Is the beauty the strongest tool of women evolutionary?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by limajean

I watched an interesting show on beauty the other day...

it's not just about being in the eye of the beholder. Those with features close to the "golden ratio" and those with good symmetry are far more beautiful than those who don't

---

In theory, but, one cross-examining cultures realizes the lack of truth in that - hell, even people one might think are beautiful from another culture can be seen as hideously ugly by their own culture - even within my own culture, I am certain my aesthetic perception of things is different than most people - there is no golden ratio, that has been debunked since the Renaissance.

Valery Gergiev, when last I saw him preform, looked like he'd been living on the street...

My thoughts exactly. You'd never know what a brilliant musician he is from his looks. Indeed you'd be more likely to pin him as a potato farmer.:lol:

Again with this "symmetry" thing? The human face (and body) by its very nature is symmetrical. Certainly there are slight deviations which can be noticed if you take a photo of the face, split it in half, duplicate that half and flip it... resulting in something that is not exactly right. But the reality is that many of these "deviations" are actually what attracts... are what breaks outside the norm. It is not symmetry but rather the balance between proportions (the distance between the eyes in relationship to the size of the face, the size of the eyes or nose in relationship to other features, etc...) that makes a face more or less attractive. But there is no hard rule. I agree completely with JBI that the so-called "golden mean" has been undermined and ignored for years. Even in art it largely comes down to a question of the eye of the beholder. Certainly some artists employ mathematical formulas and ratios in composing a painting or drawing a body (8 heads high, etc...) but in most instances the artist relies upon gut feeling or intuition... whether it looks better or worse. Many of the most beautiful works of art and indeed many of the most beautiful people as portrayed in works of art would be almost grotesque if seen in real life (and I am not speaking of Picasso here, but Ingres, Van Dyck, even Michelangelo). The same applies to the human form in real life. As JBI suggested, many preferences are a result of culture. Ideal facial features and bodily types change from culture to culture and era to era. They even change as we ourselves grow and age. Girls I might have drooled over at 16 now seem but waif-like little girls who really do nothing for me. At the same time, actresses or singers who I once would have looked upon with as little sense of lust as I might look upon my mother or aunts now seem far more attractive and interesting. I think that the difficulty in defining "beauty" and the realization that "beauty" and other positive attributes (intelligence, passion, "goodness", etc...) do not always go hand in hand, has led to many Modern artists abandoning its pursuit. Or perhaps its just that many in the Modern world have difficulty in discerning "beauty" from mere sexual attraction?:confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

Again with this "symmetry" thing? The human face (and body) by its very nature is symmetrical. Certainly there are slight deviations which can be noticed if you take a photo of the face, split it in half, duplicate that half and flip it... resulting in something that is not exactly right. But the reality is that many of these "deviations" are actually what attracts... are what breaks outside the norm. It is not symmetry but rather the balance between proportions (the distance between the eyes in relationship to the size of the face, the size of the eyes or nose in relationship to other features, etc...) that makes a face more or less attractive. But there is no hard rule. I agree completely with JBI that the so-called "golden mean" has been undermined and ignored for years. Even in art it largely comes down to a question of the eye of the beholder. Certainly some artists employ mathematical formulas and ratios in composing a painting or drawing a body (8 heads high, etc...) but in most instances the artist relies upon gut feeling or intuition... whether it looks better or worse. Many of the most beautiful works of art and indeed many of the most beautiful people as portrayed in works of art would be almost grotesque if seen in real life (and I am not speaking of Picasso here, but Ingres, Van Dyck, even Michelangelo). The same applies to the human form in real life. As JBI suggested, many preferences are a result of culture. Ideal facial features and bodily types change from culture to culture and era to era. They even change as we ourselves grow and age. Girls I might have drooled over at 16 now seem but waif-like little girls who really do nothing for me. At the same time, actresses or singers who I once would have looked upon with as little sense of lust as I might look upon my mother or aunts now seem far more attractive and interesting. I think that the difficulty in defining "beauty" and the realization that "beauty" and other positive attributes (intelligence, passion, "goodness", etc...) do not always go hand in hand, has led to many Modern artists abandoning its pursuit. Or perhaps its just that many in the Modern world have difficulty in discerning "beauty" from mere sexual attraction?:confused:

---

I think the real attraction is in attitude more than on exactly dimensions - for instance, there is something beautiful in Titian's Venus of Urbino, Rubens' The Fur, Raphael's Madonna with Child, and Utamaro's One Woman's Narrative Chanting to the Samisen, yet, all of these pictures are completely different.

I think, in a sense, it is the attitude in which they are drawn which seems to bring out a sort of quality of what we could call the "beautiful". IT has nothing to really do with ratios or formulas, more to do with focalization and gesture.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

