You are talking about beauty as if the only version of beauty has to be societally constructed standard. But nature has beauty. Even an ugly person or a flower missing a petal has nature’s beauty. Plus, when you love someone with their ugliness and all, you are seeing their true beauty. It’s the life in us that is the most beautiful to me and that is not an excluding thing.

Surely there are things in nature that you don’t find particularly beautiful. Shit maybe? Or rotting eggs? Or a dead bird decaying covered in flies? That’s all nature.

Whatever your taste,if you look around you’ll find things in nature that you’ll find beautiful and things that you won’t find beautiful. Those might be
useful, valuable parts of nature, but ugly. Whatever we consider beautiful in nature is socially constructed

too. Beauty doesn’t intrinsically exist in nature, it’s a word we gave to things.

So beauty is always a classification, which includes and excludes. It wouldn’t have any use as a descriptive word if it included everything.

Human bodies too will have things that you’ll find ugly. Hemorrhoids maybe? A festering wound? At some point in life your body and the bodies of the people you love are probably going to do things that you find ugly. Maybe very ugly.

Why cling to the idea of ‘seeing someone’s true beauty’? What does that mean if it encompasses shit and
hemorrhoids and rotting eggs? How is that more comfortable than ‘this is ugly and I love it’?

To me this kind of clinging to ‘everything has a true beauty’ sounds a lot like you need to believe that everything has beauty because you’re uncomfortable with the idea of ugliness.

(About this post)