Personality Cafe banner

1 - 20 of 78 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
249 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
In Japan, women with puckered lips, plain faces and oval shaped-heads were considered to be beautiful, at least back then.
In Indonesia, people with flat heads were considered to be beautiful, at least back then.
In China, women with really small feet were considered to be beautiful, at least back then.
In Britain, back then, people who were plump and fat were the elite, at least back then.

Now, people who are thin, "shapely" and tall are considered to be beautiful, and probably would have been considered disgusting back then. I don't know about you, but I find this highly disturbing. It means that all our concepts on beauty, all that which we jack off to are all based on just concepts washed into our brains? This actually makes me proud to be asexual, because beauty is really shallow. If beauty was different back then, then there is no such thing as beauty showing good health thus being scientifically correct. If the core values of beauty is different and inconsistent, then like IQ tests, they are irrelevant to mating. Rather, instead of betraying good health, they just betray their likeliness to flourish in a society.

Therefore, ugly women rejoice, beautiful women go fuck yourselves. And already, I find the definitions "ugly" and "beautiful" stupid.

You see it all in books. The heroine being described as either "pretty, beautiful or hot". But then if "pretty, beautiful or hot" is not defined, then how the hell do we know which is which?

This is further reinforced by the various amounts of fetishes out there. You have pregnant fetishes, you have homosexuals, you have rubber fetishes, you have pedophiles, you have fat fetishes, you have anorexia fetishes...so many different fetishes and yet we uphold this stupid one standard to judge male and female beauty.

And some like thin, some like fat, some like tall, and some like short.

Therefore, there is no such thing as hot or ugly, but all it comes down to is personal experiences. Can there be no more putting yourselves down for you bodies and looks and just knowing that there is someone out there you appreciates you as you are? Because society is stupid anyway, because it is where the majority makes the rest feel bad for not upholding the same standards.

And yet, even among the forums as of now, I see the same features labeled as positive attributes...

Or maybe it's just me that I'm surrounded with guys and girls who are completely shallow, and I'm just exasperated by the shallowness of it all.

What defines beauty, anyway?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,095 Posts
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I believe that. A person that one may have no interest in, another may write poems to. For example, I have to bite my tongue ever time my brother starts dating a girl. All I can see usually is: unemployed, lazy, overweight, selfish, unintelligent, rude, opportunist at the expense of their own family, welfare candidate, future or current meth-head, etc. My first thought on meeting his last three GF's was 'wtf is wrong with you? We come from the same places I thought... ' I can only judge for myself. I just nod and smile and tell myself that if it makes him happy I like it. I still keep his girlfriends away from my stuff tho.

I would agree that it all comes down to experiences and personal views of the individual. I don't like excessive fake breasts because I slept with a girl that had them once and it reminded me of two beach balls, which reminded me of my childhood = totally killed the mood for me. It is a big world, and I think there is someone for everyone.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
659 Posts
As you said above, we're heavily influenced by sociocultural trends throughout the ages. There are a few things that are universally attractive, though, because they indicate a healthy mating partner. Youth, clear skin, waist-to-hip ratio, facial symmetry, ect. These things are attractive because they indicate a higher chance of passing the male's genes on.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
25 Posts
You see it all in books. The heroine being described as either "pretty, beautiful or hot". But then if "pretty, beautiful or hot" is not defined, then how the hell do we know which is which?
I don't know what kind of books you read, but I certainly don't read books where the heroine is defined only as "pretty", "beautiful", or "hot" without any further elaboration.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
249 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
I don't know what kind of books you read, but I certainly don't read books where the heroine is defined only as "pretty", "beautiful", or "hot" without any further elaboration.
Of course, they are written by shallow people, which make up 90% of the world. Any further elaboration needed?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
249 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
As you said above, we're heavily influenced by sociocultural trends throughout the ages. There are a few things that are universally attractive, though, because they indicate a healthy mating partner. Youth, clear skin, waist-to-hip ratio, facial symmetry, ect. These things are attractive because they indicate a higher chance of passing the male's genes on.
Actually, false. Now, there are more trends of men preferring older women (though not necessarily really old-women but middle-aged women) to younger women. Also, waist to hip ratio is very relative, as I have said before, being fat was considered attractive in Britain and some people even have fetishes of doing fat people.

