we girls are just as shallow as we think you boys sometimes are!! ; )(reply to this comment) |
| | From afflick
Thursday, April 29, 2004, 15:31
(Agree/Disagree?)
I noticed this ten to fifteen years ago while a teenager in the Family. The Family did have A LOT of good looking people, especially girls. Whether this has to do with the fact that they were all teens and young adults at this point, with the firm bodies this stage affords, or due to diet is anyone's guess.
But I also think there is something to be said about the nature of how a cult chooses its members. In the beginning, the COG was mostly made up of men. Men who were commissioned by Bergie to get out there and find wives for themselves.
To do this, these men piled into a bus or van, drove to a heavily populated area, and looked around. Do you think they focused on the less attractive of the opposite sex to begin their quest?
Chances are, no they did not. They scanned the crowd for beautiful girls to "witness" to, hopefully convert, and then reproduce.
Yes, many of these women are now less attractive because of multiple births, years without skin care, and infrequent visits to the dentists. But that doesn't mean it was always that way.
In fact, Berg may have noticed the high population of attractive women in his following and from there decided to start the FFing money maker.
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | from moon beam
Thursday, April 29, 2004 - 07:07
(Agree/Disagree?)
What has become of the group?
(reply to this comment)
| From GoldenMic
Thursday, April 29, 2004, 13:39
(Agree/Disagree?)
If you are asking what has become of Isot, its still alive and kicking, with a headquarters in Canby, California and homes in Oregon and Idaho, approximately 200-300 members at any one time. Its original "prophet" E. Marie Tolbert is a contemporary of Mo's, but she's still alive (dammit), and just beginning to fade. It will be interesting to see if a "Maria and Peter" show up after she's gone, though her own natural children are a bunch of pathetic slobs with little natural talent for the subtleties of truly screwing over others... Michael M.(reply to this comment) |
| | from cassy
Thursday, April 29, 2004 - 06:50
(Agree/Disagree?)
I know some pretty ugly members of the COG. Oh boy. I don't think there was an over emphasis on beauty, but perhaps on health, because Berg was against any junk food, so most members are not overweight. But maybe that's due to not having much food to eat at all.
Nice compliment though to all the lovely people on this site!
(reply to this comment)
| From GoldenMic
Thursday, April 29, 2004, 14:10
(Agree/Disagree?)
You make a good point, but even the percentage that "wise Joe" mentioned, 200 out of 1400, seems higher than average, and at my own little cult the numbers are closer to 1 out of 100! Also, the fact that Isot's "prophet", E. Marie Tolbert (we have named her "empty" based on her initials) is a 300-pound slob has a HUGE (no pun intended) impact... At Isot, though we went through constant fasting (always cut short because Tolbert got hungry) and chronic food shortages, the food we DID eat always included lots of inexpensive and fattening potatoes and other greasy slop, so that the people have a generally bovine and listless appearance that is only exacerbated by the avoidance of "worldly" use of make-up, and a typical cult abhorence of physical fitness, self-discipline, and anything else that might serve to accidentally raise the self-image of the members. Mike M.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | |
|
|
|
|
(
]
[About the Trailer Park] [Who Links Here]