~ Ideals Of Beauty ~

[~ Gheb ~]

I'm really not the kind of guy who watches TV a lot but lately I've seen some stuff that was quite shocking to me. It may sound strange to you as most of you are probably aware of it but I wasn't until recently since I only watch soccer normally...either way I realized that there are lots of TV shows concerning beauty and what people think of it (what beauty should be like etc) and I found it very disturbing: Filmings of beauty Operations and whole TV shows focusing on it while stick thin models are presented as "beautiful women". Despite being quite disgusted by it I was also very fascinated. I talked to my friends about it (both male and female) and they all agree that it has nothing to do with what they consider beatiful. I asked all kind of people I know about it and they all said the same things and basically shared my thoughts on this subject. To all of us it seemed more important for a woman to enjoy herself rather than to look good.
However we also all agreed upon the fact that these thin models are considered beatiful for some reason we couldn't explain ourselves. We just knew that the general perception of beauty in our society is different from what we think about it: Being thin seems to be right - the thinner the better. People have their nose operated in order to look better - but do they really? If you believe what you see in the media they apparently do but on the other hand I don't know one single person who agrees.

So where does this "contemporary" ideal of beauty come from? I don't know one male person, who finds any so-called "Top model" desirable. I also asked a lesbian friend of mine and she said she doesn't find these models attractive and she'd never fall in love or would want to have sex with any of them. And when I asked all my male (straight) friends about it they said exactly the same. Just as an example: None of the people I know thinks that Kate Moss looks good. But on the other hand her appearance on the cover of a magazine alone makes them sell about twice as fast. Why? Nobody I know thinks she's attractive and all of them said she needs a lot more flesh on her bones. I just seemed to be impossible to understand why such people are called beautiful. I meet at least 10 gilrs/women a day who are much more pleasing to look at than any of those celebrities. So why is there such a difference between what people think about beauty and what we're told to consider beautiful? I can't imagine a man who wants such an unnaturally thin woman. It treats women - and in many cases even young girls - in a very degrading, disrespectful way. Why are they supposed to look like that? Why is it supposed to be an acceptable thing if a woman isn't allowed to eat what she wants? Is it really necesary for her to only eat cooked veggies just to look like something we don't even want her to look like? Why are we supposed to find them attractive? I'd really like to discuss this with you right now because I honestly have no clue why things are like that.

Well since I'm supposed to give you at least my opinion I'll tell you what I think of it: I think in times like this with all the stuff you have to deal with (working all day only to have just enough money, decreasing time to spend with other people) it's hard to find things like comfort, strength or affection of other people. And like for compensation people think they will find it by becoming what is supposed to be beautiful. Everybody needs somebody to admire you and if they can't get it they try to be something people look up to: A fake ideal of beauts. That's what I think.

Discuss!

 

[RDK]

While I defintely think physical attractiveness plays a large part in my value system, it's not the sole factor by any stretch of the imagination. And for the most part the kind of people you talked about in your post, who get plastic surgery and breast implants on a monthly basis, I wouldn't consider attractive anyway.

What I find attractive is a rational competent person who, first and foremost, is confident and likes themselves. That's big with me.

 

[DtJ Jungle]

For me, it is someone who is well rounded. Yes, physical attractiveness will always play a part. But someone who I can talk to about just trivial things or big ideas is really important to me. I've always like quirkiness...being unique and not being afraid of it essentially...Everyone has their own taste :/

 

[Zero Beat]

I see beauty as a combination of the following:

Physical
Ethical
Intelligence
--------------
Those three as a whole define my standards when it comes to saying "soulmate." And also, when combined in certain events, they'll make that person even more beautiful than previously thought.

 

[~ Gheb ~]

It's nice to see people agree with me but you missed the point. I'm not asking about your idea of beauty but rather why there's such a big difference between what people consider beatiful and what the current ideal of beauty is.

Why is beauty defined as it is now, if nobody seems to agree with it? You guys don't agree either comfirming what I said in the OP but not actually discussing it.

