Gender: Unspecified Location: Speedblitzing around the universe f
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.
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.
Gender: Unspecified Location: Speedblitzing around the universe f
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.
__________________ JLAKMC Assemble!!!
Last edited by demigawd on Jan 27th, 2006 at 07:34 PM
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).
__________________
Shinier than a speeding bullet.
Gender: Male Location: Kicking pigs out of the screen.
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
KMC Community Forums
Jan 27th, 2006 07:04 PM
**living it up in the out-back**
>>>johnny
Depp<<<
)
i dont give too shits what girls look like or how much they weigh
