# A beautiful (wo)man in your country?



## meeryanah

Hello everyone!
I was just wondering, as the title sasy, what would be a beautiful man or a woman in your country.
I'm aware that different people have different tastes, but in general, what would you say?
Do men need to have muscles and do women need to be thin with big breasts, to be atractive to a wider number of people?


----------



## Macunaíma

I think that's more of a matter of individual taste. One thing I can say for sure, though: most Brazilian men don't find the beauty standard of Brazilian supermodels (who are sometimes more famous abroad than here) exactly attactive. The much-hyped Gisele Bündchen and other "Victoria's Secret's angles", although all of them beautiful, don't conform to our general idea of feminine beauty. They cater for a foreign audience, as it were.
If I were to outline the features of a Brazilian Beauty (as seen by a Brazilian man), she would have slim waist, wide hips (in short: hourglass figure), long hair, she would be shorter-than-me (although I like girls who are taller than me...or shorter than me), a sun-tanned skin and, most important, a beautiful and easy smile (not the _blasé_ attitude of fashion models, definitely). Of course there are HUGE variations. I'm sticking to a rather vague model, or stereotype, if you like.

To the best of my knowledge, there's no such thing as beautiful men in Brazil _except perhaps for myself  

But most people (especially _intelligent people_) attach the concept of beauty to more than just looks _personality plays the decisive role. Being beautiful means to be yourself, which means: being unique, being valuable. Nothing is more depressing than girls/boys trying to put on an image (looks and attitude) copied from fashion magazines, the media, etc. Being beautiful is about being self-confident, happy, good-humoured... you see, beauty in another individual is something impossible to describe objectively, because it's all about how YOU feel towards them. There's no describing it in a collective scale, I guess. Just think of the millions of girls who differ from the beauty standard chosen on a whim by an influent editor of a fashion magazine and the millions of boys who find them beautiful and fall in love for them all the same...

.


----------



## Joca

Macunaíma said:


> ...
> To the best of my knowledge, there's no such thing as beautiful men in Brazil _except perhaps for myself
> 
> ...


 
Hi Meeryanah, hi Macunaíma:

I agree with most of what you say, Macunaíma. But are you sure the word "beautiful" can really be applied to a man? Don't you say *a handsome man* rather than a beautiful man? 

For me, personally, beauty has to do not only with body and face, but also with behaviour and voice. I can't say a woman is beautiful or a man is handsome until I hear them say/utter something. 

JC


----------



## badgrammar

have you ever seen a beautiful man/woman somwhere...  the most beautiful of them all... And then you talk to them, and...  The bubble is burst?  

Have you ever seen someone who is not remarkable by their physical beauty... And then you begin talking to them?  And you notice the sparkle in their eyes, their smile, their personnality, the way they move, their hands, their neck, their...?  And then they become so irresistably attractive, so-die-for sexy, that you could not imagine a greater beauty?

Women are pretty, men are handsome... Both sexes are beautiful!


----------



## Joca

badgrammar said:


> have you ever seen a beautiful man/woman somwhere... the most beautiful of them all... And then you talk to them, and... The bubble is burst?
> 
> Have you ever seen someone who is not remarkable by their physical beauty... And then you begin talking to them? And you notice the sparkle in their eyes, their smile, their personnality, the way they move, their hands, their neck, their...? And then they become so irresistably attractive, so-die-for sexy, that you could not imagine a greater beauty?
> 
> Women are pretty, men are handsome... Both sexes are beautiful!


 
This is a great post. Thanks.


----------



## badgrammar

Thank, you, joca...  As they say, and it is always as true: Beauty is in the eye of the beholder..; and beauty is as beauty does !


----------



## Joca

badgrammar said:


> Thank, you, joca... As they say, and it is always as true: Beauty is in the eye of the beholder..; and beauty is as beauty does !


 
Or again: Beauty is only skin-deep.

Merci encore. Au revoir.

JC


----------



## TRG

There has been some research done and published in the matter of facial attractiveness. It's been some time since I read about it, and I didn't find anything in making a quick internet search. As I recall the study found that faces that were very symmetrical were the most attractive across racial groups and cultures. I believe they even tested infants to see what kinds of faces infants responded best to and found the same results. I could be off on some of this, but that's what I recall.


----------



## badgrammar

Absolutely, TRG, I have read the same studies.  Also, men seem fatally attracted to female measurements that represent an hourglass shape - breasts and hips roughly equal, with a slender waist.

But I find that most of these paramaters find their excpetion, because while it's nice to look at someone like that, spending and investing a lifetime with them is quite another story!


----------



## SwissPete

Joca said:


> For me, personally, beauty has to do not only with body and face, but also with behaviour and voice.
> 
> JC


... and attitude!


----------



## TRG

badgrammar said:


> Absolutely, TRG, I have read the same studies. Also, men seem fatally attracted to female measurements that represent an hourglass shape - breasts and hips roughly equal, with a slender waist.
> 
> But I find that most of these paramaters find their excpetion, because while it's nice to look at someone like that, spending and investing a lifetime with them is quite another story!


 
As the song says, "If you want to be happy for the rest of your life, make an ugly woman your wife."


----------



## danielfranco

What the studies show, in broad generalization, is that men are attracted to a specific ratio in the female body's proportions. This ratio seems to be hard-wired into our procreation instincts. This ratio seems to be a fairly good indication of how fertile the female in question is. And no matter how skinny or how voluptuous the woman in question is, if her body measurments fit the golden ratio, she will be absolutely desirable.

Ah, but we like to believe we have left behind our animal selves and are rational creatures, no?

No such luck...


----------



## faranji

Mauritania seems to be one of the exceptions that prove such golden rule:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3429903.stm


----------



## Joca

danielfranco said:


> What the studies show, in broad generalization, is that men are attracted to a specific ratio in the female body's proportions. This ratio seems to be hard-wired into our procreation instincts. This ratio seems to be a fairly good indication of how fertile the female in question is. And no matter how skinny or how voluptuous the woman in question is, if her body measurments fit the golden ratio, she will be absolutely desirable.
> 
> Ah, but we like to believe we have left behind our animal selves and are rational creatures, no?
> 
> No such luck...


 
I'm typing this again in bold: *Ah, but we like to believe we have left behind our animal selves and are rational creatures, no?*

We haven't. I agree that a great deal of our choices are still based upon instinct, but it seems that at the same time, as we grow in age, we also gradually move beyond instinct. Actually it seems our choices are based upon a mixture of instinct and reason (memories, past experiences, whatever it is). Maybe as we get older we eventually learn that the final, decisive chemistry is relationship.


----------



## Etcetera

meeryanah said:


> I was just wondering, as the title sasy, what would be a beautiful man or a woman in your country.
> I'm aware that different people have different tastes, but in general, what would you say?
> Do men need to have muscles and do women need to be thin with big breasts, to be atractive to a wider number of people?


Last summer most girls here were swooning about Orlando Bloom. Two years ago it was Hayden Christensen and nine years ago - Leonardo Di Caprio (I still remember the Titanic craze). I sometimes have the suspicion that the standard of beauty depends on what's going in the cinema at the moment. 
And speaking seriously, I wholeheartedly agree with Badgrammar and others. Beauty is only skin-deep.


----------



## badgrammar

And we also have different hard-wired (innate) imperatives at different ages.  Young males are hardwired to procreate and therefore are especially (but not uniquely) attracted to young females who present all the signs of being fertile:  Breasts, healthy hair, "child-bearing" hips (generous hips), rosy lips and cheeks.  And this because biologically speaking, women presenting these features will be able to pop out babies, survive childbirth, and be able to nourish their offspring at their breast.

Obviously these are things that function at a subconscious level.  But they do describe why certain physical traits attract the boys like flies .

But going beyond that, different cultures may prefer more or less flesh on the bones, and there is also, unfortunately but quite often, a preference for lighter skin tones and blue/green eyes.  I think that may be more linked to the (increasing) rarity of those traits more than to a biological imperative.

Oh, and, as you get older, that drive to procreate (and testosterone levels in men and the arrival of menopause in women) tends to subside, and you become, finally, a little more intelligent about life and what is most important in attraction to someone else.  Which is great, because ideally that means you and the Mrs. have made your babies and are now starting to get older, gracefully and gratefully.


----------



## jonquiliser

I can't believe my eyes when I read some posts!! It seems so obvious that the type of studies published on a regular basis, about "what features are attractive", are just ideological, nonsensical, utterly confused and blatantly disgusting, among some of their attributes; in other words, they are utter rubbish elevated to the status of "science" (not that the rest of science is always that much better..), and people take it seriously! I mean, do you believe yourselves? It should be equally obvious how beauty ideals change, and have changed, throughout history, and how stereotypes and "beauty" are used to oppress, to discriminate, to make divisions between people where none really are, to objectify people. And above all, these fricking freaky ideas about "beauty" as some sort of objective property. I am appalled, to say it diplomatically. Beauty is perhaps in the eye of the beholder, but I think it is more to the point to say that beauty is in love. When one is able to look at people in love, taking them seriously for the persons they are, beauty sparkles all over their being. I think badgrammar said it quite nicely.

Golden ratios and their like sound fascist to my ears.


----------



## jonquiliser

badgrammar said:


> And we also have different hard-wired (innate) imperatives at different ages.  Young males are hardwired to procreate and therefore are especially (but not uniquely) attracted to young females who present all the signs of being fertile:  Breasts, healthy hair, "child-bearing" hips (generous hips), rosy lips and cheeks.  And this because biologically speaking, women presenting these features will be able to pop out babies, survive childbirth, and be able to nourish their offspring at their breast.
> 
> Obviously these are things that function at a subconscious level.  But they do describe why certain physical traits attract the boys like flies .


I don't think there's hard-wiring to account for that, the ideological drive of our societ(ies) to drive home that point over and over again, makes people end up just as stupid as that. And stupid is what it is, nothing more or less.


----------



## Joca

jonquiliser said:


> ...
> Golden ratios and their like sound fascist to my ears.


