Who has more sense of beauty? Men or Women?

[osho]

All of us overtly or covertly admire beauty and love to be beautiful and sexy though ostensibly we may say this is all vanity. However I feel that it is mostly women who are more concerned about good looks. It has always been true historically and sociologically all over the world. Why is this so and why men have less concern about this though they too want to have better looks? This is true of both patriarchal and matriarchal societies. Women are more glued to beauty. I simply wonder what chemistry makes women hooked to beauty?

[irinmisfit92]

As someone who has been emotionally bullied because she's fat and called ugly by her ex-classmates, I think women are mainly glued to beauty because they want to feel a lot better about themselves and they want to look good in front of others.

I know the latter doesn't apply to everyone, but I personally feel that women have this competitive DNA inside them. For instance, I can get really jealous over other girls' bodies and sense of fashion and always self-consciously try to change myself to look like them as well. I transformed a lot since I was young, because now I wear more provocative dresses because I want to look sexy in front of other people; not only men, but also women.

I'm stating a fact that a lot of guys actually take into great consideration outward appearances when they are trying to find the right girl. Of course, I'm not saying that girls don't entirely look at appearances, but I think it's less of a consideration. I've seen a lot of couples, and my friend also agrees with me that girls tend to look less at the guy's outward appearance. This is because mainly to a girl the guy's attitude matters a lot and it's especially good if the guy can make the girl comfortable, entertained, and feel appreciated.

When I changed the way I dressed, I'm not saying that guys immediately want to date me or whatever, because it's totally not true, but the way people look at me is slightly different. The reason why some people are popular and some people aren't is sometimes very determined by his/her outward appearance.

I know that some guys seriously do not take into consideration outward looks, and I applaud them for that, but I know it's just a natural instinct to be attracted to someone who has a toned body and good features. In the end, however, everyone is attractive in their own way IF they make the effort to do something. :)

[Vonny]

Maybe because if something is beautiful it's more likely to be healthy - in evolutionary terms.

I know that I've always been very drawn to beauty. Even as a little girl, I was admiring beautiful women. But I think that my perception of what I see as physically beautiful is heavily influenced, on a subconscious level, by other factors.

[Alexander III]

That is not true that woman care more about appearance than men. I suppose in some countries men are bred more barbaricaly - but in Italy and France and many other countries in europe men care just as much about their personal beauty as women. Why wouldn't a man want to be as handsome and atractive as possible?

Looking back historicaly the greatest "dandies" were always men. It could be said that this is because women did have social "inferiority" pre 20th century, but in terms of fashion woman have always stood on equal footing to men, but men have always excelled more at it.

Obviously there is a social context - now everyone in the western world is rich enough to care about such things, but before only the aristocracy and wealthy merchants could pursue the art of self-beauty.

And to deviate a little - why do you applaud men who do not take into consideration outword looks? Outword looks are not randomly given - most people work hard to be beautifull, and the majority of ugly people are ugly because they don't put any effort into it. Beauty much like intelligence needs to be cultivated. I mean everyone who has experuianced the world a little knows that appearnce matters a lot. People who are better looking are always treated better than those who are less better looking. Much in the same way that the cultured are treated always better than the ignorant. The ugly and the ingorant inspire riddicoule, and the beautifull and cultured inspire respect. Because the former tend to be the type of people who say "it's not my fault I am this way, it's because of x and y and z and every excuse imaginable. The latter are the people who say " Ok I am not perfect, but I shall always aim for perfection because my only obstacle is myself"

The outside and inside are not indipendant of each other - they tend to be highly linked.

To say "I dont care about appearnce, Just what is on the inside" is just as shallow as saying "I dont care about the inside I care only about apperance".

[Ecurb]

To say "I dont care about appearnce, Just what is on the inside" is just as shallow as saying "I dont care about the inside I care only about apperance".

Oh, come off it, Alexander. Caring about appearance is CALLED “shallow” because the surface is “shallow” and the “inside” is “deep” ((i.e. “beneath the surface”). Given that “shallow” is a metaphor that MEANS "on the surface", your comment is clearly ridiculous.

I will grant that in many cultures men preen just as much as women do. Among birds, it is the males that are brightly colored.

However, beauty does not “need to be cultivated”. Some people are beautiful with or without working at it. Tigers are beautiful, as are birds of Paradise. I doubt they “work at it”.

The ugly may “inspire ridicule” from you – but if they do, it is because you are a jerk, not because they deserve it.

[Helga]

My best friend often says that I see people in another way than most do,of course I have a sense of beauty but for some reason it is not the same as my friends and people around me. My son is a good example for a male that thinks about the way he (and I) looks. He can cry because his hair isn't cool enough and if I don't want to wear a dress, I hate dresses. I think most people want to be pretty but have different ways to show it and express it.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, right?, we look for different things in people, my sister in law for example loves men with crooked noses, not every girl does.

as for dressing sexy, I am not a fan of that!

[Buh4Bee]

It's just youth speaking. When we age, we care less.

[Michael T]

Interesting post Osho.

Here’s an argument…

What if it probably has a great deal more to do with women’s role in societies over the centuries than any genetic make-up? Perhaps evidence for this might be found in the way men are now becoming far more concerned in their appearance - due almost entirely, it could be argued, from the bombardment / pressure of advertising both on television and in magazines. Cosmetic companies have tapped into a massive new market by convincing males they too need to look beautiful in order to be a successful or even a ‘normal’ attractive member of society.
It could be that this has been compounded by a massive shift in Western Society towards ‘style’ over ‘substance’ a kind of dumbing down of society through democratisation. Political correctness means everyone is equal – regardless of accomplishments. What if nowadays everybody can be successful because all you have to do is look fashionable, pretty or smart in your appearance? Have people become more worried about what they look like or how they are immediately perceived by others than they are of becoming rounded human beings with a good education and understanding of art and culture and the accomplishment of good deeds? Is the ‘easy way’ to be successful more attractive to the masses than the hard work required to become all that you can be – to achieve the sort of thing I think the ancient Greek philosophers called Eudemonia
Do we now live in an extremely narcissistic society where many people only look for beauty in the mirror? Aren’t high-heels, eye-liner, lipstick and men’s hair-gel just a corruption forced on humanity by the twisted values of past civilisations and now corporate greed?
If one goes to a museum or an art gallery, or even a National Park one finds as many males as females; is this because an appreciation of true beauty, the beauty found in both art and nature is innate or genetic in both sexes to the same degree? :p

[stlukesguild]

Alexander III- To say "I dont care about appearnce, Just what is on the inside" is just as shallow as saying "I dont care about the inside I care only about apperance".