 

[Zero Beat]

Huh? The greeks saw beauty the same way we do. Kind of.

Although back then you had to be both physically beautiful and intellectually. I don't know how to address your question though. It's a matter of perspective seeing as "beauty" is a very subjective thing.

 

[Hive]

hmmm its a hard question... I always sort of saw beauty though as tied to what interests a person....
i know that's vague but I don't know how else to answer really ^^ its a good question...

but if a thing interests someone whether sexually or intuitively we can say that it is beautiful i think...
in attractiveness in women/men/etc most people are hardwired to think that certain shapes, pheromone releases are more interesting than others which is why I think there is a certain image attatched to what a beautiful man/woman looks like to most people... because certain shapes/odors stimulate sexaul energies (brain has some set responses to these...)... however not everyone is the same of course...
also when it comes to flowers and stuff, things that stimulate our desire to think and to learn can be considered beautiful as well...
I also think that sometimes knowing too much about something can make it less beautiful bc there is less to learn from it...

and that's really the only answer i can give lol ^^ if it was way off I'm sorry.... i guess i just don't know

 

[Darxmarth23]

Beauty would be the character of the person.

How much the person can interact with you.

The thing that make you fall in love, pretty much.

Vague question.

 

[pyrotek7x7]

You mention that the "ideal" is that thin models are beautiful. But this is almost a vocabulary question.

There is a fine line between "physically attractive" and "beautiful." While being physically attractive just means that the opposite sex (or in some cases the same) will view you as a good sexual candidate over others.

Most of us, however, seem to think the "beauty" involves more than just physical attraction. Beauty is where you might consider a partner, someone you would want to live with, not just have physical relations with.

It is a very vague subject, and is completely subjective to the person.

 

[aberz™]

Huh? The greeks saw beauty the same way we do. Kind of.
.

The Greeks considered overweight women beautiful, but for the benefit of men.
The larger the women was, meant she could eat, which meant they had money to eat.

I am sure that thin women were what they liked, but larger meant better.

 

[Overload]

I think a lot of these people who practically starve themselves to stay grossly thin are sick and need help. I don't see how anyone finds a skeleton attractive.

 

[Mr.Fakeman]

In my opinion, these models mentioned are obviously mainstream and are chosen according to the 'modern taste' of society. But I find models that are not even on the media spotlight more attractive than e.g. Paris Hilton, she is the perfect example of the stick, popular, front-cover whatever you want to call it model. Still I don't consider her beautiful.

 

[Pr0phetic]

Welll im happily taken, and my ideals of beauty don't run skin deep, it goes all the way too the inside. My girlfriend allysha, is not only very attractive to me, she is beautifully kind. I never find myself attracted to models or other people of those sort.

So beauty has no standard, except it has to run in and out.

I think a lot of these people who practically starve themselves to stay grossly thin are sick and need help. I don't see how anyone finds a skeleton attractive.

I squeem when I see that. I honestly like someone with some meat on their bones as my family would say.

 

[Atsu]

Thin has always been the aim for almost all women. They want others to see them a someone "beautiful," which is depicted however popular fashion magazines wish. This would be "anorexic thin." Although they may have a pretty face and some other nice qualities, it's not very unique. The depiction of beauty is the equivalent to that of a plastic doll. Nothing about them is real. They alter every inch of their body until they're just another robot on an assembly line.

This "beauty" would be along the lines of being "hot." To me, that means they're a piece of *** without a personality that you just want to... you get the point. Of course, this is just a pre-conception of mine. I can't stand people who are hot. Sure, it's a pleasure to the eyes, but you'd only get close to them because you want something from them. Can anyone say "One Night Stand?"

Beauty, to me and many people here, can lie with anyone. True Beauty is a combination of personality, intelligence, and a little bit of your preference when it comes to "physical attraction" as some have put it. The press or w/e you want to call it only portray an illusion that influences those to believe in what they say beauty is. It is a way for them to make money, and many women have been hypnotized by this lies. You just have to be yourself, for that is true beauty.

