PDA

View Full Version : Is Beauty in the Eye of the Beholder?



Angela
07-10-15, 22:41
I could have answered this one for them. :)

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/10/151001125637.htm

"Now, researchers reporting in the Cell Press journal Current Biology on October 1 show in a study of twins that those differences of opinion are mostly the result of personal experiences that are unique to each individual. In other words, even identical twins don't agree. Of course, some aspects of attractiveness are pretty universal and may even be coded into our genes, the researchers say. For example, people tend to prefer faces that are symmetric. Beyond such limited shared preferences, however, people really do have different "types.""

"The types of environments that are important are not those that are shared by those who grow up in the same family, but are much more subtle and individual, potentially including things such as one's unique, highly personal experiences with friends or peers, as well as social and popular media," Germine says.

In other words, it's not about the school you went to, how much money your parents made, or who lived next door. That pretty face you see apparently has a lot more to do with those experiences that are truly unique to you: the faces you've seen in the media; the unique social interactions you have every day of your life; perhaps even the face of your first boyfriend or girlfriend."

I've definitely seen that there's a certain amount of "imprinting" going on. I know one man who's been married three times (yes, I know!), one wife died, one divorced and now a new wife. The second two and every woman I've known him to date look eerily like his first wife, whom he met as a teenager and who died very young of cancer.

Fire Haired14
08-10-15, 01:15
What type of preference?

Mostly no. Partly yes. Someone might have a preference based on life experiences, like they do to a certain color or sports team. Or someone might have a certain taste like they do for food because of their experience but that's it. Besides that I think it's mostly enshrined in genes. There's more universal preference everyone in the world understands than personal preference.

bicicleur
08-10-15, 08:42
Unconsciously we select healthy and strong people. That is universal beauty.
Furthermore there is a big influence of fashion. Fashion creates an image of succes associated with certain body types and apearances.
And then, I'm not surprised personal experiences play an important role too.

Angela
08-10-15, 17:28
What type of preference?

Mostly no. Partly yes. Someone might have a preference based on life experiences, like they do to a certain color or sports team. Or someone might have a certain taste like they do for food because of their experience but that's it. Besides that I think it's mostly enshrined in genes. There's more universal preference everyone in the world understands than personal preference.

The researchers specifically said that they were going beyond the universal preferences like symmetry of feature, or the attributes that Bicicleur mentioned, like health and strength.

A lot of the other things depend on fashion, which changes depending on whatever group is perceived to have more status, or which might be speculatively tied to cultural changes, such as the fact that curvier figures on women seem to be preferred in more traditional times and boyish figures during more revolutionary times), or sometimes, in the modern era, which might result from the deliberate marketing of a certain "look" ("Creative" people in fashion decide they "love" a certain look and all the models they pick tend to have that "look". That happened very specifically with Cheryl Tiegs and Twiggy and Kate Moss. It's just an extension of what they do with certain clothing or even colors. There's a very good scene in The Devil Wears Prada where the character gives a very cogent explanation of why people seem to suddenly "decide" to like a certain sweater or color.

This is why the "ideal" of beauty has changed so much over the ages. The "ideal" woman of the Middle Ages had to have extremely small, almost pre-pubescent breasts, a small pelvis, but a very big, pregnant looking belly. They also liked a very
high forehead, so high that to achieve it women plucked out a lot of their hair, and very small lips. I don't think anyone today would think that's attractive.
http://www.uni-regensburg.de/Fakultaeten/phil_Fak_II/Psychologie/Psy_II/beautycheck/english/figur/figur.htm

Experience is a sort of related factor. Maybe a child will have a preference for a "parental" look. Maybe for some there's a resistance to that, and they go the other way. Perhaps we're slightly programmed to be attracted to people who look like us or our group, but if we're bombarded by media telling us a certain "type" is beautiful, we may come to believe that.* If, at a young and impressionable age, you form an emotional/sexual connection to a person of a certain physical "type", like a "Mediterranean" type, for example, you might be more attracted thereafter to people of a similar type. It's all variable.

*That has to be the reason that my daughter and her friends think Ryan Gosling is attractive! :) See, men obviously don't spend time discussing which celebrity is more or less attractive than another, but alas, women do...

LeBrok
09-10-15, 02:40
The researchers specifically said that they were going beyond the universal preferences like symmetry of feature, or the attributes that Bicicleur mentioned, like health and strength.

A lot of the other things depend on fashion, which changes depending on whatever group is perceived to have more status, or which might be speculatively tied to cultural changes, such as the fact that curvier figures on women seem to be preferred in more traditional times and boyish figures during more revolutionary times), or sometimes, in the modern era, which might result from the deliberate marketing of a certain "look" ("Creative" people in fashion decide they "love" a certain look and all the models they pick tend to have that "look". That happened very specifically with Cheryl Tiegs and Twiggy and Kate Moss. It's just an extension of what they do with certain clothing or even colors. There's a very good scene in The Devil Wears Prada where the character gives a very cogent explanation of why people seem to suddenly "decide" to like a certain sweater or color. Definitely the cultural influence plays rather extensive role in selection of our partners. However, I'm not sold on cultural aspects making us sexually aroused. For example, if blonds or fit/muscular women are popular in media and popular culture, many guys will be skewed into finding a partner among them. Just to comply with the "norm" a fashion and prestige. It doesn't mean that blonds or fit girls will arouse them sexually more, for reproductive purposes. This is important, because without sexual arousal there will be no kids, or fewer kids than otherwise could be.
I didn't have time to read the research, and I'm not sure how they measure attractiveness to opposed sex. Was it just by asking questions or by physically measuring the level of sexual arousal?