 
I'll take you at your word here. These things annoy me, too, but I am afraid there's also something very physical in our movement towards other people. If it is about beauty, scent, colour, voice, whatever, I don't know, but I know there is. And usually young people are more subject to these forces than the old. We [the old, not including you, by the way] can resort to different strategies. 

JC


----------



## badgrammar

Jonquiliser, I understand that you don't agree with much of what has been said here.  In an ideal world, I don't either.  In an ideal world, people look straight into other peoples' hearts and love intellectually before loving physically, and attraction is solely based on non-physical attributes.  

But human beings are animals, and like any animal, they are driven by certain biological imperatives.  One of which is reproduction.  And the manner in which human beings, like other species, evolved to choose their mates involves a lot of visual criteria, whether this pleases us or not.  And in women, external signs of fertility and the ability to bear children are right up there.  We can obviously, as thinking human beings, get around this, thank your deity of choice.  But it is there. 

I don't believe that all studies refered to above are the product of pseudo-science or of some ideological agenda put forth by society.  There have been some excellent and highly scientific studies on such matters, as they are questions of great interest.  

I believe we are absolutely genetically pre-disposed to some behaviors.  There are things that men and women are "hard-wired" to do.  Were there not, the human race, like any other, would have died out long ago.


----------



## jonquiliser

Joca and badgrammar:

The curious thing, then, would be how these "facts" of "hard-wiring" in us are to be established? How can we, as it were, disconnect us from the ideological surrounding in which we exist, to determine what lies "underneath" or "behind" what we do and think and say? How are we to make sense of the fact that ideals change? Is it that fertility changes at the same time? And what says that "big boobs" or "hourglass shape" or some other stereotype of "beauty" make women more fertile?? Big breasts can be difficult to live with, so go figure. Neither does a big cock, the fancy fantasy of all men, if some sources are to be taken seriously, make a man more fertile. (Though, curiously, it is usually women's fertility that comes up for discussion. Wonder why  ) And what does fertility have to do with it all? Not even the most hardcore sociobiologist can make a coherent, convincing claim for the importance of fertility *as such* in biological evolution. 

I don't deny that we are physical beings, and it is NOT in my ideal vision of society and human life, that we "appreciate each other for non-physical traits alone". "I love you for your soul and mind, not your body", certainly doesn't sound flattering to me, and even less is it an expression of love (what it does express, I would rather not even think about). What I am saying is instead, that love SEES beauty, and I cannot stress this enough. Can you genuinly say you love a person, yet at the same time think of him or her as ugly? I simply think it is impossible, unless that love in question is utterly weird and non-loving. The physical dimension of our lives is obviously important, we are bodies, in a sense of saying it, as the beings we are we relate to others and their and our bodies are always involved. That is true for any age. 

And no, I am not one of those people you seem to want to refer to, "young people not yet wise enough to see other things than certain golden ratios" and other nonsensicalities. 

I may sound harsh, and I honestly apologise, but I am genuinly offended, saddened and upset that people take to heart such twisted ideas of seeing others.


----------



## TRG

badgrammar said:


> Jonquiliser, I understand that you don't agree with much of what has been said here. In an ideal world, I don't either. In an ideal world, people look straight into other peoples' hearts and love intellectually before loving physically, and attraction is solely based on non-physical attributes.
> 
> But human beings are animals, and like any animal, they are driven by certain biological imperatives. One of which is reproduction. And the manner in which human beings, like other species, evolved to choose their mates involves a lot of visual criteria, whether this pleases us or not. And in women, external signs of fertility and the ability to bear children are right up there. We can obviously, as thinking human beings, get around this, thank your deity of choice. But it is there.
> 
> I don't believe that all studies refered to above are the product of pseudo-science or of some ideological agenda put forth by society. There have been some excellent and highly scientific studies on such matters, as they are questions of great interest.
> 
> I believe we are absolutely genetically pre-disposed to some behaviors. There are things that men and women are "hard-wired" to do. Were there not, the human race, like any other, would have died out long ago.


 
I concur with the above comments. I also think that to wonder why we are the way we are is only normal and that people should subject this to scientific scrutiny or academic study is perfectly natural. It is a question for which there may never be a complete answer, but that doesn't mean that people should not want to find out. I have my own theory which is that physical attraction is the exact opposite of magnetic attraction where opposites attract. In humans physical attraction is often towards people that we resemble. I am often struck by the extent to which couples resemble one another as if they could be siblings. I'm sure this has been studied as well. Perhaps someone knows.


----------



## HistofEng

Even babies (from all over the world) tend to stare at symetrical faces (beauty) more than unsymetrical faces.

To me, the fact that newborn babies stare at faces in general more intensely than any other object in the world means that what we are "drawn to" has a deep biological basis.

I don't see how anyone can deny this.


----------



## Joca

jonquiliser said:


> Joca and badgrammar:
> 
> ... (snip)...
> 
> And no, I am not one of those people you seem to want to refer to, "young people not yet wise enough to see other things than certain golden ratios" and other nonsensicalities.
> 
> I may sound harsh, and I honestly apologise, but I am genuinly offended, saddened and upset that people take to heart such twisted ideas of seeing others.


 
Well, I want to apologize to you if I have inadvertently offended you by means of any of my personal hunches. I don't think I have a distorted view of youth. Not even all young people hold the same values, you know. This is just a discussion, not a competition, not an attack, we are just exposing our opinions, and as far as I am concerned, I am not trying to label anyone whomsoever. I can only talk of my own experience: when I was young, beauty was more important for me than it is now, maybe never so important as it was to most guys the same age, but it was. Now I try to look deeper. Or in other words, beauty for me is not ONLY on your surface, but also (and mainly) in the way you relate to other people and move about in your own life. But I will never attempt to deny the biological forces that are still in force in us, to different degrees.

JC


----------



## maxiogee

Around here, from my observation of the species, I can state categorically that a heartbeat and a few limbs are all that seem to matter. All sorts of shapes and sizes seem to register with _someone_! 

There is a sort of beauty/talent pagent here called The Rose of Tralee. Named after a beautiful woman in a well-known Irish song, the competition is held annually in the town of Tralee. It is open to women which some Irish heritage, from anywhere in the world. The only way to enter is through a locally held eliminator and the winner of that is deemed to be the "London Rose" or the "New York Rose". Every year there are about 30 or 40 contestants and there is a wide variety of looks and personalities among them. The public rarely seem to agree on which is most likely to win.


----------



## caballoschica

meeryanah said:


> Hello everyone!
> I was just wondering, as the title sasy, what would be a beautiful man or a woman in your country.
> I'm aware that different people have different tastes, but in general, what would you say?
> Do men need to have muscles and do women need to be thin with big breasts, to be atractive to a wider number of people?



I believe there are types of answers to this question:

Society's version of a beautiful (wo)man: Especially, IMO, for women.  We should be stick thin, blond, etc...  I think this is necessary to point out because there is so much societal pressure on women to look a certain way.  But does that really matter in the end?  Probably not, but it certainly makes women do crazy things to look that way or act that way.  Same goes for men, too.  I'm just a female so that's why I'm saying women.  

Individual opinions: this can be anything.


----------



## jonquiliser

Joca said:


> Well, I want to apologize to you if I have inadvertently offended you by means of any of my personal hunches. I don't think I have a distorted view of youth. Not even all young people hold the same values, you know. This is just a discussion, not a competition, not an attack, we are just exposing our opinions, and as far as I am concerned, I am not trying to label anyone whomsoever. I can only talk of my own experience: when I was young, beauty was more important for me than it is now, maybe never so important as it was to most guys the same age, but it was. Now I try to look deeper. Or in other words, beauty for me is not ONLY on your surface, but also (and mainly) in the way you relate to other people and move about in your own life. But I will never attempt to deny the biological forces that are still in force in us, to different degrees.
> 
> JC



Hello Joca, 

my apology was rather about the rest of my message(s), and not about what I said about youth. (I don't count myself in on your desription of youth anyway, and I don't really care what you do chose to think on that, I'll just take you to be wrong if you insist on thinking so of me!) Anyway, I don't really believe your conception of youth is all wrong, I do believe there is much of what you describe around *(though I am not so sure that it is more true of younger people.. I'll abstain from giving examples, for the sake of peace of mind). My desagreement is in the explanation we give for that fact. 

And to that I can add that I don't deny there are "biological forces", as you choose to describe them, in us, what I do deny is that they are what you claim they are. I believe it often works like this: first there is an idea of what those "forces" will be, and then people act out on them. So then, in the doings of people, you will find "evidence" of those forces. But that doesn't mean that the forces are biological, as in "in our genes".  

HistofEng; in no way do I want to deny the importance of the face for the newborn baby!! Of course that is tremendous, and yes, it is related to our condition as "biological beings" (if that is how you wish to put it). But the "symmetry" bit, I toss straight in the bin. I mean, what is it supposed to mean? That babies with parents of "symmetrical facial features" will be happier?!   What can I say, I am lost for words because I simply don't understand what on earth it is supposed to mean.

Regards,
jonqui


----------



## badgrammar

Jonquil, 

I understand your views, but I don't really understand the offence you take at what has been said.  A while back I was involved in another thread about differences between men and women and it got rather heated, because I maintained that we have a lot of differences, aside from our genitalia, and another poster (or two) thought this was an awful thing to say, and believed that to be totally unfounded.  

I guess I don't think that recognition of the biological differences between the sexes means that someone can then say "So, you see, women are better than men" or vice versa.  In the same light, I don't think that trying to understand the biological and evolutionary basis of mating behavior in the human species is like saying "So see, women with big hips and small waists are superior".  

If I had a little more time here tonight I'd go fishing around the web, and I'm sure I could find lots and lots of decent research (methodologically speaking) that addresses these issues.

You said: "I believe it often works like this: first there is an idea of what those "forces" will be, and then people act out on them. So then, in the doings of people, you will find "evidence" of those forces. But that doesn't mean that the forces are biological, as in "in our genes"."