 

[¯\_S.(ツ).L.I.D._/¯]

I believe that many of these Top Models aren't that attractive, and that many more people that no one knows about could be more beautiful than them. Publicity plays a huge role in the "beauty" debate because girls that are rich and have rich families are made out to be these great looking girls, when you could find a better looking girl anywhere.

This is kind of off topic but proves my publicity point:

Take Paris Hilton. If Paris Hilton was just some random person, not heiress to a fortune made off a hotel business, no one would care about her and most likely she'd be flipping burgers at McDonalds. But, since she's publicized, she bets all this un-deserved attention. She was born into her role in life, and it makes me very angry at people like that, who don't have to try in life while some people are breaking their backs to climb up through the ranks of our society today.

OK, end rant.

 

[Ham Enterprises]

I believe that many of these Top Models aren't that attractive, and that many more people that no one knows about could be more beautiful than them. Publicity plays a huge role in the "beauty" debate because girls that are rich and have rich families are made out to be these great looking girls, when you could find a better looking girl anywhere.

This is kind of off topic but proves my publicity point:

Take Paris Hilton. If Paris Hilton was just some random person, not heiress to a fortune made off a hotel business, no one would care about her and most likely she'd be flipping burgers at McDonalds. But, since she's publicized, she bets all this un-deserved attention. She was born into her role in life, and it makes me very angry at people like that, who don't have to try in life while some people are breaking their backs to climb up through the ranks of our society today.

OK, end rant.

I can agree with you on the fact that being publicized seems to make people more attractive. But beauty is really a matter of perspective, and it is based on psychology. For example, professional models aren't models because they are physically attractive, but more so because they are good at modeling, also beauty usually goes in the order of physical to intellectually, as in the fact people may be attracted to someone physically first and end up going out with them, but when they get to know them they will probably continue the relationship based on their personality.

 

[AgentJGV]

I think that the ideals of Beauty have come from the mainstream media. I'm sorry but most of the time, I just see vampires. I believe that the old, tried and true saying applies here. "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder."

To say someone is pretty is only a compliment. To say that they are beautiful, well that's something else entirely.

 

[aeghrur]

Hm, apparently Ideals of beauty have to do with our economic times/wellbeing too.
As our Economy becomes stronger, we prefer the younger/skinnier women, yet when it becomes weaker, we prefer the mature, yet not necessarily older, looking type.

 

[~ Gheb ~]

Hm, apparently Ideals of beauty have to do with our economic times/wellbeing too.
As our Economy becomes stronger, we prefer the younger/skinnier women, yet when it becomes weaker, we prefer the mature, yet not necessarily older, looking type.

That's a pretty good observation. In the stone age the ideal woman was fat. An I mean seriously fat...it was just a sign of that woman being "wealthy" in a material way, since money didn't exist at that time:

http://www.topgeo.de/bilder/venus_von_willendorf.jpg

...

I'm still not convinced...it's not that I'm not aware of what the current ideals of beauty are. I just don't understand why the current ideal of beauty is the way it is now in the first place. That's my main point and still remains unanswered: Why does "beauty" require women (in particular) to be thin? My experience is that most people I talked to - men and women - both agree that being thin is actually rather unattractive.

 

[Lord Viper]

Thread has been revived I see. Ok, my thought's, beauty is very confusing these days, you have to go to work looking as beautiful as you can, you have to walk in the street's as beautiful as you can... the reason? Because the world mostly junged you by the way you look.

The ideals of beauty mostly focus on the human body which is why so many skin commercial's are mostly made, plastic suguray is just a poor reason to look beautiful because that's not really your natrual beauty, natrual beauty is what people should really be in to. But after seeing stuff like premature births or hazzard survivors, it's really hard to tell if the ideals of beauty is corruptible, even for me.