Facial symmetry is also relative, as I said. Some people like oval-faces, some people like flat-heads, some people like round-faces, etc. Skin is also relative. Some like dark skin, some like clear skin, etc....

All of these are relative, and therefore have no indication of health. Rather, they indicate the sociocultural trends of a current time era.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,878 Posts
I find ugly, realistic, weird looking people, intelligence, tolerance, mystery and honesty to be beautiful. Anything bizarre holds my attraction more than normal, everyday, things, but even normal things can be beautiful too.

Beauty for me:







I suppose this thread has to do with biological and psychological attraction, so:

The 3 Main Physical Factors of the Biological Attraction in Humans

The 3 Main Physical Factors of the Biological Attraction in Humans - We are animals, in the end - Softpedia

The Biology of Attraction

The Biology of Attraction | Psychology Today

Sexual Attraction Among Humans

Sexual Attraction Among Humans | Serendip's Exchange

Pheromones: The Biological Scents That Trigger Sexual Attraction

Pheromones: The Biological Scents That Trigger Sexual Attraction | Smart Publications
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
659 Posts
Actually, false. Now, there are more trends of men preferring older women (though not necessarily really old-women but middle-aged women) to younger women. Also, waist to hip ratio is very relative, as I have said before, being fat was considered attractive in Britain and some people even have fetishes of doing fat people.

Facial symmetry is also relative, as I said. Some people like oval-faces, some people like flat-heads, some people like round-faces, etc. Skin is also relative. Some like dark skin, some like clear skin, etc....

All of these are relative, and therefore have no indication of health. Rather, they indicate the sociocultural trends of a current time era.
No, they don't. The trends are influenced by universally attractive features. You can't cite people's fetishes as evidence of anything- fetishists are outliers and don't resemble the "norm". Some people also like to fuck animals- what does that have to do with beauty standards?

Can you give me any evidence of men preferring older women besides the "milf" threads on 4chan?

What does facial symmetry have to do with face shape?

What does clarity of skin have to do with skin color?

People preferring 'fat' women in Britain has more to do with, in those times, presence of any fat at all as an indicator of wealth. The people that were fat had enough money to eat; therefore, it was a trend influenced by current times and not a rule.

I'm agreeing with you that SOME perceptions of beauty are influenced by culture, but you can't deny science.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
249 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
No, they don't. The trends are influenced by universally attractive features. You can't cite people's fetishes as evidence of anything- fetishists are outliers and don't resemble the "norm". Some people also like to fuck animals- what does that have to do with beauty standards?

Can you give me any evidence of men preferring older women besides the "milf" threads on 4chan?

What does facial symmetry have to do with face shape?

What does clarity of skin have to do with skin color?

People preferring 'fat' women in Britain has more to do with, in those times, presence of any fat at all as an indicator of wealth. The people that were fat had enough money to eat; therefore, it was a trend influenced by current times and not a rule.

I'm agreeing with you that SOME perceptions of beauty are influenced by culture, but you can't deny science.
Then what resembles the norm? The norm is a culture, and therefore only accounts the majority. And as my previous thesis stated, the majority are easily swayed to believe that certain attributes are attractive, therefore irrelevant. Fetishes prove that humans aren't all attracted to the same attributes.

In a 2003 study by the AARP, 35 percent of middle-aged American women said they preferred to date younger men. According to the U.S. Census, 12 percent of marriages are between older women and younger men.

Dating statistics

Older women and younger men: Can it Work? - CNN

There you go.

And skin, clarity has great correlation with skin color. A black skin color will be considered to be less clear than a white skin color, and I hope I seriously don't have to provide statistics for this one. It's something you can deduce without statistics.
Also, skin clarity does not betray health. A person with alot of birth-marks may be a turn-off to some people, yet be sexy to other people. Heard of girls attracted to scars? Tattoos? There you go.