Oh, come off it, Alexander. Caring about appearance is CALLED “shallow” because the surface is “shallow” and the “inside” is “deep” ((i.e. “beneath the surface”).

It seems to me that as unpopular as Alexander's view's may be, he is simply being a realist in this discussion. As much as we may wish to deny it, appearances do matter. We all take this into consideration when applying for a job. Appearance is also a key element in sexual attraction. We are quite likely not going to be sexually attracted to someone whom we find to be unattractive, but is intelligent, has a great sense of humor, and a winning personality. AS a visual artist I always bristle with a degree of indignation every time I come across these statements as to the shallowness (ie. superficiality) of appearances.

At the risk of repeating an earlier post, I find Denis Dutton's exploration of aesthetic and evolutionary psychology to be quite interesting:

While the Darwinian mechanism of natural selection has proved to be one of the most versatile and powerful explanatory ideas in all of science, there is another, lesser-known, side of Darwinism: sexual selection. The most famous example of sexual selection is the peacock’s tail. This huge display, far from enhancing survival in the wild, makes peacocks more prone to predation. The tails are heavy, requiring much energy to grow and to drag around. This seems to be nature’s point: simply being able to manage with a tail like that functions as an advertisement to peahens: “Look at what a strong, healthy, fit peacock I am.” For discriminating peahens, the tail is a fitness indicator, and they will choose to mate with peacocks who display the grandest tails.

Fundamental to sexual selection in the animal kingdom is female choice, as the typical routine for most species has males displaying strength, cleverness, and general genetic fitness in order to invite female participation in producing the next generation. With the human animal, there is a greater mutuality of choice. Geoffrey Miller holds not only that sexual selection is the source of the traits we tend to find the most endearingly human-qualities of character, talent, and demeanour — but that artistic creativity and enjoyment came into being in the Pleistocene in the process of women and men choosing sexual partners. The notion that we can alter ourselves through sexual selection is well accepted: there are striking examples of human sexual selection at work even in recent, historic times. The Wodaabe of Nigeria and Niger are beloved by travel photographers because of their geere wol festivals, where young men make themselves up, in ways that look feminine to Europeans, and dance vigorously to display endurance and health. Women then choose their favourites, preferring the tallest men with the biggest eyes, whitest teeth, and straightest noses. Over generations, the Wodaabe have grown taller than neighbouring tribes, with whiter teeth, straighter noses, etc. If it is possible to observe this kind of change in a few centuries, it is clearly possible to remake or refine Homo sapiens in tens of thousands of generations. As with natural selection, just slight choice bias over long time periods could radically reform aspects of humanity, giving us species features of personality and character that we have in effect created for ourselves. Our ancestors exercised their tastes for “warm, witty, creative, intelligent, generous companions’as mates, and this shows itself both in the constitution of our present tastes and traits, and in our tendency to create and appreciate art.

It is sexual selection, therefore, that is plausibly responsible for the astonishingly large human brain, an organ whose peculiar capacities wildly exceed survival needs on the African savannahs. The human brain makes possible a mind that is uniquely good at a long list of features that are found in all cultures but are difficult to explain in terms of survival benefits: “humor, story-telling, gossip, art, music, self-consciousness, ornate language, imaginative ideologies, religion, morality”. From the standpoint of sexual selection, the mind is best seen as a gaudy, over-powered home entertainment system, evolved to help our stone-age ancestors to attract, amuse, and bed each other.

As a telling example of the human self-created overabundance of mental capacity, consider vocabulary. Nonhuman primates have up to twenty distinct calls. The average human knows perhaps 60,000 words, learned at an average of ten to twenty a day up to age 18. As 98 per cent of daily speech uses only about 4,000 words, and no more than a couple of thousand words at most would have sufficed in the Pleistocene, the excess vocabulary is well explained by sexual selection theory as a fitness and general intelligence indicator. Miller points out that the correlate between body symmetry — a well-known fitness indicator — and intelligence is only about 20 per cent. Vocabulary size, on the other hand, is more strongly correlated to intelligence, which is why it is still used both in scientific testing and more generally by people automatically to gauge how clever a person is. Such an indicator is especially telling in courtship contexts. Indeed, extravagant, poetic use of language — including a large vocabulary and syntactic virtuosity — is associated worldwide with love, being a kind of cognitive foreplay. But it is also, he points out, something that can “give a panoramic view of someone’s personality, plans, hopes, fears, and ideals.” It would therefore have been an essential item in the inventory of mate selection criteria.

The human tendency to create amusements, to elaborate and decorate everywhere in life, is therefore a result of mate choices, accounting for the evolution of dancing, body decoration, clothing, jewellery, hair styling, architecture, furniture, gardens, artefact design, images from cave paintings to calendars, creative uses of language, popular entertainments from religious pageants to TV soaps, and music of all kinds. Artistic expression in general, like vocabulary creation and verbal display, has its origins according to sexual selection in its utility as a fitness indicator: “Applied to human art, this suggests that beauty equals difficulty and high cost. We find attractive those things that could have been produced only by people with attractive, high-fitness qualities such as health, energy, endurance, hand-eye coordination, fine motor control, intelligence, creativity, access to rare materials, the ability to learn difficult skills, and lots of free time”. This view accords with a persistent intuition about art that can be traced from the Greeks to Nietzsche and Freud: art is somehow connected, at base, to sex. The mistake in traditional art theorizing has been to imagine that there must be some coded or sublimated sexual content in art. But it is not the content per se that sexual: it is the display element of producing and admiring artists and their art in the first place that has grounded art in sexuality since the beginnings of the human race.

To the extent that art-making was a fitness indicator in the Pleistocene, it would have to be something that low-fitness artists would find hard to duplicate. (Were it easy to fake, then it would not be accurate as a gauge of fitness.) The influence of the Pleistocene mind on the concept of art therefore provides us with a perspective, at least at a psychological level, on some of the modern problems of philosophical aesthetic. Consider virtuosity: if music is a series of sounds in a formal relation, why should it make any difference to us that the sounds of a Paganini caprice are also difficult to realize on a violin? From the standpoint of sexual selection theory, this is no issue: virtuosity, craftsmanship, and the skilful overcoming of difficulties are intrinsic to art as display.

And difficulty isn’t all: art also involves costliness. As the economist Thorstein Veblen has said, “The marks of expensiveness come to be accepted as beautiful features of the expensive articles”. As much as this might contradict the modernist devaluing of skill and cost as central to the concept of art, it is in line with persistent popular reactions to art, showing up in the liking of skilful realistic painting, musical virtuosity, and expensive architectural details. This may not justify the philistinism of asking how much a famous museum painting is worth, but it does explain it.