 

[cman]

I'm still not convinced...it's not that I'm not aware of what the current ideals of beauty are. I just don't understand why the current ideal of beauty is the way it is now in the first place. That's my main point and still remains unanswered: Why does "beauty" require women (in particular) to be thin? My experience is that most people I talked to - men and women - both agree that being thin is actually rather unattractive.

I think thin is attractive. Not super thin, but slim. As for why only women; that's not entirely true. Men are supposed to be slim and buff, so some standards apply to all. However, my hypothesis as to why women in particular are supposed to be beautiful is that everyone already accepts that men are the uglier sex, so they aren't held to such high standards.

It could also be a remnant of times when men were the providers, so women did not have much to offer except looks, children, and family wealth.

 

[GoldShadow]

There are a couple of different ways of looking at this. There's a biological perspective that Hive brought up earlier:

but if a thing interests someone whether sexually or intuitively we can say that it is beautiful i think...
in attractiveness in women/men/etc most people are hardwired to think that certain shapes, pheromone releases are more interesting than others which is why I think there is a certain image attatched to what a beautiful man/woman looks like to most people... because certain shapes/odors stimulate sexaul energies (brain has some set responses to these...)... however not everyone is the same of course...

Humans are biologically programmed to find certain things attractive; being slim (a healthy weight, not anorexic), fit, healthy, smart, having a symmetric face. These are all signs of good genes and in terms of evolution, that is one of the most important things to consider in choosing a mate. One who is genetically sound and will maximize the chances of having and raising healthy offspring.

Then there is a social/economic perspective, like what aeghrur brought up.

Hm, apparently Ideals of beauty have to do with our economic times/wellbeing too.
As our Economy becomes stronger, we prefer the younger/skinnier women, yet when it becomes weaker, we prefer the mature, yet not necessarily older, looking type.

In centuries past, a heavier man/woman would have been a better prospect because it was a sign of prosperity; if someone had more money, they'd have more to eat and would weigh more as a result.

Finally, there is the capitalist/marketing perspective that so many people have brought up about models.

Nowadays, it's all about marketing and publicity. It's all about what corporate execs and advertisers want you to buy; they try and define "beauty" in such a way that will maximize their profits. Sometimes, their idea of beauty is what everybody else considers beautiful. Sometimes it's not. It's a fickle thing.

 

[Hive]

you know actually now that I think about it, I don't think that beauty is defined by neural processes.... okay, so maybe that is scientifically correct to some degree, however, I don't think that the human brain should think of beauty that way.
I mean, our thinking processes are sort of sloppy to some degree, the human brain doesn't necessarily strive for truth... sometimes its better to strive for simplicity and imagination in understanding a concept.
When we think of beauty we don't think "wow, that has a beautiful pheromone release," we think "wow that is absoulutely beautiful." and hence the conflict between understanding and actually interpreting things.
I think the best way to define it then is that beauty is defined by what interests us, and what we think is beautiful....

there's no reason I think to understand it the more complicated way, when, when we do see something beautiful we see it simply and emotionally....

 

[Ham Enterprises]

I think thin is attractive. Not super thin, but slim. As for why only women; that's not entirely true. Men are supposed to be slim and buff, so some standards apply to all. However, my hypothesis as to why women in particular are supposed to be beautiful is that everyone already accepts that men are the uglier sex, so they aren't held to such high standards.

It could also be a remnant of times when men were the providers, so women did not have much to offer except looks, children, and family wealth.

I agree completely, and also women are held to higher standards is because men are are attracted to women more than women are attracted to men.

 

[GoldShadow]

I agree completely, and also women are held to higher standards is because men are are attracted to women more than women are attracted to men.

I think it's that men focus more on womens' physical appearance than women do on mens'.

 

[illinialex24]

I think it's that men focus more on womens' physical appearance than women do on mens'.

Yes but its not as clear cut as men think. Ever heard of ladder theory? It says that women base 50% off of power/money, 40% off of looks, and 10% off of the stuff they say they care about (being nice and all that). Meanwhile, it says guys base it 60% off of looks, 30% off of how fast she'll "put out" and 10% random stuff. So for both looks are important according to ladder theory, but more so for men.