You cannot deny that being fat was considered attractive. Whether or not it was tied to wealth or not, it was considered attractive.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
659 Posts
So, 88% are married to older men. I'm talking majority, here.

Skin clarity has nothing to do with color. I'm talking texture and the presence/absence of rashes, pimples, all that gross stuff, ect.

as far as waist to hip ratio (hour glass shape) goes:

A WHR of 0.7 for women and 0.9 for men have been shown to correlate strongly with general health and fertility. Women within the 0.7 range have optimal levels of estrogen and are less susceptible to major diseases such as diabetes, cardiovascular disorders and ovarian cancers.[1] Men with WHRs around 0.9, similarly, have been shown to be more healthy and fertile with less prostate cancer and testicular cancer.
source

Some researchers have found that the waist-hip ratio (WHR) is a significant measure of female attractiveness. Women with a 0.7 WHR are usually rated as more attractive by men from European cultures. Ranging from 0.6 in China,[15] to 0.8 or 0.9 in parts of South America and Africa, and divergent preferences based on ethnicity, rather than nationality, have also been noted.

Note: In the studies referenced above, only frontal WHR preferences differed significantly among racial and cultural groups. When actual (circumferential) measurements were made, the preferred WHR tended toward the expected value of 0.7 universally.

Older men and younger women is advantageous to the survival of the species:

Old men chasing young women: A good thing | Science Blog



I'd suggest checking out some of the links Kilgore posted. The science of attraction is really interesting.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
249 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
So, 88% are married to older men. I'm talking majority, here.

Skin clarity has nothing to do with color. I'm talking texture and the presence/absence of rashes, pimples, all that gross stuff, ect.

as far as waist to hip ratio (hour glass shape) goes:

source




Older men and younger women is advantageous to the survival of the species:

Old men chasing young women: A good thing | Science Blog



I'd suggest checking out some of the links Kilgore posted. The science of attraction is really interesting.
Like I said, the majority represents the culture of the current era. The fact that some men like older women and 35% of men date older women is significant, and shows that a youthful face may not be a sign of beauty, rather, it is something influenced by culture.

And urgh, that's an extreme spectrum to take skin too. Although I agree with you on that aspect, only a minority have heavily infested skin. Also, the condition of the skin does not reflect health. Someone who drinks a lot of water and is in very good shape can still have horrible skin. Also, back then, skin didn't matter. In the times of the vikings, the people's skin were so dirty anyways that such things didn't matter. In nowadays culture, unhygienic methods are frowned upon.

EDIT (unadressed): And you also forget that nowadays, having a lower fertility is better because of the fact that we suffer from overpopulation. A bigger population means bigger competition, and also less food. One of the reasons why the dinosaurs went extinct. Limited food after a meteorite strike, and also competition.

Another reason for that phenomenon is also because of the fact that modern influence is widely spreading. America is becoming involved in almost everywhere around the world.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
659 Posts
I'm not saying culture doesn't affect concepts of beauty- but there are some things that are just programmed into our brains to suit the evolution of our species.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
659 Posts
Like everything I mentioned in my first post.

Low WHR/hourglass shape=good childbearing hips.
Clear skin=not sickly; good nutrition
Healthy BMI=lower chance of cardiovascular disease, diabetes, ect
Large breasts= higher presence of hormones; higher fertility
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
249 Posts
Discussion Starter · #15 ·
Like everything I mentioned in my first post.

Low WHR/hourglass shape=good childbearing hips.
Clear skin=not sickly; good nutrition
Healthy BMI=lower chance of cardiovascular disease, diabetes, ect
Large breasts= higher presence of hormones; higher fertility
Childbearing is essential but can also be devastating. Like I said, overpopulation is a major factor in extinction.

Clear skin does not indicate good nutrition. It is a build-up of oil on the skin and pertains to hygiene issues, and back then, no one could care less about hygiene, therefore supporting that clear skin is a very modern phenomenon due to hygiene being upheld in today's society.

A high BMI also means better insulation of the body, more storage of lipids in the adipose tissues, and used to be considered an indicator of wealth and healthiness. Therefore, irrelevant.