Admiration for the ability to do something difficult is not unique to art: we admire athletes, inventors, skilful orators or jugglers; and admiration of skill is at least as intrinsic to art as to any other field of human endeavour. Ellen Dissanayake has identified a process of “making special’as essential to the arts as practised from the Pleistocene to the present. However, whereas she sees making special as something that tends to promote an intense communal sense in a hunter-gatherer group, Miller interprets the phenomenon as more connected with display: “Indicator theory suggests that making things special means making them hard to do, so that they reveal something special about the maker”. It follows that almost anything can be made artistic by executing it in a manner that would be difficult to imitate. “Art” as an honorific therefore “connotes superiority, exclusiveness, and high achievement”, and so would be useful as a fitness indicator.

If this is true, the vulgar gallery remark, “My kid could paint better than that”, is vindicated as valid at least from the standpoint of sexual selection, and can be expected to be heard in popular artistic contexts for the rest of human time: people are not going to “learn” from their culture that skill does not count (any more than they will learn that general body symmetry does not indicate fitness). Moreover, even with the elites it is really not so different: the skill discriminations of elites are simply accomplished at a more rarefied level. Cy Twombly’s blackboard scribbles, which look to many ordinary folk like, well, children’s blackboard scribbles, are viewed by high-art critics as demonstrating an extremely refined artistic skill. That the works do not obviously show skill to the uninitiated simply demonstrates that they are being produced at a level that the unsophisticated cannot grasp. The esoteric nature of art, and with its status and hierarchy, thus remains in place.

As with interests and inclination determined by natural selection, the ultimate reasons for the values we inherit through sexual selection are not understandable through immediate introspection. Ripe fruits taste deliciously sweet, while rotting meat is repellent, for sound biological reasons, although we may not know through immediate experience why these things generate, respectively, pleasure and disgust. Similarly, according to sexual selection theory, we find great pleasure in pastimes such as art and music, in probing conversation with charming company, in great displays of athletic prowess, in a striking metaphor or a well told story. The fact that these activities and experiences can afford so much pleasure too requires an explanation, and so far sexual selection theory provides one of the most plausible and provocative accounts we have.

Now no one would suggest that we are controlled solely by base animal instincts. Obviously, we have the capability to employ reason and logic and empathy and other emotions. We also have our spiritual longings.

William Blake, in The Marriage of Heaven and Hell argued:

All Bibles or sacred codes have been the causes of the following Errors:

1. That Man has two real existing principles Viz: a Body & a Soul.
2. That Energy, call'd Evil, is alone from the Body, & that Reason, call'd Good, is alone from the Soul.
3. That God will torment Man in Eternity for following his Energies.

Blake, a Romantic, was questioning the notions of the Enlightenment that suggested that humanity was essentially a divided being... that reason and logic... all that was GOOD, stemmed from that side of humanity that rejected his or her "base animal instincts". On the other hand, emotions, passions, desires... the base animal instinct which stemmed from the body were clearly EVIL. Rousseau, went to the other extreme, suggesting that all that was wrong with humanity and civilization stemmed from reason, logic, and civilization itself. Blake was suggesting that there is no such divide. We are our bodies as well as our minds. That which we see... visual appearances... can be just as profound as that which we hear or taste or dream or think or imagine.

Aren’t high-heels, eye-liner, lipstick and men’s hair-gel just a corruption forced on humanity by the twisted values of past civilisations and now corporate greed?

Are they? How is the desire to change one's appearance, whether is be in order to make oneself appear more sexually attractive or to put forth a given image of oneself to potential employers, clients, coworkers, etc... inherently different from the desire to "improve" one's environment through architecture, interior design, art, decoration, etc...?

[OrphanPip]

Simple Darwinian explanations of the presumed female bias towards ornamentation in humans is problematic. First of all, because the majority of cases in nature tell us that female partner choice and male intrasexual competition are the major drivers of sexual selection. So, we should expect men to be the ornamental sex.

Darwin, in The Descent of Man, argues that human culture has created a situation where women are deprived of the ability to make choices, thus they have become the sex most influence by sexual selection. However, this is problematic, because men, even if they are making the choices, would be expected to impregnate pretty much any woman.

Another possibility, is that the history of humanity has generally resulted in a population bias in favor of women, there have traditionally been more women than men, (because men would die in higher numbers in hunting and tribal warfare) which meant that possibly some women would have had to compete for male matches, especially in conditions where food was limited and a woman without a man to support her would not survive. This could explain how certain traits like light eye colours spread so rapidly in Ice Age Europe.

Although, as Alex and Stlukes have pointed out, other matters of sexual selection, like possibly humour (as a display of mental prowess) or the lack of a penis bone in humans (this has been proposed by Dawkins as a possible way for women to tell healthy men apart from unhealthy ones, in other primates an erection is a far simpler affair), seem present in men. Facial hair, square jaws and broadened shoulders could be a result of sexual selection in males as a result of female choice.

Then we inevitably come to the problem of cultural bias in interpretation. Men certainly do care about being appealing, however this doesn't always come down to physical appearance. Behaviours, like the example of humour, are related to sexual choice as well. Evolutionarily, a man able to present the appearance of a supporter is likely using a reproductive strategy just as successful as that of a man putting out an image of physical health. Fitness is dependent on environment, it is not a quality inherent to the trait.

I do think we place too much emphasis on physical appearances, as much as we do love them. For many people it will be the man who is presenting the "supporter role" rather than the "good genes" that will be chosen by the woman. And humour, personality, and intelligence are equally in that "good genes" camp as physical fitness. It's too simplistic to reduce the role of sexual selection down to merely appearances, and that is if we ignore the role culture plays in all of this.

[Alexander III]

Here is a thought - so far we have all corelated appearnce and sexual atraction. But what about the desire to appear beautifull around the same-sex?

For example most guys I know - will dress up and perfume themselves and do their hair when they are going out, but if they are staying in the house with just guys they will remain unwashed.

Personaly even If I Know that I shall be with a group of guys, I still dress myself and arrange myself just as if I was going to be with girls. For me it is not so much about being sexualy attractive as much as it is about being beautifull?

Most women if I am not mistaken tend to be like me- as in they do not only make themselves beautiful when around men, but all the time, because the priority is being beautifull not sexualy atractive.

And @ Ecurb Of course beauty must be cultivated. If Byron had grown up on an island in a vacume - he probably would have been stupid and ugly.

