MaxNoob Posted November 2, 2011 Posted November 2, 2011 beautiful women exist t brighten up reality and make things interesting here and there. Yes, I'm reminded of: Sarajevo held a beauty pageant despite the fact that the city was under siege. It was a protest; they set an example of beauty to contrast the ugliness of war. Some thought it was inappropriate, that there's no place for beauty when so many are suffering, that even artwork should not be beautiful. The song asks "is there a time to be a beauty queen?" Beauty is attractive because we associate it with health and good character, even if looks can be deceiving.
Andy_K Posted November 2, 2011 Posted November 2, 2011 Then why aren't all the "ugly" people extinct...? Because it takes a loooooong time. I'd wager you could live in the time of the early homo-sapiens and finds almost every female hideously unattractive. In a million years from now a future man might think the same of the females of our age. If it were the only factor, it would act faster. But it's not, so it's very slow.
Wolf18 Posted November 2, 2011 Posted November 2, 2011 There are good and bad people who are very attractive. What I hate is their admirers. A lot of nasty and annoying attractive people would probably be alright if they didn't have people spoiling them or waiting in line to eat their ****. It's so obnoxious to hear a woman say all these wonderful things about some room temparature IQ imbecile like Ashton Kutcher. OH WOW HE'S LIKE SO FUNNY, SO INTERESTING, HE'S A REALLY SWEET GUY...all this just so that you don't sound shallow. Just come out and say it "he's really hot", but don't cheapen other traits by attributing them to people who don't deserve it. A lot of popular attractive people would be completely invisible and home alone on saturday night if they didn't have their looks to carry them through life.
Leegh Posted November 2, 2011 Posted November 2, 2011 While it is an advantage to be attractive (slim and pretty) it is NOT an advantage to be beautiful in the dating world, as most men are really, really intimidated by beautiful women, and hesitate greatly to approach them. It's even extremely difficult for a lot of men to approach an attractive, but not beautiful woman. A celebrity, politician or very wealthy person may approach a beautiful woman, but a "regular" guy most likely will not. Of course, there are situations where being beautiful has its advantages, for example, if a woman is interested in becoming an actress or a news anchor, etc., but in general the atttactive run-of-the-mill women have an easier time in society.
Els Posted November 2, 2011 Posted November 2, 2011 I always wondered this as well. Considering the fact that women on average spend more money improving their appearance than any other attribute of themselves, it really is a relatively useless thing from a logical and practical point of view. On the other hands, humans are not always ruled by logic and practicality.
oaks Posted November 2, 2011 Posted November 2, 2011 Then why aren't all the "ugly" people extinct...? And why does personality even matter at all...? I think there's more to it than that... Because some people "settle" (or if we're following the biological imperative argument then it's better to have offspring with somebody rather than nobody), and/or because beautiful people breeding together doesn't guarantee beautiful offspring.
betterdeal Posted November 2, 2011 Posted November 2, 2011 Anthropologically, shiny hair and clear skin are the two common factors in physical attractiveness across all cultures.
silvermercy Posted November 2, 2011 Posted November 2, 2011 Interesting topic... Well, on one hand beauty IS an indication of good health (as others mentioned shiny hair, skin, symmetry etc)... On the other hand, it's social conditioning. For example, armpit or leg hair in women: No matter how clean or beautiful the woman is (she could even be a top model), most people (men & women) will frown their noses if they see her with unshaven underarms or legs (at least in the western world, as it is seen as not socially acceptable). Not sure who suddenly decided that something so natural is disgusting and un-feminine (razor companies perhaps? lol) but it's the truth. It has its roots in ancient times, too, possibly to emphasize the difference in femininity between men and women. (But if that was the reason why, that still doesn't explain why a big percentage of totally straight women today are attracted to men with hairless chest (and 6-packs of course, heh! )... Oh and I'm one of them... lol). The mind boggles... So to conclude, I think it's societal conditioning - on top of biology. Another example: In the past, tanning was not attractive as it was seen as an indication of belonging to the lower working class. On the contrary, fat people were seen as more attractive as that usually meant they were rich. And so on... Then why aren't all the "ugly" people extinct...? And why does personality even matter at all...? I think there's more to it than that... I suppose the power of lust and sex is greater and overpowers ugliness. (Also, some people DO wear beer goggles when sleeping with someone without protection! )
Els Posted November 2, 2011 Posted November 2, 2011 Yeah, silver, I completely agree with your reasonings. As well as the razor companies. It really is quite amazing how social marketing has succeeded in conditioning women, despite today's extremely hectic lifestyles, to spend a good several minutes each day shaving off large areas of natural hair...
