Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A girl friend and I were sitting on the Metro Train a few days ago and a woman came on to the train and everyone's heads turned. This woman who must have been maybe 30 years old was just incredibly beautiful. She was not pretty, cute, attractive, good looking or plesant, instead, she was just beautiful. My woman friend looked at her and said, WOW! You could tell nearly every man and woman in the train care was staring at this beautiful creature and she knew it!
Everything about her was just incredible. She was one in a thousand. The perfect height, the perfect hair, the perfect skin, the perfect shape and the perfect package. She carried herself as a beautiful person too. She had a confidence and poise about her that was extraordinary! Also, it was a real beauty, because she was wearing little makeup.
Do you know anyone like this and what is it like being her?
* Don't tell me that everyone is beautiful inside and that is what really counts. We are talking about something completely different here. EXTREME physical beauty and poise!
Yeah, but that's only because we're brainwashed from birth to view certain people as beautiful and certain people as ugly. Studies have been done which show that cultures with no "Western influence" have vastly different views of feminine beauty than do cultures with Western influence. Specifically, the conclusion was that the ideal waist-to-hip for a woman, as judged by men, is 0.7:1 in cultures with Western influence... but in cultures without Western influence, it is 1:1. Now, could that be because most cultures are influenced by the American culture machine... such that the only cultures left untainted are remote tribes where strength and "toughness" are considered desirable traits in women, which would cause the bigger ones to be considered better catches? Sure. However, it's also been concluded that even in America and other similar cultures, a man's idea of beauty is shaped by what other traits he wants in a woman. For example, I knew a guy about my height (6'2") and size who really liked short skinny women... he said he liked them to be really small compared to him because he liked to feel like the big strong protector... he wanted a woman who needed to be protected. I'm the opposite way. I like a tough woman who could beat up most men and can go places by herself without me having to worry about what will become of her if I'm not there to protect her. I guess that's why I've always liked 'em big and fat.
And really, you say that there's a 10% income disparity between the supposedly "most beautiful" 20% of women and the supposedly "ugliest" 20% of women. That isn't much... it leaves a lot of room for statistical error. Could it be that the "ugly" ones have (on average) 10% less self-confidence than the "beautiful" ones, due to people who constantly trumpet about which specific feminine appearance is the absolute standard for beauty? After all, unless you're looking to become a physical trainer, your ability to do your job is projected to prospective employers through your confidence, not your physique. I'm betting that few employers would sooner hire someone they found attractive who didn't seem likely to be able to do the job, if they also had the chance to hire someone they found unattractive who seemed very likely to be able to do the job. People who lack confidence are also likely to lack the drive they need to chase down, and land, a really good job. So they'll settle for what they can get, just as they usually settle for what they can get in the "relationship department" as well. After all, you constantly see people who are considered "ugly" by moronic society dating others whom you just know are bad choices. But why do they stick with those choices? For the same reason why they'd stick with their jobs that pay, on average, 10% less than attractive people make.... because they don't feel like they can do any better, and they'd rather have something than nothing. It's all the same story.
I think, if everyone thought as I do about this (which is, thankfully, substantiated by the one and only true source of absolutes... the WORD OF GOD)... there would be no income disparity between "appearance types" of women... and there would be way less of a self-esteem vacuum in women. Let's stop preaching to everyone about who is beautiful and who is not... and instead, recognize the true physical beauty that every person possesses.
Again, find me one woman who would be seen as ugly by all men. If you do, I'll shut up. If you can't, then you can't prove me wrong and you are therefore conversely proving me right.
a) I was not addressing you, we have already come to the conclusion that there is no common ground for a meaningful discussion between the two of us.
b) Everything I wrote was just translated from the interview, so go and challenge that researcher if you don't like his findings.
a) I was not addressing you, we have already come to the conclusion that there is no common ground for a meaningful discussion between the two of us.
b) Everything I wrote was just translated from the interview, so go and challenge that researcher if you don't like his findings.
Neuling, the thing that bothers me about your assertions is that you don't back them up. I challenge you and anyone to prove me wrong and the only thing you do is back away and say you want to agree to disagree. Why do you want to go on operating the wrong way, or thinking the wrong way? Who wants that? Doesn't it stink to be wrong?
I wasn't challenging the researcher's findings. Numbers never lie. I don't have to watch the video... I'm trusting what you say about the numbers he quoted. They seem reasonable. However, I find it much more valuable to determine the meanings behind the numbers... as in, why are those numbers the way they are? Come on. You go to the doctor and get your blood pressure measured at 165/102. The doctor says "you have hypertension".
Well, DUH!
If he didn't go on to explain the likely causes of your high blood pressure, or suggest additional tests that might determine those causes, wouldn't you be more than a little miffed? You won't care as much THAT you have hypertension as you do about WHY you have hypertension. If you know the "why", you can remediate the "that".
I was stating possibilities for the "why" behind the numbers. There are a whole bunch of possibilities which aren't directly related to physical appearance, rendering that study a very shaky argument for the existence of "absolute physical beauty".
