63 replies to this topic

[Dr. Strangelove]

Everybody wants to look beuatiful but nobody seems to care what beauty really is.

I prefer the Pythagorean explanation, and I believe that what we perceive as beauty can be reduced down to numbers. For example, if you create a rectangle with the Golden Ratio(a/b=(a+b)/a or 1:1.61814), the sheer cosmic righteousness of the thing smacks you upside the head. If you had to choose one rectangle to be stranded on a desert island with, that would be the one.

This is a face constructed using the Golden Ratio, similar to Da Vinci's Vitruvian Man:

[Dr HaxX]

I think its something a little less solid. I prefer to believe it to be subjective. Hence, why one person perceives a woman as beautiful while his friend does not. If you persuade yourself that a person is attractive, they become beautiful because you have made them such in your mind. Beauty is in no way correspondent to popularity... A woman who is viewed as beautiful by a single man is every bit as beautiful as the woman who is sought by ten, twenty, one hundred, etc... If you choose to see beauty, beauty will become what you see. It is not numbers, nor are their any guidelines for it. Beauty will always be somewhat mysterious. And for a good reason. If beauty were not so mysterious, and it was numbers as you suggest, then it would all be a matter of guessing the right numbers to determine beauty. And it would be at that point that beauty ceased being beautiful, and just became another math problem solved by mankind. I prefer the mystery. "Ignorance is bliss."

[Alias]

8 words.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

[General]

^ Agreed with changing one word : Brain , not eye

[E.V.E.]

Everybody thinks diffrent of Beauty and that is perfectly fine, otherwise some People on this earth would never get a Partner / would be loved.

Some People like skinny People, others like big ones, others again like small ones.

There is no " 100 % Beauty " ...

- E.V.E.

[Rayburn]

Beauty, like so many things concerning humans, is subjective.
There is no "definition" of who is beautiful and the old saying that it lies in the eye of the beholder is absolutely correct.

Edited by Rayburn, 19 June 2007 - 12:44.

[AllStarZ]

Just look at someone. If you think they're beautiful, they're beautiful. If you think they're ugly, they're ugly. It has to do with the eye and the mind behind it. Because even the best personality cannot overly compensate for being very ugly.

[Athena]

Alias, on 19 Jun 2007, 10:09, said:

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

QFT.


The media wants us to believe beauty can be defined. I believe it cannot, and that it is subjective. Everyone is beautiful in his or her own way.

Edited by Blaat85, 19 June 2007 - 12:53.

[Dauth]

Alias' statement is correct, however in student areas you can get the phrase, Beauty is in the eye of the beer holder.

Blaat's edit i aslo agree with, because some of the 'beautiful people' in the media i feel have been beaten with an ugly stick, i have had my preferences evolve while in my current relationship. to the point now i only find people with similar shape to my current gf physically attractive whereas before others also interested me.

[AllStarZ]

Blaat85, on 19 Jun 2007, 8:52, said:

Alias, on 19 Jun 2007, 10:09, said:

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

QFT.


The media wants us to believe beauty can be defined. I believe it cannot, and that it is subjective. Everyone is beautiful in his or her own way.

Is a child molester beautiful?

[Golan]

Such things don´t really say something about the outer appearance, now do they?

[Dr HaxX]

AllStarZ, on 19 Jun 2007, 5:50, said:

Just look at someone. If you think they're beautiful, they're beautiful. If you think they're ugly, they're ugly. It has to do with the eye and the mind behind it. Because even the best personality cannot overly compensate for being very ugly.

Lol, that's almost verbatim what I posted, but more succinct. Less words to say pretty much the same thing.

Anyway, I think the women of our forum have spoken it the best out of all of us. Blaat says that there is the media wants us to believe media can be defined, which it can not. EVE says that everyone has a different idea of beauty, and that is what ensures people who don't match "the formula" so to speak, get partners as well.

I think the wisdom and insight in what they have said is honorable.

Edited by Match, 19 June 2007 - 16:18.

[AllStarZ]

Golan, on 19 Jun 2007, 11:35, said:

Such things don´t really say something about the outer appearance, now do they?

Its more or less what you're appealed to by the person's appearance. For example, large boobs are a turn off for me.

[Golan]

I was referring to your "Is a child molester beautiful?" comment... :stickattack3:

[AllStarZ]

Well when she referred to "own way" I took it as "any possible way"

[Whitey]

When it boils down to physical appearance the golden ratio is definitive of beauty, butt it cannot describe emotion and personality, well, I suppose it can, but in that case, the child molester has a far from "golden" personality.

[Sgt. Nuker]

While what I think the term "beauty" means, has already been said, I beleive a person can be beautiful on the inside as well. A person's personality, their demeanor, the way they deal with things, as well as outward appearance (though beauty on the outside is more subjective than anything), can all be considered "beautiful". Beauty, like the feeling of love (not love itself), is one of those human concepts that can not be neatly defined. Beauty truly is in the eye of the beholder and the media can go pound sand. Make-up, plastic surgery, or any form of temporary or man made "beautification" products only mask what truly lies beneath. A person that is content with their true self, is content to let other people see the true them also. If someone finds you ugly, remember there is always another who will find you beautiful.