I don't believe that people behave solely based on sociological formulations - I think with that assertion, you're putting the cart before the horse.  Some things are in our genes, and highly influenced by our hormones (the influence of testosterone on the male brain begins during gestation, and its effects are not only powerful but also well-researched).  

Denying biological predisposition seems silly to me, but to each his own.


----------



## HistofEng

jonquiliser said:


> HistofEng; in no way do I want to deny the importance of the face for the newborn baby!! Of course that is tremendous, and yes, it is related to our condition as "biological beings" (if that is how you wish to put it). But the "symmetry" bit, I toss straight in the bin. I mean, what is it supposed to mean? That babies with parents of "symmetrical facial features" will be happier?!   What can I say, I am lost for words because I simply don't understand what on earth it is supposed to mean.
> 
> Regards,
> jonqui


 
Symmetry is regarded across cultures (and ages, and races, etc, etc....across the board) as the cornerstone of what tends to be considered physically attractive (this is not to say that one cannot be attracted to unsymmetical faces). 

When people are shown photographs of _strangers _and are asked to score them based on their attractiveness, the most symmetrical faces, the waist to hip ratio closest to the golden ratio (which is differenct for men and women), etc are the ones who receive the highest score. And it's the same all around the world.

Of course some cultures like thicker, or bigger women, others like blonde hair, etc, but the waist to hip ratio that is most desired (regardless of size) is the same all over the planet. 

Of course with babies, we can't ask them directly what they consider beautiful, all we can do is observe what objects they spend the most time examining, or how dialated their pupils get when staring at particular objects. What we have found (very much conclusively) is that babies spend much more time gazing faces more than any other object in the world, and furthermore, when presented with the same photographs of strangers, tend to stare at those with more symmetrical faces than the others.

You may say it's a coincidence, but I don't think so, I think that babies (relatively untainted by cultural conditioning) are showing us that there is a basic characteristic of attractiveness that people perceive, in general, and that we are born with.

Maybe it would be better (or maybe you would be more comfortable) if we used the term "attractiveness" rather than "beauty." I can sort of see where you may be coming from. When I see my mom, or some of my friends, I see them as such beautiful people, the way they dress, smile, stand, walk, etc. But I generally don't find them that attractive.


----------



## jonquiliser

badgrammar, I am completely sure too that you can find tons of research on the topic, and it may very well be good or even excellent in terms of methodology. But what's this when the fundamental perspective from which the whole idea of making such research (and why would one, anyway? For whom is it a question "which kind of features are the most beautiful"?? - as if there were such a thing, but anyway) is flawed? The most brilliant and reputable scientists can do the most stupid research. There is nothing in the fact that something has been "investigated scientifically" to warrant that the investigation was good, or even intelligible (unfortunately, one would wish a little more of science). As brief comment, I don't deny biological predispositions, I just don't think that it is always very clear WHAT this are. (The issue of differences I'll just have to skip, it is an interesting issue, that all too often is simplified into unintelligibility, but also a large topic and time is short.. But it doesn't mean I think your remarks are irrelevant or uninteresting!)

And about the symmetry still, HistofEng, I am not convinced by the fact that a baby looks for a longer period of time on a face, that we can thus speak of attraction to that face. And anyway, we aren't "amorphous" creatures, so obviously it "matters" in a way, what we look like. But I think that is a point rather far removed from the one you wish to make..(?) Finally, I don't think the distinction between "culturally conditioned" and "natural" does such a lot of work in making the issue any clearer. Especially, because I wonder what culturally conditioned is supposed to mean at all..? can we imagine a person not "conditioned" (though I wouldn't choose that word, as it seems to be implying something very specific about what culture is, i.e. something that "thwarts" a natural character of sth/smn) by culture, yet being someone who we can at all understand, and who will at all share values we may have?

Unfortunately, as for many here I guess, my time is limited and I can't go any further into this, and we just have to leave it at this disagreement. But I hope I at least made a little clearer what I think and _why_ I see problems in some of the ways of talking about beauty that have come up in this thread.

Regards,


----------



## Cecilio

The first time I heard about beauty connected with symmetry and related issues was in an interview with Karl Grammer I saw on Spanish TV. Karl Grammer is a completely serious scientist who has carried out lots of research in the field of human etyology. And later on I discovered that there are actually a lot of researchers in this field in many universities reaching very clear and scientifically acceptable conclusions like the ones badgrammar was mentioning (by the way, I think your posts in this thread are excellent).

I think Jonquilizer has made a clear mistake by underrating this kind of research and calling it pseudoscience.

My personal opinion about the issue, from my own personal experience and what I have read in books or on the Internet or what I have seen in TV documentaries, is that the patters of human beauty are basically the same for all of us, with little personal or regional variation.


----------



## JazzByChas

Although I am aware of the cultural definition of beauty that is found in a man or woman, I will forego that definition.  Not to say that I don't admire the human form, but real beauty, to quote the cliché, comes from within.  Beauty on the outside can be instantly negated by ugliness on the inside.


----------



## badgrammar

JazzByChas said:


> Although I am aware of the cultural definition of beauty that is found in a man or woman, I will forego that definition.  Not to say that I don't admire the human form, but real beauty, to quote the cliché, comes from within.  Beauty on the outside can be instantly negated by ugliness on the inside.



The extent to which I agree with you cannot be understated!


----------



## Vespasian

jonquiliser said:


> Not even the most hardcore sociobiologist can make a coherent, convincing claim for the importance of fertility *as such* in biological evolution.



You must be kidding. If we don't replicate we will not exist anymore.


----------



## tvdxer

meeryanah said:


> Hello everyone!
> I was just wondering, as the title sasy, what would be a beautiful man or a woman in your country.
> I'm aware that different people have different tastes, but in general, what would you say?
> Do men need to have muscles and do women need to be thin with big breasts, to be atractive to a wider number of people?



The V-shaped torso, as in most cultures, is considered to be an attractive feature of men in American culture.  A good example of a currently popular celebrity considered attractive by American women would be Johnny Depp.

As for American women, I think the "thin with big breasts" thing is still considered attractive, though it's a bit of a cliche and American men are more accepting of non-thin women.  The whole "pencil-thin model" thing has been out for some time and curvier (but not fat) women are being considered more attractive.

The hips thing kind of interests me...American men do not seem to have the same obsession with caderas / cadeiras that Latin men do.  I wonder why this is.


----------



## JazzByChas

Another well made point, BG...as you said in an earlier post, true beauty starts to emanate from within, and the most beautiful person is one with whom you are willing to spend a lifetime, loving (as in the verb, not the "feeling") them through good and bad. This even works with a very close friend. It's sort of like the theory in most dating sites these days: it helps to be attracted to someone with whom you are compatible, and share similar interests.

So, "beauty" is a very subjective thing, but can be measured most effectively in character.



			
				BadGrammar said:
			
		

> But I find that most of these paramaters find their excpetion, because while it's nice to look at someone like that, spending and investing a lifetime with them is quite another story!


----------



## danielfranco

TRG said:


> I concur with the above comments. I also think that to wonder why we are the way we are is only normal and that people should subject this to scientific scrutiny or academic study is perfectly natural. It is a question for which there may never be a complete answer, but that doesn't mean that people should not want to find out. I have my own theory which is that physical attraction is the exact opposite of magnetic attraction where opposites attract. In humans physical attraction is often towards people that we resemble. I am often struck by the extent to which couples resemble one another as if they could be siblings. I'm sure this has been studied as well. Perhaps someone knows.



Well, I wouldn't go as far as to presume that _I know_, but I've read before that the reason why it seems that couples resemble each other is because they spend so much time together. Before very long (I haven't read any figures, but I would expect just a few days are enough), people start adopting each other's mannerisms and body language. Just as with entertainers who "impersonate" celebrities, it's not really a matter of looking very much alike (which is difficult) or sounding exactly alike (which is virtually impossible), but of having similar gestures and speech cadences. But after a while of subconsciously imitating each other's "quirks", facial muscles and other fine-motor control muscles develop similarly and help the observer find those couple remarkably similar in appearance. And, sometimes, even in temperament. I mean, after all, many of our responses to situations are often expressed mainly with body language.

Or something...


----------



## Musical Chairs

How are beauty standards (for men and women) in your country? What traits are considered sexiest in your country (eyes, body, breasts, hair, height, weight, etc.) and why do you think that is?

I've read that in some cultures, being fat (which shows fertility) is considered more beautiful than skinny. Apparently (I don't know if this is a fact), their women are force-fed so they are fatter. However for me, the most beautiful people I have seen are either a little chubby, average, or a little skinny (not TOO skinny). I don't think I could ever consider fatness or extreme thinness a hot trait, and many people in the US agree with me.

I know Asian girls who think some Asian actors are "hot," but when I look at them, I think they look way too feminine. They're also too skinny, too short, and other characteristics I would not consider hot in a man. Asian cultures more often like breasts, but it seems like Western cultures are more often interested in a nice body. Also, they really like manipulating their eyelids so they don't have such Asian eyes, which I think is stupid but understandable.


----------



## faranji

Hi Musical,

I don't know how to link a thread but this topic was already discussed a few weeks ago in a thread named "A beautiful (wo)man in your country". You may want to look for it.


MODERATOR EDIT:

The 2 threads have now been merged. Thank you.


----------



## .   1

Musical Chairs said:


> How are beauty standards (for men and women) in your country? What traits are considered sexiest in your country (eyes, body, breasts, hair, height, weight, etc.) and why do you think that is?


Eyes first with daylight second and then body.
Height, weight, shape, hair, teeth, colour, etcetera are irrelevent as long as you have an assortment that is basically symmetrical.
Extreme thinness is considered odd and therefore unattraactive.
Extreme fatness is considered odd and therefore unattractive.
Extreme beauty is considered odd and therefore unattractive.

Beauty in all cultures is based on symmetry.  Nothing more.



Musical Chairs said:


> I've read that in some cultures, being fat (which shows fertility) is considered more beautiful than skinny.


