Saw a dog this morning... nothing special about that, we see strays all the time in India. What caught my eyes were the fact that his ears were scratched raw, bleeding and there was no hair over most of his body. not the most attractive dog, as you can imagine. The security guard did not even allow him to come anywhere near the society. The dog obviously used to such treatment, just turned around and went away without a whimper. Another dog, a sweet little stray, in good health just sauntered past the same man. When I asked him about the distinction, he said, asked me in disbelief "Did you not see bad the dog looks?" So here we have a dog rejected on the basis of his looks.
Heard of ' beauty with purpose' ? We have heard so often of how beauty is only skin deep that now-a - days, pageants have to use such terms to distance themselves from superficiality. In the evolved civilized world, looks are supposed to be immaterial. There is reams of research to prove otherwise. When you look good, things go your way more often than if you are not blessed in the looks department. Look into literature and you'll find that undesirable characters always have undesirable characteristics 'thin lipped, squint eyed, pimply faced, mealy mouthed etc'. Remember who the fairest of them all was? Of course, the wonderful Snowhite! We all all know about the wicked step sisters of the lovely Cinderella. Closer home, while Soorpanakha and Pootana could take on any form they chose, when the true colours were revealed, they were as ugly as sin. That reminds me, when we say 'ugly as sin', are we saying sin is ugly or that everything ugly is also sin??
So just tell me, does beauty with purpose mean that the purpose mean that it serves the purpose of being thought of as better than those who are not so beautiful?