Regards,

Nuker

[Soul]

Blaat85, on 19 Jun 2007, 8:52, said:

Alias, on 19 Jun 2007, 10:09, said:

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

QFT.


The media wants us to believe beauty can be defined. I believe it cannot, and that it is subjective. Everyone is beautiful in his or her own way.

To bad the whole world doesn't think like that or there won't be so much problems between males and females.

[smooder]

Theres different types. But none is " inside" all outside
there is a difference between beauty and personality.

Beauty is on the outside. Unless its a metaphor.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Alias, on 19 Jun 2007, 8:09, said:

8 words.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

7 words.

The beholder has their back to beauty.

(When I strated this topic I ment physical beauty)

[Whitey]

Physical beauty, in my humble opinion, is thus limited to Phi/The Golden Ratio

[Athena]

My thoughts are that physical beauty is also a personal thing. It's like a painting. Not everyone likes every painting. Likewise a person may be percieved as beautiful by one person but not by another.

Also, inside does play a(n important) part in this. Someone who is an absolute jerk, I won't ever be able to percieve as beautiful. Just my two cents.

[Whitey]

No no no no, you could call the "hottest" guy/girl on Earth beautiful. And it would be true. But they could, in person, be the most evel asshole that ever walked. So how would you know if you never met em? I think that helps to define "physical" because it doesn't take into account personality and whatnot.

Anyway, I have an idea on beauty and the golden ratio and the supposed "depending on perspective" argument.

As studies show, the majority of people would take something featuring the Golden Ratio over something not. This is proven fact I don't recall from where, but it was a question as to which rectangle was the best looking...

That aside, suppose that those that stray from the golden ratio have imperfect minds? And those that would pick it all the time have "perfect" minds? As no mind can be perfect, there is definitely room for the variations. But perhaps the mind can approach perfection in its build down to the cellular structure. Perfection, being defined as the golden ratio. So if all was according to it in the mind and brain, to any extent possible, then the one posessing said mind would see anything outside of the golden ratio as imperfect and always stray toward the golden objects?

Its a tough thing to explain so bear with me will you?

[Athena]

Solo Wing, on 21 Jun 2007, 9:17, said:

No no no no, you could call the "hottest" guy/girl on Earth beautiful. And it would be true. But they could, in person, be the most evel asshole that ever walked. So how would you know if you never met em? I think that helps to define "physical" because it doesn't take into account personality and whatnot.

No, I cannot. Their inside shines through their outside and if I know someone to be a complete jerk, then I'll never think of them as beautiful. A stranger can never be as beautiful to me as can be a loved one or a friend.

Also, some people find other things "hot" than others. Some people like blonde hair, others brown. And so on. There really is no person who is to be percieved beautiful by every other individual walking around on this planet. And there doesn't have to be.

Solo Wing, on 21 Jun 2007, 9:17, said:

Anyway, I have an idea on beauty and the golden ratio and the supposed "depending on perspective" argument.

As studies show, the majority of people would take something featuring the Golden Ratio over something not. This is proven fact I don't recall from where, but it was a question as to which rectangle was the best looking...

I'd like to see a source. For me, personally, I don't believe in this at all.

Solo Wing, on 21 Jun 2007, 9:17, said:

That aside, suppose that those that stray from the golden ratio have imperfect minds? And those that would pick it all the time have "perfect" minds? As no mind can be perfect, there is definitely room for the variations. But perhaps the mind can approach perfection in its build down to the cellular structure. Perfection, being defined as the golden ratio. So if all was according to it in the mind and brain, to any extent possible, then the one posessing said mind would see anything outside of the golden ratio as imperfect and always stray toward the golden objects?

I do not believe this golden ratio whatever it is, to be perfect. There is no such thing as a perfect mind or a perfect personality (or a perfect human), and it is not definable either.

Solo Wing, on 21 Jun 2007, 9:17, said:

Its a tough thing to explain so bear with me will you?

I'm unsure what or who this is referring to exactly. If you want to explain more, or cite more sources, go ahead and I will take a look at it.


I personally do not believe in what the media and the beauty industry want us to believe. That people somehow are "not beautiful" without their stupid products. Which is complete utter bullshit. This is something I recently have been thinking a lot about. Some people may not have any idea of the pressure a person is going through, of the pressure that society, the media and the beauty industry put on this person.

[Nerdsturm]

The definition of beauty is as subjective as who sees who as beautiful, but to me it's a definite physical thing, and some people are undeniably more beautiful than others. However, beauty and attractiveness are different, and I've met plenty of women who are pretty but also completely repulsive. The importance of beauty does tend to be exaggerated. Being a guy, I must say I've never felt much pressure to be beautiful, but honestly I can't usually even tell the difference when girls are and aren't wearing makeup and the like. I'm guessing that any relation the golden rule has to the human perception of beauty is just coincidental.