Consolidated 'looks' discussion and society's standards of beauty for men vs women

[monicaelise]

Read my post above yours.

 

Because it creates an unjust, inequal society.

 

If everybody was equally physically attractive in an equal number of people's eyes (VERY far from the truth), then it would be fine.

 

Remember. There were times when MOST people thought certain minorities were of a lower human value and definitely not attractive. Believe me. Much of beauty is socially programmed, if not all.

 

No, this is just incorrect. Fads, trends, memes are socially programmed, but beauty is not. That's why there are "beauties" in every race and every culture. "Beauty" is not bound by race, but it is bound in some sense by the other factors you mentioned. Things like weight, height, and facial features do tell us something about the general condition of the person we're looking at. Again that's not to say there's a one-size-fits-all version that constitutes what is "beautiful" but there are certain norms within in different populations. For example certain Asian men will be considered quite tall at 5' 10", whereas a man of Nordic ancestry would be considered a bit on the short side at that height. When we see individuals that diverge significantly from the norms, what we're often seeing is disease (either genetic, or epigenetic) or malnutrition. These things have nothing to do with culturally imposed beliefs.

[JuneJulySeptember]

Much of attraction is socially programmed.

 

Throughout history, the value system shifts, but the existence of a value system remains constant.

 

I'm reminded of Harrison Bergeron. Maybe we should have the pretty people wear bags on their heads?

 

Dystopia is not really where I was going.

 

I dunno. Sometimes I think I'm shallow when I find one girl attractive and another one unattractive.

 

I guess I'm the only one. Oh wells.

[StanMusial]

...every woman on Earth looked like Marissa Tomei...

 

Now we're getting somewhere!

[tbf]

Let's jump this up a level, purely for discussion sakes. What makes one set of measures, better than another?

 

Looks are innate and so is intelligence.

[JuneJulySeptember]

Let's jump this up a level, purely for discussion sakes. What makes one set of measures, better than another?

 

Looks are innate and so is intelligence.

 

Intelligence is IMO for the most part not innate.

 

The most intelligent people I know are also the hardest workers.

 

I mean, really everybody's opinion is just 'that's the way it is. Go for the best looking people and reject everybody you find ugly'?

 

That's kind of depressing.

[monicaelise]

Intelligence is IMO for the most part not innate.

 

The most intelligent people I know are also the hardest workers.

 

I mean, really everybody's opinion is just 'that's the way it is. Go for the best looking people and reject everybody you find ugly'?

 

That's kind of depressing.

 

You haven't spent much time in academia I take it?

[ThaWholigan]

Intelligence is IMO for the most part not innate.

 

The most intelligent people I know are also the hardest workers.

 

I mean, really everybody's opinion is just 'that's the way it is. Go for the best looking people and reject everybody you find ugly'?

 

That's kind of depressing.

So we should be with people we aren't attracted to?

 

I assure you - it is usually not a happy experience.

 

Not to say that some people should never be with someone - I believe there is usually someone for everyone. Just hard to find for a lot of people.

[xxoo]

I mean, really everybody's opinion is just 'that's the way it is. Go for the best looking people and reject everybody you find ugly'?

 

That's kind of depressing.

 

But that's not the way it is, for most people at least.

 

We go for attraction. Most people will tell you that the individual who they've felt the most attraction to is not the best looking person they've ever seen.

 

People who struggle want to simplify it down to looks. But it simply isn't all about looks. Average looking people can be extremely attractive to the person who is in love with him/her.

[TheGuard13]

Its like anything, there's a happy medium.

 

You don't have to go after the best looking people, just people you're attracted to. There are lots of attractive traits other than certain kinds of cheekbones and certain weight ranges.

[Disenchantedly Yours]

JuneJulySeptember, I like how you really think about things outside the normal scope. Keep doing that. You make some very thoughtful points that are worthy of discussion. But don't make yourself feel guility because you are simply attracted to certain women over others. It's okay to be attracted to some women and not others. And while I do think it's fine to be attracted to certain women and not others, I do think the standards about how women are suppose to look have increased for women unfortunetly and that alot of men do carry unrealistic expectations of female beauty around because of the messages men have been lamblasted with.

[tbf]

Intelligence is IMO for the most part not innate.

 

The most intelligent people I know are also the hardest workers.

 

I mean, really everybody's opinion is just 'that's the way it is. Go for the best looking people and reject everybody you find ugly'?

 

That's kind of depressing.

As objectively defined, intelligence is innate. You're using your subjective references to redefine intelligence, in terms of success and output. In other words, outcome driven.

 

Consider biological imperative. Species continuity is all that matters where survival of the most adaptive will trump any kind of idealistic beliefs.

[JuneJulySeptember]

You haven't spent much time in academia I take it?

 

I have two Masters degrees actually.

 

So we should be with people we aren't attracted to?

 

I assure you - it is usually not a happy experience.

 

Not to say that some people should never be with someone - I believe there is usually someone for everyone. Just hard to find for a lot of people.

