When I saw her, my opinion is that she appeared like this cute little girl who displayed great expressive skills beyond kids of her age. She could accurately describe her feelings and thoughts clearly and I thought it was excellent.
But little cutie was little terror as well. And I literally mean TERROR with caps.
After this episode, my natural deductive mechanism started working its rounds; looks are terribly deceiving. I think we can learn a couple of lessons from 张无忌的妈妈(殷素素). Before she died, she said that "漂亮的女生都会骗人." The gist of her advice to her son was don't fringing trust woman, especially those you think is pretty, cute or both.
In my case, this also applies to a 4-years old.
But you see, looks is a critical factor to a woman's destiny. In a research (Smith, 1985) done on preschoolers, attractive preschooler girls were more often recipents of altruistic behavior and were less often recipents of aggressive behavior than were unattractive girls. I remembered I used this research to augment my sociology paper and got distinction for it. But frankly, this sole deterministic factor towards the looks department is way too reductive.
Now I will attack one point; it says 'altruistic behavior' - which probably suggest that people are 'helpful' towards woman that are attractive. Helpful in this case (although is a fringing general term) also promote the existence of a separate agenda, distinctive from the pure sense of 'being helpful'. I will adopt Thomas Hobbes perspective on this issue; simply phucking self interest. Period.
But here's an irony - although CloUdiSm does not dismissed the importance of physical beauty, it is of no guarantee to a happy and fulfiling love relationship. I will repeat; it is of no guarantee and in fact, woman who are attractive often faced the problem of men failing to know them deeper inside (not as in sex, but you know what I mean).
Some man hate me for thwarting their grand plans, because I always seek to expose some of the biggest shit these men have formulated and crafted so surreptitiously into their strategic plan. I think it helps because I always think like a bastard, although I often fail to act like one.
I am usually right with my gutsy little intuition and overactive analytical mind. I won't share scenario here but the conclusion is that there's no such thing as a good man - going by Smith's research, you are merely a recipent of an altruistic behavior because you are likely to be attractive by his standard.
And woman, before you get flattered by such manoeuvre, there is a clause to this effect: it is relative to all the women he knows in his social network. Once time has drastically reduced your 'physical value' and aggrandized by sheer comparison to the many others he might have acquainted within his social network - don't be surprised if the object of his 'altruistic behavior' is no longer you.
Unless your man loves you for who you REALLY are - which is something more lasting than our exterior self - the above paragraph might be a problem.
Then my attractive woman - how do you know if he loves you for what's inside more than what's outside?
Good question.
What do you think?
