Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

What determines aesthetic beauty? Just on the surface for all of our romantiscists out there...

What determines it for women? For men? Which features are more significant? And in what parts of the world...

I have a few to start off with, feel free to add...

Large, expressive eyes
High cheekbones
Long eyelashes
Thin eyebrows
Full lips
Symmetrical Face to forehead (symmetry is what the word beauty derives from, a symmetrical face is beautiful because it is a symbol of good health.)
Symmetrical nose
Balanced teeth
proportionately small ears
brown skin (nice brown skin is considered a healthy skin in most instances, and therefore considered beautiful. Hence tanning beds)

The balls in the field.

Personally I don't look at girls and wonder if their faces are symmetrical or not.

If a girl has a really gorgeous face then it may very well be because of something LIKE that and my subconscious is the part of my brain realising it, but I never consciously think that specifically.

Just general demeanour, if a girl can walk the fine line between arrogance and self-confidence well enough then I find that to be very attractive, but a lot of different things appeal to me. I have seen qualities I like appear in other girls I am attracted to, but then later found myself attracted to girls who are nothing like that.

So I'd say that it's personal preference that determines it.

-AC

Symmetry is a big part of it: shape, line, color. For women, youth, health, vitality also weigh in (as it would for men too). But in a nutshell: "attitude is everything." An "average" attractive woman is gonna come across as much for appealing if her mind is sexy (and I dont mean necessarily in a vulgar way--subtlely can be knock-out hypnotic), as compared to a "photographically" beautiful woman who exudes nada, zip, zero, nothing.

I agree.

-AC

There is a differences in terms of 'attractive' and 'attracted to'. There are empirical truths to beauty on many different levels. I'm not attracted to women sexually, but asthetically I know what constitues a beautiful women. And I have my own opinions on what makes a man attractive, but I can regognize what makes a man attractive to other people as well. For example, I think Cameron Diaz is emperically attractive. She has perfect features, classically innocent features that combined with a youthful sexuality makes her one of the most attractive women I've ever seen. Brad Pitt, as cliched as he is, is a beautiful man. In many ways, he fullfills the same conditions that Cameron Diaz does. He is very boyish and has youthful features and he appeals to anyone who looks at him. Homophobia aside, guys know he's ridiculously hot, however, most guys appreciate him. Unlike Tom Cruise, he appeals to the every guy.

However, the flip side of all this is that there is a difference between what I find attractive and to what I'm attracted. Kind of like, who I think is hot, and who I'd sleep with are two different things.

I'm not sure what constitutes the difference all the time, but for example: Brad Pitt, hot. Colin Farrell, not so much. Angelina Jolie, hot. Jennifer Aniston, not so much. I could use people that aren't famous to illustrate it more personally, but you guys don't know who I see in my daily life, so the famous will have to do.

Do you actually mean physical beauty, then? Otherwise the title is slightly misleading, and tautologous.

I don't see how attitude becomes a viable consideration when considering physical beauty, unless it is a situation of self-created appreciation.

It's a difficult question, though. I'm not sure about the whole symmetry theory. It may have some bearing but I think it is over-stressed.

We certainly know what beauty is, but no-one has come up with a convincing way to define it by reference to its parts.

The main boundary in which that sense operates is, as mentioned, societal or biological paradigms. What is undeniably and 'naturally' beautiful in the UK may not be so clear-cut to one from an Asian country, and the reverse.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
There are empirical truths to beauty on many different levels. I'm not attracted to women sexually, but asthetically I know what constitues a beautiful women. And I have my own opinions on what makes a man attractive, but I can regognize what makes a man attractive to other people as well. For example, I think Cameron Diaz is emperically attractive. She has perfect features, classically innocent features that combined with a youthful sexuality makes her one of the most attractive women I've ever seen. Brad Pitt, as cliched as he is, is a beautiful man.

This is true, within particular frameworks. As I mentioned above though, it's not quite empirical because it is subject to societal trends.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
This is true, within particular frameworks. As I mentioned above though, it's not quite empirical because it is subject to societal trends.