Maybe you are one of those 0.0000000001% who no matter what they do look beautifull. But for everyone else the second they stop caring, and taking care of their apperances is the second they start being ugly.

And how is it cruel that the ugly inspire ridicoule, is cruel. My cousin is obese. I took him to gym once, he quit the thread mill after 3 minutes. People who have weak wills are weak willed in everything. The same man who wont excerisise because "it is too hard" is the same that wont do anything in life "because it is to hard".

[Emil Miller]

Aren’t high-heels, eye-liner, lipstick and men’s hair-gel just a corruption forced on humanity by the twisted values of past civilisations and now corporate greed?

Well I use hair gel to stop my hair from looking its naturally untidy self but I'm unable to find an excuse for any man who wears high-heels, eye liner and lipstick.

[Michael T]

Well I use hair gel to stop my hair from looking its naturally untidy self but I'm unable to find an excuse for any man who wears high-heels, eye liner and lipstick.


:lol::lol::lol:

[Scheherazade]

Well I use hair gel to stop my hair from looking its naturally untidy self but I'm unable to find an excuse for any man who wears high-heels, eye liner and lipstick.I know this is supposed to have just the opposite effect on the reader but now all I can picture is Emil sitting primly in front of his computer, sipping wine delicately while wearing high-heels, eye liner and lipstick... Pushing his gelled hair back in frustration as he shakes his head impatiently at a rogue comment (like this one) he reads on the Forum.


All of us overtly or covertly admire beauty and love to be beautiful and sexy though ostensibly we may say this is all vanity. However I feel that it is mostly women who are more concerned about good looks. It has always been true historically and sociologically all over the world. Why is this so and why men have less concern about this though they too want to have better looks? This is true of both patriarchal and matriarchal societies. Women are more glued to beauty. I simply wonder what chemistry makes women hooked to beauty?Even though the thread title asks whether it is men or women who has more sense of beauty (which I initially took to be about appreciation of art or aesthetically pleasant pieces), it seems like Osho has already made that decision for us: it is women. And he is not actually talking about aesthetic appreciation but asking who is more "vain" when it comes to how people physically represent themselves.

Looking from that perspective, I am not sure I want to contribute anything to this discussion where "women = vain".

Need to go and curl my hair, get my nails done or something, you see...

;)

[PoeticPassions]

All of us overtly or covertly admire beauty and love to be beautiful and sexy though ostensibly we may say this is all vanity. However I feel that it is mostly women who are more concerned about good looks. It has always been true historically and sociologically all over the world. Why is this so and why men have less concern about this though they too want to have better looks? This is true of both patriarchal and matriarchal societies. Women are more glued to beauty. I simply wonder what chemistry makes women hooked to beauty?


Has it been true historically and sociologically all over the world? I beg to differ, particularly in a lot of hunter and gatherer societies.
Furthermore, I think that often the perception of what women were like and what women liked were shaped by men.
Women may appreciate beauty more (I am not sure whether this is true or not), but maybe because women are the fairer sex anyway.

And if we think about all the ways in which we have been socialized, and bombarded with media images constantly, then it might make sense why women care so much about appearance. There is a documentary about this that I watched part of (it was terrific): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gkIiV6konY

[Emil Miller]

I know this is supposed to have just the opposite effect on the reader but now all I can picture is Emil sitting primly in front of his computer, sipping wine delicately while wearing high-heels, eye liner and lipstick... Pushing his gelled hair back in frustration as he shakes his head impatiently at a rogue comment (like this one) he reads on the Forum.

While I have always tried to avoid the neanderthal appearance that has been prevalent among the male population for some years, I wouldn't go as far as you suggest. Even the hair gel is used only for when I am out and about, when the slightest breeze would otherwise turn my all-too-fluffy hair into a haystack.

[jajdude]

I've heard a number of times that men are more visual-minded and women more auditory-minded. I'd guess there is some truth to that generalization.

Who spends more time fussing over their appearance?

And when you go shopping count how many stores and products are for women vs how many for men. It's gotta be around ten to one.

[Arrowni]

That is not true that woman care more about appearance than men. I suppose in some countries men are bred more barbaricaly - but in Italy and France and many other countries in europe men care just as much about their personal beauty as women


I live in France and I don't agree.


There is an ontological difference in what a man thinks about beauty and what women thinks. Man thinks beauty is to see, women thinks that beauty is to be seen.

[Ecurb]

Here is a thought - so far we have all corelated appearnce and sexual atraction. But what about the desire to appear beautifull around the same-sex?

For example most guys I know - will dress up and perfume themselves and do their hair when they are going out, but if they are staying in the house with just guys they will remain unwashed.

Personaly even If I Know that I shall be with a group of guys, I still dress myself and arrange myself just as if I was going to be with girls. For me it is not so much about being sexualy attractive as much as it is about being beautifull?

Most women if I am not mistaken tend to be like me- as in they do not only make themselves beautiful when around men, but all the time, because the priority is being beautifull not sexualy atractive.

And @ Ecurb Of course beauty must be cultivated. If Byron had grown up on an island in a vacume - he probably would have been stupid and ugly.

Maybe you are one of those 0.0000000001% who no matter what they do look beautifull. But for everyone else the second they stop caring, and taking care of their apperances is the second they start being ugly.

And how is it cruel that the ugly inspire ridicoule, is cruel. My cousin is obese. I took him to gym once, he quit the thread mill after 3 minutes. People who have weak wills are weak willed in everything. The same man who wont excerisise because "it is too hard" is the same that wont do anything in life "because it is to hard".

Hmm. The ugliest person I ever knew was a friend of mine who was electrocuted on a construction job. He had no face. His nose, ears, and other features had been burned off, and his skin looked like mottled, burnt flesh. Somehow, though, I was never inspired to ridicule him, nor did I find him “weak willed”. However, I do find Alexander to be a complete loser if he thinks my friend SHOULD be ridiculed.

In addition, Alexander has not responded to my suggestion that tigers and Birds of Paradise don’t cultivate their beauty. Consider the lilies of the field, they sew not, neither do they reap, yet Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed as one of these.

What constitutes personal “beauty”? How does one “cultivate” it. Alexander thinks it can be cultivated through dandyism. Arranging one’s hair and one’s dress (he thinks) enhances one’s beauty. Although there is perhaps a tiny grain of truth in this, in general, I disagree. The essence of human beauty is not captured in fashion photographs – instead, it is found in expressive motion. Isadora Duncan danced in the nude. Greek athletes performed naked. The human form is most beautiful in action, not in repose. Actors and athletes are more beautiful than fashion models.

