Looking at Women...in a Platonic Sort of Way

Paul Marchbanks, founder and coordinator of cinekklesia, recently published a fascinating review of King Kong. However, I had to disagree with his views vigorously. Here is a copy of the comments I posted:

I wholeheartedly disagree with your review on a variety of levels. The apprehension of beauty in another person can "exist independent of sexual arousal," but only for very brief moments (seconds?). Humans are intrinsically sexual beings, due both to the biological imperative to reproduce, as well as to social conditioning, which (as you point out) tends to (hyper-)sexualize all human relationships. As such, it is virtually impossible for one to linger over another's beauty without such apprehension become sexual.

Secondly, by trying to wrest feminine beauty from sexuality, you imply that there exists an abstract, almost Platonic beauty "out there." This, of course, begs the question as to what that ideal beauty is and how different women "rank" in relation to that standard. (Since you are discussing this issue in the context of King Kong, are you saying that Naomi Watts is the Platonic ideal of feminine beauty, or is she merely a close approximation?)

Ironically, by discussing beauty in such an abstract, almost disemodied, fashion, one is in danger of objectifying women as much as those who overly sexualize. If one's beauty becomes a vehicle for "transcendent" meditation, then how is that object of meditation any different from, say, a mountain or a painting?

In addition, if the apprehension of female beauty can be done in a non-sexual fashion, then would you be willing to write about male beauty in the same way? If you find Naomi Watts transcendently beautiful, then what about a man who meets some aesthetic standard? Would you ponder him? If not, then I suggest that would be due to the intrinsically sexual nature of human beauty: you, as a heterosexual male, would not find similarly "transcendent" qualities in a man because you would not be sexually attracted to him! I am not saying that I suspect you of "lingering" over Naomi Watts' beauty; rather, I am saying that your appreciative apprehension of her, clean as it might be, only exists because of humanity's underlying sexual drive. In other words, you would not have categorized Ms. Watts as an "attractive woman" had you been an asexual being. (It also should be noted that unlike the aesthetic appreciation of humans, the appreciation of, say, a landscape is usually not linked to any sexual drive.)

Thus, while I agree that it is possible to apprehend human beauty in a non-sexual manner, it is very highly improbable that such a "clean" apprehension can last more than a few seconds. You are talking of a space in human relations that is so infinitesimal that it is not worth pursuing or defending. Finally, I must dispute the claim that "our apprehension of [female beauty] can be a transcendent thing." From a Biblical standpoint, it seems that the opposite is true: "Charm is deceptive, and beauty is vain, but a woman who fears the Lord is to be praised" (Proverbs 31:30, NRSV).