I would disagree. There are truths to beauty. Undisputable truths. You might not find Cameron Diaz to be one of the most beautiful women in the world, but there is no way that anyone could claim she is unattractive.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
subject to societal trends.

Word

It's all in the eye of the beholder.

However, funny you mentioned this thread, C-Master. I recall watching something on TLC or Discovery...where a bunch of female facial prints (a couple dozen) were placed in front of men to determine which facial shot of ladies were most attractive to men...something like a 1000 men were polled. Forgive me, if I don't recall the exact details, but this is going to be close anyway.

There was no color in these prints, no features to distinguish these women as anyone important, you could not determine age from these facial prints, etc, etc... They were merely sketches.

After careful study, turns out that one facial print was picked more often than the others, or constistently picked very high among the rest of the prints. When matched up against someone today who had very similar facial features, the one whose facial features closest resembled the print turned out to be Halle Berry.

It was quite fascinating....and no surprise as to why she is consistently voted the world's most beautiful woman.

Biology is the source of what we find attractive because it determined initially who our mates would be. Biologically, women want men with traits that would maximize her chances of having children who will thrive and continue to pass along her genes.

Over time, biological consensus became the basis for social standard, which in turn became imposed on other people, who may have their own biological attractions. As more disparate societies began to interact, more conflict and combinations of "attractiveness" emerged.

Now we have a general mix between what our biology tells us, what our personality is, and what we've been socially conditioned to expect. The levels of that mix vary depending on how inclined you are to accept social programming, how inclined you are to listen to your animalistic urges, and how inclined you are to heed your personality and match that to a specific look (e.g. guys in construction boots = manlier = more aggressive = better match for women who like aggression).

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
I would disagree. There are truths to beauty. Undisputable truths. You might not find Cameron Diaz to be one of the most beautiful women in the world, but there is no way that anyone could claim she is unattractive.

You could though, unless indisputable proof can be provided to the contrary. I know exactly what you are getting at, but it doesn't hold true everywhere, therefore it can't really be deemed a 'truth'.

Originally posted by BobbyD
It's all in the eye of the beholder.

However, funny you mentioned this thread, C-Master. I recall watching something on TLC or Discovery...where a bunch of female facial prints (a couple dozen) were placed in front of men to determine which facial shot of ladies were most attractive to men...something like a 1000 men were polled. Forgive me, if I don't recall the exact details, but this is going to be close anyway.

There was no color in these prints, no features to distinguish these women as anyone important, you could not determine age from these facial prints, etc, etc... They were merely sketches.

After careful study, turns out that one facial print was picked more often than the others, or constistently picked very high among the rest of the prints. When matched up against someone today who had very similar facial features, the one whose facial features closest resembled the print turned out to be Halle Berry.

It was quite fascinating....and no surprise as to why she is consistently voted the world's most beautiful woman.

I remember on Entertainment Tonight about 10 years ago, they had the same study, and Connie Selleca was considered the ideal fit.

Go figure.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
You could though, unless indisputable proof can be provided to the contrary. I know exactly what you are getting at, but it doesn't hold true everywhere, therefore it can't really be deemed a 'truth'.

Okay, I get what your saying as well. But, I'd like to hear anyone say she is unattractive. If there is one guy on this forum that can honestly say that they wouldn't drop their drawers and hop into the sac with her, I'll agree with you.

Connie, wasn't all that bad, Demigawd.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Okay, I get what your saying as well. But, I'd like to hear anyone say she is unattractive. If there is one guy on this forum that can honestly say that they wouldn't drop their drawers and hop into the sac with her, I'll agree with you.

Little minx, I'd **** the **** out of her.

I'd say there are indeed universally accepted views of beauty, but I think what VVD is saying is that we haven't really narrowed down what those are into definitions everybody agrees with, which is true.

"I don't know what good art is, but I know what I like"

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Okay, I get what your saying as well. But, I'd like to hear anyone say she is unattractive. If there is one guy on this forum that can honestly say that they wouldn't drop their drawers and hop into the sac with her, I'll agree with you.

Fair enough.

In relation to that, personally I don't think she's very attractive; I do however think she is 'beautiful' in the obvious sense.