[Scheherazade]

~

W a r n i n g

Please do not personalise your arguments.

Off-topic or inflammatory posts will be removed without further notice.

~

[Ecurb]

I agree with most of what OrphanPip said, but not this:
Another possibility, is that the history of humanity has generally resulted in a population bias in favor of women, there have traditionally been more women than men, (because men would die in higher numbers in hunting and tribal warfare) which meant that possibly some women would have had to compete for male matches, especially in conditions where food was limited and a woman without a man to support her would not survive. This could explain how certain traits like light eye colours spread so rapidly in Ice Age Europe.

As anthropologist Marvin Harris pointed out in “Cows, Pigs, Wars and Witches”, many warlike primitive societies VALUE boys more than girls. Among warlike groups in New Guinea or South America, far more boys reach the age of five than girls (in some groups, 3 or 4 times as many). The only reasonable explanation is female infanticide or selective neglect (which, in societies with very high infant mortality, can have a major impact). Since warlike primitive societies tend to be sexist (men being so valuable to protect the group), these are the societies in which boys survive to adolescence far more often than girls do.

So in at least some primitive, warlike societies, OrphanPip’s guess that there are more women than men is simply incorrect. Although it is true that the vast majority for the men at age five is lessened by fatalities due to hunting and warfare, there are still more men than women in many of these societies (of course childbirth deaths for women are a factor as well).

[virginiawang]

I really agree with Alexander's posts under this thread. My female parent has been fat and ugly all her life, and she made excuses for her great appetite and the bad habits that made her house some sort of disasterous wonder, for times without number. However I think words are not needed. She is ugly and pitiable all her life, that made her dirty and bad in whatever she did and thought over the years. She is more disgusting than a frog, the most dirty and disgusting animal that came to my mind so far. My father left him since thirty years ago for another woman, whom my female parent cursed with her best effort. I do not know why, but since this woman deprived her of her husband, she started to hate all women who want to look pretty, including my grandma, who loves to look pretty all her life. That ugly woman hates everyone woman who ever wants to look pretty. She praises herself and my two sisters because they, as with one accord,...... words failed me again.

I feel myself trembling with anger, when I saw her face in my mind. I want to curse again. She does not count. Trash on earth.

When I recalled what took place a few days ago, I feel love, gratitude, and all the beauty of a heart. That woman was truly bad and ugly, and she hid behind grandma's back, in an attempt to burst into my house and, I am almost sure now, to send me to an aylum. I called the doctor immediately to let them know that they cannot reach their goal, and they left almost immediately. My friend let them both learn that it is not fun to bully me again, in less than no time, and they both changed their attitude as if with magic, and talked to me with respect, in a way I've never heard them talk, all my life. I was amazed by the ugly world, sadly. I love him.
I believe it is love. It is beautiful and real.

I've been fooled by two of my enemies over the years and I, residing in my dreams, became a laughing stock, even in my own eyes. I should have listened to the opinions of other people and left much earlier, but it was not until lately that I left once and for all, because I fell in love again.

[cafolini]

All of us overtly or covertly admire beauty and love to be beautiful and sexy though ostensibly we may say this is all vanity. However I feel that it is mostly women who are more concerned about good looks. It has always been true historically and sociologically all over the world. Why is this so and why men have less concern about this though they too want to have better looks? This is true of both patriarchal and matriarchal societies. Women are more glued to beauty. I simply wonder what chemistry makes women hooked to beauty?

I propose it is somewhat of a mystery. I think love and beauty are separate issues. Regarding love, women are called to be mothers. They are bound to avoid an abortion in two or three days. No joke.
Regarding beauty, I could speculate that it is because with so much idiotic behavior on the part of men, all in vain, women preffer vanity up front. Difficult question to answer calmly. Ha!
Osho, as usual, interesting.

[virginiawang]

I must emphasize one point to all of my readers here. I never took psychiatric medicine in my life, though I was given the label of a banana by some sort of ugly trick, several years ago.

[Vonny]

I propose it is somewhat of a mystery. I think love and beauty are separate issues. Regarding love, women are called to be mothers. They are bound to avoid an abortion in two or three days. No joke.
Regarding beauty, I could speculate that it is because with so much idiotic behavior on the part of men, all in vain, women preffer vanity up front. Difficult question to answer calmly. Ha!
Osho, as usual, interesting.

And mothers love their ugly babies as much as beautiful ones.

To a normal mom her baby is always beautiful.

We also love some ugly cats and dogs, and see them as beautiful.

[Michael T]

I must emphasize one point to all of my readers here. I never took psychiatric medicine in my life, though I was given the label of a banana by some sort of ugly trick, several years ago.

Wow, really! Thats very interesting.

Do you think that past experience may have coloured your view of the topic in hand? :)

[tonywalt]

I must emphasize one point to all of my readers here. I never took psychiatric medicine in my life, though I was given the label of a banana by some sort of ugly trick, several years ago.

Oh Yea, the old "banana labelling trick". We've all been there:eek6:

[Vonny]

Oh Yea, the old "banana labelling trick". We've all been there:eek6:

:lol: I was wondering where a certain person was.

Women prefer beautiful bananas because they are less likely to have listeria.

But it's hard to resist an ugly baby

[tonywalt]

Just out of curiousity. How many guys on here use moisturiser or eye contour moisturiser for the more delicate area around the eyes(prone to dryness, as this area lacks sebaceious glands)?

I do sometimes, but ONLY because the Rugby pitch is pretty dry and after a rough game in the non rainy months I really need to irrigate the facial area. I tried to sell the idea to the remainder of the team but I was pummelled.

I would chat more but I must go, as my natural Cucumber and Oatmeal mask needs rinsing......

[Alexander III]

Hmm. The ugliest person I ever knew was a friend of mine who was electrocuted on a construction job. He had no face. His nose, ears, and other features had been burned off, and his skin looked like mottled, burnt flesh. Somehow, though, I was never inspired to ridicule him, nor did I find him “weak willed”. However, I do find Alexander to be a complete loser if he thinks my friend SHOULD be ridiculed.

I would not find him ridicoulous, but I would find him entertaining. I am very un-human in that when there is a plane crash or car accident or footage of war on tv I can't help but stare. I find the grotesque very entertaining. I feel sorry for the bloke, but thats life. Dont expect me to burst into tears.

In addition, Alexander has not responded to my suggestion that tigers and Birds of Paradise don’t cultivate their beauty. Consider the lilies of the field, they sew not, neither do they reap, yet Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed as one of these.