Els Posted November 2, 2011 Posted November 2, 2011 (edited) Yeah, silver, I completely agree with your reasonings. As well as the razor companies. It really is quite amazing how social marketing has succeeded in conditioning women, despite today's extremely hectic lifestyles, to spend a good several minutes each day shaving off large areas of natural hair... This is probably a rather useless gripe, but IMO the biological imperatives for male looks make a helluva lot more sense than those for female looks. Muscle, for example. Undeniably, the person with more muscle is at an advantage, survival-wise, than the person with less. Not so much now that we have advanced in technology, but still an advantage. Height, as well. While it probably is not a great advantage by any means, it still is - if a 5'0" and a 6'0" man with equal training and skills fought, I would be betting on the 6'0" man. Other than human-constructed stuff such as low doorways , I really cannot see how being taller would actually be a practical disadvantage. The physical attributes that define stereotypical beauty for women, on the other hand, really make no logical sense and confer no health or survival advantages over the opposite. Skinniness, for one thing. While being overweight is bad for health, being underweight is too. The top models are usually at least borderline underweight. Big breasts, for another. They confer no reproductive advantage - extra breast size is just extra fat cells, the milk ducts are completely the same. Yet large breasts are considered the epitome of attractiveness, when they are actually a practical impediment - it hurts to run or move much without external support for them. The tiny waist sizes the medieval men loved. Humans were never intended to have 18" waists and yet be able to keep all their organs in the right places. Really long hair. Again, practical impediment, no actual health/survival advantage. NOT trying to turn this into a flame war, btw, just musing. Does not really bother me, for there are indeed men who don't care for the stereotypical model appearance. Just, well... human behaviour and sexuality is a strange thing. Edited November 2, 2011 by Elswyth
betterdeal Posted November 2, 2011 Posted November 2, 2011 Shaven armpits and legs aren't a universal ideal in the Western world. It's not the case in Greece or Spain, for example. As for ideals for women being impractical, have a look at classical statues of women. The figure is curvy, not skinny, breast sizes are around the C cup size. Large breasts are mostly a result of censorship in Hollywood in the mid 20th Century which barred the exposure of breasts. Studios circumvented this by having actresses wear stiff bras that accentuated the size and shape of their breasts. Marilyn Monroe is a good example. She still had much the same curves and body fat as the classical statues portray, but had to wear a bra that exaggerated her boobs. As a reference point, I don't care for huge breasts. Lots of men don't. The most recent example of a classic beauty would be Kate Winslett in her youth, IMO.
xxoo Posted November 2, 2011 Posted November 2, 2011 Is it more pleasing than feeling loved / cared for / blah blah blah? Of course not. Attraction is an important part of initially drawing people together. When couples break up, it is more about the deeper problems. Physical attraction was not enough to make the relationship satisfying. It takes time to assess deeper qualities, while attraction can be determined on sight. It makes sense that attraction is used for initial choosing, while the MORE important factors are tested later. Flipping the script, people sometimes fall in love with someone they were not initially attracted to.....but after time and growing attracted to the deeper qualities. They fall in love with the person, and then love that person's face and body, too.
