I hope my comments don't offend anyone, or lead to any misunderstandings. I find myself easily tempted to be deeply intellectual ...
I am warmed up by positive sentiments expressed a person makes on another person's physique/figure, and oftentimes I have no reasons to doubt the sincerity behind such praises. But I hope I can meticulously expand the conversation on beauty and physical appearance, without stepping unnecessarily on anyone's toes. Let me begin by suggesting that the conversation's focus should not be on whether one "looks great." Perhaps more attention and urgency should be devoting to the attainment of a delicate, but not much understood or recognized balance that factors the process to reach physical health and end result of reaching it (for example, if one focuses more on the end result, at the expense of process, one can hurt him/herself both physically and mentally/emotionally). One should look 'great' because one now feels healthier, and has attained a weight and BMI that are within the ideal range for specific age and height. In other words, the process itself of striving to reach and maintain physical health, should be the main source of satisfaction and self-fulfillment and it is the one that should be deemed the most "beautiful" and "attractive." Equally, a similar high regard should be given to the balancing efforts exerted in maintaining both physical health and mental/emotional health.
The end results of the process (the "appearance" and "attractiveness" aspects/affects /impressions /personas) is normally the more obvious for anyone to realize; but, it perhaps should not be the more, or the most, cherished. To the self and to others, it may or may not fully reflect those balance that characterize being healthy, because "appearance" and "attractiveness" can be inadequate and subjective markers and measures of an individual, a group, or even of a society. In popular culture the world over, when a comment on beauty is made it has been often been taken deliberately or subconsciously to reflect physical connotations---full lips, rosy cheeks, prominent cheekbones, round soft and/or narrow eyes, thin eyebrows, thick eyelashes, full thick hair.
Rarely have we seen "beautiful" and "attractive" used in a prominent manner to describe character or mind, examples of non-physical attributes and phenomena. Some notable exceptions exist, such as the movie title A Beautiful Mind (this is a positive exception, even though the 'beautiful' mind of Dr. Nash which was brilliant academically and intellectually was also troubled with unpleasant conditions/traits). Furthermore, subjectivity in the physical criterion of beauty have been fantasized and popularized, in addition to having contributed to stereotypes regarding non-physical traits. I have often been struck by the notion that, in Western children’s' fairy tales for example, blonde characters with lighter skin colors have come to symbolize purity and innocence of character, while brunettes and darker-clothed characters were stereotyped as conniving, mysterious and mischievous. Characters that possessed bad personality traits were also created with grotesque physical features---such as witches having warts or blemishes. I could not help wondering that the child audience of these tales could escape with the feeling that the inside of a human being reflects his/her outside---a dangerously and unjustly simplistic explanation of good and bad, virtuous and evil.
What about situations where that balance involving the many forms of beauty is not attained---where the process to reach and maintain it is for some reason incomplete, or where the process is completed but doesn't produce the "results" expected? Does that mean that such a person is less than 'beautiful?' Of course not! For there are many meanings, shades, dimensions, prisms, and etc of beauty. These others include: eloquence in speech, elegance in behavior and how one presents him/herself, charm, wit, the ability to connect with others, the ability to be calm and diplomatic in pressing circumstances/environments, persuasive charisma, problem solving & conflict resolution skills, the intelligence associated with critical/analytic thinking skills, and so on. Nor do the various forms of beauty exist in mutually exclusives paradigms and universes. Looking for the easy way out in trying to process the complexities of ourselves and our lives, we can fail to be cognizant of the existence and cohabitation of these other traits. We can find ourselves willing and/or able to surrender patience and capacity to receive only 'the bottom line'---the physicality, the exterior, which is so often reduced to that 'reality' which is non-elusive and quickly perceivable (and is this thus taken as most comprehensible).
