A terrible princess

They do not argue about tastes only in sayings. In fact, the adoption of aesthetic judgment is the essence and basis of human communications. And the more visual-oriented society and its behavior online become (the easier it becomes directly to broadcast what you see with your own eyes without using unnecessary words), the stronger the taste assessment of the subject, event or person is rooted as a way of expressing your own opinion.

In the most simplified model, this looks like this: a person posts on a social network a photograph of a bouquet of flowers, sunset at sea, a puppy or a chocolate cake and, as it were, declares - it is beautiful, pleasant and glorious. The "likes" of acquaintances support his opinion and strengthen his own rightness. Well, where in general there is an inhuman tyrant who will say that the puppies are unsympathetic? But everything becomes more complicated when it ceases to go about nature, cute beasts and sweets, when the main emotion is not praising beauty, but its denial.

This form of aesthetic communication is familiar to us from "yellow" magazines. Their structure is unsophisticated and plastic, it is easy to use for each situation: photographs and comments on them, more often short, less often on a whole sheet. Here is an actress in a brilliant dress on the red carpet - the "yellow" editorial office freezes in admiration. Here the actress on the beach in a swimsuit, turned unsuccessfully and became visible cellulite - the "yellow" editors hisses about the benefits of diets. Here is the same actress, but already pregnant or with the baby - the "yellow" editorial office is touched. But this actress without a baby and makeup, but with rounded forms and in leggings - the "yellow" editorial office calls off behind him to monitor and throw off postpartum kilograms.

Today, the role of the "yellow" of the editorial office for their friends and subscribers is performed by each of us - well, if and when is the time between disputes about small -town geopolitics and dentisting on the topic of those killed on a particular side. There is always a reason for this. A couple of weeks ago, the most important was “Eurovision”, where even those who do not apply to this pop song contest as an ice battle have not been comments. “Well, I won Conchit and won. But honestly, I don’t like her appearance,” he wrote who could only on social networks. Just in case, the politician Boris Nemtsov also added (with a heavy, apparently sigh): "Probably, tolerance is not enough." But the bulk of the audience did not at all ceremony, complaining of "ugliness".

I want to talk about one hundred and forty-fifth time about the “Eurovision” or the nature of vegetation on the face of women, the least, especially since the most beautiful cross-cultural link to the bearded Catholic holy Wilhefortis has already been made. It is interesting that behind a critical judgment about the beauty of everyone who, by their own admission, is so uncomfortable due to the appearance of the Conchita VURST. Indeed, in a good way, representing a woman with a beard, a singer is something infinitely distant and ephemeral, the presence of which in our life is a free choice of everyone. Like music - download the song. I don't like it - you switch the channel. But for Russian viewers, everything was more complicated.

And those who are against, and those who for, found their attitude to the end

A program is laid down in my head: all people, in a good way, are equal, but it still turns from a female beard

VURST to argue through his awareness of her beauty. Awareness of beauty is, in fact, the assessment of another person through the prism of his own ideas about attractiveness. It would be foolish to say that vegetation on a female person seems attractive to everyone without exception. It is just as stupid, as saying that some physical parameters of a person (even the most replicated media, such as a flat stomach, large breasts and a small nose in women, or cubes on the press, strong biceps and a full head of hair in men) are something universally attractive without exception. Someone likes thin women, someone full, someone likes delicate girlish Lanites in pink fluff in the lumen, and someone is a female beard or an unshaven man in a ladies' dress. Yes, I know such people personally, they exist. And, most likely, they could argue for a long and reasonably why only a bearded woman is a peak of beauty, and a woman with a naked face is a laughter, and why all men should wear dresses.

But this does not make sense, because if the other person seems less attractive to us, this does not mean that he is less important, significant, beautiful as a human unit or has less rights because of this. Therefore, Nemtsov or any other liberal understands, evaluating Continu Wurst that he is not completely "tolerant." The program has a program in his head: all people, in a good way, are equal, but they still turn from the female beard. Although it is clear that if this female beard exists somewhere in the world, but not about his honor, then there is no need to evaluate it. It makes no difference to everyone that our liberal thinks of this beard. But this is too difficult to conclude for a selfish person: the understanding that his opinion is not important enough to become cornerstone is not easy. Therefore, he begins to evaluate people completely abstract, operating the same tools as when meeting girls at a party: based on his own ideas about attractiveness, scorching those who will not pass. And a person who does not even try to simulate his behavior as tolerant at all, all the more, in this case, he does not see the difference between his own assessment of someone else's attractiveness and the basic principles of human equality.

Seeing a wild singer in front of him, almost everyone begins to bequent: he would become with her or would not. If in the place of a bearded woman there was just a feminine-homosexual or masculine woman, it would be easier to sort, at least for heterosexuals-after all, they do not experience attraction to people of their gender. But Conchita in a bizarre way combines rather common standards of beauty: either a posture girl with a waterfall of luxurious hair, or a Voliokoy southern bearded man. Taken separately, both of these images would not cause questions. Well, some women would definitely say that for their taste a man is too hairy, and a couple of men would admit that they prefer a smaller chest, this just confirms my logic.

But at the sight of Conchita, everyone begins to panic. Because neither a woman nor a man can introduce themselves to the whole lips in the middle of a patent beard. And they should not. Although I am deeply convinced that, having tried it, some would come to the conclusion that kissing a bearded woman is really pleased. But the essence is absolutely not this. The bottom line is that you need to be able to distinguish a human attitude to others from the urge to their own genitals. You can have any understanding of what women or men you consider to be attractive for yourself, but at the same time not to deny the right to exist freely to everyone who has not passed this selection.

It is as stupid and unproductive as to force themselves to sleep with those who seem unattractive, simply to prove their point of view. But it is precisely these pretexts about the “misunderstanding of someone else's appearance”, “physical rejection” and “rejection” that are constantly covered by different very vulnerable people their racism and homophobia. When a woman makes a public statement, disagreeing with her will certainly talk about how unpleasant her appearance is, how she does not know how to take care of herself, as if an authoritative opinion happens only in people with fresh styling. Well, if a woman is well combed and, in general, as they say, "nyasha" - they believe that she does not need to listen to her, the mind does not get along with beauty. This all somehow very clearly goes against the understanding that any person exists independently of others, has the right to personal space.

No, this post is not at all a call to restrict freedom of speech. Everyone is free in their social networks to write everything that comes to mind. Just when a person is written off from accounts simply because he doesn’t look like someone's idealized sexual partner is stupid and disgusting to the laws of logic. And disputes about this is an empty waste of energy. It would be reasonable to get rid of all these nonsense about beauty and attractiveness and admit: the right to be yourself has little to do with how it reacts to others that you and I have in pants.

Katya Kazbek-feminist, LGBT research, publicist, citizen of the world

The author of the text did not receive rewards for him. The author’s opinion may not correspond to the point of view of the editorial office