Possibly.  It sounds logical.
Which cultures?




Musical Chairs said:


> Apparently (I don't know if this is a fact), their women are force-fed so they are fatter.


I am actually quite looking forward to the response of a person with more than a passing interest in equality to examine this clanger!
Their women indeed!
You sound like you are discussing geese having food crammed down their gullet through a funnel held in the paws of a grimy peasant who owns his wife as a chattel.
This should be interesting.




Musical Chairs said:


> However for me, the most beautiful people I have seen are either a little chubby, average, or a little skinny (not TOO skinny). I don't think I could ever consider fatness or extreme thinness a hot trait, and many people in the US agree with me.


No great insight here!



Musical Chairs said:


> I know Asian girls who think some Asian actors are "hot," but when I look at them, I think they look way too feminine. They're also too skinny, too short, and other characteristics I would not consider hot in a man. Asian cultures more often like breasts, but it seems like Western cultures are more often interested in a nice body. Also, they really like manipulating their eyelids so they don't have such Asian eyes, which I think is stupid but understandable.


You must be kidding.  Introduce me to a bloke who doesn't like breasts and I'll shake hands with a homosexual.

My opinion is that this question is based on observation gleaned from television and movies not reality.

.,,


----------



## Musical Chairs

. said:


> You must be kidding.  Introduce me to a bloke who doesn't like breasts and I'll shake hands with a homosexual.



I should've said BIG breasts in the post. I'm pretty sure the LIKE breasts but most guys I know say that they don't really care how big breasts are as long as there is at least a handful each and are nicely shaped. And a lot of them say they think butt / toned body is a better turn-on.

I'll come back to this after I've read the other thread.


----------



## faranji

> I am actually quite looking forward to the response of a person with more than a passing interest in equality to examine this clanger!
> Their women indeed!


 
It's Mauritania, dear Robert.


----------



## Macunaíma

Gilberto Freyre in _Casa Grande & Senzala_ (_Master & Slaves_, in the English translation) explored the theme of how the beauty pattern for women evolved in Brazil since colonial times. Until the beginning of the XIX century, when the Portuguese royal family moved to Rio de Janeiro and Brazil began to have contact with modern Europe (until then the Brazilian ports had been closed to foreign ships and only a few non-Portuguese Europeans were allowed to live or stay here) the beauty standard was that of a fat woman with large breasts and wide hips. Gilberto cited many renowned anthropologists who ascribed that specific pattern of feminine beauty to the fact that in patriarchal cultures, as was the case in Brazil, they tend to seek as much differenciation between masculine and feminine body shapes as possible, having the Brazilians of the colonial times, according to Freyre, inherited their preference for fat women from the Moors (Islamic people who lived in the south of Spain and Portugal from the VIIIth to the XVth century) through the Portuguese. Perhaps the patriarchy in Mauritania helps explain why women are force-fed there to conform to their beaty standard.

.


----------



## maxiogee

Musical Chairs said:


> How are beauty standards (for men and women) in your country?



Slipping, it would appear.
What passes for beauty nowadays wouldn't have made the grade forty years ago.


----------



## .   1

Musical Chairs said:


> I should've said BIG breasts in the post. I'm pretty sure the LIKE breasts but most guys I know say that they don't really care how big breasts are as long as there is at least a handful each and are nicely shaped. And a lot of them say they think butt / toned body is a better turn-on.


Yes. That would have been better. Now there is another alienated group.
You have been hanging around with the wrong mob.
Big tits, small tits, big bum, small bum, tall, short, thin fat, blond, brunette, redhead, long legs, long body it's all tosh.

EVERY professional photograph you see of a professional model has been airbrushed to within a picometre of reality.
The whites of the eyes are whitened.
The teeth have been whitened.
The waist has been narrowed.
The thighs have been thinned.
Sometimes the whole photo is stretched to make her look taller and thinner.
Every skin mark is removed.
The pupils are enlarged.
The whole eye is enlarged.
Tits are pumped up or deflated depending upon the situation.
By the end you may as well be ogling a cartoon.

Fashion models are actually freaks or mutants, depends on which word you think suits.
They comprise such a tiny percentage of the population that they qualify as freaks on a mathematical basis.
There are more people with Downs Syndrome or Autism or Aspberger's Syndrome than are fashion models.
Most suffer stupifying health problems as they age and most never reproduce. If you were considering buying a dog these are attributes that you would steer well clear of.

Movies and magazines sell fantasy.

Stop looking at a girl's tits and ask her a few questions about herself. You may be fascinated and she may decide that she wants you to have a look and that is completely different and enormously more fun for all concerned rather than you just copping a quick perve.

.,,


----------



## Joca

Musical Chairs said:


> How are beauty standards (for men and women) in your country? What traits are considered sexiest in your country (eyes, body, breasts, hair, height, weight, etc.) and why do you think that is?
> 
> I've read that in some cultures, being fat (which shows fertility) is considered more beautiful than skinny. Apparently (I don't know if this is a fact), their women are force-fed so they are fatter. However for me, the most beautiful people I have seen are either a little chubby, average, or a little skinny (not TOO skinny). I don't think I could ever consider fatness or extreme thinness a hot trait, and many people in the US agree with me.
> 
> I know Asian girls who think some Asian actors are "hot," but when I look at them, I think they look way too feminine. They're also too skinny, too short, and other characteristics I would not consider hot in a man. Asian cultures more often like breasts, but it seems like Western cultures are more often interested in a nice body. Also, they really like manipulating their eyelids so they don't have such Asian eyes, which I think is stupid but understandable.


 
Ok. Even though Brazil is a very large country comprising so many different races and peoples, it is possible to draw a list of our favourite beauty standards. I would risk this one:

1. Tanned skin.
2. Brown or dark hair (especially for a man).
3. Curves for a woman (buttocks in particular).
4. Shoulders for a man.
5. Your gait, that is, the way you walk. This is especially important for a woman.

JC


----------



## alexacohen

Beauty is only skin deep. Ugly goes to the bone.
Alexa


----------



## maxiogee

alexacohen said:


> Ugly goes to the bone.



It may do, but it comes out in the mouth and the actions.

I've known some very pretty/handsome people who were ugly deep inside.


----------



## jonquiliser

There's a watertight formula for beauty: first of all, when it comes to women, charming, flattering, bootlicking to men - anything that boosts the male ego will rake in extra points in the game of determining what constitutes beauty. 

Men should try to be bossy, dominating, compete among themselves - that increases social status and thus attractiveness. 

If you can, the best to go with this is to formulate your own scientific theory that supports whatever you find appropriate. Among the essential ingredients we have all things evolutionary - no theory is complete without its evolutionary references. (Someone is so pretty to you when they smile? Then you could say that plentyful smiling improves the quality of ova or sperm, respectively. Simply choose explanation after your liking). For good measure, and for your theory not to seem too alienated, do throw in a few psychologising elements as well. Or better yet, combine the psycho with evo, and you're bound to succeed.

I venture to say you'll hit the charts with this lil' pearl anywhere. People like 'explanations'.


----------



## maxiogee

jonquiliser said:


> There's a watertight formula for beauty: first of all, when it comes to women, charming, flattering, bootlicking to men - anything that boosts the male ego will rake in extra points in the game of determining what constitutes beauty.
> 
> Men should try to be bossy, dominating, compete among themselves - that increases social status and thus attractiveness.
> 
> If you can, the best to go with this is to formulate your own scientific theory that supports whatever you find appropriate. Among the essential ingredients we have all things evolutionary - no theory is complete without its evolutionary references. (Someone is so pretty to you when they smile? Then you could say that plentyful smiling improves the quality of ova or sperm, respectively. Simply choose explanation after your liking). For good measure, and for your theory not to seem too alienated, do throw in a few psychologising elements as well. Or better yet, combine the psycho with evo, and you're bound to succeed.
> 
> I venture to say you'll hit the charts with this lil' pearl anywhere. People like 'explanations'.



Are we talking about 'beauty' or 'attractive' here. There's a huge difference.
No one would call me handsome or beautiful, but my wife obviously saw something which attracted her.
One can look at someone and see their beauty without wanting to have babies with them, or even have a relationship with them.


----------



## jonquiliser

Well, I don't know if there's such a big difference between beauty and attractiveness (I'm sure your wife can call you both beautiful and handsome. Why on earth couldn't she?!). I don't know if it has any sense at all to talk about "beauty" abstractly, as some sort of "component" of the universe, just there. I'd say beauty is, in a very real sense, in the eye of the beholder. 

Oh, and if it wasn't obvious, I am not myself committed to the formula I have developed for research on beauty. But I do have a patent pending.


----------



## Joca

jonquiliser said:


> Well, I don't know if there's such a big difference between beauty and attractiveness ...


 
I am struggling with concepts and words now. 

I think there is a difference between beauty and attractiveness, but it is probably hard to pinpoint it. As Jonquiliser puts it, in the long run, beauty is something subjective (in the eyes of the beholder), but not entirely. Deny it as we may, people also share a lot of objective standards and tastes in terms of beauty. 

Now, if you find someone beautiful (or handsome), it's my belief that they will very probably attract you. This could be called objective attractiveness. On the other hand, you can also be attracted to someone who doesn't look particularly beautiful (or handsome) to you. In this case, there is possibly a fleeting link to a past good emotion that triggers your present interest. This could be called subjective attractiveness. (Or is it the other way round?)

Maybe, then, attractiveness is something more complex and bigger than beauty. Beauty generates attraction, but not all attraction hinges on beauty. Perhaps attractiveness hinges on beauty plus memories. Beauty engages you, but not all that engages you is beauty.

Now I am giving up. If this isn't hopelessly off-topic and pointless, maybe someone else will want to connect these loose ends. 

JC


----------



## ireney

I beg to differ. I find many women beautiful and a pleasure to look at but I am not attracted to them. I've seen many handsome men too but I have felt an attraction for only a small fraction of them.