 

[Pr0phetic]

Yes but its not as clear cut as men think. Ever heard of ladder theory? It says that women base 50% off of power/money, 40% off of looks, and 10% off of the stuff they say they care about (being nice and all that). Meanwhile, it says guys base it 60% off of looks, 30% off of how fast she'll "put out" and 10% random stuff. So for both looks are important according to ladder theory, but more so for men.

Hence why it a theory, because there are many exceptions that bypass that ladder. Nowadays people are looking for companionship more then ever, money is and important factor yes, but inner beauty couple wit a even decent physical appearance can suit people.

Beauty is too general, its based on perception, im always arguing with my brother who looks better than who, and I find my wifey quite beautiful. Many will agree, but I wouldn't be suprised if other thought differently.

 

[Darxmarth23]

I guess everyone would have a different feature they are attracted to....

"beauty" is way to broad.

 

[Pr0phetic]

I guess everyone would have a different feature they are attracted to....

"beauty" is way to broad.

Amen to that. Beauty is a word taken out of its true definiton, it isnt nothing but true admiration and attraction, based on PERSONAL OPINION. One such example is art, some find certain paintings captivating, others just see it as shapes.

 

[B0mbe1c]

Amen to that. Beauty is a word taken out of its true definiton, it isnt nothing but true admiration and attraction, based on PERSONAL OPINION. One such example is art, some find certain paintings captivating, others just see it as shapes.

True stuff, especially about the art.
My opinions on beauty might differ greatly from my friends, etc.

 

[illinialex24]

Amen to that. Beauty is a word taken out of its true definiton, it isnt nothing but true admiration and attraction, based on PERSONAL OPINION. One such example is art, some find certain paintings captivating, others just see it as shapes.

However, its not as subjective as you think. I remember a New Scientist article where they slightly altered dimensions of famous statues by millimeters or so, almost nothing noticeable but the average response to the sculpture decreased dramatically. Of course they didn't damage the famous statues but built two replicas, one identical and one slightly different.

 

[IDK]

Yes but its not as clear cut as men think. Ever heard of ladder theory? It says that women base 50% off of power/money, 40% off of looks, and 10% off of the stuff they say they care about (being nice and all that). Meanwhile, it says guys base it 60% off of looks, 30% off of how fast she'll "put out" and 10% random stuff. So for both looks are important according to ladder theory, but more so for men.

I'm aware that you said 'theory'. However, 'theory' means a well backed up, tested, and supported hypothesis. Gathering from my knowledge, the information you stated seems like the stereotype, and not the truth. I don't think a test could ever be done to determine such a thing either, as people would have to agree to take it, and it may well just be that anyone who would take the test are the type of men who base 60-30-10 off looks, put-out speed, and random stuff; while the women who would take it are the 50-40-10 rich, looks, stuff they 'say' they care about.

 

[Pr0phetic]

However, its not as subjective as you think. I remember a New Scientist article where they slightly altered dimensions of famous statues by millimeters or so, almost nothing noticeable but the average response to the sculpture decreased dramatically. Of course they didn't damage the famous statues but built two replicas, one identical and one slightly different.

Even though it's true, I find that really hard to believe personally. But like you said, the average. That means its stil lpersonal as to some weren't even swayed by the minute alterations, showing how its dependant beauty is per person.

 

[LordoftheMorning]

First off, the media is gonna send us all to hell in a straitjacket. I couldn't be more irritated with some of the things that have taken over popular channels.

I really don't know why they would try to change an ideal of beauty, but I trust them about as far as I can throw my TV (and it's widescreen).

I do care a lot about just physical looks, though. Maybe to a fault.
What's more important to me would be a girl's interests, talents, and passions as well as general personality. If I can't relate to someone, I can't really appreciate them to the extent that I might.

I'd support the notion that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Truth, no. But definitely what attracts you. It's the same as any form of art, such as literature or music.