63 replies to this topic

[smooder]

Are all races "beautiful women" in the golden ratio. Chinese people have smaller eyes compared to their faces. are they stil in it?

[Sgt. Nuker]

The "Golden Ratio" that everyone seems to take a knee towards is flawed. It's a man-made, man-conceived concept, and therefore is no good. It, like the concept of "beauty" is an ill-contrived, pre-packaged, store-bought, FLAW. If man made it, it has a flaw, no "if's", "and's", or "but's" about it.


Regards,

Nuker

[Warbz]

We tend to think about things like attraction as reflecting a private decision or a personal choice, but people’s attractiveness judgments can be influenced in pronounced ways by what other people appear to think of those individuals.

In my experience women seem more attracted to a man if other Women like him him too. Dont ask why, because i dont know.

Anyway, my point is that true beauty cannot be defined. It is up to you to find your own version.

[Short Stuff]

I Beileve beauty comes from how people act...Because you may see someone as "Meh" at first...then once you get to know them...they could be Perfect or "Smokein' hot"

[Golan]

Major Nuker, on 22 Jun 2007, 2:18, said:

The "Golden Ratio" that everyone seems to take a knee towards is flawed. It's a man-made, man-conceived concept, and therefore is no good. It, like the concept of "beauty" is an ill-contrived, pre-packaged, store-bought, FLAW. If man made it, it has a flaw, no "if's", "and's", or "but's" about it.


Regards,

Nuker

The golden ratio isn´t "man made". It can indeed be found in many things in nature, ranging from complex plants to snail-shells.

[Whitey]

It can be found anywhere in nature... everything in nature follows it to a degree approaching equivelant.

Now at Blaat and ShortStuff, I hate to sound insensitive and rude, but stop talking about personality. it has no relevance at all to the topic and to physical attractiveness. Because you know as well as I do that you do not have X-Ray vision and can see jerkiness through a TV screen or a photo. You need to view this from a perspective that does not include ever knowing them in person because then personality plays a part and that makes your arguments null and void.

Anyway, you know the Fibonacci sequence? It follows the golden ratio in wahtever crazy mathematical way, and it goes by a simple adding of the previous number. 1 1 2 3 5 8 13 21 33 etc. Random seemingly, but totally in conformity to the ratio.

Plants, sea shells, fingers and legs all follow the golden ratio, be it in length, width, etc. For instance, the first segment of your finger to teh second to the last. Or shoulder to elbow to wrist. Did some huge study on this in Geometry class and the ratio is simply astounding.

Quote

Is beauty in the eye of the beholder?: The pioneering (rather crude) experiments in this field were conducted by the German physicist and psychologist Gustav Theodor Fechner in the 1860s. Fechner's experiment was simple: ten rectangles varying in their length-to-width ratios were placed in front of a subject, who was asked to select the most pleasing one. The results showed that 76% of all choices centered on the three rectangles having ratios of 1.75, 1.62, and 1.50, with a peak at the "Golden Rectangle" (with ratio 1.62). Fechner went further and measured the dimensions of thousands of rectangular-shaped objects (windows, picture frames in the museums, books in the library), and claimed (in his book Vorschule der Aesthetik) to have found the average ratio to be close to the Golden Ratio.

How can you honestly think the Golden Ratio to be some insane coincidence? Because from my perspective, it makes a lot more sense then "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder". Because from my view, the eye of the beholder may not be so beautiful as to classify what is beautiful in the first place.

Edited by Solo Wing, 22 June 2007 - 07:31.

[Nerdsturm]

But if some plants, snails, and shelled sea creatures follow the ratio, it implies that growing in this pattern is more beneficial to growth than mating, since most species of those animals and plants either cannot see very well or at all. Having the most shapely shell really doesn't help an animal look beautiful if none of its species can even see it. Rather, if the ratio did cause one to be beautiful, an animal that adhered to it would probably be more appealing to predators who could see well, therefore causing the trait to disappear in animals such as snails.

[Whitey]

The ratio was never said to be all about beauty. It is found in DNA molecules among other non-visible things. I simply believe that the human brain perceives it as beautiful. You must not compare looks and functionality.

[Eddy01741]

The golden ratio is the ideal for dimensions. For example, a building that is 1.61 times longer than it is wide, will look better than one that is two times as long as it is wide, or having the same length as the width. The golden ratio defines what looks most ideal to us. I mean, look at it like this, why are all our books rectangular? The covers and the papers I mean. You don't see any square books unless they are true pocketbooks. And aso, you don't see books that are overly wide or overly tall/long, eh? Beauty belonging to teh eye of the beholder only goes so far. If you took 1000 people at random, and you gave them 4 books to choose from without any coverart or anything of that sort, and in same thickness, at least 900 people will pick the book with the dimensions closest to the golden ratio.

However, since the idee fixe is on attractiveness of women/men, it depends from person to person. GENERALLY noticing, men want women with a nicely shaped head, good facial features (so like not too big of a nose or too small etc.), a medium-long neck, legs which are longer than torso (probably by the golden ratio lol), an average size bust (contrary to some thought, most guys like women with B or C cups), slender legs, nice physique overall (like they have some muscle), lack a lot of fat, but not skinny bones (they have muscles there) and taller than average (average height of women in the world is 5'4", most men probably like women who are 5'6" or taller). So the trend is toward being slender, but not to slender, longer legs, taller women, and pretty much average everything else.