Again with this "symmetry" thing? The human face (and body) by its very nature is symmetrical. Certainly there are slight deviations which can be noticed if you take a photo of the face, split it in half, duplicate that half and flip it... resulting in something that is not exactly right. But the reality is that many of these "deviations" are actually what attracts... are what breaks outside the norm. It is not symmetry but rather the balance between proportions (the distance between the eyes in relationship to the size of the face, the size of the eyes or nose in relationship to other features, etc...) that makes a face more or less attractive. But there is no hard rule. I agree completely with JBI that the so-called "golden mean" has been undermined and ignored for years. Even in art it largely comes down to a question of the eye of the beholder. Certainly some artists employ mathematical formulas and ratios in composing a painting or drawing a body (8 heads high, etc...) but in most instances the artist relies upon gut feeling or intuition... whether it looks better or worse. Many of the most beautiful works of art and indeed many of the most beautiful people as portrayed in works of art would be almost grotesque if seen in real life (and I am not speaking of Picasso here, but Ingres, Van Dyck, even Michelangelo). The same applies to the human form in real life. As JBI suggested, many preferences are a result of culture. Ideal facial features and bodily types change from culture to culture and era to era. They even change as we ourselves grow and age. Girls I might have drooled over at 16 now seem but waif-like little girls who really do nothing for me. At the same time, actresses or singers who I once would have looked upon with as little sense of lust as I might look upon my mother or aunts now seem far more attractive and interesting. I think that the difficulty in defining "beauty" and the realization that "beauty" and other positive attributes (intelligence, passion, "goodness", etc...) do not always go hand in hand, has led to many Modern artists abandoning its pursuit. Or perhaps its just that many in the Modern world have difficulty in discerning "beauty" from mere sexual attraction?:confused:

---

I agree about your comments on proportion, and it does ultimately come down the the eye of the beholder.


Interesting that you mention "sexual attraction"
this show focused on beauty and sexual attraction and linked them together, it was quite interesting..


Apparently a woman's face changes slightly, as she starts ovulating...


(off topic)

Apparently a woman's face changes slightly, as she starts ovulating...


(off topic)

I've never been one for conversation limited to responses to the OP. That's not how discussions evolve in real life.

I think the real attraction is in attitude more than on exactly dimensions - for instance, there is something beautiful in Titian's Venice of Urbino, Rubens' The Fur, Raphael's Madonna with Child, and Utamaro's One Woman's Narrative Chanting to the Samisen, yet, all of these pictures are completely different.

Raphael might have argued for an ideal... based on the best parts of numerous women... but then his "ideal" would have looked nothing like Titian's or Ruben's "ideal"... but then what do I know? I've had enough to drink so that everyone is starting to look good... even you JBI.:ladysman:


:lol::lol::lol::lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBI

People thought he was hot when he started out. They didn't realize he would deteriorate.

---

He was hot. I loved Micheal.

I also (as a biology student and a self-proclaimed feminist) hate hate hate this thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBI

In theory, but, one cross-examining cultures realizes the lack of truth in that - hell, even people one might think are beautiful from another culture can be seen as hideously ugly by their own culture - even within my own culture, I am certain my aesthetic perception of things is different than most people - there is no golden ratio, that has been debunked since the Renaissance.

---

Merging that with the original topic, Those beautiful women (ugly to us) from another culture, will have an advantage over their peers. They will be noticed and favoured. Its not fair but it is what happens. For instance during the National Youth Orchestra performance, the seeming preponderence of willowy blonde girls could be due to the camramen and the Direction favouring them.

I completely agree with JBI and StLukesGuild. Beauty is a state of mind and it shouldn't matter if a woman's breasts are triple Ds, double Ds, or just regular old Ds. They're all beautiful. In our cosmetic obsessed era of glamour magazines and airbrushed photographs, age is looked at with such a critical eye, but I say with our advanced knowledge of science and medicine there's no reason a woman shouldn't be able to maintain her looks well into her late twenties. It doesn't matter if she's 26, 27, or even 28. There's still hope she can land a good husband.

I completely agree with JBI and StLukesGuild. Beauty is a state of mind and it shouldn't matter if a woman's breasts are triple Ds, double Ds, or just regular old Ds. They're all beautiful. In our cosmetic obsessed era of glamour magazines and airbrushed photographs, age is looked at with such a critical eye, but I say with our advanced knowledge of science and medicine there's no reason a woman shouldn't be able to maintain her looks well into her late twenties. It doesn't matter if she's 26, 27, or even 28. There's still hope she can land a good husband.

:lol::lol::lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by prendrelemick

Merging that with the original topic, Those beautiful women (ugly to us) from another culture, will have an advantage over their peers. They will be noticed and favoured. Its not fair but it is what happens. For instance during the National Youth Orchestra performance, the seeming preponderence of willowy blonde girls could be due to the camramen and the Direction favouring them.

---

I agree that television producers and casting directors seem to favour 'attractive' performers. I watch "So You Think You Can Dance", and every year, the executive producer always comments on how the dancers look. Consequently, most of the dancers that are put into the Top 20 are 'TV camera ready'. Most of the equally talented, or even more talented, 'plainer looking' dancers are cut.

I just know that girl "hot for words" www.hotforwords.com. She does these terrible youtube videos on the origin of words. And she knowingly admits that you wouldn't watch her videos if not for her hotness. And people who watch knowingly admit it. And yet she is one of the most popular girls on youtube, and makes a living doing these silly videos. Because her beauty is enough to get people hooked even though they do not really like what she has to offer all that much. Beauty is addictive, and it's strong. It is very persuasive. And it is obvious that women have something over men with their beauty.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mathor

And yet she is one of the most popular girls on youtube, and makes a living doing these silly videos. Because her beauty is enough to get people hooked

---

But not intelligent people.

Quote:

---

And it is obvious that women have something over men with their beauty.

---

And only if there were no hot men, *Edward Cullen* rings a bell? Twilight is a book that sells (a lot) having no plot whatsoever, but only constant descriptions of how hot Edward is.

Dumb men and dumb women will always be easily persuaded. That's not because beauty is strong, but because dumb people are weak.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FanofdeBeauvoir

Dumb men and dumb women will always be easily persuaded. That's not because beauty is strong, but because dumb people are weak.

---

... and weakness is the strongest of all flaws.

beauty smeauty

Yes. It is.