Beauty

I'm obsessed with beauty. But not in the "normal", "Fuck-I'm-ugly"-way. I am obsessed with, and interested by, how beauty is perceived, and how it is defined, among other things. This obsession (for lack of a better word, actually) has increased since day one, the peak being right about now (it probably won't get any more intense than this), and I have begun to discuss, with myself (for a few, slightly non-interesting reasons), this subject, which also seems to receive much attention in the media, for obvious, and often pathetic, reasons.

I read somewhere that the basic definition of beauty, or rather, what attracts humans, is symmetry. It sounds logical, doesn't it? And I think it is. But there has to be more than that, no? Everyone has a different taste, and is attracted by different facial features, body types etc.


Is the environment (childhood experiences, parents' looks?) one of the factors? What and who (metaphorically of course) told me to absolutely love green eyes, or to prefer big butts on females to smaller ones (butts... not females)? Is this in some way related to how I would choose a life partner (my Love Map), or is it strictly some kind of sub-sexual preference, similar to homosexuality, heterosexuality etc. only with nano-sized differences?

My own preference when it comes to look have seemingly changed throughout the years, not very prominently, but some. I wonder, why?


And what about ugliness? Is this also something (purely) subjectional? Is there anyone out there that is attracted by any of the fine folks featured over at uglypeople.com?



Wow, so many questions. Well, I'm not a scientist, so answer away! I haven't got the slighest clue meself :rolleyes:

That's interesting. In a similar vein, it amazes me when I'm talking to people that believe that most people are ugly. I've actually known several people who have said to me, in no uncertain terms, that they think most of the people they meet are ugly. While I don't think most people look like supermodels, I must admit that I very rarely meet people that I look at and instantly think "Now there's an ugly motherfucker!" (although it has happened).

To me, I usually have to get to know a person pretty well before they strike me as ugly or not, and even then, it still doesn't happen too often.

[Tenspace]

Beauty finds its roots in symmetry. Consider that we are animals that are bilaterally symmetrical. Virtually all animals are, with the exception of radiates (starfish) and a few other oddballs. If a major development function is visually expressed as tight symmetry, then symmetry would be selected over asymmetry. Who knows what happened in a population of replicating sludge a billion years ago that gave us this symmetry and a strong desire to propagate it via selection. There's no yes/no, white/black, symmetrical/non absolute - in homo's (sapiens) case, the relativity of symmetry is enforced by the ability of our eyes to discern minute differences in the symmetry of faces (one of many amazing things brains and faces).

From an evolutionary standpoint, we are hardwired to find beauty, because beauty means symmetry means better probability of surviving offspring. Don't take that as what is literally going through the mind of an organism... no one expects a fruit fly to actively engage in a comparative analysis of beauty when selecting a mate. Evolution is about populations, and the overall result of a population that by default looks to a certain feature for robustness and surviveability is the enhancement of that trait. And as deeply buried as bilateral symmetry is in our psyche, I'm not surprised at the results of this study: The Biological Constant of Beauty

I'll let the experts take over:

Thornhill's and Gangestad's investigation of human attractiveness and its role in the evolution of human mating began interestingly enough. In 1990, Thornhill had just returned from Japan and Germany where he had been studying scorpion flies. His research showed that female scorpion flies were attracted to males with symmetrical (same size) wings. - Univ of New Mexico article
===
Since bilateral symmetry may confer a potential benefit to offspring, it then becomes important to examine how it affects sexual behavior. As part of a study on body symmetry, Thornhill and Gangestad gathered the participants' sexual history. They found that more symmetrical males tended to have more sexual partners in their lifetimes. These males were more likely to engage in sexual activities outside of their primary relationships, and were less likely to invest time and energy in maintaining those relationships.

On the other hand, they found that more symmetrical females did not have a larger number of sexual partners than their less symmetrical counterparts.

An interesting aspect of this research was the behavior of women (both symmetrical and asymmetrical) in relationship to more symmetrical men. Women showed a marked preference for symmetrical men for short-term relationships.