Els Posted November 2, 2011 Posted November 2, 2011 Shaven armpits and legs aren't a universal ideal in the Western world. It's not the case in Greece or Spain, for example. As for ideals for women being impractical, have a look at classical statues of women. The figure is curvy, not skinny, breast sizes are around the C cup size. Large breasts are mostly a result of censorship in Hollywood in the mid 20th Century which barred the exposure of breasts. Studios circumvented this by having actresses wear stiff bras that accentuated the size and shape of their breasts. Marilyn Monroe is a good example. She still had much the same curves and body fat as the classical statues portray, but had to wear a bra that exaggerated her boobs. As a reference point, I don't care for huge breasts. Lots of men don't. The most recent example of a classic beauty would be Kate Winslett in her youth, IMO. Oh, certainly not all men are followers of the stereotypical beauty trend. It's true that it depends on culture and era, as well. I was simply saying that the stereotypical beauty trends in many cultures defy health and survival, which are what some posters claim to logically drive those trends.
counterman Posted November 2, 2011 Posted November 2, 2011 It's because we're conditions by the media and social expectations to belief certain types of people are attractive and that attractive equates to value as a person, which of course it not necessarily true. I tried staying in a relationship because my ex-girlfriend was really attractive. The bizarre thing is that I was suffering in the relationship. I guess I had to learn that I shouldn't value looks to highly and I've been making decisions based on that. If a girl doesn't treat me right, regardless of how good-looking she is, I'm moving on. In saying that, I have turned away many good girls because I didn't find them particularly attractive. But most of the girls I do find attractive know they are good-looking and have let that get to their heads, which ultimately makes them unattractive and plus most of them have options. So, I'm still hoping to meet a girl I find attractive and get along really well with.
Pierre Posted November 2, 2011 Posted November 2, 2011 Very symmetric features and the hourglass shape in females are considered the standard of beauty in humans. Symmetric features are strongly correlated with intelligence and health. Symmetric features and beauty correlate well with strong genes.
norajane Posted November 2, 2011 Posted November 2, 2011 I always wondered this as well. Considering the fact that women on average spend more money improving their appearance than any other attribute of themselves, it really is a relatively useless thing from a logical and practical point of view. On the other hands, humans are not always ruled by logic and practicality. Ha! You never saw my tuition bills for college and grad school. Beauty gives us (fleeting) pleasure, and we are very much a pleasure-seeking society these days. Is beauty valuable otherwise? Not unless you are leveraging your appearance in your career. You've heard the comment....for every beautiful wo/man, there is someone sick of banging them and putting up with their bullsh*t.
norajane Posted November 2, 2011 Posted November 2, 2011 Very symmetric features and the hourglass shape in females are considered the standard of beauty in humans. That hasn't always been the case. Women who were much rounder were considered beautiful in the past. Pear shaped, if you will, with a lot more padding. Standards of beauty change over time and across different societies. Even now, if you look at the celebrities people drool over, most of the women have taken on a "just this side of anorexic" appearance, with bodies that have few curves, so the hourglass is losing its appeal (or, at least, that is what we are appreciating seeing in movies and magazines).
Els Posted November 2, 2011 Posted November 2, 2011 Hehee, norajane. True, that! I guess I personally don't believe college/grad school usually increases one's intelligence, rather that it just gives one proficiency and knowledge in a certain field. But that is certainly debatable.
monkey00 Posted November 2, 2011 Posted November 2, 2011 I think when women get older, the guy with less looks and more money is at an equal advantage with a guy that has the looks. Looks isn't the end of the world and I've seen plenty of average blokes with gorgeous girlfriends. Money makes the world go round, anything is possible. Just look at Donald Trump.
Els Posted November 2, 2011 Posted November 2, 2011 Symmetric features are strongly correlated with intelligence and health. Huh. :confused: I've heard the breasts/hips/height argument quite a few times, but this is the first time I've heard THIS one. I can't necessarily disprove the latter, although it doesn't quite make sense that perfectly symmetrical features are directly related to health. Care to show the studies? As for it correlating with intelligence, ha. I'd love to see the evidence for that too, but insofar history has most certainly proved otherwise.