Originally posted by BobbyD
Connie, wasn't all that bad, Demigawd.

Quoting Capt - I wouldn't say she's the most beautiful woman in the world, but she's definitely not unattractive.

Bingo.

Originally posted by demigawd
Little minx, I'd **** the **** out of her.

I'd say there are indeed universally accepted views of beauty, but I think what VVD is saying is that we haven't really narrowed down what those are into definitions everybody agrees with, which is true.

"I don't know what good art is, but I know what I like"

Oh, I agree. I even said that in my first post. There are absolute truths to attractivness, but I don't know what they are from person to person.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Oh, I agree. I even said that in my first post. There are absolute truths to attractivness, but I don't know what they are from person to person.

Yeah, you'll find violent disagreement in "who is MORE attractive?", but there's rarely any disagreement on "is this person attractive?".

Except in, you know, borderline cases. Like Molly Shannon.

Originally posted by demigawd


I'd say there are indeed universally accepted views of beauty, but I think what VVD is saying is that we haven't really narrowed down what those are into definitions everybody agrees with, which is true.


Basically. Additionally, that the views don't qualify as truths.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Basically. Additionally, that the views don't qualify as truths.

I think they're truths....just unknown truths. Of course, I'm not going to argue the semantics of what constitutes "truth", but I think you get the point.

Symmetry is a big part of it always has been. Studies have been done on it. Along with wonderful features..ie eyes, lips........But the studies show it's symmetry.

Originally posted by demigawd
I think they're truths....just unknown truths. Of course, I'm not going to argue the semantics of what constitutes "truth", but I think you get the point.

We are speaking about the 'universally accepted' views though, which don't technically live up to that billing. I doubt such criteria could ever be more than applicable in a vast majority of cases, as opposed to exclusively relevant.

TRUTH! This person is asymetrical


Originally posted by FeceMan
http://www.postfarm.net/uploads/pleaseletmedie.jpg

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
We are speaking about the 'universally accepted' views though, which don't technically live up to that billing. I doubt such criteria could ever be more than applicable in a vast majority of cases, as opposed to exclusively relevant.

I think if there is any deviation to be found, it's not because of subjectivity, it's because of a specific combination of universally accepted features. What becomes individualized, in my belief, is just HOW attractive a certain feature is, and whether it's found in abundance and how it interacts with features deemed UNattractive.

Like my Molly Shannon example. I think the "universal truth" of what makes someone attractive can be applied to her, but only certain attributes, and it's mitigated by the unattractive attributes. The net result? Some people will think she's attractive, and others will not.

So while there's no universally attractive person, I think there are universally attractive features and unattractive features that exist in various combinations on everybody.

Originally posted by Tha C-Master
What determines aesthetic beauty? Just on the surface for all of our romantiscists out there...

What determines it for women? For men? Which features are more significant? And in what parts of the world...

I have a few to start off with, feel free to add...

Large, expressive eyes
High cheekbones
Long eyelashes
Thin eyebrows
Full lips
Symmetrical Face to forehead (symmetry is what the word beauty derives from, a symmetrical face is beautiful because it is a symbol of good health.)
Symmetrical nose
Balanced teeth
proportionately small ears
brown skin (nice brown skin is considered a healthy skin in most instances, and therefore considered beautiful. Hence tanning beds)

The balls in the field.
if its good to have a symetrical face, they why is it good to have a "beauty spot"

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
TRUTH! This person is asymetrical

Something about her reminds me a bit of Biggie...

Originally posted by demigawd
I think if there is any deviation to be found, it's not because of subjectivity, it's because of a specific combination of universally accepted features. What becomes individualized, in my belief, is just HOW attractive a certain feature is, and whether it's found in abundance and how it interacts with features deemed UNattractive.

Like my Molly Shannon example. I think the "universal truth" of what makes someone attractive can be applied to her, but only certain attributes, and it's mitigated by the unattractive attributes. The net result? Some people will think she's attractive, and others will not.

So while there's no universally attractive person, I think there are universally attractive features and unattractive features that exist in various combinations on everybody.