There is much more genetic predispositions for sexual beauty that we might consider. For example, never mind how symmetrical is face of chimpanzee, we won't consider it beautiful or sexy. Smooth unblemished skin is sexy, less hair the better too. Certain shape of legs is consider sexy, others are not. I think most of things that affect sexual stamina is genetic.



I've definitely seen that there's a certain amount of "imprinting" going on. I know one man who's been married three times (yes, I know!), one wife died, one divorced and now a new wife. The second two and every woman I've known him to date look eerily like his first wife, whom he met as a teenager and who died very young of cancer.
Well, if a guy picks always the same looking women, this easily could be a genetic predisposition.



*That has to be the reason that my daughter and her friends think Ryan Gosling is attractive! :) See, men obviously don't spend time discussing which celebrity is more or less attractive than another, but alas, women do...
Women can easily say which man is sexually attractive, but they can't determine which woman is. They are lacking the "meter", if you know what I mean. ;)

Angela
09-10-15, 17:05
Definitely the cultural influence plays rather extensive role in selection of our partners. However, I'm not sold on cultural aspects making us sexually aroused. For example, if blonds or fit/muscular women are popular in media and popular culture, many guys will be skewed into finding a partner among them. Just to comply with the "norm" a fashion and prestige. It doesn't mean that blonds or fit girls will arouse them sexually more, for reproductive purposes. This is important, because without sexual arousal there will be no kids, or fewer kids than otherwise could be.
I didn't have time to read the research, and I'm not sure how they measure attractiveness to opposed sex. Was it just by asking questions or by physically measuring the level of sexual arousal?

There is much more genetic predispositions for sexual beauty that we might consider. For example, never mind how symmetrical is face of chimpanzee, we won't consider it beautiful or sexy. Smooth unblemished skin is sexy, less hair the better too. Certain shape of legs is consider sexy, others are not. I think most of things that affect sexual stamina is genetic.



Well, if a guy picks always the same looking women, this easily could be a genetic predisposition.



Women can easily say which man is sexually attractive, but they can't determine which woman is. They are lacking the "meter", if you know what I mean. ;)

Yes, I know what you mean :) I will also grant you that the women other women consider beautiful are not always the women whom men would pick.

However, I still think the most important sexual organ is the brain, and that controls all other organs, if you get my drift, and can over-ride even genetics, I think, at least to some extent.

Otherwise, how could the "ideal" vary so much from culture to culture or even time period to time period within one culture. Marilyn Monroe and Nicole Kidman couldn't be more different in terms of body type, although they're both of northern European descent.

However, you're right in terms of the study. The researchers were relying on verbal responses...no apparatus to measure arousal. It wasn't the Kinsey Report.

As for Sexual "interest" if you want to call it that, ease of arousal, and sexual "stamina", those are different. I think those are largely genetically determined in both men and women.

bicicleur
09-10-15, 21:47
However, I still think the most important sexual organ is the brain, and that controls all other organs, if you get my drift, and can over-ride even genetics, I think, at least to some extent.


well, sometimes hormones take over
and even alcohol can

and even if the brain is in control
it is not allways possible to give a reasonable explanation for the acts
the truth is sometimes to embarrasing maybe?

oriental
09-10-15, 23:10
Alcohol beautify all faces.:laughing:

LeBrok
10-10-15, 05:16
Otherwise, how could the "ideal" vary so much from culture to culture or even time period to time period within one culture. Marilyn Monroe and Nicole Kidman couldn't be more different in terms of body type, although they're both of northern European descent.
.
It would be probably easier to establish what is a genetic sense of beauty if we were dealing with genetically uniform small tribes. Europeans are mixture of many ancient genetic sources, so even our genetic taste of beauty varies greatly from person to person. Of course, assuming that our genetic sexual beauty evolves very quickly with our changing physical characteristics. Which as well might be the case considering how important this subject is to our survival.

Angela
10-10-15, 05:44
well, sometimes hormones take over
and even alcohol can

and even if the brain is in control
it is not allways possible to give a reasonable explanation for the acts
the truth is sometimes to embarrasing maybe?

Very true if by that you mean that the "super-ego", if we can use a Freudian term, can be overcome by one's own genetically programmed hormones, and certainly by the effects of alcohol or other drugs lowering one's inhibitions and therefore letting the "id" control. That's why people should never drink at office parties. :)

I didn't express myself very artfully in the prior post. What I meant was that social conditioning through the media, social class structures etc., might modify any programmed genetic predisposition to find certain traits attractive. For example, it might modify an evolutionary genetic predisposition to be attracted to women who are "curvier".

