Does "Pretty Privilege" Exist?

[Lynx]

Please excuse me if I sound impolite in this reply , I promise that it's not my intention but , I will say what I really feel if u don't mind . Only a man could ever ask that question and not know the answer to it 😯 . As a woman , I'm not even going to attempt to answer it , and I don't know any woman on earth that doesn't know the answer to that question 🥴 . I hope my honesty has not offended u brother .

CHuckle!!!! Do we drive on parkways, and park on driveways?? Is the Pope a Catholic?? (oops - that doesn't work any more)!! Does a Bear defecate in the woods???

OF COURSE IT EXISTS!!!!

Okay, the opening post could have been a little bit less disingenuous. But it did the job of getting the topic rolling.

If you have any tips on how to start a thread in a better manner, I'm sure suggestions would be appreciated.

 

[SomeDisciple]

Idk how I'd define it; but I suppose "pretty-folk" tend to get treated better in worldly circles; clean+healthy-looking is pleasant/ suggests the absence of disease etc...

I'm not sure men soliciting attractive women for sex is a downside or darkside of "pretty privlige": because (comparatively) "ugly"women get solicited by men too; unless they're some kind of swamp-hag, or they have a reputation for their boundaries, or some kind of protective entourage... but even then it still happens.... in fact, some (comparatively) "ugly" women might even get hit on more if they are or perceived as more approachable or available.

 

[Smoke]

A classic example of the danger of pretty privilege was Sarah, the wife of Abraham.

Even the Bible said she was beautiful, so much so that she attracted the attention of one of the most powerful men of God of all time.

But she also attracted the attention of other powerful men, and to the point where Abraham was willing to hand her over to them, in two separate instances, to save his own skin.

A generation later, Isaac repeated the same action with his own beautiful wife, Rebekah.

I've often wondered what these women felt at the time -- to be so beautiful that they attracted the richest, most Godly men available.

But yet, their own Godly, powerful husbands refused to protect them, and in fact willingly handed them over, knowing they would be abused, but were more concerned about their own survival.

Imagine how Sarah must have felt when God alone rescued her and brought her back to Abraham.

I know I for one could not play the role of a happy wife, that's for sure.

But I realize those were different times, and women were seen as political objects back then.

I swear you were inside my mind a few weeks ago when I was reading Genesis again. I'm perhaps a bit more cynical than you are though. I've always had a negative interpretation of this story, in particular Abraham. I can't fault a man for worrying about his life, but to be willing to essentially pimp his wife out to the Pharoah for material gain is pretty abominable and anathema to the duties of a man/husband.

I understand some might think I'm engaging in a logical fallacy called "presentism" by judging past events under modern standards/values, but I would only counter by stating that this type of behavior would have been immoral even then. Perhaps if I made the case Abraham was a sick man for marrying his half-sister, then I would be engaging in the logical fallacy of presentism as it wasn't explicitly or implicitly stated that incest is forbidden.

(Sorry I completely sidestepped your point about Sarah's beauty. Just wanted to share my thoughts.)

 

[Lynx]

I swear you were inside my mind a few weeks ago when I was reading Genesis again. I'm perhaps a bit more cynical than you are though. I've always had a negative interpretation of this story, in particular Abraham. I can't fault a man for worrying about his life, but to be willing to essentially pimp his wife out to the Pharoah for material gain is pretty abominable and anathema to the duties of a man/husband.

I understand some might think I'm engaging in a logical fallacy called "presentism" by judging past events under modern standards/values, but I would only counter by stating that this type of behavior would have been immoral even then. Perhaps if I made the case Abraham was a sick man for marrying his half-sister, then I would be engaging in the logical fallacy of presentism as it wasn't explicitly or implicitly stated that incest is forbidden.

(Sorry I completely sidestepped your point about Sarah's beauty. Just wanted to share my thoughts.)

I believe what we call incest was okay back then because our genetic code was new. They didn't have any problems that we currently have.

A few iterations, and a few more instances of humans breaking the world with further sin... And our genetic code got ragged enough that we had to start putting a little separation between our family trees.