Within an evolutionary framework, biologists have long argued that the differences between male and female sexual behavior is directly connected to reproductive success. Since women can only have one child per year, their success is linked to making sure that child survives; therefore, women tend to select mates who will invest in raising offspring. Men have the best chance of success in having multiple partners to produce the largest number of offspring, which in turn reduces their investment in any one child. - Univ of New Mexico article

You apparently have a strong sense of that search for beauty that pervades us all. Consider it a gift, but don't get obsessed with it. Some people have it greater than you, and most (probably) less.

Hope that helps, skribb.

Here's an interesting article on beauty. They map people's faces and average them, and come up with something more attractive than most of the people they started with.

http://www.utexas.edu/opa/pubs/disco...sc-beauty.html

I think that what we find beautiful or attractive operates on two different levels. First, there's the programmed, sub-conscious attraction to individuals who appear the healthiest - symmetrical, clear skin, well balanced and proportioned features and body parts, etc. Then, there are the physical attributes we begin to find attractive through life due to various factors. For instance, some people are very close to their mother or father and may develop an attraction for certain features they identify with them. As you progress through life, you will develop affinities for certain specific attributes - I think based upon positive associations with people you are either close to or admire. We will always react to our pre-programmed idea of beauty, but certain 'ideal' attributes may even be overridden by acquired tastes. For example, through positive association an individual may find people with larger than average noses attractive, or some other feature which falls outside of normal proportions. Although, I think symmetry will always be preferred to asymmetry.

Following in Ten's vein,

Along with symmetry, it's also been found that:

For men, there is a brest to waist to hip ratio that men are generally attracted to (I belive it is 0.07%). One study found that pretty much every woman considered beutiful in the last century, from Maralyne Monroe (I just messed that up, didn't I) to Twiggy had the same brest to waist to hip ratio.

Women (in general) apparently change what they find beutiful based on where they are in their cycle. While pre-menstral, men with sharper, more masculine features become more attractive whereas men with softer features become more attractive after menstration.

I apologize for not providing any supporting info, but I don't really have alot of time. I just thought I would throw my two cents in. If anyone requires a link or two I can look them up later and post again.

[Erik]

I gotta tell ya, I start out thinking someone is beautiful purely on optics, but my perception of beauty can be seriously affected by the olfactory. As far as those optics go, it's pretty hard to say just why I prefer a woman who stands up straight, head up and shoulders back (no, it's not about the boobs).

Beauty in nature or art or music is also seriously difficult to define. Most people do not think the Gulf Coast in southeast Texas is very beautiful, and it kinda isn't. But the spring migration of birds in the area is one of the most beautiful things I have ever seen, and I have been a few places in this world. Why am I so touched by it? Hard to say, except that I sense there is something about my own utter lack of participation and control. I don't control it, I can't control it, I don't want to control it. If I did, I would only succeed in proving to myself just how limited my imagination really is.

Erik, I get what you're saying, but let's not talk about that kind of beauty, or you'll have a very confused skribb lurking these forums! I may have stated it unclearly, but I was only talking about beauty in humans, not pictures, art or music (or landscapes). We should really have more than one word for beauty (synonyms don't count). Like the greek words for love!

Los Pepes, I am (sadly) one of them. The ones who thinks everyone is ugly. I am trying to change myself though, but it is hard, my take on ugly seems to be genetical, my sister thinks everyone (except like 4 japanese guys) is ugly, too. Don't think I'm proud about this, um, anomaly of mine.

And Ten; yes, your post was very helpful and informative. I will read the article you linked to aswell, later, as will I do with Still's link!


I must admit that my taste in (of?) women, is very, hmm, "weird". This has helped me to realize that beauty (except the symmetry part) is highly subjective, and that is why I tell myself to stop thinking that everyone is ugly - in fact, I always say that no one *is* ugly, and no one *is* pretty, I only THINK someone is ugly/pretty. Sort of like a new take on "beauty's in the eye of the beholder" which is very true indeed.

