Beauty is

Resident Joined: Aug 31, 2006 Posts: 319

in the eyes of the beholder... Razz

Posted: Mon Feb 25, 2008 8:08 pm

Which eye?

Thinker Joined: Mar 14, 2003 Posts: 454 Location: USA

As someone who plays D&D, I'd just like say, Beholders are a pain in the ass to deal with.

....as for the original topic, I tend to agree. My standards in women are vastly different than the guys I hang out with usually.

Posted: Tue Feb 26, 2008 1:54 pm

Skin deep!

Newbie First Class Joined: Jan 08, 2008 Posts: 27

To comment back on his D&D statement and beauty. I always went with 8 Charisma, therefore, beauty is...
pointless.

Posted: Tue Feb 26, 2008 3:16 pm

Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 9:55 am

beauty in the traditional sense as regards women:
the concept pf beauty tends to be what society determines it to be. since society is dominated by a male world view, beauty happens to be defined by men, which means the beauty of woman is not decided by women. women wear push-up bras, high heels, and gobs of make-up to appear "beautiful." they starve themselves and obsess over the smallest things, just to fit the consensual model of beauty. i say, it's time for men to relinquish control of the definition of beauty and for women to decide what a beautiful woman should look like. as for me, it isn't the classical skinny blond with long legs and huge breasts. i read somewhere that only 20% of women in america actually think they are pretty....that figure disturbs me, because i find that throughout my day i see beautiful women everywhere.

Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 9:09 pm

Quote:

they starve themselves

I would say that whoever controls fashion (gay men) sets that standard. As for me, I dont really like the skinny look. As for determinism of beauty, it is naturally the male's role to decide since the male pursue's the female. Therefore the female naturally makes herself appealing to the male's taste to get a partner.

Posted: Wed Jul 22, 2009 10:56 pm

Beauty is... looking your age!!

Quote:

Wikipedia 'Beauty';
The Koine Greek word for beautiful was ὡραῖος, hōraios,[2] an adjective etymologically coming from the word ὥρα, hōra, meaning "hour." In Koine Greek, beauty was thus associated with "being of one's hour." A ripe fruit (of its time) was considered beautiful, whereas a young woman trying to appear older or an older woman trying to appear younger would not be considered beautiful. In Attic Greek, hōraios had many meanings, including "youthful" and "ripe old age."[3]

Just Arrived Joined: Mar 02, 2010 Posts: 8

Beauty is objective, I guess .. No one can give a definite meaning to it anyway.

The Learned Joined: Jan 11, 2008 Posts: 109

ChrisfromSDS wrote:

beauty in the traditional sense as regards women:
the concept pf beauty tends to be what society determines it to be. since society is dominated by a male world view, beauty happens to be defined by men, which means the beauty of woman is not decided by women. women wear push-up bras, high heels, and gobs of make-up to appear "beautiful." they starve themselves and obsess over the smallest things, just to fit the consensual model of beauty. i say, it's time for men to relinquish control of the definition of beauty and for women to decide what a beautiful woman should look like. as for me, it isn't the classical skinny blond with long legs and huge breasts. i read somewhere that only 20% of women in america actually think they are pretty....that figure disturbs me, because i find that throughout my day i see beautiful women everywhere.

I don't think conceptions of beauty are totally determined by sociological phenomena. I believe there are some elements of beauty that are biologically fixed like various biometric ratios in regards to facial features or waste to hip ratio's. Can we also say that certain elements of woman's fashion are a representation of a rejection of their own bodies which are a functional honest signal to capture male attention or protection/aid. Honest signals tend to be antagonistic to natural selection but beneficial via sexual selection which means these morphologies would reduce the females ability to survive(independently) but enhance their ability to generate offspring.

Wide hips accommodate gestation and birth but reduce the mechanical efficiency of walking or running.
The reduced muscle mass likely permits more resources to be channeled to gestation or may enhance the ability of males to detect they are looking at a female but the cost is greater vulnerability.

Sandro Botticelli and Ruben's paintings illustrate that women half a century ago were depicted as rather generous with their curves. I'm not sure how this aesthetic could be explained in an era with no woman's liberation at all. I think the whole cadaverous Kate Moss, ass like a 10-year old boy thing might have some marginal explanation in woman's liberation movements and how woman's consumption patterns have driven image and marketing campaigns. The irony is that it was woman's own aesthetic preferences that may have been socializing men to desire more androgynous morphologies in regards to mate selection preferences.

That being said i think men have in many ways relinquished control of beauty over to women.

Also as a man i think woman should decide what they think is beautiful and pursue that, however in the end I'm the final arbiter of what i think is beautiful( I find Victoria's secret woman to skinny tbh) and i will select what i think best approximates my tastes; looks are important. How do you reconcile the fact that men may desire to have as much free agency in possible in making their choices independent of a neo-feminist re-conception of beauty?


Login/Register New account	Home · FAQ · News · Shows · Videos · Forums · Arcade · Listen & Chat · Book Store · Contact Us · Go Mobile