TM
Endo, Meso, Ecto
Dear Jack,
I am not a fan of William H. Sheldon's work. Not sure you'll know him though.
He created the field of somatotype and constitutional psychology. The
discipline tries to correlate body types with behavior, intelligence and social
hierarchy.
Sheldon classified people into three fundamental categories: endomorphic,
mesomorphic, and ectomorphic. Endomorphic: having a heavy rounded body
build often with a marked tendency to become fat. Mesomorphic: characterized
by large bones, solid torso, moderate fat levels and an average waist.
Ectomorphic: characterized by long and thin muscles/limbs and low fat
storage; usually referred to as slim.
In other words, he basically classified people into fat, medium build and slim.
Never mind the grammar! I find studies indicating that different physiques
carry cultural stereotypes a bit disturbing. According to Wikipedia, "One study
found that endomorphs (fat people) are likely to be perceived as slow, sloppy
and lazy. Mesomorphs (medium sized), in contrast, are typically stereotyped as
popular and hardworking, whereas ectomorphs (slim) are often viewed as
intelligent but fearful and usually take part in long distance sports." Even
W jacknjillive.com
@LekeAlder @jacknjillive
E [email protected]
C
Leke Alder 2015
/2
commonsense will fault this study. The rigour of scientific pursuit should not
validate problematic outcomes. The bottom line of this controversial theory and
discipline is that physique equals destiny. And I find that troubling - however
intellectually or scientifically rigorous the process of deduction is.
But we're not that far intellectually removed from Sheldon's theories if we
determine our matrimonial destinies by physique. Some people take marital
decisions based on physique only. That can't be wise. Man is not onedimensional. He's three-dimensional: spirit, soul (mind, will, emotions) and
body. Man is not just physique. That's my problem with Sheldon's theory. It's an
overstretch. You're going to marry a woman not a body. You've got to look
beyond the body. If you remove sex as factor and you no longer find her
desirable, or the relationship becomes empty, you may want to ponder. If you
can't think of her beyond her groin perhaps you ought to consider. You're
absenting other dimensions. Sex quarantines perspective. It smothers other
dimensions of reality, orphans viewpoints. It's a dark alley. See beyond sex.
That's not saying a woman's physique has no role in a relationship. It's a force of
attraction, men's source of social pride. There's hardly a young man with a
beautiful girlfriend who won't peacock. It's social vanity and it's quite natural.
Of course we all have differing standards of beauty but there are commonalities
of agreement on some women.
TM
/3
The role of the physical continues well into marriage. The need for
attractiveness subsists in marriage. Many women will attest to the pleasing look
of their husbands after they dress up and make up. Sheepish smile. And some
men will testify of pain from the repulsive dressing of their wives at home
having secured the marriage license. The physical matters in sustaining a man's
interest in a marriage - be it physique, dressing or sex. However, the construct of
a matrimonial decision must not be based solely on physical attributes.
What eventually decides the success of a marriage are the non physical
attributes - values, disposition, character. If she's beautiful but rude and
insolent you're going to be peeved. Conversations will be injurious. If she's
beautiful but disloyal the very basis of your relationship is eroded. Trust is
killed. If she's beautiful but highly temperamental or willful the relationship
will be hard. If she's beautiful but cantankerous you'll elect to stay in the attic.
And if she's beautiful but diabolical you'll soon be praying for God's deliverance.
Beauty is a wonderful coincidence of genes. The real judge of a person is
character. Solomon puts it rather bluntly when he states that the beauty of a
woman without character is like jewelry on a pig. “As a ring of gold in a swine's
snout, so is a fair woman who is without discretion." (Proverbs 11:22). Another
translation suggests you may want to consider intellect in the choice of your
wife: “Like a gold ring in a pig's snout is a beautiful face on an empty head.”
TM
/4
(Proverbs 11:22 MSG). In fact, to quote from a passage often favourited by
women themselves, beauty is vain.
I'm sure you've seen Twitter profiles reading "Virtuous Woman", "Virtuous
Gem". It's from the writing of Solomon (Proverbs 31). Many women imagine
themselves as this woman. Most don't realise Proverbs 31 actually talks about
three separate women, but let's leave that for another day. I'll quote a modern
translation of that famous passage. It brings things closer: “A good (virtuous,
excellent) woman is hard to find, and worth far more than diamonds. Her
husband trusts her without reserve, and never has reason to regret it. She
comforts, encourages and does him (hubby) only good as long as there is life
within her.” The passage goes on, detailing the attributes of this rare woman;
she's enterprising. She's also humane: “She's quick to assist anyone in need,
reaches out to help the poor.” Then there's her taste and fashion sense: “Her
clothes are well-made and elegant”. And she's sanguinary. She's not moody:
“She always faces tomorrow with a smile.” She's obviously wise and intelligent:
“When she speaks she has something worthwhile to say.” She has managerial
capabilities: “She keeps an eye on everyone in her household, keeps them all
busy and productive.”
Invariably Solomon arrives at the issue of physical beauty: “Charm
(attractiveness) can mislead,” he wrote. Then he goes further: “Beauty is vain
(fades). The woman to be admired is the woman who lives in the fear of God.”
TM
/5
Here's Solomon's list: Trustworthy, industrious, kindhearted, intelligent,
attentive to appearance, godly, comforting and encouraging, with managerial
and home economic skills, sanguine. Beauty okay if presented. Optional.
Note that trust is the No.1 quality. It's where Delilah failed. Can you trust her
with your life? Will she betray you? My take? If something a man wrote
thousands of years ago is still an aspirational standard for women today, pay
attention. If they aspire to be like this woman, it means even they recognise it's
beyond beauty.
Shouldn't you take same approach?
Your mentor
To view more letters kindly log on to jacknjillive.com
TM