David SimsEssays

The Importance of Beauty

knight_dunlapby David Sims

KNIGHT Dunlap (1875–1949; pictured) was an American psychologist who made a special study of human beauty. He wrote, “Whatever its importance for the individual, beauty is for the race and for civilization of such profound importance that no other fundamental consideration of human welfare and progress can be divorced from it.” He also wrote: “Ugliness, it is true, is often skin deep, but beauty never. Beauty is something which depends upon the whole organism.”

Why does beauty appear to us? For what reason do we perceive it? After examination, Dunlap found that “It is evident now that whether there are other considerations or not, the most important element in the beauty of any individual is the evidence of her (or his) fitness for the function of procreating healthy children of the highest type of efficiency, according to the standards of the race; and ability to protect these children” and that “The standard of beauty in complexion, whether light or dark, is that which goes with the full bloom of sexual vigor, when the human organism is at its perfect development for the perpetuation of the species.”

He also said, “Human beauty is a sign of fitness for parenthood; fitness to propagate children who shall be, in high degree, able to hold their own in the mental and physical struggle with nature and with their human competitors. It is the sign which is intuitively recognized by the race and upon which the process of sexual selection is based. It is therefore nothing superficial: it is the external appearance of the germinal possibility which is the most important of all things for society.”

In other words, beauty is the composite, or a kind of summary, of all those qualities that experience has taught people, across perhaps thousands of years, are to be found in the members of their own race who are best fitted to perpetuate the species through the generation and protection of children. Beauty is therefore not merely decorative, but has a primary importance to survival.

* * *

Source: Author

Previous post

"Social Justice Shorting": Making Millions By Betting Against Leftist Companies

Next post

An Intrepid Liar

Notify of
Inline Feedback
View all comments
Christopher Strenta
Christopher Strenta
23 September, 2016 1:02 am

When I was in kindergarten (1971-1972) I was literally the most popular kid in my whole class. When I was in 1st grade, I was made “president of the class”, which meant if the teacher had to step out of the room, I would stand in front of the class to make sure they behaved themselves. As elementary school and the seventies wore on, and as I learned about soap, lampshades, and the sin of sins – racism – the discord between school and the home took it’s toll, albeit subconciously. It was like something right out of the George Lincoln Rockwell cartoon about the ducks and the hens.

23 September, 2016 4:31 am

Why did Dr Pierce say that sex where a child who is likely to be ugly goes against the will ofmthe creator? I’m not exactly handsome myself. What difference does it make is a member of our race is ugly or not? Should ugly Whites not procreate? If one parent is ugly and one parent is good-looking, the child may very well be good-looking. If both parents are ugly, the child may still be good-looking if there are good-looking people on either the maternal or paternal line of the family. Haven’t some of the greatest geniuses and creators of our race been ugly?

Will Williams
Will Williams
24 September, 2016 11:43 am

Dr. Pierce was a eugenicist in the best sense of the word. Eugenics – “from Greek eugenes “well-born, of good stock, of noble race,” from eu- “good” (see eu-) + genos “birth” (see genus).”

There will always be unattractive people, but that is no reason to not have high ideals for the race or to oppose “good breeding.” Ugliness and beauty are relative terms, but we generally know beauty when we see it. To hope that more ugly people will breed sounds dysgenic, probably advanced by ugly people who resent their lot in life.

Please cite where Dr. Pierce said sex where a child who is likely to be ugly goes against the will of the creator That doesn’t sound like the way Dr. Pierce wrote.

24 September, 2016 8:13 pm

I just wrote it hastily and in paraphrase. It is hard to type on an iPad. I read an article on here where he said something to the effect of: “Sex the has a high likelihood of resulting in an ugly child is irresponsible and goes against the will of the Creator.” But yes, it would be nice if no one had to be ugly.

24 September, 2016 8:23 pm

It is quite common to see an attractive sister and an ugly sister. I don’t think the attractive sister is any more likely to produce attractive White offspring than the ugly sister. I could be wrong on this. Are uglier people more likely to have mental health issues and physical ailments, and so that is one reason their breeding is less desirable than that of attractive Whites? Is beauty more than just pleasant, but also an indicator of superior mental health, genes, etc.?

Reply to  MichaelR
14 July, 2017 7:44 pm

I have always noticed that, as a good general rule, if the mother is noticeably more physically attractive than the father, the first born will usually get a close approximation of her looks. Any children after the first born, not so lucky. Exceptions exist, of course. But it does seem to happen this way much more often than not. I haven’t noticed that many of the worlds smart (left brain analytical) people, talented (right brain artistical) people or productive (hard working, get-it-done) people are anywhere near what most would consider good looking. Those three aforementioned types tend in the other direction of the “looks” scale. It’s not certain of course whether this is due to attractive people having most/all handed to them and they don’t have to develop and use… Read more »

Walt Hampton
Walt Hampton (@walt-hampton)
26 September, 2016 12:56 am

Try as I may, I just cannot see attractiveness
in grossly overweight females who wear thongs
on the beach.

Christopher Strenta
Christopher Strenta
26 September, 2016 12:47 pm

I knew a girl when I was about 15 that was the type of girl construction workers would whistle at. I entered into a relationship with this girl, and within a couple of weeks she went from being very “beautiful”, to being very “un-beautiful”, for the simple reason that she was stupid – she had no brains and it showed. I knew another girl that I would describe as being “homely” when I first met her. Within a few weeks, before my eyes, she blossomed into a truly beautiful girl (in spite of the layers of social conditioning) because she had a truly beautiful spirit.

Christopher Strenta
Christopher Strenta
27 September, 2016 2:25 am

I would just like to add that, in summary, Mr. Dunlop is %100 right in that that beauty is nothing superficial. I remember when it became fashionable for black females to straighten their hair out, I thought it was a definite improvement.

Christopher Strenta
Christopher Strenta
27 September, 2016 2:29 am

..oops, I got the percentage sign backwards. Sorry.