But the beauty of men is different to that of Tigers or Birds of Paradise. See I dont believe that there is an "objective" Beauty or Truth. I am more of an aesthetic. Beauty lies soley in the individuals response to an external. Beauty amongst people is in a different context to the beauty of a bird or tiger or song or work of literature. Personaly I would find it rather hard to compare the beauty of Child Harolds Pillgrimage to the beauty Beau Brummel....

What constitutes personal “beauty”? How does one “cultivate” it. Alexander thinks it can be cultivated through dandyism. Arranging one’s hair and one’s dress (he thinks) enhances one’s beauty. Although there is perhaps a tiny grain of truth in this, in general, I disagree. The essence of human beauty is not captured in fashion photographs – instead, it is found in expressive motion. Isadora Duncan danced in the nude. Greek athletes performed naked. The human form is most beautiful in action, not in repose. Actors and athletes are more beautiful than fashion models.

Surley personality and mannerisms are cultivated just as much as clothes and hair and face and body. See I think the body is ugly in motion. It is beautifull motionless, the closer it comes to the state of an object the more beautifull it is for me.

Who said fashion models are beautifull? I find them too skinny.

[Ecurb]

Of course personality is “cultivated”. Indeed, for those with reasonable sensibilities, it is cultivated to a far greater extent than one’s appearance.

There is beauty in motion because there is a beauty in functionality. The beauty (to compare humans to other animals, as is perfectly reasonable since both are animals) of a lion or a cheetah is not fully realized until you see it running. Fluidity and grace are beautiful – repose is simply boring. Wouldn’t you rather see a cheetah running down a gazelle than sitting in its cage in a zoo?

The “beauty” of Beau Brummel was in the confluence of personality, mannerism, and appearance. He was, of course, a phony and a poser, but that was his style and he did it well. It was Brummel who said, “If people turn to look at you on the street, you are not well dressed.” He recognized that dressing well involved avoiding calling attention to your clothes.

Brummel did share your aversion to fat people. When snubbed by the Prince of Wales while riding through Hyde Park, Brummel turned to the Prince’s companions, who were also friends of Brummel’s, and asked, “Who is your fat friend?”

Brummel died of syphillis.

[Buh4Bee]

I know there is some banter going on here, so excuse my interruption.
I do believe that beauty is not a major concern for many men and women. Especially people that live an average life, dealing with everyday concerns. People just don't have time to care. I also think it is a by-product of a young crazed culture. When I was younger, I dressed the part of a girl out of NYC. People looked and I loved it, but not now. Does that mean I'm fat and wear overalls- no. But I'm not going to spend an extra 15 minutes doing hair when I could be doing laundry or playing with my son. So I guess my ideas are that it is about the younger people, men and women.

[Helga]

not all young people spend so much time making themselves prettier, my brother was just yesterday saying how funny it was that when I was 16 to 18 I woke up 5 minuets before my mom drove me to school, I just got dressed and brushed my teeth and got out. I have never spent much time grooming myself and I don't care if that makes me look uglier or whatever, this is the way I look.

Also I am not a fan of a lot of make-up, putting on a face that isn't really yours just because you think it looks better, no way, same goes for the push-up bra.

[tonywalt]

I know there is some banter going on here, so excuse my interruption.
I do believe that beauty is not a major concern for many men and women. Especially people that live an average life, dealing with everyday concerns. People just don't have time to care. I also think it is a by-product of a young crazed culture. When I was younger, I dressed the part of a girl out of NYC. People looked and I loved it, but not now. Does that mean I'm fat and wear overalls- no. But I'm not going to spend an extra 15 minutes doing hair when I could be doing laundry or playing with my son. So I guess my ideas are that it is about the younger people, men and women.

Jersea,

But you're married. It does make a difference. It's just an observation but divorced women (and men, yes, less it be brought to my attention) lose or try to lose weight fast. Is it because they will be back on the single's market? Yes.

[Scheherazade]

Jersea,

But you're married. It does make a difference. It's just an observation but divorced women (and men, yes, less it be brought to my attention) lose or try to lose weight fast. Is it because they will be back on the single's market? Yes.Of course, the fact that people lose weight after divorce cannot be due to the fact that it is an emotionally and psychologically turbulent period in their lives... Not to mention the fact that they might end up having to move out of their comfort zones; ie, having to do more work both at and out of the house.

[ftil]

I know there is some banter going on here, so excuse my interruption.
I do believe that beauty is not a major concern for many men and women. Especially people that live an average life, dealing with everyday concerns. People just don't have time to care. I also think it is a by-product of a young crazed culture. When I was younger, I dressed the part of a girl out of NYC. People looked and I loved it, but not now. Does that mean I'm fat and wear overalls- no. But I'm not going to spend an extra 15 minutes doing hair when I could be doing laundry or playing with my son. So I guess my ideas are that it is about the younger people, men and women.

I agree. :smile5: I also view beauty in much boarder sense that just physical beauty. Well, it would be sad to limit beauty to the physical appearance as beauty enriches our soul. We feel shift of energy in our bodies when we see happiness on a child face, beautiful nature, paintings, poetry, dance, and...... much more.

[tonywalt]

Of course, the fact that people lose weight after divorce cannot be due to the fact that it is an emotionally and psychologically turbulent period in their lives... Not to mention the fact that they might end up having to move out of their comfort zones; ie, having to do more work both at and out of the house.

That also would contribute, in varying degrees, but I was talking about the sense of beauty. I know divorce is turbulent from first hand experience and I woudn't be insensitive about how stressful it can be.

[ShadowsCool]

Woman love diamonds, Luxury & mirrors. Vanity

Men love competition, Money & sex. Greed.

That's your answer.

[Vonny]

Woman love diamonds, Luxury & mirrors. Vanity

Oh please, I'd like to be able to call myself a woman. Not all women are like this.

[Scheherazade]

Woman love diamonds, Luxury & mirrors. Vanity

Men love competition, Money & sex. Greed.

That's your answer. Now that this debate's been settled, I'll close this thread, shall I?

[papayahed]

What's with all the labeling and trying to fit people into neat boxes. I love cosmetics and jewelry and bubble baths and cute gorgeous shiny things. I also love pumps and motors and furnaces, and absorption towers and distillation columns. You can't make me make me choose. I won't choose.

[ShadowsCool]

Now that this debate's been settled, I'll close this thread, shall I?

From where I come from, I find this to be true. You may have a different opinion but so do I. I never said all but in general. Makeup is a form of vanity. War is a form of competition. So are sports. Money drives most men and woman want a man who can provide them with luxury. This goes back to basic needs of the sexes. A man provides so a woman can have babies. Basic stuff if people would open their eyes.

