Is beauty in the eye of the beholder?

Wibbs wrote: »

It certainly varies across cultures and times alright. From my reading of various things over the years there are a couple of fairly universal markers of beauty/sexual attractiveness. Clear skin was one. Indeed one theory(along with heat control) why we lost most of our body hair was to show an individual was parasite/disease free. Symmetry in men's faces and bodies another. More symmetrical men had more sex with more women compared to less symmetrical men. Social power in men was also associated with more sexual activity. A couple of studies even claimed women had more orgasms with such men. Height in men was seen as an attractive feature, even among groups small in stature like Pygmies.

In women, along with clear skin while body size varied with culture and time the hip/waist ratio was remarkably consistent. The Venus de Milo, Rubens nudes, Marilyn Monroe and Kate moss have nigh on the same hip/waist ratio. Interestingly women with that ratio have fewer problems with hormonal issues and are more fertile. Signs of youth in women are also triggers. Which makes sense as women have a narrower window of fertility.

People also tend to self select for people who are around their "level" of attractiveness. So a 5 tends to end up with a 5 and an 8 tends to end up with an 8. Where this can vary is with the social power of the male(money, fame, hunting prowess*) so his number goes up beyond obvious appearances.

Even so these are averages and individual and cultural taste overpowers most guidelines for beauty and sexual attractiveness.




*I remember watching a tribal community in New Guinea IIRC, where they were asking the men and women what they found attractive. The men had their lists, which mostly came down to appearance with a large side order of how good they were as mothers, while the women talked almost exclusively about men's hunting abilities and even temperament.

While I wouldn't doubt the hip/waist ratio observation I'm kind of curious how the massive fad for corsets and tiny waists compared to hips and bust that did after all last a few centuries in Europe would come into that?

Symmetry and clear skin however do indeed seem to be universal.
Although I find it intriguing how the desire for pale skin which has been documented across continents and centuries recently seems to have shifted to "as orange as I can get it".

And yes, I agree that women see attractiveness not as much in physical appearance as men do. I had conversations with several male friends over the years and was told by each and every one of them that the first trigger in their minds on seeing a woman would be "I'd do her/I wouldn't do her". They all reacted surprised to find that I personally and all other women I've spoken to on the subject don't seem to work quite like that.
I couldn't say if I'd be interested in someone before I've even spoken to them. Yes, there definitely are those who I would know I'm not interested right away, certainly. But for the rest, I'd really need to get to know them a little bit before I can decide on a yes or no.

It's not just financial status/hunting abilities for me, though, and I do think that this particular area might lose significance in the next decades, as women will require the "breadwinner" less and less. Not saying it will go away altogether, I'm sure plenty of women will still be interested in an easy life on offer, but to me personally it's utterly insignificant.

pickarooney wrote: »

"Thick" is very distinct from fat. It refers to firm, curvaceous women, usually with dark skin. Objectively a very attractive physique.

All right, I was trying to be polite. By "thick" I meant overweight. A lot. Not Christina Hendricks type (which is actually not even remotely near the overweight definition, whatever certain people might say), I mean clinically obese. You get the idea anyway; I know a couple of guys that actually prefer that over what is considered today's "typical beauty". Bring them to a nightclub, and they'll try to chat up the big girl at the table rather than the skinny minnie in the middle of the dancefloor.
It's also clear that there are many more men who share the same preferences, at least enough to fuel a quite thriving themed adult industry. Nothing wrong with that,let it be clear, to each their own - it would be such a boring world if we were all the same.

Conversely, I have knew a woman that deviated dramatically from the typical "dark, tall & handsome" stereotype, one that that would try to attract the attention of the fat guy in the corner rather than that of the cool dude at the bar. This actually surprises me, since I would expect roughly the same amount of variation in tastes among both genders.

I can't really point my finger on the "why" this happens; it might be due to our genetic makeup, women are wired to look for an healthy and strong partner, they have the ultimate choice and it's not too uncommon for an average woman to find herself in a situation where she could choose amongst a small number of potential suitors. It makes perfect sense for them to be somewhat more "picky" than men are.

Or maybe, as it was mentioned already in the thread, it's more about cultural influences.

There is evidence to suggest that we are programmed to recognise some aspects of beauty, research has shown for example that symmetrical facial features are considered beautiful in every culture, these common attributes of beauty tend to be biological indicators of genetic health which we unconsciously perceive, thus, tall, broad shouldered and square jawed tend to be seen as attractive in men and the hourglass figure of big boobs and hips are physical indicators for women.
Then of course you have the cultural indicators of beauty, and these tend to change over time, but they are generally considered consistant with those timelessly desirable traits, wealth and status.
This is why pudgy and pasty was considered beautiful during the Renaissance, it was an indicator of wealth and status, it meant that you were rich enough to eat well and didn’t have to perform manual labor in a field. By the 21th Century however, with the advent cheap and abundant food, the indicator of wealth and status becomes the odious size zero and a perma-tan, because it’s the poor that are fat and pasty, and the rich that can spend all their time in the gym and on holidays.

Beauty is definitely on the eye of the beholder. Sure some people are more photogenic and generically beautiful than others but I've noticed before that the first few minutes of chatting to someone, anyone, can entirely change your first impression of them from when you first look at them.

I'm fortunately the best of both worlds.

:pac:

/man cry

Legs.Eleven wrote: »

The attractiveness of the man isn't important tbh, which says a lot.

It simply says that the way women approach p0rn is different from the way men do, more on a "situation/immersion" point of view, while we're more visual creatures.

Legs.Eleven wrote: »

I disagree that women have a less varied taste. You just have to walk down the street and observe couples. Look at the women on the the thread in TGC and the men in the thread in TLL. Much more variety on the ladies' thread.

The problem is, my comments come exactly from observing couples on the streets; It is very likely that we are noticing different details which make for different interpretations.

What I mean is that women's preferences seem to me to stick more towards the median line of looks than men do. I'm not talking about preferring blonde hair to brunette, or dark eyes to blue ones; I'm talking about more drastically different types.

Trying to make examples, yes you see women whose husbands/boyfriends/partners are short, average or tall; Blonde or dark; fit, muscular, skinny or slightly chubbier, and clothe and carry themselves in different manners.

However all those variations seem to stick around a certain median line: you see skinny, average or slightly muscular builds; you see a bit below average, average and moderately tall heights, and faces that would range in the "average to handsome" category. Couples were the man is an very muscular body-builder type are very rare; same with very short or very tall fellas. Women going around with either very ugly or very beautiful men are far and few in between, and I don't think that, in my 33 years, I have ever seen a couple where the man is very overweight/obese - and that's 5 cities across three countries I spent significant time in (Dublin, Rome, Naples, London and Cork). Same goes for style: average to cool, almost never nerdy or awkward (and I mean nerdy for real, not the "I love nerds" fantasy some women entertain ).

On the other hand, the women in the couples seem to come in all shapes, forms and styles. Very short, below average, average, tall; skinny, fit, athletic, overweight and obese; From quite uninspiring to stunningly beautiful; From tom-boyishly styled to nerdy to cool and feminine. There seems to be a bias against very tall and very muscular women and, while I know many men would be kind of intimidated by such type, I guess it's also down to the sheer rarity of Corey Everson lookalikes or 6'3" tall girls

I don't really know if I manage to get the message across, anyway. I'll have a look at the threads you mention, might make for an interesting read!

Three Seasons wrote: »

I think women's preferences tend to be more subjective than men's. Though certain characteristics seem to be beautiful to women across the board, such as a strong jawline.

And for many men, a C-D cup woman with curvy hips are a sort of norm, but there are those outside of those "norms" that people like too.