Women usually like men who are somewhat muscular, so like as muscular as say, Brad Pitt, but not as much as Arnold Schwarzenegger in his old days, sort of slender, not much fat (again, a lot of muscle), have a six pack etc. etc.

Although it really belogns to the eye of the beholder, there are trends in who people like. Usually the person you find to be the hottest in a group of the same gender will also have other people who think they are the hottest. This doesn't mean that you are attracted to them, but just that they are pretty looking. So while men look upon supermodels, they may have their own favorites, but compared to average women, they are all still probably more attractive than average women, and vice versa for women.

THat is only beauty on the outside, personality in theory should have a bigger impact on relationships (so you really want a soul mate instead of having a prize husband/wife).

[Athena]

I don't think Brad Pitt looks good. I also don't like six packs (if they are what I think they are). Imo, beauty is a personal thing. But, as always, people are entitled to their own opinion.

[Eddy01741]

Blaat85, on 22 Jun 2007, 16:56, said:

I don't think Brad Pitt looks good. I also don't like six packs (if they are what I think they are). Imo, beauty is a personal thing. But, as always, people are entitled to their own opinion.

Well, neither do I, but then again, I'm a guy, and I'm Heterosexual.

BUt to most girls (or at least I think so, at least to most teenage girls lol), some celebrities like Brad Pitt are "Hot" or whatever you want to call it.

And a six pack is your abdominal muscles, if you work out enough and are fit, you'll have a "six pack" (you can sort of see six individual muscles), if your overly buff, then you can have up to a twelve pack, but that's just gross.

[Athena]

I'm a girl and heterosexual. But I don't think Brad Pitt looks good. And I don't like six packs, or twelve packs even. I find it looks ugly.

How much, do you think, are 'average' teenage girls influenced by media and their environment? Perhaps they'd have a different opinion if that influence wasn't there.

[Eddy01741]

Yeah, that's very true, the media industry and celebrities and designers have been setting the "trend" as to what is "in" and "out". Like back in Maralyn Monroe's time, it was to be very curvy, now it's mostly concentrating on being slim. So famous celebrities are all sort of slim, so being "in" is being slim.

Even me... in school, all my friends (all boys private school (unfortunately)), we talk about all the girls in the area and all (we have some sports teams with our "sister" schooL), people all talk about which girls are hot and all, and the ones I didn't find that attractive, now seemed attractive (but not any more.)

[Warbz]

While that last sentence is a bit confusing, i agree with you.
The 'celebrities' have too much influence on the remainder of the population. its quite sad.

[Whitey]

Which has absolutely no relevance at all to this topic.

Avoid: Peer Pressure, Personality, anything except looks. And more often than not, the common person will find those who follow the golden scale tend to be more attractive, do not even talk about all the side stuff. What must be concentrated on is looks, and that is it. Nothing more. Then we might have a more balanced discussion... -_-

[Warbz]

But the way the celebrities convey themselves can often affect ones thoughts on their concept of beauty.

Edited by Warbz, 23 June 2007 - 04:59.

[Whitey]

No it can't, you just aren't paying attention. You do NOT care how they convey themself. Do not compare ANYTHING but their explicit, naked looks.

[Golan]

Paris Hilton is considered a sex symbol by some... nuf said.

[Eddy01741]

She is a slut and whore symbol to me.

[Whitey]

Aren't slutty whores sex symbols?

But how does that tie in to the topic?

[Eddy01741]

yeah, I guess so lol, but paris hilton isn't anything like a beauty symbol to anybody but her crazed fans.

And I don't know how it relates to it, that's just my opinion f Paris hilton replying to Golan.

[Golan]

Solo Wing, on 23 Jun 2007, 18:19, said:

Aren't slutty whores sex symbols?

But how does that tie in to the topic?

I hope not...

The valueing of physical appearance can be quite different depending on person.

[Whitey]

Again taht has in part to do with how she conducts herself....

I think the only way to do this would be to look at various (and I say this in a dead serious tone) naked, expressionless bodies of both genders and various races and all that jazz and have one that is "perfectly" proportioned tossed in there, just to see who really has the best looks. And I can say with confidence that I believe that the one with the "perfect" proportions would be nominated the most.

[Golan]

Quote

Again taht has in part to do with how she conducts herself....

And in part not. So?

Quote

I think the only way to do this would be to look at various (and I say this in a dead serious tone) naked, expressionless bodies of both genders and various races and all that jazz and have one that is "perfectly" proportioned tossed in there, just to see who really has the best looks. And I can say with confidence that I believe that the one with the "perfect" proportions would be nominated the most.

But "the most" isn´t "the best" or whatever expression should apply here. You also have to take into consideration that the golden ratio is used quite often today. Thus, a good part could be conditioned to liking it.

[General]

Short Stuff, on 22 Jun 2007, 7:27, said:

I Beileve beauty comes from how people act...Because you may see someone as "Meh" at first...then once you get to know them...they could be Perfect or "Smokein' hot"

I experienced that . I once knew a girl which was too beautiful , later I learn about her and her acts make me crazy , afterwards : when I look at her face I spew .