I think LeBrok's point was that perhaps people might marry the socially approved type, but if measured, their arousal would still follow genetically programmed models. I don't know if that's true. Before you could even conduct an "arousal" study, you'd have to figure out and agree upon which "traits" in a particular group are probably genetically programmed to be attractive.

However, in real life I don't think these kinds of distinctions matter all that much. I probably shouldn't say this, but do most men turn down something that's on offer because a certain woman isn't precisely their type? Choosing a wife is a different issue, and how much a man might let himself be ruled by sheer sexual attraction, whether that was genetically or societally formed, would vary by society, class, individual personality etc.

Women are much pickier in my experience, but it's difficult to know how much of that is social conditioning versus innate differences. Some of them definitely don't make "mate" or "husband" choices on the basis of sexual attraction even today, and instead choose someone who will be able to provide for children. (Before you ask, I was never that calculating in these matters!) Looking at it another way, for much of human history they weren't allowed to make those kinds of choices. Even in such relatively "free" societies as 19th century Europe, two of "THE" big novels are cautionary tales to women about letting sexual desire rule them: in both Madame Bovary and Anna Karenina (and a lot of Hardy)they wind up losing absolutely everything.

Minty
29-01-17, 09:32
I could have answered this one for them. :)

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/10/151001125637.htm

"Now, researchers reporting in the Cell Press journal Current Biology on October 1 show in a study of twins that those differences of opinion are mostly the result of personal experiences that are unique to each individual. In other words, even identical twins don't agree. Of course, some aspects of attractiveness are pretty universal and may even be coded into our genes, the researchers say. For example, people tend to prefer faces that are symmetric. Beyond such limited shared preferences, however, people really do have different "types.""

"The types of environments that are important are not those that are shared by those who grow up in the same family, but are much more subtle and individual, potentially including things such as one's unique, highly personal experiences with friends or peers, as well as social and popular media," Germine says.

In other words, it's not about the school you went to, how much money your parents made, or who lived next door. That pretty face you see apparently has a lot more to do with those experiences that are truly unique to you: the faces you've seen in the media; the unique social interactions you have every day of your life; perhaps even the face of your first boyfriend or girlfriend."

I've definitely seen that there's a certain amount of "imprinting" going on. I know one man who's been married three times (yes, I know!), one wife died, one divorced and now a new wife. The second two and every woman I've known him to date look eerily like his first wife, whom he met as a teenager and who died very young of cancer.

I know a man. His first wife looks nothing like his second wife. Nothing at all! Not the race not the mentality, and not the personality!

I know another man, his first wife is French, the second is Thai and the third is Chinese. They are all different, very different from each other!


Experience is a sort of related factor. Maybe a child will have a preference for a "parental" look. Maybe for some there's a resistance to that, and they go the other way. Perhaps we're slightly programmed to be attracted to people who look like us or our group, but if we're bombarded by media telling us a certain "type" is beautiful, we may come to believe that.* If, at a young and impressionable age, you form an emotional/sexual connection to a person of a certain physical "type", like a "Mediterranean" type, for example, you might be more attracted thereafter to people of a similar type. It's all variable.

*That has to be the reason that my daughter and her friends think Ryan Gosling is attractive! :) See, men obviously don't spend time discussing which celebrity is more or less attractive than another, but alas, women do...

How do you explain all those European men attracted to Asian women? Asian women are rarely used as a sex symbols on commercials or TV in Europe. There are very little Asian immigrants in Europe. Most are middle easterners or blacks.



the truth is sometimes to embarrasing maybe?
Very true if by that you mean that the "super-ego", if we can use a Freudian term, can be overcome by one's own genetically programmed hormones, and certainly by the effects of alcohol or other drugs lowering one's inhibitions and therefore letting the "id" control. That's why people should never drink at office parties. :)


Hmmmm, but many do. I know a man who impregnated somebody but had no romantic desire for this woman. He did put his hand up and play an important role in his son's life. She was quite nice about it, she never went to court and demanded child support that sort of thing. He pays for his son to come spend time with him in another country and he tutors his son.


I didn't express myself very artfully in the prior post. What I meant was that social conditioning through the media, social class structures etc., might modify any programmed genetic predisposition to find certain traits attractive. For example, it might modify an evolutionary genetic predisposition to be attracted to women who are "curvier".

Hmmmm, evolutionary genetic predisposition. In Europe, in the past ppl like curvy women, but in ancient China people had almost always prefer slim women with the exception of Tang dynasty. In Tang dynasty they like curvy women no matter which social class they were from.



I think LeBrok's point was that perhaps people might marry the socially approved type, but if measured, their arousal would still follow genetically programmed models. I don't know if that's true. Before you could even conduct an "arousal" study, you'd have to figure out and agree upon which "traits" in a particular group are probably genetically programmed to be attractive.


I know an European man who had his type changed completely after 50s.



However, in real life I don't think these kinds of distinctions matter all that much. I probably shouldn't say this, but do most men turn down something that's on offer because a certain woman isn't precisely their type? Choosing a wife is a different issue, and how much a man might let himself be ruled by sheer sexual attraction, whether that was genetically or societally formed, would vary by society, class, individual personality etc.


Yeah, different folk different strokes.