 

So, you're saying looks has THAT much to do with making a person happy. Because that is what I'm talking about. Pure physical looks. Nothing else.

 

Yes. I do think that's shallow. Think about it.

[monicaelise]

I have two Masters degrees actually.

 

 

 

So, you're saying looks has THAT much to do with making a person happy. Because that is what I'm talking about. Pure physical looks. Nothing else.

 

Yes. I do think that's shallow. Think about it.

 

I don't know what fields they're in, but I can tell you for certain that intelligence and hard work quite frequently go their separate ways LOL!

 

Some of the laziest bastards I've ever known also happen to be the most brilliant.

[carhill]

In the realm of 'instant gratification', an exigent feature of the vast majority of modern society, the surfaces, defined by beauty/looks, rule. In the instant two pairs of eyes gaze upon the attached bodies from across the room, there is nil discernment of anything other than looks, whether that be manufactured or natural beauty, as described and discerned by the looker. Having witnessed many times how a room stops when a beautiful man or woman enters it, gracing it with nothing other than their physical shell to elicit that response at first glance, indicates in general how the human psyche works with regards to such matters.

 

Generally described beauty/looks affords more and diverse social opportunities and notice. What the individual does with those is up to them. Regardless, the potentials exist and denote a social advantage over someone who lacks the requisite beauty/looks to elicit the human response to their appearance. If the person with looks is also skilled/trained in taking advantage of those opportunities to benefit themselves, such a dynamic can feel, be thought of and envision themselves as 'better' than a person who lacks such immediate recognition, though perhaps possessing other superlative features/traits, simply because they are not 'noticed' as often as the person who has beauty/looks.

 

Personally, I don't view the dynamic as 'silly'. It's part of who we are from the moment we're born and look into the eyes of our parents and they into ours and we each discern human physical characteristics and are socialized into them. Do we really want to evolve to a place where looks are irrelevant? Probably not. In any event, it'll likely never happen. Deal with the real.

[ThaWholigan]

I have two Masters degrees actually.

 

 

 

So, you're saying looks has THAT much to do with making a person happy. Because that is what I'm talking about. Pure physical looks. Nothing else.

 

Yes. I do think that's shallow. Think about it.

It doesn't matter to everyone - but why is it shallow?

 

Some people want to be physically attracted to their partner otherwise they won't be happy in the relationship. It's true. I don't think it's shallow personally. Some people are only attracted on such a level.

[KungFuJoe]

It's not any more or any less shallow than liking someone for their intelligence.

 

Not like you earned your brain...or your looks. You were born with both.

[Keenly]

Its more than possible to be intelligent yet lazy.

[tbf]

Some of the laziest bastards I've ever known also happen to be the most brilliant.

The ancestors of innovation!

[TheZebra]

I have two Masters degrees actually.

 

 

 

So, you're saying looks has THAT much to do with making a person happy. Because that is what I'm talking about. Pure physical looks. Nothing else.

 

Yes. I do think that's shallow. Think about it.

 

If you're not attracted to someone, what's the point of being in a relationship...?

 

And you're telling me that if the ugliest woman on earth wanted a relationship with you, you'd say yes? You'd be attracted? I'm guessing no. So why should I, or anyone for that matter, be with someone they're not attracted to?

 

That's called a friendship.

[monicaelise]

If you're not attracted to someone, what's the point of being in a relationship...?

 

And you're telling me that if the ugliest woman on earth wanted a relationship with you, you'd say yes? You'd be attracted? I'm guessing no. So why should I, or anyone for that matter, be with someone they're not attracted to?

 

That's called a friendship.

 

BINGO!!! (I believe the OP clobbered me in another thread for saying essentially the same thing)

[Keenly]

Its more than possible to be intelligent yet lazy.

 

To elaborate, at work I am very ambitious and I work hard. In my personal life I'm quote lazy because it's hard to fimd things that are intellectually stimulating.

[tbf]

Even though my points are against, it would be lovely if looks were of less import. It would even be advantageous for good-looking people since they'd be selected for themselves, rather than for looks.

[xxoo]

Do you find judgments of beauty silly outside of the context of romantic relationships?

 

For example, do you feel silly for judging one flower more beautiful than another?

 

We are drawn to visual beauty in nature, architecture, art, and design. Is that silly, too?

[Estate]

What is your deal man?

Every single thread you start is the same depressing miserable BS.

 

What are you trying to prove? The world is against you because you don't have a girlfriend? Well it's not.... how about you stop being miserable, go out, talk to girls and see how that goes.

 

Then we can stop all these pointless threads which basically all boil down to the same thing...

[pbjbear]

Umm...most men will screw anything as long as she isnt butt ugly. Thats why its easier for women to get sex. To get a guy to treat her right? (that isnt desperate) not so easy...

 

Also women place less importance on looks than men, so this thread is pointless...

Alot of men are very picky about looks. Body shape and facial features play a shape in a woman's looks and no exercise/diet will give you those things. I dont expect you to pick up on that bc youre a guy