spud_bliss

SuicidePuppies said:
[Quick caveat: I'm writing at length tonight, not because I feel particularly passionate about the topic or the original post, but because I'm just in a writing sort of mood (and I'm drunk). So bear with me.]

Anyway, to address the OP: All other things being equal (like photography, lighting, composition, theme, etc.), in a sentence: Some people are just not that good looking. (And yes, I realize aesthetics, as it relates to the perception of attractiveness is subjective, which is all fine and good when you're choosing the people you want to date, but is an entirely different beast when you're a business whose bottom line rests on those decisions.)

So, I'll reiterate: Some people are just not that good looking. Like me, for instance. I'm okay looking, I guess -- fairly average, kind of fat, with a touch of fugly (but quirky, interesting fugly ). I'm sure I have some fans out there, but no one's knocking down my door. (And there are plenty who wouldn't touch me with a ten foot pole.) Suffice it to say, I'm not going to make the cover of GQ magazine in my lifetime and I'm fine with that.

But let's say, hypothetically, that I had some lifelong dream to grace the cover of such a magazine -- having submitted pics and been rejected multiple times. Would it be constructive of GQ headquarters to keep saying, "I'm sorry, the lighting wasn't right" or "You need more props in your set, try again"? Or would it be more constructive of them to tell me, "Look dude, you're just not that attractive. Stop fucking submitting sets, you're wasting our fucking time. You'll never make the cover of this magazine, as long as the people who are buying it have the sense of sight." In my opinion, the latter, even though it would be the harsher response, would be a lot more constructive, as I could then cut my losses and find another forum for my look. (There's a market for everything, IMO. And SG.com, whether you want to accept it or not, is a market.)

Unfortunately, telling people the truth (as they see it) is often seen as politically incorrect, thus people feel the need to sugar coat things. So we may keep trying at things we'll most likely never be, because for some reason, we as a society have decided to give "A"s for effort instead of for substance. And everybody's trying to be the next "American Idol" instead of the toilet scrubber at the Sheboygan, Wisconsin McDonalds restaurant.

Mind you, there are exceptions to every rule. But unless you have it in your heart, that you want to struggle to be the exception to the rule, no matter the odds, then it would behoove you to quit (or take the criticism without becoming butthurt over it). Otherwise, do what you need to do -- all the more power to you. But if you choose that route, that should be enough to let any sort of criticism, constructive or otherwise, slide off you, as water does, a duck's back. In other words, if you are truly one to be the exception in any situation, you would be untouchable -- unscathed by criticism, but not wont to whine about it later ("Oh woe is me, why won't they pick me?")

But what I see in the situation that you painted in your post (and often in situations in this group), is not individuals who are untouchable, but those that, when such criticism is given, become defensive and unable to hear the truth (and hence, the impetus and inspiration for posts like the OP's). Therefore, these are not the sort of people who are truly able to be the exceptions to the rule. These are not SuicideGirls. A SuicideGirl is not about tattoos or piercings. Rather, a SuicideGirl is the girl who grew up in a high school where people teased her about the way she spoke, or the books she read, or the way she wore her hair or did her makeup, or the different music she listened to, and said, "Fuck off!" to those intolerant, narrow-minded assholes, while continuing to do her thing regardless, strong and steadfast in her conviction. She had no lifelong hopes of becoming Prom Queen or Homecoming Queen because she was her own Queen, and that was all that mattered.

This is why, when I see people who were rejected here, say "Boo hoo, the SG people said I wasn't right for their site", the more that just convinces me that they were right to reject you, because a true SuicideGirl wouldn't give a shit about it, and would just go on with his/her life. (I say his/her in this context, because even though the site may feature girls, the attitude of a SuicideGirl is something that in my opinion, is genderless, and extends well beyond this site.)

Anyhoo, if there's one thing to be taken away from this incredibly long post of mine, is that you don't have to be on SuicideGirls.com to necessarily be a SuicideGirl, ya dig? (And I'm not talking about the brand in this case, but the attitude.) And until you achieve that attitude, any criticism you receive, benign or malicious, constructive or not, will continue to be a sword in your side.

So it's up to you, how you want to take criticism.