Women are much pickier in my experience, but it's difficult to know how much of that is social conditioning versus innate differences. Some of them definitely don't make "mate" or "husband" choices on the basis of sexual attraction even today, and instead choose someone who will be able to provide for children. (Before you ask, I was never that calculating in these matters!) Looking at it another way, for much of human history they weren't allowed to make those kinds of choices. Even in such relatively "free" societies as 19th century Europe, two of "THE" big novels are cautionary tales to women about letting sexual desire rule them: in both Madame Bovary and Anna Karenina (and a lot of Hardy)they wind up losing absolutely everything.

Yes, I think women tend to be more attracted to good looking guys when they were younger. When they reached a certain age they start to think more. All my younger girlfriends only want to date good looking guys. The older ones on the other hand think differently.

Tomenable
29-01-17, 18:00
This is why the "ideal" of beauty has changed so much over the ages. The "ideal" woman of the Middle Ages had to have extremely small, almost pre-pubescent breasts, a small pelvis, but a very big, pregnant looking belly. They also liked a very high forehead, so high that to achieve it women plucked out a lot of their hair, and very small lips. I don't think anyone today would think that's attractive.
http://www.uni-regensburg.de/Fakultaeten/phil_Fak_II/Psychologie/Psy_II/beautycheck/english/figur/figur.htm

Come on, it is the Current Year! Fat-acceptance is no longer attractive, we do not live in those backward Middle Ages. There is no hope for fat feminists in the Current Year. They should go back to the Middle Ages they despise so much.

Angela
29-01-17, 18:40
Come on, it is the Current Year! Fat-acceptance is no longer attractive, we do not live in those backward Middle Ages. There is no hope for fativt feminists in the Current Year. They should go back to the Middle Ages they despise so much.

Come on, that's exactly what I said...that walking around with a huge belly is no longer considered attractive. Are we having some problems with reading comprehension?

You don't, however, seem to understand that the modern "definition of beauty", if we take fashion magazines as the measure, is a product of the very "liberalism" that you so disdain. (Although in real life it's far more often women than men who believe that kind of propaganda. I've never met a straight man who would consider Marilyn Monroe "fat", or who wouldn't prefer her to some of these inter-gender models. Easily intimidated adolescent boys whose sexual identity is still fluid is another matter, as are the sexual preferences of teen-age girls, who prefer girlish looking men.)

Actually, feminism is part of what has driven the trend toward too lean, masculine looking women, as I pointed out in another thread. One need only look at the change in styles and "standards" beginning in the 1920s when women had to strap in their breasts to get that lean, boyish figure for the clothes. There's actually been quite a lot of work done by social historians looking at the correlation between political/social mores and accepted definitions of female beauty. In conservative periods, more feminine, curvy bodies are in fashion. In "liberal" eras, the trend is toward more "boyish" figures. One can make too much of these kinds of analyses, of course. (Click on "The Shaping of Women's Bodies".)
https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=curvy+figures+correlate+with+conservative+poli tical+eras&start=10

Of course, as was also stated in another thread, the more men lean toward the homo-erotic, the more they may favor such boyish physiques. That can also be taken too far, of course. Sometimes it's just a function of media consumption.

Fire Haired14
29-01-17, 21:36
You don't, however, seem to understand that the modern "definition of beauty", if we take fashion magazines as the measure,

I mostly dis agree with this idea that magazines define female beauty for one reason....A definition of female beauty was already inside in the heads of the male authors and photographers. Magazines don't create it, they express it.

Also btw this idea that "Society thinks skinny women are hotter" is wrong. The real truth is men don't like abnormally fat women. Men don't prefer super skinny fit muscular women, like some women think they do. Maybe they'd chose them over obese women but that doesn't mean they prefer them. This is a simple way to put it; Large or masculine women=unattractive. Women are supposed to have more fat and less muscle than men. If a woman has no fat she has no "meat."

Pain women have because of their struggle to be beautiful is legitimate and a result of flaws in our society. But it doesn't justify saying "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I'm beautiful in different cultures." It's an equivalent to unathletic men saying "I'm athletic in different cultures".

Megalophias
29-01-17, 22:21
I mostly dis agree with this idea that magazines define female beauty for one reason....A definition of female beauty was already inside in the heads of the male authors and photographers. Magazines don't create it, they express it.
I don't know, have you looked at an actual fashion magazine, like Vogue? Unappealing flat-chested giraffe people. Why this should be so is a mystery to men and women alike, but there it is.

Angela
29-01-17, 22:29
I mostly dis agree with this idea that magazines define female beauty for one reason....A definition of female beauty was already inside in the heads of the male authors and photographers. Magazines don't create it, they express it.

Also btw this idea that "Society thinks skinny women are hotter" is wrong. The real truth is men don't like abnormally fat women. Men don't prefer super skinny fit muscular women, like some women think they do. Maybe they'd chose them over obese women but that doesn't mean they prefer them. This is a simple way to put it; Large or masculine women=unattractive. Women are supposed to have more fat and less muscle than men. If a woman has no fat she has no "meat."