The original premise of this thread was "what is it like to be absolutely beautiful". I have submitted that there is no such thing, and the closest anyone can come (which is probably what the OP was referring to) is "stunningly beautiful in the eyes of the majority". However, that majority's idea of beauty is molded, shaped, and warped from the very beginning of their lives, by factors and forces over which they have no control and which vary based upon a plethora of different conditions (not the least of which is the value scale of the society into which the person was born). There's nothing objective nor absolute about beauty, so any question about absolute beauty has no basis in reality and therefore any answer to that exact question will be equally baseless.
Why not try to argue your viewpoint logically?
If you cannot, get on the bus with me, bud... and fight with me for what's right, rather than against me for what's wrong. You'll find that the grass is always greener in the land of what's right, though it may appall you how many ignorant people are out there. It's fun, dispelling ignorance.
Listen, I just don't care whether you understand me or not, whether you share my view or not, whether you are convinced by anything I say or not, etc. Thus there is not need to discuss this any further with you. We have had a little exchange of opinions and from that I could see that there is no point in discussing this topic with you. It's like a discussion between an atheist and a Muslim about Allah.
Nothing personal, I am just a rather efficient person and don't like to waste my time...
By the way, are you a native speaker? I was wondering because you seem focused on the word absolutely. It does not mean in absolute terms or 100%, but extremely or unbelievably. Like in an absolutely glorious day etc.
Yeah, but that's only because we're brainwashed from birth to view certain people as beautiful and certain people as ugly. Studies have been done which show that cultures with no "Western influence" have vastly different views of feminine beauty than do cultures with Western influence. Specifically, the conclusion was that the ideal waist-to-hip for a woman, as judged by men, is 0.7:1 in cultures with Western influence... but in cultures without Western influence, it is 1:1. Now, could that be because most cultures are influenced by the American culture machine... such that the only cultures left untainted are remote tribes where strength and "toughness" are considered desirable traits in women, which would cause the bigger ones to be considered better catches? Sure. However, it's also been concluded that even in America and other similar cultures, a man's idea of beauty is shaped by what other traits he wants in a woman. For example, I knew a guy about my height (6'2") and size who really liked short skinny women... he said he liked them to be really small compared to him because he liked to feel like the big strong protector... he wanted a woman who needed to be protected. I'm the opposite way. I like a tough woman who could beat up most men and can go places by herself without me having to worry about what will become of her if I'm not there to protect her. I guess that's why I've always liked 'em big and fat.
.
Uh, where did you pick up that tidbit? That sounds like bunk to me. I'd imagine there's variation, certainly, but a waist equal to hips as an ideal?
Babies stare longer at conventionally beautiful faces of women. Are they brainwashed, too?
Uh, where did you pick up that tidbit? That sounds like bunk to me. I'd imagine there's variation, certainly, but a waist equal to hips as an ideal?
Babies stare longer at conventionally beautiful faces of women. Are they brainwashed, too?
Yes, I have read it is not least because of symmetry. Asymmetrical faces are not as appealing. I guess favoring symmetry goes way beyond faces, most people love to see symmetry and perfect geometry in objects and patterns as well.
Yes, I have read it is not least because of symmetry. Asymmetrical faces are not as appealing. I guess favoring symmetry goes way beyond faces, most people love to see symmetry and perfect geometry in objects and patterns as well.
I think a lot of my knowledge on the science of beauty came from that John Cleese hosted BBC special "The Human Face". It may have been in that that I saw an experiment in which they took an average looking woman and showed people two pictures of her, except in one picture they had mirror imaged her face so it was perfectly symmetrical. They polled people on the streets and told them these were twin sisters and asked them who was more attractive. It was always the symmetrical one, of course, but they gave random reasons like "She has better styling." or "She looks like her personality is more fun."
It's so subtle, we don't even know why we prefer the things we do.
well, this is an old resurrected thread. But I feel compelled to answer.
It pretty much sucks. Girls who aren't beautiful think they are missing something but they aren't. I am fat now, and old and I don't even wear makeup. I had my fill of being beautiful. Trust me when I tell you it's not all it's cracked up to be.
I think a lot of my knowledge on the science of beauty came from that John Cleese hosted BBC special "The Human Face". It may have been in that that I saw an experiment in which they took an average looking woman and showed people two pictures of her, except in one picture they had mirror imaged her face so it was perfectly symmetrical. They polled people on the streets and told them these were twin sisters and asked them who was more attractive. It was always the symmetrical one, of course, but they gave random reasons like "She has better styling." or "She looks like her personality is more fun."
It's so subtle, we don't even know why we prefer the things we do.
Yes, some say symmetry is an indication of better genes, but I am not sure what to think of that...
Yes, I have read it is not least because of symmetry. Asymmetrical faces are not as appealing. I guess favoring symmetry goes way beyond faces, most people love to see symmetry and perfect geometry in objects and patterns as well.
A picture is worth a thousand words. (From our local mugshot website)
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