And jonquiliser I can sing my boyfriend's praises all day long but I wouldn't call him handsome although I am really attracted to him. I sure hope he can return the compliment but I do know that he wouldn't call me beautiful


----------



## Joca

ireney said:


> I beg to differ. I find many women beautiful and a pleasure to look at but I am not attracted to them. ...


 
I am just thinking aloud. Maybe that is not _sexual_ attraction, but I don't know why it could not be attraction since it is a pleasure to look.


----------



## .   1

jonquiliser said:


> There's a watertight formula for beauty: first of all, when it comes to women, charming, flattering, bootlicking to men - anything that boosts the male ego will rake in extra points in the game of determining what constitutes beauty.


That is narrow minded sexist tosh.
I won't talk politely to lickspittles much less desire to bed them!
Blokes aren't all idiots.  Paris Hilton may appeal to something but I am nothing like that something.



jonquiliser said:


> Men should try to be bossy, dominating, compete among themselves - that increases social status and thus attractiveness.


Yeah, funny joke.
How many successful relationships are you baseing this base theory on?



jonquiliser said:


> If you can, the best to go with this is to formulate your own scientific theory that supports whatever you find appropriate. Among the essential ingredients we have all things evolutionary - no theory is complete without its evolutionary references. (Someone is so pretty to you when they smile? Then you could say that plentyful smiling improves the quality of ova or sperm, respectively. Simply choose explanation after your liking). For good measure, and for your theory not to seem too alienated, do throw in a few psychologising elements as well. Or better yet, combine the psycho with evo, and you're bound to succeed.


Evolution is no theory.
Yes it is true that smiling improves the sperm and ova.
New Scientist Magazine, among others, recently revealed that people who regularly engage in unprotected intercourse derive significant health benefits.  This boosts the auto immune system which fights infection and the effects of stress which in turn improves the quality of the sperm and ova.
It is my theory that people who smile at each other more often also go to where two may go but none go alone far more often than scowling naysayers



jonquiliser said:


> I venture to say you'll hit the charts with this lil' pearl anywhere. People like 'explanations'.


Some pearls are cast before a sow's ear and no amount of theorising can make them silky.

.,,


----------



## .   1

Joca said:


> I am just thinking aloud. Maybe that is not _sexual_ attraction, but I don't know why it could not be attraction since it is a pleasure to look.


I find it pleasureable to look at a Greek statue but I just can't figure out how to have sex with a stone.
We have evolved to find the human form attractive.
Carl Lewis has a gorgeous body.
Matt Damon is a walking work of art.
Leonardo DiCaprio is ethereally beautiful and could be the subject of a Kate Bush lament.
I was once out walking in the city and say a bloke running for exercise and his running style was so smooth and feline that I ran behind him for about three kilometres just admiring his action. The amazing flow of his back and shoulder muscles was mesmerising.
None of the above caused anything in me to stir much less shake.

.,,


----------



## alexacohen

. said:


> I find it pleasureable to look at a Greek statue but I just can't figure out how to have sex with a stone.
> We have evolved to find the human form attractive.
> Carl Lewis has a gorgeous body.
> Matt Damon is a walking work of art.
> Leonardo DiCaprio is ethereally beautiful


Ahem... Robert... I can find beauty in a Greek Statue too... but as for real men, these three you mention don't mean anything to me.
I'd rather have as boyfriend...................... SHREK....
Much uglier, but much, much more interesting to live with!
Aftel all, what could anyone do with a beautiful face if there is no more than the beautiful face?
Alexa


----------



## faranji

A Brazilian view:

_I apologize to real ugly women, but Beauty is essential_

(Vinícius de Moraes)


----------



## faranji

alexacohen said:


> Ahem... Robert... I can find beauty in a Greek Statue too... but as for real men, these three you mention don't mean anything to me.
> I'd rather have as boyfriend...................... SHREK....
> Much uglier, but much, much more interesting to live with!
> Aftel all, what could anyone do with a beautiful face if there is no more than the beautiful face?
> Alexa


 
This reminds me of something that has always puzzled me in a way. Ugly men who are charismatic, amusing and confident can get pretty beautiful women. Why doesn't it happen contrariwise?


----------



## jonquiliser

Joca said:


> I think there is a difference between beauty and attractiveness, but it is probably hard to pinpoint it. As Jonquiliser puts it, in the long run, beauty is something subjective (in the eyes of the beholder), but not entirely. Deny it as we may, people also share a lot of objective standards and tastes in terms of beauty.





ireney said:


> And jonquiliser I can sing my boyfriend's praises all day long but I wouldn't call him handsome although I am really attracted to him. I sure hope he can return the compliment but I do know that he wouldn't call me beautiful



I still think it a very weird idea that beauty would be in some way objective, something that couldn't be said about anybody but only about certain people. I couldn't say that people I find beautiful are beautiful because they don't conform to certain social ideas about beauty?


----------



## Joca

faranji said:


> A Brazilian view:
> 
> _I apologize to real ugly women, but Beauty is essential_
> 
> (Vinícius de Moraes)


 
I know one better than that one:

"Quem ama o feio, é porque bonito lhe parece."

Tentative translation: "He who loves the ugly, does so because it looks beautiful to him."

JC


----------



## alexacohen

It's lovely, Joca.
Alexa


----------



## .   1

faranji said:


> This reminds me of something that has always puzzled me in a way. Ugly men who are charismatic, amusing and confident can get pretty beautiful women. Why doesn't it happen contrariwise?


It happens all the time.
Cleopatra of The Nile is often quoted as being one of the most desireable women who has ever lived.
She is described variously as being short, squat, dumpy, thick limbed, bad hair and with a boat race that looked like The Sydney to Hobart Disaster.
All in all as ugly as a hatful of busted bums.
Her beauty was obviously internal.

Barbra Streisand looks deformed in full profile or stark full frontal closeup.  She is a Monet.  Rough up close but gorgeous in full splendour and when she opens her mouth to let her lungs out then you know you are looking at one of the most beautiful women who has ever lived.

Anjelica Huston is nothing if she is not an oil painting but she is hardly classically beautiful.

People are more than magazine covers and toothpaste commercials.

.,,


----------



## Joca

jonquiliser said:


> .,,,
> 
> I thought it would have been obvious that I was taking the urine out of some ideas, quite widespread I dare say, about how "men" and "women" should be. I do not believe that all men and women are like that. I do believe that there are those who take such stereotypes ("ideals") to heart, trying to adapt to certain roles. Or expect others to fit into the ideals.
> 
> I do not, and did not, wish to cause offence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I still think it a very weird idea that beauty would be in some way objective, something that couldn't be said about anybody but only about certain people. I couldn't say that people I find beautiful are beautiful because they don't conform to certain social ideas about beauty?


 
Hi Jonquiliser:

I know that you are not talking to me, or at least not only to me, but I want to say something. Actually, it is very difficult to find the solution to this riddle (in blue), but I would venture to say that you are probably confusing beauty and your feelings about beauty.

I know, I know, it didn't help much, but again: if at least two persons find someone else beautiful, isn't this the beginning of objectivity?

To me, you aren't causing offence in any way. I really do appreciate your patience.

JC


----------



## ireney

Joca which two persons? I remember seeing a documentary about Bushmen and they find the quite beautiful tall, blond female of the shooting group quite ugly (and,as one said, not marriagable since it'd be a bother to find tnough food to feed such a tall woman). So, we have to male Bushmen discussing what is "objectively" beautiful to them. Then we get two modern Europeans. Then we use our time machine and get  two European of any past century you wish. And two males from Hawai in the last century who liked (as I've read) their women quite Rubenesque. 

Which pair's opinion should we choose to form the base of objectivity?

As to "attractiveness": I also find a plate full of pasta with lots of sauce and a whole lot of grated cheese on top "attractive". An offer to work for a company of other may be attractive too. We certainly make this word work a lot so I think you and I are using different meanings of attractiveness. Sure, since I want to look at a beautiful woman I am attracted to her/ I also REALLY want to eat some pasta as I've described above so I am attracted to it to. The Earth attracts me too being a very, very big and attractive thing


----------



## Joca

faranji said:


> This reminds me of something that has always puzzled me in a way. Ugly men who are charismatic, amusing and confident can get pretty beautiful women. Why doesn't it happen contrariwise?


 
Faranji:

Well, perhaps you haven't had the chance of experiencing the powerful sexuality of a so-called ugly woman. This might change your opinion.

JC


----------



## .   1

faranji said:


> A Brazilian view:


Very smooth.

.,,


----------



## ireney

A view on beauty of the Hellenistic times made widely known by Marlow:



> Hermes:
> 
> This skull is Helen.
> 
> Menippus:
> 
> Was it then for this that the thousand ships were manned from all Greece, for this that so many Greeks and barbarians fell, and so many cities were devestated?


----------



## alexacohen

faranji said:


> This reminds me of something that has always puzzled me in a way. Ugly men who are charismatic, amusing and confident can get pretty beautiful women. Why doesn't it happen contrariwise?


I don't know. For me, wanting someone just because of his looks it's just as silly as if you wanted a present for its outside pretty wrapping,   without ever opening it to know what it's inside.
Alexa


----------



## .   1

ireney said:


> A view on beauty of the Hellenistic times made widely known by Marlow:
> 
> Quote:
> Hermes:
> 
> This skull is Helen.
> 
> Menippus:
> 
> Was it then for this that the thousand ships were manned from all Greece, for this that so many Greeks and barbarians fell, and so many cities were devestated?


This is potentially the deepest and most completely considered response I have read in these forums.

.,,


----------



## faranji

Joca said:


> Faranji:
> 
> Well, perhaps you haven't had the chance of experiencing the powerful sexuality of a so-called ugly woman. This might change your opinion.
> 
> JC


 
Dear Joca, I fail to see what this piece of ad hominem stroppiness (let alone baseless assumption) has to do with my observation, honestly.


----------



## faranji

Joca said:


> I know one better than that one:
> 
> "He who loves the ugly, does so *because* it looks beautiful to him."
> 
> JC


 
Which comes to prove that beauty, whoever the beholder, is indeed essential.