zengirl Posted November 2, 2011 Posted November 2, 2011 Hehee, norajane. True, that! I guess I personally don't believe college/grad school usually increases one's intelligence, rather that it just gives one proficiency and knowledge in a certain field. But that is certainly debatable. Well, it would increase proficiency in all the skills that are developmental, which is a good bulk of what demonstrates your level of intelligence. Whether you can ever raise your level of intelligence depends on whose version of the meaning of the word "intelligence" you're speaking of. Hard to say. As to beauty, it's an advantage. Not just in humans. How many people would crush an ugly bug that's in their home? Probably more than would attempt to catch and smush a butterfly the same way, no? People want beauty for the advantage. The subconscious belief that even being near beauty increases their own beauty/advantage/stature/whatever. And symmetrical features (the most classic and scientifically testable form of beauty) are often correlated with many other benefits and biological preference, as others have said. I think there's a need to separate beauty fads (current cultural forms of beauty) from personal ideals of beauty and again from the more scientifically testable idea of symmetry. Treating it all as one mishmosh seems confusing.
Pierre Posted November 2, 2011 Posted November 2, 2011 That hasn't always been the case. Women who were much rounder were considered beautiful in the past. Pear shaped, if you will, with a lot more padding. Standards of beauty change over time and across different societies. Even now, if you look at the celebrities people drool over, most of the women have taken on a "just this side of anorexic" appearance, with bodies that have few curves, so the hourglass is losing its appeal (or, at least, that is what we are appreciating seeing in movies and magazines). It is possible to have an hourglass shape and symmetric proportions at 100 lbs and at 160 lbs. As long as the waist is smaller than the hips weight is not an issue. Some skinny women have no difference between the waist and hips. They look like a 10 year old boy and that is not attractive. It is not the weight.
Els Posted November 2, 2011 Posted November 2, 2011 Well, it would increase proficiency in all the skills that are developmental, which is a good bulk of what demonstrates your level of intelligence. Whether you can ever raise your level of intelligence depends on whose version of the meaning of the word "intelligence" you're speaking of. Hard to say. Definitely debatable, as I said. Possibly I was defining intelligence too narrowly. As to beauty, it's an advantage. Not just in humans. How many people would crush an ugly bug that's in their home? Probably more than would attempt to catch and smush a butterfly the same way, no? People want beauty for the advantage. The subconscious belief that even being near beauty increases their own beauty/advantage/stature/whatever. And symmetrical features (the most classic and scientifically testable form of beauty) are often correlated with many other benefits and biological preference, as others have said. I believe there were studies that showed people have biological preference for mates with symmetrical features, and also studies that showed that people biologically want mates they perceive as attractive because some forms of attractiveness are correlated with genes we want to pass down to our offspring. I don't believe I've seen anything correlating how symmetrical someone's features are to how healthy or intelligent they are, however.
zengirl Posted November 2, 2011 Posted November 2, 2011 I believe there were studies that showed people have biological preference for mates with symmetrical features, and also studies that showed that people biologically want mates they perceive as attractive because some forms of attractiveness are correlated with genes we want to pass down to our offspring. I don't believe I've seen anything correlating how symmetrical someone's features are to how healthy or intelligent they are, however. I believe I've seen studies linking it to IQ, so I get the reference, but they never seem conclusive and generally seem quite biased and poorly set up. I do believe there is some linkage to symmetry and a lack of birth defects, but I couldn't find it via Google. I'd have to log in to a database to find it and I'm not in the mood, and perfectly willing to say it's likely bunk.
Els Posted November 2, 2011 Posted November 2, 2011 I believe I've seen studies linking it to IQ, so I get the reference, but they never seem conclusive and generally seem quite biased and poorly set up. I do believe there is some linkage to symmetry and a lack of birth defects, but I couldn't find it via Google. I'd have to log in to a database to find it and I'm not in the mood, and perfectly willing to say it's likely bunk. Oh, yes, total asymmetry is often linked to birth defects that likely affect learning abilities as well. Logically speaking the effect would be null as long as there wasn't 'that' degree of asymmetry, though, ie the most symmetrical model in the world would have no advantage over the everyday person you see on the street. If there had been a direct correlation, the most brilliant scientists and inventors would have all been exceedingly attractive, but AFAIK they are not. But yeah, I don't have the time to look up studies to disprove it either, so I guess we're done debating for now.
Recommended Posts