Pain women have because of their struggle to be beautiful is legitimate and a result of flaws in our society. But it doesn't justify saying "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I'm beautiful in different cultures." It's an e
quivalent to unathletic men saying "I'm athletic in different cultures".

I think you'd do well to study European history, and art history,
more intensively. That would cure you of this habit of taking the standards of the period in which you are coming to manhood as universal. If you don't understand that the media create the standards of beauty in certain eras then I don't know what to say to you. If you don't realize that teen age girls try to look like what they see in the media, then there's nothing to be said.

Beauty to Renoir:

http://www.oceansbridge.com/paintings/artists/special/RecliningNude.jpg

Beauty in the Renaissance:

http://theartnewspaper.com/upload/iblock/b82/8f18dadbe2aed5df00e2562e6fe44ad1_e9aace4e8fefb38e2 38fab4ce989e3bf620x415_quality99_o_1apvpuhr0fnv1q9 e5gbaodpb8a.jpg
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/86/Giorgione_-_Sleeping_Venus_-_Google_Art_Project_2.jpg

Beauty to Goya:


http://www.franciscogoya.com/images/paintings/naked-maja.jpg

Fwiw, that's pretty much the ideal female form to me.

It changes depending on the era. Hopefully, with exposure to the art of different periods, people come to recognize that what they see around them as the ideal is not a universal truth.

Fire Haired14
30-01-17, 05:31
I think you'd do well to study European history, and art history,
more intensively. That would cure you of this habit of taking the standards of the period in which you are coming to manhood as universal. If you don't understand that the media create the standards of beauty in certain eras then I don't know what to say to you. If you don't realize that teen age girls try to look like what they see in the media, then there's nothing to be said.

Ok so it seems we dis agree on the degree in which culture affects beauty standard. But we don't know what each other's degree is. There's no where this argument can go any further.

Here's the last argumentative thing I'll say...

Different cultures(inclu. different eras) might focus on different universal definitions more intensely or express the same universal definitions differently but that doesn't mean a lot of the definition of beauty is relative. Also, different cultures' different preference in things like hair style, cloths, makeup, etc. aren't major differences.


Beauty to Renoir:

And I don't see how it's very different from today's beauty standard.

LeBrok
30-01-17, 06:45
I think FH14 is talking about what kind of women average men perceives as sexual beauty. Nota bene, I have to agree with his taste of shapes and "meatiness", and that extremes being not sexy. Well, to average men. This is "genetic memory" in action and it is hard to influence it much.
However, Angela is talking about fashion and fads women were and are after in different time period, and this is strictly cultural, therefore changeable and malleable.
If women "understood", could feel, what is sexy for men, they would fall in love with themselves ;). It would mean end of human race. Therefore nature didn't give them this instinct. They have to follow advice of others. And this is a trapping for them, because most fashion today is designed by other women and gay men, and not much work of straight men if any. On top of it, it is much easier to dress skinny models than dress nicely curved women. For these two reason the skinny models are favorites of fashion houses.

Sile
30-01-17, 08:06
look at the first 10 secs or look at it all , these are great paintings

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUW8BakSJig

Angela
30-01-17, 16:52
@FH,

Good grief, FH! Different strokes for different folks, I guess. Imo, Renoir's women are virtually all fat and some are downright obese, and while the one in that particular painting isn't as bad as some others, she has an enormous backside. That's not attractive in my book whatsoever. If that were me I'd tape my mouth shut until I lost at least fifteen pounds. I guess Kim Kardashian is definitely having an impact on younger people :)

The only body in that series which I consider beautiful is the one painted by Goya, and, of course, Marilyn Monroe's and Monica Belluci's.

Coincidentally, last night was the Miss Universe pageant. My daughter and her friends came over and we all watched it. The winner, Miss France, has, in my (our) opinion again, an absolutely spectacular body: flawless, although on the lean side. The face is another story; it bears an unfortunate resemblance to a horse, and while I'm all for a "natural" appearance, she has buck teeth. I guess braces are still not de rigeur in Europe for young people.

http://images.eonline.com/eol_images/Entire_Site/2017029/rs_634x1024-170129191349-634-3miss-universe-france.jpg

I was surprised, however, by how many countries sent girls who really had huge flaws. A lot of them either had fat thighs and hips (Miss Ukraine comes to mind, who has a really beautiful face) or were too emaciated. One of the worst offenders was the Miss Italy. She's a beautiful girl in real life, but she starved herself until she became downright unattractive. This is all the same girl, believe it or not. (She's on the right in the first photo.) Who advised her to lose so much weight, and to get such a fake, and terribly uneven, tan?

http://worldredeye.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/zCarmen-Franzese-Jules-Borghino-Sophia-Sergio631.jpg

https://normannorman.files.wordpress.com/2016/12/img_4492.jpg
http://images.davidemaggio.it/pics3/2011/08/24SophiaSergioMissCinemaVeribelCampania.jpeg
I know, I know, it sounds catty, but that's women for you. We're even worse on ourselves. Even very attractive women obsess over the most minute imperfections.

@LeBrok,
My point was that in times past what I would consider fat or even obese women were considered beautiful. That has changed.