----------



## Lorixnt2

jonquiliser said:


> I still think it a very weird idea that beauty would be in some way objective, something that couldn't be said about anybody but only about certain people. I couldn't say that people I find beautiful are beautiful because they don't conform to certain social ideas about beauty?



Yes I could agree jonquiliser but, just so, it seems to me that if I had to find someway beautiful or ugly people - quaerendo invenietis docet - I should put myself in a "search attitude". And if we agreed on the point this research cannot concern an objective field, we could maybe try to understand what happens _to us_ when we put ourselves in an aesthetic attitude which might do without a whatever "objectivity". 
Now imagine you have to go on an urgent errand. You have not much time so you are running along a street to reach your destination. During your run you meet people. Beautiful people, ugly people? No, you don't care, if you are focused on your run, on your errand, these data of your perception seem not  to have an aesthetic investiture. At the most they could be obstacles, _impedimenta_. But the day after, walking quietly along the same street, you happen to meet  people, maybe the same people of the day before and something seems to have changed cause, among them, that young woman you had seen with indifference is approaching. After all you cannot even say you are looking at her with different eyes cause your eyes and your sight are still the same of the day before. So it seems to me, instead, that while the day before you had put at work only the processes involved in a single observation now, making these processes object of a second observation/elaboration  and going then back to apply its results to the first one,  that "objective" girl magically changes


----------



## Joca

faranji said:


> Dear Joca, I fail to see what this piece of ad hominem stroppiness (let alone baseless assumption) has to do with my observation, honestly.


 
Hi Faranji

I fail to see the exact meaning of stroppiness, but I can assure you that there is no ad hominem here. (Minha educação não permitiria.*) I apologize to you if I made you see it that way.

JC


* My background wouldn't afford opportunity for that.


----------



## faranji

Joca said:


> Hi Faranji
> 
> I fail to see the exact meaning of stroppiness, but I can assure you that there is no ad hominem here. (Minha educação não permitiria.*) I apologize to you if I made you see it that way.
> 
> JC
> 
> 
> * My background wouldn't afford opportunity for that.


 
Don't worry, Joca. I must have misread you. Sorry.


----------



## Musical Chairs

. said:


> Extreme beauty is considered odd and therefore unattractive.
> 
> Beauty in all cultures is based on symmetry.  Nothing more.



"Extreme beauty is unattractive" sounds like a bit of a of a contradiction. If I plotted attractiveness v. beauty on a graph, I'd assume a linear relationship, not a bell curve distribution. It's like you're saying being more beautiful makes you less attractive, at least after a certain point. (???)

I _wholly disagree_ that beauty in ALL cultures is based ONLY on symmetry. There is no way that someone (let's say a woman) with really brittle, thin hair, blue skin, brown teeth infested with cavities, pus-filled pimples everywhere, sagging breasts to the floor, deep wrinkles all over, etc could be considered beautiful even if she is perfectly symmetrical. (???)


----------



## Musical Chairs

. said:


> You have been hanging around with the wrong mob.
> 
> Fashion models are actually freaks or mutants, depends on which word you think suits.
> They comprise such a tiny percentage of the population that they qualify as freaks on a mathematical basis.
> There are more people with Downs Syndrome or Autism or Aspberger's Syndrome than are fashion models.
> Most suffer stupifying health problems as they age and most never reproduce. If you were considering buying a dog these are attributes that you would steer well clear of.
> 
> Movies and magazines sell fantasy.



What do you have to base "fashion models are actually freaks or mutants" on? I actually have a lot of respect for Tyra Banks for the way she reacted to magazines/tabloids calling her fat. I do not consider her a freak or a mutant. If you counted all the fashion models in the world and not just the famous ones, are you SURE there would be less of than them with people with Down's Syndrome or Aspberger's Syndrome? A group of people comprising a very small part of a population does not automatically make them freaks.

How do you know MOST suffer "stupifying health problems" as they age and MOST NEVER reproduce? There have been a handful of models to reproduce, like Laetitia Casta (who by the way is not all that thin), Heidi Klum, Kate Moss, Cindy Crawford, etc...

What do dogs have to do with anything?


----------



## Musical Chairs

alexacohen said:


> Ahem... Robert... I can find beauty in a Greek tSatue too... but as for real men, these three you mention don't mean anything to me.
> I'd rather have as boyfriend...................... SHREK....
> Much uglier, but much, much more interesting to live with!
> Aftel all, what could anyone do with a beautiful face if there is no more than the beautiful face?
> Alexa



I think people are making the assumption that all conventionally attractive people are ***holes (or just infested w/ negative characteristics). This is not true...attractive people can actually be nice! I don't think it's fair to compare statues to Shrek because they don't do anything. It's like saying you like asparagus better than flowers because you can eat them.


----------



## Musical Chairs

To answer the first post: I really couldn't say about anybody in my country I think is "beautiful," for reasons I explain below and also because 1) I tend to think most people are average looking, and 2) I've seen normal pictures of some of these people and have been shocked.

This reminds me of the age differences thread where we argued about whether it's subjective. It's rare that I think someone's "beautiful," because when I do that, I take into account the person they are. I use that word sparingly because I reserve it for people I think are very special. I think Adriana Lima is gorgeous/pretty/hot, but I'd never call her beautiful because I don't know what her heart is like. There was someone I considered a beautiful person in my class because of her personality, how she treated people, etc, but I would agree with someone who said she wasn't the most attractive. But it doesn't matter at all! Also, when I disagree with someone about somebody's attractiveness, I can almost always see why they'd think that while disagreeing with them at the same time. I'm not particularly a fan of Brad Pitt but I see why people are.

There are people who are complete asses, but I wouldn't deny that they aren't attractive. In the same way, I know people who are really nice who aren't all that attractive. Consider this: you are given a stack of pictures of people to look at. You know nothing about them. It's like xxxxxx.com, where you objectively rate people on their attractiveness (as they do in psychological studies). I think it's complete nonsense when people say the first thing they notice about someone is their personality unless it was through the internet/phone. Get real.

Also, I find it impossible for me to go out with a 400 lb man who was that fat when I met him, no matter how nice he was. Could anybody (with a person of whatever sex you're attracted to)?


----------



## alexacohen

Musical Chairs said:


> I think people are making the assumption that all conventionally attractive people are ***holes (or just infested w/ negative characteristics). This is not true...attractive people can actually be nice! I don't think it's fair to compare statues to Shrek because they don't do anything. It's like saying you like asparagus better than flowers because you can eat them.


I am not saying anything of the kind. I am only saying that I find people handsome for what they are inside. Not because of what they are outside. I don't like Brad Pitt either, but unlike you, I cannot see what people see in him. Attractive people can be nice. But people who are nothing but "beautiful" are just nothing but Greek statues. Nice to look at, and nothing more. 
Alexa


----------



## .   1

Musical Chairs said:


> "Extreme beauty is unattractive" sounds like a bit of a of a contradiction. If I plotted attractiveness v. beauty on a graph, I'd assume a linear relationship, not a bell curve distribution. It's like you're saying being more beautiful makes you less attractive, at least after a certain point. (???)


I am glad that you have understood my words.
Your analysis is spot on.



Musical Chairs said:


> I _wholly disagree_ that beauty in ALL cultures is based ONLY on symmetry. There is no way that someone (let's say a woman) with really brittle, thin hair, blue skin, brown teeth infested with cavities, pus-filled pimples everywhere, sagging breasts to the floor, deep wrinkles all over, etc could be considered beautiful even if she is perfectly symmetrical. (???)


Excellent uber extrapolation.  I hope that this adds to your knowledge of the humanity of it all.

OK.  You got me.  Beauty is based on being healthy and then symmetry.
Sorry about that.  I had assumed that as we were considering beauty that disease would not be an issue.  Silly me.

You will have to ensure that you include this caveat in the rest of your responses.

.,,


----------



## .   1

Musical Chairs said:


> What do you have to base "fashion models are actually freaks or mutants" on? I actually have a lot of respect for
> Tyra Banks for the way she reacted to magazines/tabloids calling her fat. I do not consider her a freak or a mutant.


Their miniscule population.
Gee Tyra sounds like a brick.  How did she possibly survive such a base canard?



Musical Chairs said:


> If you counted all the fashion models in the world and not just the famous ones, are you SURE there would be less of than them with people with Down's Syndrome or Aspberger's Syndrome?


 Yep.



Musical Chairs said:


> A group of people comprising a very small part of a population does not automatically make them freaks.


Yes it does.



Musical Chairs said:


> How do you know MOST suffer "stupifying health problems" as they age


Because I am aware of biology and the effects of starving a pubscent body nd pumping it full of drugs to suppress menstruation and appetite.
All of these people will suffer stupifying health problems ranging from kidney and liver disease to osteoporosis and heart failure with every carbuncle and bed sore in between.



Musical Chairs said:


> and MOST NEVER reproduce? There have been a handful of models to reproduce, like Laetitia Casta (who by the way is not all that thin), Heidi Klum, Kate Moss, Cindy Crawford, etc...


Great, a handful is your argument to refute my claim that most do not reporduce.
Do you know what is left in an equation once you have removed most? The answer is a handful.
Do you know if this handfull actually made babies in the natural time honoured manner?
How many just went out and bought a baby?
How many underwent chemical therapy?
How many had ova transplanted.
What are your research tools?




Musical Chairs said:


> What do dogs have to do with anything?


This would be just funny if you did not claim to be a native English speaker.
This sounds like you are reaching to find something to be outraged about.
I refuse to insult the intelligence of adult readers by trying to exlain this.
If you really want to know send me a PM and I will respond in kind.

.,,


----------



## .   1

Musical Chairs said:


> I think people are making the assumption that all conventionally attractive people are ***holes (or just infested with negative characteristics).


This arsehole doesn't think that putting a couple of  *** in disguises base intent.
What's the difference between an arsehole and a person infested with negative charactistics?



