is beauty in the eye of the beholder ?

Post Reply New Topic

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Yes, it is.

BUT, the eyes are shaded by what goggles society places there.

Some are wise enough to see past those.

Some are not. Some never even think about it and are happy to be led.

Just look at differing standards throughout the ages. At some times and in some cultures, fat is the ideal. Others, thin is in. Some societies love a giraffe neck. Others, a gap in the teeth. Others, very pale skin. It goes on and on.

Attraction triggers are complex and mostly subliminal and subconscious. If you stop and think about it you may be able to figure the origin of yours but maybe not.

Yup.

Well , whether our view on beauty is affected by media or by genetics or both , the 'beholder' still represents the vast majority of the NT society and 'unified' .

The result is the same in the 3 possibilities .

To tell the truth it is to some extent. Who can say what we think is beautiful but the media or the mind. But media is much more influencial than our mind is unfortunately. So most girls spend time envying that pretty face while the boys spend time drooling at it and vying to make a pretty face like that theirs, when all it will do is give them a pretty girl as empty and cold as a flower pot. After all, looks are decieving.

Oh really? Because it seems to me that you've been making the argument for most of the Topic that genetics is the cause, and that what other people think doesn't enter into it, now it seems like you're grudgingly accepting the idea that it has some influence so your don't lose face, but at the same time twisting what is said.

It looks like you don't want to consider what other people have been saying, so why are you still here? You just keep regurgitating "evidence" like some fundie who's discovered somebody in a position of authority who happens to agree with what he thinks.

i didn't say the media affect our taste on looks , I said : "whether our view on beauty is affected by media or by genetics or both , the 'beholder' still represents the vast majority of the NT society and 'unified' ." .

I still think that our taste on beauty is affected by genetics mostly , now i don't know why ppl in middle age were attracted to fat ppl , maybe it was because a age of poverty and so overweight was a sign of good fertility then ?? well I dunno , but I saw the statue of godness of beauty "Achtarout" of Phoenicia here in Lebanon and she looks like a modern model-like ( slim , tall , long hair , symmetric face ...) so it seems that the standards of beauty 5000 years ago BC of this civilization , note also that Queen Nafartiti and Cleopatra in the ancient egypt were not fat but they were slim and curvy and they were beauty idols according at that time .

As for media , i don't believe that Media 'creates' new instincts and new tastes about beauty ...but media searches , make surveys to know the mainstream taste in the society and try trigger it and to boost it , I worked in marketing before and I Know .
It is possible to create a new value about a product or a service but it is quasi-impossible to change the taste of ppl , specially when it comes to beauty (and not only about the beauty of women but of everything) is quasi-impossible.

The media won't make ads using models if the guys in the society are not crazy about models , if their surveys show that most are attracted to obese women then they ll use obese women in the ads but surveys show otherwise.

Most guys in the world would admit that anjelina jolie and Bred pit are beautiful while very very few would say that woody allen is handsome (even tho he dates the most beautiful actresses but even him admitted that he never been able to date any1 before his fame)


If you watch "beauty science" in Discovery channel you ll see that our view on beauty is affected by genetics and hormones mostly , you ll be amazed of the accuracy of their studies , you can deny my posts but you can't deny science sir .


Besides , I don't know why you are so bothered or you even sound be offended by my posts and by my links . You started attacking me by saying that i am posting useless info . This is my thread so it 's none of your business if i keep posting on them whether they are useful info or not as long that i am not spamming or insulting anyone . You can just ignore my posts if you are so bothered , so ignore instead of nagging .

Or.....are you in love with a quasimdo-like girl and can't admit it ?

Science isn't alway PC

My point was that you seemed to have changed tactics.

Well I can't respond to most of this because the way you've structured your sentences is horrible, most of it makes no sense at all and you seem to rant on and talk about things completely unrelated to anything I said. Not only that but you keep resorting to the same old BS, trying to use what the majority thinks as proof. Scientists do not consider what they say as facts and are open to the idea that new facts could come out at any moment, they also do not rely on what the masses think, you do, and I'm sick of it, that's why I'm so angry. It pisses me off when somebody can't face up to reality or uses fallacies to try to win an argument, acting like it's the truth. And now you're attcking me, I only ever attacked the way you form arguments and now you're trying to raise doubts about what, my sex life? You're just proving to me that I'm right to be bitching at you, using crap like that.