There's just not enough in that for it to be considered a truth, though. Maybe this would be a good candidate for the thread you made.

I agree.

It's obvious there really are far too many subjective avenues at work and preferences to consider, to render those suggestions as truths.

-AC

There have been quite a few studies over the last decade or so which strongly suggest aspects of beauty-appreciation that are hard-wired, based in evolutionary advantage (eg: youth over old suggests more energy for child-care; symmetry suggests freedom from disease). But human beings are so maleable, that culture and societal preference can override the hard-wiring.
For example: today's "ideal" female shape is very boyish, minimal curvature of hip and thigh (hell, thigh same diameter as calf??), except of course for the silicon breasts. By today's standards, Marilyn Monroe or Sophia Loren would be considered fat. Back in the 50s, thinner lips were in; today, every starlet wanna-be puts at least a gallon of colagen into the upper lip.
IMO, this changing standard of beauty is very much profit-driven; nonetheless it shows how effective mass hallucination can be (thigh same diameter as calf!!--GAFB).

Originally posted by Mindship
There have been quite a few studies over the last decade or so which strongly suggest aspects of beauty-appreciation that are hard-wired, based in evolutionary advantage (eg: youth over old suggests more energy for child-care; symmetry suggests freedom from disease). But human beings are so maleable, that culture and societal preference can override the hard-wiring.
For example: today's "ideal" female shape is very boyish, minimal curvature of hip and thigh (hell, thigh same diameter as calf??), except of course for the silicon breasts. By today's standards, Marilyn Monroe or Sophia Loren would be considered fat. Back in the 50s, thinner lips were in; today, every starlet wanna-be puts at least a gallon of colagen into the upper lip.
IMO, this changing standard of beauty is very much profit-driven; nonetheless it shows how effective mass hallucination can be (thigh same diameter as calf!!--GAFB).

I think I suffer from that hallucination. What's GAFB?

Originally posted by Mindship
symmetry suggests freedom from disease

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
TRUTH! This person is asymetrical

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
I think I suffer from that hallucination. What's GAFB?

Gimme A Focking Break

People usually don't like disproportionate faces....sorry, but true.

I wonder if the first person to use an internet acronym has to keep telling everyone what it means in the hope that it catches on.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
I wonder if the first person to use an internet acronym has to keep telling everyone what it means in the hope that it catches on.

PS
(Probably So )

Actually, long before there was an internet, my friends and I used to speak in Initialese. Great for conversing in front of parents.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Personally I don't look at girls and wonder if their faces are symmetrical or not.

If a girl has a really gorgeous face then it may very well be because of something LIKE that and my subconscious is the part of my brain realising it, but I never consciously think that specifically.

Just general demeanour, if a girl can walk the fine line between arrogance and self-confidence well enough then I find that to be very attractive, but a lot of different things appeal to me. I have seen qualities I like appear in other girls I am attracted to, but then later found myself attracted to girls who are nothing like that.

So I'd say that it's personal preference that determines it.

-AC Exactly which is why I think people have different types and tastes, there is a ballpark field of what is beautiful or not... and noones face is fully, truly symmetrical however its critical... if a nose was to the centimeter a left, something inside would say that something was wrong.

biology has a lot to do with shit, take the mixture of a black and asian couple,, stunning results...take a look at kimora simmons. chicks with that native hawaian look are cool too. but me personallly as long as they have a vagina, and they are willing to let me get within close proximty of it thats good enuff for me i dont give too shits what girls look like or how much they weigh

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
TRUTH! This person is asymetrical

AUGGGHHHH! IT'S EATING MY BRAIN!

Originally posted by manjaro
biology has a lot to do with shit, take the mixture of a black and asian couple,, stunning results...take a look at kimora simmons. chicks with that native hawaian look are cool too. but me personallly as long as they have a vagina, and they are willing to let me get within close proximty of it thats good enuff for me i dont give too shits what girls look like or how much they weigh

You must be a very handsome man..

I'm sticking with features, while taste, society, and other things play a role... features are what make a person physically beautiful (this doesn't mean that you would sleep with them btw)...