Musical Chairs said:


> This is not true...attractive people can actually be nice!


 Yep and they can be arseholes infested with negative charactistics.



Musical Chairs said:


> I don't think it's fair to compare statues to Shrek because they don't do anything.


 Unless my interpretation is grossly deformed or mutant like I will assume taht you are wrong yet again.
I will await confirmation from alexacohen that she was not referring to a cartoon character but rather had failed to dot the i of shriek.
It'll be her call but I know where I am going to put my money.



Musical Chairs said:


> It's like saying you like asparagus better than flowers because you can eat them.


Are not asparagus flowers?
In any event I eat flowers all the time.

M


----------



## alexacohen

> Unless my interpretation is grossly deformed or mutant like I will assume taht you are wrong yet again.
> I will await confirmation from alexacohen that she was not referring to a cartoon character but rather had failed to dot the i of shriek.
> It'll be her call but I know where I am going to put my money.


Robert, I can confirm that the only thing I meant is that people who are nothing but beautiful outside are exactly alike Greek statues. They think nothing, feel nothing and do nothing except look beautiful.
And they will end up exactly like Greek statues are now: ruins.
Alexa


----------



## Lorixnt2

Joca said:


> Hi Jonquiliser:
> 
> 1)  I would venture to say that you are probably confusing beauty and your feelings about beauty.
> 
> 2) I know, I know, it didn't help much, but again: if at least two persons find someone else beautiful, isn't this the beginning of objectivity?
> 
> 
> JC



1) Agreed, but speaking about these "feelings" seems to me a little like speaking about God. It seems we have adjusted everything but what have we really understood? And then _where_ should that "beauty" be if it didn't concern your "feelings" about it?

2) Agreed but I'd prefer there to use the word "reality". It's just a beginning
cause a "good reality" seems to require a good number of individuals.

Bye.


----------



## Joca

ireney said:


> Joca which two persons? I remember seeing a documentary about Bushmen and they find the quite beautiful tall, blond female of the shooting group quite ugly (and,as one said, not marriagable since it'd be a bother to find tnough food to feed such a tall woman). So, we have to male Bushmen discussing what is "objectively" beautiful to them. Then we get two modern Europeans. Then we use our time machine and get two European of any past century you wish. And two males from Hawai in the last century who liked (as I've read) their women quite Rubenesque.
> 
> Which pair's opinion should we choose to form the base of objectivity?
> 
> ...


 
Well, that was a very extreme sample, wasn't it? I am afraid (but I may be wrong) that with the ongoing advance of globalization, such discrepancies can become more and more a rarity, if you see what I mean. It's obvious that a Bushman and an European have different values and reactions, but I would be too skeptical to believe that they can't share some basic feelings, either. Besides, it seems to me that one of the Bushmen isn't really concerned about beauty, he's being pragmatic, instead.

Cheers,

JC


----------



## Joca

alexacohen said:


> Robert, I can confirm that the only thing I meant is that people who are nothing but beautiful outside are exactly alike Greek statues. They think nothing, feel nothing and do nothing except look beautiful.
> And they will end up exactly like Greek statues are now: ruins.
> Alexa


 
Alexa:

I am afraid I can't express this in words, let alone in English words, but doesn't this happen to you? Whenever you meet a beautiful person, I mean physically beautiful or attractive (I don't know which), can you prevent yourself from harbouring the wish that this person should also be internally and humanly beautiful? That would be almost like a miracle, wouldn't it?

JC


----------



## Joca

alexacohen said:


> Robert, I can confirm that the only thing I meant is that people who are nothing but beautiful outside are exactly alike Greek statues. They think nothing, feel nothing and do nothing except look beautiful.
> And they will end up exactly like Greek statues are now: ruins.
> Alexa


 
Me again. Maybe it's all about envy, though I really don't want to sound offensive here. I am certainly included in the lot.   I mean, on a certain level, we are "envious" of the beautiful, even if we don't realize it. So, if we can't find a physical flaw in a beautiful person, then we move next to the non-physical realm. 

Green grapes?

Or something in the way of the peacock's paws. Do you know about it?

JC


----------



## Musical Chairs

An example of someone infested with negative characteristics who is NOT an asshole: She has incredibly low self-esteem. She's jealous when others are very happy. She never talks to anyone unless they talk to them first, and even then, her responses are very short. She's very confused with what's going on in her life. She is not an asshole because she is not MEAN or malicious, but withdrawn, unhappy, isolated (all negative personality characteristics).

Ahem... Robert... I can find beauty in a Greek tSatue too... but as for real men, these three you mention don't mean anything to me.
I'd rather have as boyfriend...................... SHREK....
Much uglier (than Greek statues), but much, much more interesting to live with!
Aftel all, what could anyone do with a beautiful face if there is no more than the beautiful face?

It is pretty obvious from what I have made blue that she meant Shrek. "Shriek" would have made so much sense though, right? Considering "rather," "ugli_*er*_," and "more?"

I meant "flowers" as in decorative flowers like lilies, tulips, carnations, roses, daises (which I am SURE you eat all the time). But I guess it was impossible to you and everyone in this thread to see that from the context, the comparison I was making. Shrek would be a more interesting person to live with even though he is uglier than Greek statues because he does things that an actual person would do (talk, move, laugh). Maybe it would make better sense to you if I said "meat" instead of "asparagus." Meat (like asparagus) is not as pretty as decorative flowers. But a very hungry person would rather have meat, because it is something that people normally eat (and something many people consider their favorite food). It's unfair to compare the two because they aren't meant for the same things. Pretty statues aren't meant to be companions, like Shrek can be (and is, to Fiona and the donkey). Pretty flowers aren't meant to be eaten, like meat is. Hopefully, the color coding has helped everyone to understand this.

I *DARE* you to explain what dogs have to do with anything here and "insult the intelligence of adult readers." People want healthy dogs, but dogs aren't people. Dogs are PETS. They aren't subject to the stardards of modelling agencies. Obviously, modelling agencies will want people who are attractive, which usually includes being slim. Modelling agencies aren't interested in the future health of their models (which is changing), or their reproducing abilities which a person looking for a pet may consider. People don't want the same things out of dogs and models. Dogs are supposed to make nice pets. Models are supposed to support the fashion industry, make money, etc.

I could go on about other things you said but that would be pointless, seeing that you're the way you are. And I'll admit, I was shocked by what you said in your posts, using words like "NEVER" and "ONLY" when your statements are obviously not true. There ARE pictures of models/actresses that aren't photoshopped to death out there, and they're bad. Symmetry is NOT the only factor in determining attractiveness. Even when a person is healthy AND symmetrical, she could have many wrinkles, many moles all over her face, chapped lips, no neck, saggy butt, saggy breasts and probably be considered unattractive by many (maybe even all) cultures. By the way, _*I is creary NOT an Native engrisch speeker.*_


----------



## .   1

Musical Chairs said:


> An example of someone infested with negative characteristics who is NOT an asshole: She has incredibly low self-esteem. She's jealous when others are very happy. She never talks to anyone unless they talk to them first, and even then, her responses are very short. She's very confused with what's going on in her life. She is not an asshole because she is not MEAN or malicious, but withdrawn, unhappy, isolated (all negative personality characteristics).


A person who is jealous when others are very happy is one of the biggest arseholes in the world.



Musical Chairs said:


> Ahem... Robert... I can find beauty in a Greek tSatue too... but as for real men, these three you mention don't mean anything to me.
> I'd rather have as boyfriend...................... SHREK....
> Much uglier (than Greek statues), but much, much more interesting to live with!
> Aftel all, what could anyone do with a beautiful face if there is no more than the beautiful face?
> 
> It is pretty obvious from what I have made blue that she meant Shrek. "Shriek" would not have made sense.


O.K. You got me. Alexa and I are even.
I didn't read her post properly.




Musical Chairs said:


> I meant "flowers" as in decorative flowers like lilies, tulips, carnations, roses, daises (which I am SURE you eat all the time). But I guess it was impossible to you and everyone in this thread to see that from the context, the comparison I was making. Shrek would be a more interesting person to live with even though he is uglier than Greek statues because he does things that an actual person would do (talk, move, laugh). Maybe it would make better sense to you if I said "meat" instead of "asparagus." Meat (like asparagus) is not as pretty as decorative flowers. But a very hungry person would rather have meat, because it is something that people normally eat (and something many people consider their favorite food). It's unfair to compare the two because they aren't meant for the same things. Pretty statues aren't meant to be companions, like Shrek can be (and is, to Fiona and the donkey). Pretty flowers aren't meant to be eaten, like meat is. Hopefully, the color coding has helped everyone to understand this.


No it did nothing for me but give me eye strain.
You see decorative flowers.
I see amutated sexual organ of plants which, to follow your meat and potatoes example, remind me of a bull's penis or a cow's vagina in a jar.



Musical Chairs said:


> I *DARE* you to explain what dogs have to do with anything here and "insult the intelligence of adult readers." People want healthy dogs, but dogs aren't people. Dogs are PETS. They aren't subject to the stardards of modelling agencies. Obviously, modelling agencies will want people who are attractive, which usually includes being slim. Modelling agencies aren't interested in the future health of their models (which is changing), or their reproducing abilities which a person looking for a pet may consider. People don't want the same things out of dogs and models. Dogs are supposed to make nice pets. Models are supposed to support the fashion industry, make money, etc.


Irony.
I was inferring that we should have higher standards for our children than for our pets.
We try to ensure that dog breeds are not subject to the health issues that all but a handful of models will inevitably face.
We should try to ensure that models are treated better than dogs.



Musical Chairs said:


> I could go on about other things you said but that would be pointless, seeing that you're the way you are. And I'll admit, I was shocked by what you said in your posts, using words like "NEVER" and "ONLY" when your statements are obviously not true. There ARE pictures of models/actresses that aren't photoshopped to death out there, and they're bad. Symmetry is NOT the only factor in determining attractiveness. Even when a person is healthy AND symmetrical, she could have many wrinkles, many moles all over her face, chapped lips, no neck, saggy butt, saggy breasts and probably be considered unattractive by many (maybe even all) cultures. By the way, _*I is creary NOT an Native engrisch speeker.*_


I like saggy bums and saggy tits and my country is full of moles and every single wrinke on my saggy fifty year old body is earned and I deserve every single one of them.