For men, there is a brest to waist to hip ratio that men are generally attracted to (I belive it is 0.07%). One study found that pretty much every woman considered beutiful in the last century, from Maralyne Monroe (I just messed that up, didn't I) to Twiggy had the same brest to waist to hip ratio.

This is certainly interesting, I will search for more info on it, for sure. The fact that neither Marilyn nor Twiggy strike my fancy is also very interesting... I wonder if this ratio can be applied on the women I find attractive? We'll see.

[PanAtheist]

One of the most beautiful people I have ever seen was a woman with a cleft palate and lip.
She emitted such vitality and healthiness from her face it was a physical shock to see her.

[Tenspace]

skribb, I didn't bring up any of the other ratio measurements that suggest beauty is hardwired. The hip ratio was tested on amazon tribes who have little or no contact with the oustide world. They too picked the optimum ratio, something that could be related to fitness with regard to reproduction and child-rearing.

You're right - it is important to look beyond our urge for optimum evolutionary beauty when selecting a mate. We no longer feel pressure from being constantly on the edge of survival, so picking the perfect pair of teats with just the right pelvic thrust seems superfluous. But I hope you see where I'm coming from... by looking past the base internal desires, you discover people who are intelligent, funny, and fun, but might not be someone who'd give an amazon native a boner.

[anotherTim]

Isn't there a tribe in the Amazon suffering from Priapism? Sportin wood 24/7 it wouldnt matter what ratio they see. They would just hit it
Or maybe the tribe was in Borneo

*edit-spelling*

skribb and Tim,

I only bring up the ratio (and the rest) to point out that there does seem to be a biological aspect to what we find beutiful. But the key phrase in my post is "in general". As yet, science is unable to tell me why I have an extreme attraction to singers (probably THE major trait I fell in love with when I met my wife.)

And Ten, you bring up a great point concerning differences between our hunter/gatherer roots and our modern needs. It makes me wonder what people will "generally" find atractive 100,000 years from now.

I didn't really need to say any of this, but this seems to be the nicest conversation going on at the moment.

Noah

Noah Nywno wrote

Following in Ten's vein,

Along with symmetry, it's also been found that:

For men, there is a brest to waist to hip ratio that men are generally attracted to (I belive it is 0.07%). One study found that pretty much every woman considered beutiful in the last century, from Maralyne Monroe (I just messed that up, didn't I) to Twiggy had the same brest to waist to hip ratio.

Women (in general) apparently change what they find beutiful based on where they are in their cycle. While pre-menstral, men with sharper, more masculine features become more attractive whereas men with softer features become more attractive after menstration.

I apologize for not providing any supporting info, but I don't really have alot of time. I just thought I would throw my two cents in. If anyone requires a link or two I can look them up later and post again.

I highly doubt that Marilyn Monroe had the same waist to hip ratio as Twiggy. For the majority of Marilyn's life she would be what would be considered now "overweight", weighing at 140lbs. As of today she would probably be a size 8-12. Twiggy (in her early days) probably would have been a 0. Not to mention Marilyn Monroe was a 37- 23- 36. Twiggy was 31-22-32. According to waist-hip ratio Marilyn is considered fat. I suspect that the ideal image of women has not changed for men, but the ideal image for a woman has changed for women if you get my flow.

Let's not forget that beauty is in the eyes of the beer holder

Octahedral wrote

I highly doubt that Marilyn Monroe had the same waist to hip ratio as Twiggy. For the majority of Marilyn's life she would be what would be considered now "overweight", weighing at 140lbs. As of today she would probably be a size 8-12. Twiggy (in her early days) probably would have been a 0. Not to mention Marilyn Monroe was a 37- 23- 36. Twiggy was 31-22-32. According to waist-hip ratio Marilyn is considered fat. I suspect that the ideal image of women has not changed for men, but the ideal image for a woman has changed for women if you get my flow.

Breast to hip ratio, not waist to hip... Absolute size has no bearing on this value. (Indeed, we judge the height of people, I believe, to a large extent based on their body-to-head ratio. If you saw a giant baby, it would still look babyish because of its huge head.