[tonywalt]

What's with all the labeling and trying to fit people into neat boxes. I love cosmetics and jewelry and bubble baths and cute gorgeous shiny things. I also love pumps and motors and furnaces, and absorption towers and distillation columns. You can't make me make me choose. I won't choose.

...you had me at distillation column..sigh.

[Scheherazade]

From where I come from, I find this to be true. You may have a different opinion but so do I. I never said all but in general. Makeup is a form of vanity. War is a form of competition. So are sports. Money drives most men and woman want a man who can provide them with luxury. This goes back to basic needs of the sexes. A man provides so a woman can have babies.So, men are never vain about their looks and women are never competitive?
Basic stuff if people would open their eyes.Too "basic" for those of us who are used to think "complex", perhaps?

[Buh4Bee]

I'm not divorced, so I really don't know. All my friends are married. All the girls lost the baby weight and got on with it. We look nice for work and that's it. So in a sense, yes, there is no impressing anyone. But I already made this point, that we live in a youth crazed culture. I think that anyone who is just divorced is not looking to get back on the market fast, but you are divorced so you have been down this road. I think divorce is a very painful process that takes a long time to heal from. And if someone is looking to get back on the market fast, they are not being healthy and dealing with the loss, whatever...

[ShadowsCool]

So, men are never vain about their looks and women are never competitive? Too "basic" for those of us who are used to think "complex" perhaps.

Why do people take basic stuff and add layers of complexity to it? I wrote in "general". Just like sex is a form of pleasure, yet sex is also a form of reproduction. It's both, not just one. I am not talking about precision math where 2 and 2 is 4. I'm talking about the basic reason why men and woman are different. One serves one purpose and the other serves another. Everyone is everything. That is, we all have the same basic needs to survive. Food is one of them. We eat for pleasure (sometimes) but deep down, we eat to survive. Woman wear makeup to look good. The reason is simple. They want to look attractive. Attraction brings attention. Must I go on?

[papayahed]

...you had me at distillation column..sigh.

:ihih:

[Paulclem]

I think the idea of a market is not appealing to divorced people of a certain age. I'm not divorced either, but imagine a forty something suddenly faced with finding a new partner. I doubt if they would do it the same way that they did when they were young. The change in a person is massive as they get a bit older. It might be different for someone in their 20's early 30's.

[Scheherazade]

Must I go on?Depends on how much deeper you intend to dig yourself into...

[Paulclem]

From where I come from, I find this to be true. You may have a different opinion but so do I. I never said all but in general. Makeup is a form of vanity. War is a form of competition. So are sports. Money drives most men and woman want a man who can provide them with luxury. This goes back to basic needs of the sexes. A man provides so a woman can have babies. Basic stuff if people would open their eyes.

Your original statement is very simplistic. How do you know that every man/ most/ many/ in general are driven by money? Are you taling about young people, middle age people old people? ( I suspect you are really referring to young people). They all have very different motivations.

A man provides so a woman can have babies? Most of the couples I know each have a job. Is the man not a part of wanting babies - you know - a family? You say it as though it's some kind of short term contract which is executed and then both parties move on. And what about the men and women who have had babies and don't want any more?

[Ecurb]

I wonder if ShadowsCool has read Alexander’s posts (assuming, of course, that Alexander is a man)? I like the bit, “A man provides so a woman can have babies.” What it is, exactly, that the man “provides” is left to the reader’s imagination, but I believe that the “provision” can be curtailed by proper use of prophylactic barriers.

[ShadowsCool]

Depends on how much deeper you intend to dig yourself into...

I guess this means you don't agree with me? You have a mind of your own. You may understand complexity but don't understand simplicity. The simple reason everything is done is to survive. Life=surviving. Death=release, unknown destination. Most want to survive. Some want release. But most will always want to survive. We are wired a certain way. You may not agree but so what?

Simplicity - The sun is hot and bright.

Complexity - The sun is 15,000,000 million F at its core and has a gravity 200 times that of earth.

All I care about is the sun is providing me warmth on a cold day.

[tonywalt]

I wonder if ShadowsCool has read Alexander’s posts (assuming, of course, that Alexander is a man)? I like the bit, “A man provides so a woman can have babies.” What it is, exactly, that the man “provides” is left to the reader’s imagination, but I believe that the “provision” can be curtailed by proper use of prophylactic barriers.

It could be curtailed, but then we would not have babies. Hmm, progressive thought aside...we are rather stuck with each other in many many ways....

But apparently, according to modern thinking, a million years of evolution has been turned on it's head in the space of 40 years (late 1960's early 1970's).

[ShadowsCool]

It could be curtailed, but then we would not have babies. Hmm, Feminism aside...we are rather stuck with each other in many many ways....

But apparently, according to modern thinking, a million years of evolution has been turned on it's head in the space of 40 years (late 1960's early 1970's).

Feminism was created to free woman from the bonds of men.

Now look at society. How's it been working out for ya .....

Because of feminism, most woman have to work. Can't raise children properly and society gets a bunch of dysfunctional kids to deal with. Great idea

[Ecurb]

But apparently, according to modern thinking, a million years of evolution has been turned on it's head in the space of 40 years (late 1960's early 1970's).

The "prophylactic barriers" I referred to have been around for several centuries.

I hate to mention it to ShadowsCool, but most women have had to work for time immemorial. Whether children have been "dysfunctional" for all that time is, of course, a matter of opinion.

[Vonny]

The "prophylactic barriers" I referred to have been around for several centuries.

I hate to mention it to ShadowsCool, but most women have had to work for time immemorial. Whether children have been "dysfunctional" for all that time is, of course, a matter of opinion.

You've got a point. And children worked, too. And in fact there were no children, only little adults. I think family members worked together a lot.

But I'll always believe in an ideal family, with the kids not spending their entire lives in daycare.

[Michael T]

So...

Any more advances on who has more sense of beauty; men or women? :wave:

[papayahed]

So...

Any more advances on who has more sense of beauty; men or women? :wave:

Not really but I think there is a consensus that distillation columns are kinda hot.


*snort* pun intended.

[Michael T]

Not really but I think there is a consensus that distillation columns are kinda hot.


*snort* pun intended.

It's amazing how quickly some people are distracted by phalic symbolism! I wonder if 'hot' translates as 'beauty' for some - this could bring the thread back on track nicely! Well done papayahed. :smilewinkgrin:

[Emil Miller]

I think the idea of a market is not appealing to divorced people of a certain age. I'm not divorced either, but imagine a forty something suddenly faced with finding a new partner. I doubt if they would do it the same way that they did when they were young. The change in a person is massive as they get a bit older. It might be different for someone in their 20's early 30's.