LeBrok
30-01-17, 17:37
@FH,
A lot of them either had fat thighs and hips (Miss Ukraine comes to mind, who has a really beautiful face) or were too emaciated. One of the worst offenders was the Miss Italy. It is almost an impossible thing for women to have fat thighs and hips. ;)




@LeBrok,
My point was that in times past what I would consider fat or even obese women were considered beautiful. That has changed.My point was that it has changed mostly for women, and what they consider fat or unattractive. Not so much for men, because our natural "sexometer" didn't change.

Angela
30-01-17, 22:47
It is almost an impossible thing for women to have fat thighs and hips. ;)




If you were single, LeBrok, I would tell you to put that comment about hips and thighs on your facebook page. You'd be inundated with friend requests. :)

Fortunately for me, I come from a long line of rather lean people, because the men in my life definitely didn't favor the "chubby" look.

I would never have dared to let myself look like this even if I were naturally pear shaped :
http://healthyceleb.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Princess-Beatrice-chubby.jpg

As for poor Vicky Pattison, he would have been long gone by this point:
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/08/28/article-0-1B7F9504000005DC-387_306x572.jpg

Angela
04-02-17, 18:13
This video about beauty being in the eye of the beholder just came across my feed. What a coincidence.

It's probably full of stereotypes, and is just one person's view, at least I hope so, in particular as it applies to South Korea. Maybe it's just me, but it seems as if they've been so influenced by western media that they're trying to change their "racial" look. That's terrible, imo, if true.

The one closest to my own standards is the French one, of course. The most bizarre and hideous to me are the ear lobe and neck stretching. They're almost as bad as what the Chinese used to do to the feet of their women.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yvinJsqSknU


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yvinJsqSknU

Minty
05-02-17, 01:10
This video about beauty being in the eye of the beholder just came across my feed. What a coincidence.

It's probably full of stereotypes, and is just one person's view, at least I hope so, in particular as it applies to South Korea. Maybe it's just me, but it seems as if they've been so influenced by western media that they're trying to change their "racial" look. That's terrible, imo, if true.

The one closest to my own standards is the French one, of course. The most bizarre and hideous to me are the ear lobe and neck stretching. They're almost as bad as what the Chinese used to do to the feet of their women.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yvinJsqSknU


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yvinJsqSknU

You can say the same thing about shape wear or corset rather from the west!

There are a lot of health damages:

Organ Compression

Your digestive tract is also affected, this happens because the intestines are supposed to contract and move food along, but when they're compressed over a long period of time, the flow of digestion is slowed or even stopped.

Bowel Compression

Those with bowel disorders such as irritable bowel syndrome should wear shapewear with caution. People who have weakness in the bowel and a tendency towards incontinence, increasing intra-abdominal pressure can certainly provoke episodes of incontinence.

There is also a tendency for those wearing shapewear to not to want to go to the bathroom, but if you postpone urination, it can cause stress incontinence, where you leak, or it can exaggerate stress incontinence with people who already have it.

Obstructed Breathing

Another problem with shapewear is shallow breathing. When you inhale, your diaphragm expands and your abdomen flares out, but shapewear restricts this movement.

Tingling, Numbness, Pain In The Legs & Blood Clots

Sitting in shapewear can lead to a condition called meralgia paresthetica, which is when the peripheral nerve in your thigh is compressed. This leads to tingling, numbness and pain in your legs. It's like putting rubber bands around your upper thighs and tightening them when you sit down. This rubber band effect can also decrease your circulation and lead to blood clots. When you sit in shapewear, those genetically prone to varicosities can develop varicose veins and lymph congestion, which appears as swollen ankles.

Muscles Will Suffer

Shapewear is no substitute for having strong muscles. It's important to develop muscle tone, because those muscles promote perfect posture, and help keep your back alignment. Many people use shapewear as a crutch to avoid using those muscles, but don't be fooled into thinking that shapewear works like a medical back brace. Shapewear is not therapeutically designed, it's cosmetically designed, and that's a big difference.

Can Create Infections

Shapewear traps moisture and anything else under it, which predisposes the wearer to both yeast and bacterial infections. The most common infection is folliculitis, since bacteria often gets trapped among hair follicles and causes red puss-filled bumps. Folliculitis can be easily treated with natural antibacterials, but if you use antibiotics, recurrent infections may develop antibiotic resistance, so they get harder and harder to treat. These risks are higher in overweight individuals, diabetics and those who sweat excessively.

Dangers Of Overuse

You must always be mindful to not wear these garments on a day-in and day-out basis. If you wear them for an evening out or a special occasion, that's enough, as it's not a good idea to wear it daily and sit in it for hours on end. If you're exhibiting any of the symptoms above, it is recommend to avoid shapewear until the issues are completely resolved.

Angela
05-02-17, 16:25
Minty, pointing out what I consider a distorting or destructive practice from China is not some attack on Chinese culture or people in general. And yes, putting women in tight corsets to force their bodies into a figure eight shape was a lame idea, as are stiletto heels, by the way, although I wear them.

