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 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.
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.
Re: What determines aesthetic beauty?
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.
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.
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 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 CentauriExactly 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.
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
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