Even expressions that are intended to distract attention away from the exclusivity of the focus on physical beauty can be worded in a way that ironically contributes to the opposite effect. Consider, for example, the idiom "Beauty is skin deep." This idiom comes to mind many a time when one wants to express the notion that beauty is a subjective phenomena and criterion. It also comes to mind when one wants to make the point that beauty is a reality that is much deeper that what appears to be on the surface. Therefore, one's attention is expected to be directed to something more abstract, away from a concrete representation of what he/she may consider or assume as beauty; one is directed to think in more abstract terms, and perhaps by extension, to more deeply ponder non-physical forms and examples of beauty.
Abstractions of phenomena in everyday life and in other settings are often hard to grasp and digest. Maybe this is main reason why that solidly established concepts in the sciences and in mathematics are still referred to as "theories." That category and designation is applied despite the successes of rigorous efforts by scholars, investigators, and researchers in their fields in offering and validating proofs towards their existence as 'axioms' and 'universal truths.' The successes should firmly place the axiomatic concepts in a category and designation above the level of 'theory.' For, the fact that theories are potentially verifiable should bring their underlying concepts closer to concrete themes and terms.
So what should we make of idioms, expressions, and figures of speech which---although devoid of anything near the recognized intellectual rigor or prestige of theories---nonetheless share with theories (both those that are proven and those are merely suggested) the difficulties of attempting to explain ideas regarding highly abstract matters? Returning our attention to the above expression about beauty could give us some clue as how to approach the question. I speculate and postulate that there is a logical fallacy in the way this idiom is constructed. In using the adjective clause "skin deep," I opine that the idiom conjures up the physical imagery of skin (and its layers). This imagery may be viewed through the listeners' experiences with the contour and health of their skin---we know that skin can get chapped and dried, peel away, become pale and lose its "glow." We also know that skin be revived through an array of cosmetics (like moisturizing creams) and skin color and tone can be modified (through lighting and tanning creams).
In other words, using a physical construct (the skin) as a medium to attempt an encouragement towards, or an explanation of, non-physical constructs (like perception of beauty and non-physical forms/traits/prisms of beauty) could subconsciously reinforce physical beauty, at the expense of other beauty. This approach thus has the potential to further narrow down the meanings and connotations of "beauty"---an unintended, but self-defeating consequence.
Perhaps a similarly non-constructive approach is used in the promotion of many weight-loss and diet programs and strategies. Why does the emphasis so often seem to be on "looking great," or on "removing frustrating cellulose," or on "cutting dress sizes or waist sizes," or on "getting sexy abs and buns," or on "getting ripped?" Why can't the focus be primarily on being more healthy and improving the quality of one's life? Why can't looks/ appearance/ attractiveness be a complimentary side benefit? Why does it always seemingly have to be "look great and feel great," instead of "feel great and look great?" We know that many females can take dangerously drastic measures in attempts to alter their figures, which can be connected to the pressure from public perception mixed in with plummeting self-confidence and self-esteem and which can be a sign of eating disorders (such pressures and disorders can affect males, too). We are also familiar with the great temptations that males face (even high school) to build bulky muscles to look 'attractive,' enhance performance (especially if they are athletes), and so on. The danger is when the pressures and temptations are so punctuated that they feel they must resort to dangerously drastic measures such as doping steroids. Just as with the suggestions and pressures (whether real or imaginary, coming from the self and from others) underlying eating disorders and the promotions of programs billed as health-maintenance, the dynamics that lead to doping ignore the delicate balances elaborated upon above.
In conclusion, it is commendable to be results-oriented and it is natural to be attracted to and to praise physical beauty. After all, a focus on results helps to ingrain an purpose in the activities we choose to embark on; it assists in the development of measurable goals through which we track progress gradually and methodically, as well as in ensuring that scarce resources are used wisely and efficiently. Physical beauty is one of many qualities that define existence, helping to shape the reality we and the entire universe experience every day. Physical attraction also help in the continuation of life in both humans and non-human organisms. But like many other issues, if the pendulum swings too far and too long (in the directions of results over process and of the physical over the non-physical), it is likely to produce an imbalance that may not be positively sustainable and positively sustaining. For the imbalance can lead us along greatly narrow worldviews, distorting established priorities or introducing new inflated ones while reaffirming destructive biases that block any sense of moderation and/or calm reasoning and meticulous thought.