There's no comparison to what these little girls and women in China had to endure, however. It was weeks and months of crying, only to wind up with deformed feet which sometimes atrophied. It is what it is.

http://media.gettyimages.com/photos/1930s-chinese-shoe-made-for-women-with-bound-feet-picture-id453150506

Only look at the following pictures if you have a strong stomach.

http://gwulo.com/sites/gwulo.com/files/images/bound_feet.jpg

http://www.visiontimes.com/uploads/2013/07/chinese-foot-binding-051.png

Who can disagree that culture can determine standards of beauty? This was considered beautiful.

Minty
06-02-17, 12:39
Minty, pointing out what I consider a distorting or destructive practice from China is not some attack on Chinese culture or people in general. And yes, putting women in tight corsets to force their bodies into a figure eight shape was a lame idea, as are stiletto heels, by the way, although I wear them.

There's no comparison to what these little girls and women in China had to endure, however. It was weeks and months of crying, only to wind up with deformed feet which sometimes atrophied. It is what it is.

http://media.gettyimages.com/photos/1930s-chinese-shoe-made-for-women-with-bound-feet-picture-id453150506

Only look at the following pictures if you have a strong stomach.

http://gwulo.com/sites/gwulo.com/files/images/bound_feet.jpg

http://www.visiontimes.com/uploads/2013/07/chinese-foot-binding-051.png

Who can disagree that culture can determine standards of beauty? This was considered beautiful.

Dear Angela,

Once a symbol of beauty and status, foot binding, also known as lotus feet, was carried out in China since the 10th century, falling out of favour in the early 20th century before it was outlawed in 1911.

You know if you take a good look, there are lots of cruelty in human histories around the world. At least foot binding is no longer practiced.


One example I could think of is Female Genital Mutilation can also be called "Female Genital Cutting" or "Female Circumcision."Although the practice predates the birth of Islam, it has taken on a dimension of the religion. It is, however, a practice that is performed across cultures and religions, and should not be considered to be strictly a religious practice, but also a cultural one.

We could argue that how could Muslim men find women without clitoris attractive.


How about those Koreans who hate their own face. Double-jaw surgery is the latest extreme addition to South Korea's plastic surgery fad.

There was a 23-year-old college who underwent double-jaw surgery killed herself. She left a suicide note explaining her desperation after the surgery left her unable to chew food or stop crying due to nerve damage in a tear duct.

Somebody had seen cases where the surgery had resulted in chronic jaw pain, a skewed mouth, misaligned teeth and an inability to chew or smile.

South Korea is a highly male-dominated nation where women need both brains and beauty, or often beauty more than brains, to get a job, get married and to survive in all aspects of life.

Plastic surgery, has become just another accepted way of giving yourself an edge in what is a super-competitive society.

8458


So they do look better, but those Korean faces are not real. Koreans don't look like that naturally. I had an ex colleague from Sri Lanka who is obsessed about Korean Dramas. She actually told me that she thinks Chinese are NOT good looking Koreans are. Then she met some Koreans who are not stars and did not have plastic surgeries. She actually said to me, those are Koreans?! I thought all Koreans were good looking! It looks like propaganda is working well on her!

A small fair face with a "V-shaped" chin and jawline is considered a mark of feminine beauty in much of East Asia, along with a high-bridged nose and big eyes.

She is extremely dark, this Sinhalese girl and chubby. One day a Korean said to me, is she black? I am seriously laughing out loud here...

In North East Asia having dark skin is very undesirable, and she would be considered too fat for the East Asian standard of beauty. Good luck making friends with the Koreans!

She was so surprised what fair skin I got! Considering that I was originally from Malaysia. Well, my ethnic origins are of North East Asia, I am Han, Chinese.

Thank god, I was offered a better job, I don't need to listen to her rubbish speeches anymore!

My mum wears shapewear too! She loves sweet foods, everytime she goes somewhere on vacation she puts on weight, I on the other hand prefer savoury foods and I eat very little so I never had a weight problem. Now all my lady colleagues are copying me.

firetown
07-03-17, 21:42
When you spend a ton of time with someone, looks alone definitely won't do it. You can clash and be miserable or just be so in tune and compliment one another that looks become more and more secondary and even someone not that attractive will start looking like the most beautiful person to you, simply be more and more getting in tune with her.
I cannot find the study I was going to post for some reason, but it is an old one of more than 100 men who had been married more than 5 times. They were all asked which marriage was the best. And from what I recall, almost all of them said retrospectively ... the first.

Angela
07-03-17, 22:37
When you spend a ton of time with someone, looks alone definitely won't do it. You can clash and be miserable or just be so in tune and compliment one another that looks become more and more secondary and even someone not that attractive will start looking like the most beautiful person to you, simply be more and more getting in tune with her.
I cannot find the study I was going to post for some reason, but it is an old one of more than 100 men who had been married more than 5 times. They were all asked which marriage was the best. And from what I recall, almost all of them said retrospectively ... the first.

That's what I see too. I know quite a few people who divorced, remarried, and then in retrospect wondered why they got divorced in the first place. There are always issues, and the passion always subsides a bit: that's just normal. Plus, if you try to work on what you have and succeed, you avoid all the split families, split households, resentment from the stepkids, stress and more stress, and on and on.