Here's my advice, and yes I know I'm harsh, I don't care, learn english, learn to argue (Properly), and start thinking before posting. Hopefully you'll make more sense, less mistakes, and you'll see the holes in what you're saying. Remember, I'm not attacking you for your views, if you want to come at me with personal attacks, assuming things about me or my personal life, don't bother, you'll just make it worse for yourself than it already is. And I'll care even less about your opinion. Got it?

Do you know how to speak/write Arabic or French or Persian you Mr. Australian ? If yes , then you can give me lectures about improving my English ,I am not a native English speaker in case you didn't notice and I only started learning English in complementary school for 2 hours per week . All the other courses were either in French or Arabic . So try to be like me before criticizing me .

Besides , about the beauty thing . It's ok if you love someone who's less attractive than the norm because of the other good traits she possesses . For example , you might love an ugly or fat girl for her smartness but deep inside you know that she's ugly and much less attractive than slim and pretty girls . I myself less attractive than the norm too but that doesn't change the fact that physical attractiveness (beauty) is very objective and much more related to instincts than media , for example I am 5'3'' and so many girls rejected me because I am too short ("I prefer a taller guy than me " , I prefer taller....) .

If really beauty is in the eye of the beholder then how you can explain that less than 1% of husbands in the world are shorter than their wives ??? and surely this weak percentage is not due to the fact that men are averagely usually taller than women because there are a lot of women who are taller than a lot of men ... but it's rather due to the fact that 99% of women are usually not attracted to shorter men.

As I said if you look around you find out that 'beauty is in the eye of the beholder ' is no more than a BS saying to make less attractive ppl to feel better .

As Chav said , science is not alway politically correct ...so sometimes science says things that you don't like to hear .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_attractiveness

PS : the link is not for you but for other users since you would probably see it as 'useless piece of information' .

I wonder how much pecentage of men have 30% of woman taller then them.

kdhgdjud

Last edited by Aridarr on 09 Sep 2007, 5:55 am, edited 1 time in total.

When I see something like this,
I pretty much disregard the post.

Hell, 'tis not like I read every post,
but unless it's a quick quip, you should
at least read the current page.

Don't try and make this about intelligence, or hardship, I couldn't care less what you've had to go through, we're having an argument, and if you can't communicate properly information gets lost and things aren't understood.

Frankly I couldn't care less about your girlfriend, or your interests, this isn't about that. So stop trying to derail my point. And no I don't have a Girlfriend.

Great assumption, care to actually back that up with evidence or are you just going to keep throwing "facts" at me?

Maybe if you actually knew what you were talking about I wouldn't insult you.

I'm sure you think you've made an incredibly good point there, but on my side it looks awkward and pointless.

Right, it isn't PC, so how does that automatically make you correct? Oh that's right, it doesn't. You haven't got anything to attack me with so you just decide to assume things about me, that I'm PC, that I have an ugly girlfriend, all kinds of stupid childish things.

Uhuh right, "Judgment of attractiveness of physical traits is partly universal to all human cultures, partly dependent on culture or society or time period, and partly a matter of individual subjective preference." - Wikipedia

I suppose you wont mind if I post something from the link you just posted which contradicts what you've been saying all along?

I did read the current page. Not much of interest to me.

I'd have to assume that's wrong, simply because I see a lot of people say this or that is impossible, when I know it is possible. There's probably a Fetish for it, after all there's a Fetish for pretty much everything else... piss, pain, humiliation, domination.

This is a very interesting podcast (also with transcript) that suggests that what is beautiful is the average of patterns that we observe in nature.

"Piotr Winkielman measures our pleasure when we see patterns of dots. People like things they've seen before. They like familiarity and averages. The safe, sexy and beautiful things are those the brain can recognise and is familiar with. Symmetry is easy on the brain. We like structure and symmetrical patterns. Language is a series of patterns.

Jamin Halberstadt has determined we like images which are most typical of their group, those that have least distinctive features. From an evolutionary perspective, it is thought the average is a safer bet for strength and hence best to mate with.

Piotr Winkielman says people seen as beautiful are actually very average. They're not exotic."