That would be true if the divorcee were looking for a new partner but there are bound to be those who think: 'Once bitten twice shy.'

[Ecurb]

So...

Any more advances on who has more sense of beauty; men or women? :wave:

Byron wrote:
She walks in beauty, like the night
Of cloudless climes and starry skies;
And all that's best of dark and bright
Meet in her aspect and her eyes:
Thus mellowed to that tender light
Which heaven to gaudy day denies.

Keats chipped in with:

A thing of beauty is a joy forever; its loveliness increases; it will never pass into nothingness.

And of course he added:
'Beauty is truth, truth beauty,—that is all
Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.'

This evidence (I'm aware) is merely anecdotal; it does not address the question in a statistically sound manner. Nonetheless, it looks to me like MEN, in whose number I am proud to count myself, have jumped off to a solid 2-0 lead in the "sense of beauty" competition. Can we find worthy matches among the fairer sex? I mean "a joy FOREVER"? Match that, ladies!

[BienvenuJDC]

Isn't it said that Beauty is in the Eye of the Beholder?

[Helga]

Isn't it said that Beauty is in the Eye of the Beholder?

just what I was thinking!

[Ecurb]

Isn't it said that Beauty is in the Eye of the Beholder?

Of course it is. That's what the discussion is about: which beholders have more of a sense of beauty, men or women?

Keats and Byron had a sensitivity to beauty that's hard to surpass, at least based on their poems.

[Vonny]

Byron wrote:

Keats chipped in with:


And of course he added:

This evidence (I'm aware) is merely anecdotal; it does not address the question in a statistically sound manner. Nonetheless, it looks to me like MEN, in whose number I am proud to count myself, have jumped off to a solid 2-0 lead in the "sense of beauty" competition. Can we find worthy matches among the fairer sex? I mean "a joy FOREVER"? Match that, ladies!

Well, even in a relationship of two women, we'd be lost without our menfolk! Love 'em :)

[Paulclem]

That would be true if the divorcee were looking for a new partner but there are bound to be those who think: 'Once bitten twice shy.'

Undoubtedly. Because modern culture is so young orientated, it does neglect the free thinking and will of older people.

[Vonny]

Undoubtedly. Because modern culture is so young orientated, it does neglect the free thinking and will of older people.

This is a great loss. And one reason why I say that "people today" are different from people before. Now mothers learn from their children instead of the other way around.

Edit: some mothers still teach their children, only not so much in my country.

Grandparents still have so much to offer that is being lost nowadays.

[Alexander III]

Of course it is. That's what the discussion is about: which beholders have more of a sense of beauty, men or women?

Keats and Byron had a sensitivity to beauty that's hard to surpass, at least based on their poems.

To which I can only reply with Pessoa's poem

The poet is a faker
Who's so good at his act
He even fakes the pain
Of pain he feels in fact.


Keats the poet, and Byron the poet - where not Keats the man and Byron the man.

Also reading some old threads I came upon a comment of St.Lukes - where he said that in 20th century art Beauty lost importance - which is why Picasso who's art is more grotesque and masculine is revered more than Matisse who's art contain more beauty and femininiity.

Interseting to note that gentle beauty is associated with feminine qualities while the grotesque and the dark is seen as more masculine.

Also there is a social context to it. I have noticed that those who grow up in a land without war and horrors and of prosperity ( essentialy western europe 1960 onwards) gravitate towards apreciating the grotesque and disfigured and painful in art - while those who have grown up with war and suffering and pain around them gravitate towards the beautifull in art. The former find the gentle beauty dull and the later find the grotesque and dark dull as in both cases they now it too well.

So maybe what gives us artistic pleasure and fascination is that which satisfies the "other" in us - the brief examination of what could have been, and the brief respite of abandoning the norm of our life for a bit to examine the others.



Grandparents still have so much to offer that is being lost nowadays.

Meh to be honest I think that every generation too easily remembers the sins of their fathers, and too easily forgets the sins of their grandfathers.

[Vonny]

Meh to be honest I think that every generation too easily remembers the sins of their fathers, and too easily forgets the sins of their grandfathers.

Don't throw the baby out with the bath water.

Since I've come here I've learned that there are some brilliant young people, (however, most of them did learn something from someone older.)

And yes, grandparents sin, but ... but it doesn't by default turn all the children into saints.

The children do learn from those older, but from advertising, and many children today have manners that are deplorable.

[Ecurb]

To which I can only reply with Pessoa's poem

The poet is a faker
Who's so good at his act
He even fakes the pain
Of pain he feels in fact.


Keats the poet, and Byron the poet - where not Keats the man and Byron the man.

.

W.B. Yeats:


O body swayed to music, O brightening glance,
How can we know the dancer from the dance?

[Vonny]

W.B. Yeats:

There's something beautiful about a man who watches for a cougar his whole life and then when he sees it hopes it doesn't eat him since he doesn't have a gun so he can stuff and display that gorgeous animal!

[Ecurb]

There's something beautiful about a man who watches for a cougar his whole life and then when he sees it hopes it doesn't eat him since he doesn't have a gun so he can stuff and display that gorgeous animal!

Thanks -- but I suspect I'm with the majority on that one.

[tonywalt]

.....

[Scheherazade]

R e m i n d e r

The OP:
All of us overtly or covertly admire beauty and love to be beautiful and sexy though ostensibly we may say this is all vanity. However I feel that it is mostly women who are more concerned about good looks. It has always been true historically and sociologically all over the world. Why is this so and why men have less concern about this though they too want to have better looks? This is true of both patriarchal and matriarchal societies. Women are more glued to beauty. I simply wonder what chemistry makes women hooked to beauty?

Off-topic posts will be removed.

[YW1990]

I think that women are more concerned with possessing beauty. In obtaining it and using it to their advantage. But as for the question of whether men or women have a stronger sense of it ( i assume that the term sense refers to sensitivity to it ) i believe that the significance does not lie within genders but within the fact that beauty transcends gender profiles. In other words, things of beauty are taken as such by both men and women. There is no sex differentiation with things of beauty because they appeal and can be understood as beautiful by both men and women. Granted, there may be certain physical looks or whatnot that appeal more to men than to women and vice versa, but the point is that both men and women know what is beautiful because they are human beings.

[Arrowni]

Isn't it said that Beauty is in the Eye of the Beholder?

This is a male conception of beauty.

[Stewed]

In answer to the original question: women, but only lesbians. You're welcome.