From what I've seen and if I were to give advice, it's much better not to remarry while you have young children living at home. Have relationships if you want, but don't bring these people to live in your house, and don't make your kids have them constantly in their lives. Just wait a few years until they have their own lives. Best of all, try to work on your marriage. Some people don't want to hear it though; the grass is always greener somewhere else. It also doesn't seem to occur to some people that if you fail at it again and again, maybe it's you and not the other people.

Minty
31-03-17, 12:59
This is a couple I randomly found on the web. For me the guy is way too fat to be considered attractive. The Asian lady is very far from what I considered as beauty. Her features are the opposite of the standard beauty in Asia. However they look very in love. So yeah beauty is in the eye of the beholder. They see something else in each other.

I can't change the name of the files I originally downloaded, not sure why...

Angela
31-03-17, 16:00
Really nice calling two other human beings "the pig and the ugly" and then posting them on the internet. You consider that appropriate social behavior?

Regio X
31-03-17, 16:57
Not "directly" related to this thread, but here is a video I watched some years ago, which I found pretty interesting: https://vimeo.com/103665136

Blanco
03-04-17, 02:04
Koreans don't hate their race nor they have a fetish to look more Western or anything, but certain features are viewed more appealing, where as in the west we find the opposite as attractive. Many Asians have square jawlines, and this feature may be viewed as unappealing, considering East Asia prefers the androgenic/feminine look compared to chiseled facial characteristics for the most part. Where as in the West we tend to idolize models with square jawlines and almost unnatural facial sharpness. Quite a lot of European models have quasi Asian features as well as Middle Eastern characteristics which is what we tend to idolize over plain, common look.

Does it mean that Europeans hate their own race? obvious no, we just find those characteristics the most attractive we tend to find rarely among our own species. If square jawline was the average facial trait, then the more puffy, round featured individuals most likely would turn more appealing in the model industry.

Tomenable
04-04-17, 00:03
More about this study:

http://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822(15)01019-2?_returnURL=http%3A%2F%2Flinkinghub.elsevier.com% 2Fretrieve%2Fpii%2FS0960982215010192%3Fshowall%3Dt rue

http://www.pulseheadlines.com/beauty-preferences-linked-personal-experiences-study/7387/

A lot of it is also cultural, not just environmental. E.g. Hollywood.

These morphs show "Hollywood beauty" in the 2000s vs. 1940s:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_ro2ijOk8JWc/R-z9jh6YW6I/AAAAAAAAABY/Y78z0TEsshI/s400/leftorright.jpg

Angela
05-04-17, 18:24
More about this study:

http://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822(15)01019-2?_returnURL=http%3A%2F%2Flinkinghub.elsevier.com% 2Fretrieve%2Fpii%2FS0960982215010192%3Fshowall%3Dt rue

http://www.pulseheadlines.com/beauty-preferences-linked-personal-experiences-study/7387/

A lot of it is also cultural, not just environmental. E.g. Hollywood.

These morphs show "Hollywood beauty" in the 2000s vs. 1940s:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_ro2ijOk8JWc/R-z9jh6YW6I/AAAAAAAAABY/Y78z0TEsshI/s400/leftorright.jpg

I guess I'm old-fashioned. I find the 1940s version infinitely prettier. I would bet Olivia De Havilland was part of the morph...
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/29/db/59/29db5998f8d297cb08a694f95b000776.jpg

No one more beautiful than Gene Tierney in my opinion...
http://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/6435/9430010.75/0_7c703_c210b1d_XXL.jpg

They all had that wide-eyed look that I love.

Hedy Lamarr was gorgeous too.

http://www.hedylamarr.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/1440_Hedy-Lamarr.jpg

firetown
28-05-17, 12:01
That's what I see too. I know quite a few people who divorced, remarried, and then in retrospect wondered why they got divorced in the first place. There are always issues, and the passion always subsides a bit: that's just normal. Plus, if you try to work on what you have and succeed, you avoid all the split families, split households, resentment from the stepkids, stress and more stress, and on and on.

From what I've seen and if I were to give advice, it's much better not to remarry while you have young children living at home. Have relationships if you want, but don't bring these people to live in your house, and don't make your kids have them constantly in their lives. Just wait a few years until they have their own lives. Best of all, try to work on your marriage. Some people don't want to hear it though; the grass is always greener somewhere else. It also doesn't seem to occur to some people that if you fail at it again and again, maybe it's you and not the other people.

Very true. What I have observed though is many single parents feeling stuck and desperate to get out of that rut. Which can lead to very bad decisions. Such as bringing a temporary partner much too close to home. The thing is we all change while alive. And changing WITH your partner is probably the way to go and life will get easier, more manageable and productive with that. When people have determined that their partner is wrong for them or at fault of too much (which of course is never a one way street), the energy works against the marriage. When that happens, there can come a point of no return. One that many couples wished that they could return to to start over. And yes, when that point is there, good luck trying to get those friends to listen to reasonable feedback and advice. Their minds are already with the dream partner somewhere who they have not met yet. Or the imagination that life will get easier without the "dead weight". I think it all comes back to what examples we have seen in front of our eyes growing up. Those from stabile households may have observed the simple tools at work to keep a marriage working. Those from messy households just see more problems than solutions.