Like I said, fertility is something frowned upon nowadays. Overpopulation is an issue. Also, can you explain how large breasts indicate higher presence of hormones?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
659 Posts
You may think fertility is "frowned upon".. but you're forgetting humans are animals and mens' brains (among other things) like fertile things very much.

How the hell don't large breasts indicate the presence of more hormones?

Breast - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Maybe no one showered regularly back then, but they wanted to look like they did- why do you think people coated their faces in powder and wore wigs? They were disgusting, but didn't want to appear so.

A *high* BMI means obesity. A *normal* BMI equals healthiness.

You can't just call things irrelevant because they correspond to both socially and evolutionarily influenced l reasons of attraction. It doesn't have to be one or the other.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
14,865 Posts
I'm not saying culture doesn't affect concepts of beauty- but there are some things that are just programmed into our brains to suit the evolution of our species.
Assuming the theories on attraction are true, what about all of the odd exceptions. If you take all of these theories and build a person who looks exactly that way (ratios/symmetry/etc) in reality, how many people are going to prefer them over something different - something different that culture has programmed them to prefer, or perhaps their own unique preference. I have realized that my own preferences have come from mainly good and bad experiences with people. Bad experience with guys who look a certain way = not attracted to that type anymore. And who knows how an individual's preferences are formed, different from my own.

You can link articles on how scientists theorize attraction works until you are blue in the face, but none of it negates what the op is saying because of actual practice, in reality. Yes, attraction is more complex than any of these one things. Its true that there are biological factors (but the details of those are still only theories); -and- its true that there are cultural influences.. and its also true that the individual can form their own preferences. Which of these three things is stronger? There is a good question. It depends on the individual. For me, its certainly my own individual preferences that override anything that might tell me to be attracted to whatever standard. Others may have a more primitive instinct that makes them horny for your typical breeder, but many seem to certainly follow what beauty standard culture is promoting at the time - and that certainly isn't aligned with the qualities that are thought to appeal to instinct, as they vary from each other, and are sometimes entirely unnatural.

What defines beauty to me? Kim Kardashian.
And the forum is now a more enlightened place for knowing that some guy finds some generic celebrity attractive. Epic insightful post, bro.
 

·
Cafe Legend and MOTM Jan 2011
Joined
·
15,420 Posts
I agree with the idea that the standards for beauty change according to time period and the values of each culture. I agree that we are merely taught to perceive certain physical characteristics as symbols of desirability. As I was reading the first post, I was wishing I hadn't read that statement about the good fortune of being asexual, because it confirms something that has already been troubling me: the idea so common among men, that without superficial attraction there can be no other kind. It's not the first time I have encountered it. It is heartbreaking to hear it, because it means someday settling for a sexless marriage if I am lucky enough to find someone whose values are not abhorrent to me. If I find a man who won't treat me as though part of my worth was tied up in this object I inhabit, there is a good chance he won't want to express his attraction to my spirit through physical intimacy. I might end up falling in love with someone who doesn't feel any sexual attraction to me, but it wouldn't be ideal. I don't want that kind of coldness. I want to be touched affectionately, but I want it to be a symbol for non-physical things. Seeing a man drool over my body is just about as exciting as seeing him drool over my shoelaces. It makes me lose respect, because I feel disrespected by it. Making love is different. It is about expressing a willingness to be as close as possible on all levels, regardless of petty aesthetic concerns. I wish there were non-superficial men who were sexually attracted to women in a non-materialistic way. If you exist, where are you?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
169 Posts
I don't see the connection between shallowness and cultural specificity. If beauty were universal it would be no less shallow; likewise, almost everything generally regarded as profound is the product of a specific culture.

Clear skin=not sickly; good nutrition
Healthy BMI=lower chance of cardiovascular disease, diabetes, ect
Large breasts= higher presence of hormones; higher fertility
I don't believe there's ever been a connection between breast size and fertility, and diseases associated with high BMI weren't present in the EEA (which is why we overeat in the first place.) In general I agree that "sickly" is an adaptive thing to avoid, but that hasn't prevented various cultures (Victorian England, modern goths) from making a sickly-sexy connection.
 
1 - 20 of 78 Posts
Top