Everyone will become a mannequin who is not a human already for a long time!

Alina Vitukhnovskaya, writer

The beautiful Arina Kholina released a new ironic video that “you don’t need to be beautiful”. This is not the apotheosis of body positive, this is the rationalism of an optimist. However, assessing the benefits of glamorous beauty, she, following the logic of her predictable opponents (or just the usual logic), continues to consider her and (including) as bait for men.

It is strange that no one sees beauty as what it really is - a thing in itself, a self-sufficient fetish. What is beauty for? For yourself. By the way, the next fashionable trend will be the uselessness of men, because women will master the path directly to the resource (where men are just an extra element). The same, however, will apply to women.

Nowadays, everywhere and everywhere I am persistently advised to "accept myself as I am." Why? What for? I don't want to accept what I deny. I don’t want to love what is not aesthetically pleasing. All neo-humanism, psychoanalysis and psychology, insisting on self-acceptance, occurred as antitheses to conventional "fascism" - the cult of the body, strength, and so on. Now, every time you talk about improving a person, you run the risk of being accused of "fascism" (to begin with, indirectly).

But I am sick of the fact that I am forced to accept myself in an imperfect form. I didn't mean myself to be like that. And I am not identical with the body that nature has endowed me with. And most importantly, I do not want to be identical with him. Here, “accepting yourself” is the same as accepting yourself as you were forcibly forced to be.

You can also draw an analogy with wild nature or a totalitarian state, which we must also accept, because they a priori and by default existed before us and in some way conditioned us.

In recent years, there has been a tendency for not only glamor to have exhausted itself, but also glamorous and conventional beauty no longer enjoy the same popularity. If everything is more or less clear with glamor, it is temporarily won by neo-socialism with its system of economy and the maintenance of poor classes, whose name is body positive, then with glamorous beauties, that is, real individual individuals, the situation is much more complicated.

What is a passion for beauty? This is primarily psychophysiology, and then culture. This psychophysiology was actually broken by the burden of new social norms. Which, in turn, are interpreted as a benefit. Yes, you heard right. When "gray mice" are preferred to magazine beauties and models, it is primarily and only about preserving the resource, both financial and emotional. You don't need to invest in ugly girls, you don't need to compete with them, they are reliable as long-term partners. And just as tiresome. But this is my personal opinion.

Once I wrote:

I WANT TO BE A MANNEQUIN

I want to be a dummy

Pale, long, with no chest.

Leaving behind

The being that was perishable.

Celluloid, acidic

And a total mannequin

That was not created by an animal -

McKenna's chemicals

Neither divine nor womanly

And not gentle in negligee.

I want to be a dummy

And, by the way, I already am.

The world is plastic, like your captivity

I am pleased with the dead age!

Everyone will become a mannequin

Who hasn't been a human already for a long time!

These lines, which at first glance may seem radical, reflect my "glamorous" worldview.

Recently, at one event, they talked about such a philosophical atavism as "superman". And I caught myself thinking that I see more of the superhuman in magazine glamor divas, in lolithic princesses and catwalk marble almost sexless youths than in the metaphysical projections of the Nietzscheans. I do not see in myself absolutely nothing that would be worth overcoming, because ideologically and ideologically I am ideal. But I would like to redo a lot just at the technical level. How to remodel dolls or things.

It is surprising that modern philosophy or even religion has not matured to such universal concepts as, for example, the idea of the Super Thing. After all, the Super Thing is both more universal and more interesting than a superman (the best among equals) in principle. Or, as one beautiful writer used to say, “Why are we writing something, why are all these heroes of novels when these absolutely stunning Lexuses are passing by, and the people sitting there know nothing about them?”

I would agree to eternal life only as a kind of mechanistic almost absolute functional, embodying my idea, and becoming an ever more perfect functional. Only without all this - somehow - bodily sensations, etc.

I perceive the body solely as a visual artifact. Would make it more aesthetically pleasing. And as a "source of pleasure" I do not perceive it at all. And I do not consider the generally accepted hedonistic habits to be pleasures. It is strange that after the idea of the superman Nietzsche did not come up with the idea of the Super Thing. If I could choose myself, I would become a Mercedes-Benz.