I was pretty much staying with the joke until your final bold underlined questionable statement.
Were I to write to you in similar terms I would be accurately described as being a patronising bigot.

.,,


----------



## alexacohen

Joca said:


> Alexa:
> 
> I am afraid I can't express this in words, let alone in English words, but doesn't this happen to you? Whenever you meet a beautiful person, I mean physically beautiful or attractive (I don't know which), can you prevent yourself from harbouring the wish that this person should also be internally and humanly beautiful? That would be almost like a miracle, wouldn't it?
> 
> JC


No, Joca, the trouble with me is that being absolutely myopic I never see people till they talk to me. So physical beauty doesn't mean anything at all. I just see a blurr...
Alexa


----------



## Joca

alexacohen said:


> No, Joca, the trouble with me is that being absolutely myopic I never see people till they talk to me. So physical beauty doesn't mean anything at all. I just see a blurr...
> Alexa


 
It is not for me to say, Alexa, but I am also as shortsighted as a doorknob. That is why I am wearing glasses.

JC


----------



## faranji

Joca said:


> I mean, on a certain level, we are "envious" of the beautiful, even if we don't realize it. So, if we can't find a physical flaw in a beautiful person, then we move next to the non-physical realm.
> 
> Green grapes?


 
This makes an awful lot of sense.


----------



## alexacohen

Joca said:


> It is not for me to say, Alexa, but I am also as shortsighted as a doorknob. That is why I am wearing glasses.
> 
> JC


Off topic: a lot of people working with me do that. We just don't wear glasses at work, because we don't want to see people. We don't want to remember a face that belongs to a person who has insulted us. 
When we started working and we learnt that someone famous was coming, we all wanted to see him/her. We were disappointed every time. I've been shot on films, beside stars that carried on their faces one centimetre of  make up. They weren't real. They did not have faces, but masks. And many, so many times, the famous beautiful people were neither beautiful without their make up, nor beautiful inside.
Alexa


----------



## alexacohen

maxiogee said:


> As a certain person around here is fond of saying, what proof have you got to show that any models "inevitably" face any health issues?


Hi:
See here.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/769290.stm

And read this:


> Brazilian model Ana Carolina Reston died on November 14 from a generalized infection caused by anorexia. Her body-mass-index was well below that of the limit defined as starvation.


Just type models and anorexia in your google bar. Let's talk about proofs afterwards.
Alexa


----------



## faranji

I don't really understand why this discussion is veering towards models and their health. I thought this was about beauty. The vast majority of today's fashion models are anything but physically beautiful. They are tall, outlandish, exotic, bizarre, ultra-slim, etc., yes, but, aside from a few exceptions, not beautiful. Is there really any country or human society where the idea of female beauty is embodied in emaciated, flabby bodies and cadaverous countenances?


----------



## alexacohen

I haven't got the least idea, Faranji. I'd rather stop this here and now.
Alexa


----------



## maxiogee

faranji said:


> I don't really understand why this discussion is veering towards models and their health. I thought this was about beauty. The vast majority of today's fashion models are anything but physically beautiful.



Because they are what those who control the 'beauty business' (incorporating music, clothing, film, theatre and much more) decide shall be held up as the image of 'beauty' - and the gullible who buy into the business buy into the images and strive to emulate them.


----------



## alexacohen

> I was, as the quotation marks highlight, looking for the evidence of "inevitably"


Robert said nothing but the truth about modelling.
As one of my younger sisters was a model who was afflicted by both anorexia and bulimia, and was shouted at unmercifully because she was not thin enough, and was put on extremely hard diets which included amphetamins by her employers, and whose health is ruined because of that, and will need medical care for the rest of her life I'd rather leave the subject here and now. 
Alexa


----------



## cherine

*Mod reminder:*

*This thread seems to discuss everything that has to do with beauty, attraction, love, inner beauty...*
*All this is very interesting, but it's not exactly what the first posts (remember that these are two threads merged into one) asked about:*


meeryanah said:


> I was just wondering [..] what would be a beautiful man or a woman *in your country*.
> I'm aware that different people have different tastes, but *in general*, what would you say?
> Do men need to have muscles and do women need to be thin with big breasts, to be atractive to a wider number of people?


 


Musical Chairs said:


> How are beauty standards (for men and women)* in your country*? What traits are considered sexiest in your country (eyes, body, breasts, hair, height, weight, etc.) and why do you think that is?


 
*So, could we get back to this topic, please ? *

*Thank you all.*


----------



## Poetic Device

meeryanah said:


> Hello everyone!
> I was just wondering, as the title sasy, what would be a beautiful man or a woman in your country.
> I'm aware that different people have different tastes, but in general, what would you say?
> Do men need to have muscles and do women need to be thin with big breasts, to be atractive to a wider number of people?


 

I would have to say that the people in my area find some meat on the bones and clear skin to be most improtant when it comes to attractiveness.  The majority of women here are flat-chested, so when a woman comes in with bigger than a size B cup The men folk are falling all over her to the point where it is sick.  FOr women here I find that They are usually attracted to  the farmer cowboy stature.  Basically, Brad Paisley or Kenny Chesney.  The one feature that everyone seems to ignore (which is one of the first things tha I look at) is the person's teeth.  No one bothers to look at or care about dental care.


----------



## Lusitania

Macunaíma said:


> Gilberto Freyre in _Casa Grande & Senzala_ (_Master & Slaves_, in the English translation) explored the theme of how the beauty pattern for women evolved in Brazil since colonial times. Until the beginning of the XIX century, when the Portuguese royal family moved to Rio de Janeiro and Brazil began to have contact with modern Europe (until then the Brazilian ports had been closed to foreign ships and only a few non-Portuguese Europeans were allowed to live or stay here) the beauty standard was that of a fat woman with large breasts and wide hips. Gilberto cited many renowned anthropologists who ascribed that specific pattern of feminine beauty to the fact that in patriarchal cultures, as was the case in Brazil, they tend to seek as much differenciation between masculine and feminine body shapes as possible, having the Brazilians of the colonial times, according to Freyre, inherited their preference for fat women from the Moors (Islamic people who lived in the south of Spain and Portugal from the VIIIth to the XVth century) through the Portuguese. Perhaps the patriarchy in Mauritania helps explain why women are force-fed there to conform to their beaty standard.
> 
> .


 

So, it's the so called Beleza Farta 

I have no idea. I think that it's about individual taste or love at first sight (if that exists).

I think that people with positive thinking and good humor (and that avoid spiting on the floor) are always pleasant companions.


----------



## emma42

Lusitania said:


> So, it's the so called Beleza Farta
> 
> I have no idea. I think that it's about individual taste or love at first sight (if that exists).
> 
> I think that people with positive thinking and good humor (and that avoid spiting on the floor) are always pleasant companions.


- what a superb summing-up of a "pleasant companion"!

In my country, and many others of similar wealth and stages of "development", I think that a combination of symmetry, being healthy-looking, and "baby" features (smallish nose, big eyes, cute mouth) are deemed the most beautiful physical traits in women,_ in general.  _A face like Brigitte Bardot's in the 60s is a good example.


----------



## Kajjo

emma42 said:


> In my country, and many others of similar wealth and stages of "development", I think that a combination of symmetry, being healthy-looking, and "baby" features (smallish nose, big eyes, cute mouth) are deemed the most beautiful physical traits in women[/COLOR]


Excellent summary. I believe this is true for most countries. "Healthy-looking" could also be described as "youth" in many cases. Interestingly enough, attractiveness is often even heightened by very tiny deviations from symmetry, just so to make people individual and special, without ruining the overall effect of course.

Kajjo


----------



## Lusitania

Yes, I think that's about being healthy. if you have an healthy mind you have a healthy body and it doesn't matter if the looks aren't fit for a beauty pageant. It's someone with whom you feel confortable and happy and with whom you like to spend time with.

This goes for a woman as well as for a man.


----------



## LouisaB

Lusitania said:


> Yes, I think that's about being healthy. if you have an healthy mind you have a healthy body and it doesn't matter if the looks aren't fit for a beauty pageant. It's someone with whom you feel confortable and happy and with whom you like to spend time with.
> 
> This goes for a woman as well as for a man.


 
I agree with you, Lusitania, but I suspect our attraction towards youth and health is more about a genetic leaning towards a partner capable of fathering/bearing healthy children than it is about being comfortable with them.

I fear it's always been so. Thoinot Arbeau wrote in his Orchesography in 1589 that the best defence of dancing was that it gave couples the opportunity to assess the healthiness of the other's body, thus determining if they would make a good breeding partner. It gave the chance '*to ascertain if they are shapely or omit an unpleasant odour of bad meat'.....(!!!)*

There's some truth in that even now. Whatever we all find attractive in the opposite sex, I think most would agree on being repelled by an unpleasant smell. But of course, I could be wrong...??

Louisa


----------



## Lusitania

LouisaB said:


> I agree with you, Lusitania, but I suspect our attraction towards youth and health is more about a genetic leaning towards a partner capable of fathering/bearing healthy children than it is about being comfortable with them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In general I agree with you. In many cultures and for many persons it might have to do with this ability and many other like to enforce the sociability of the mother/father and/or chidren
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I fear it's always been so. Thoinot Arbeau wrote in his Orchesography in 1589 that the best defence of dancing was that it gave couples the opportunity to assess the healthiness of the other's body, thus determining if they would make a good breeding partner. It gave the chance '*to ascertain if they are shapely or omit an unpleasant odour of bad meat'.....(!!!)*
> 
> There's some truth in that even now. Whatever we all find attractive in the opposite sex, I think most would agree on being repelled by an unpleasant smell. But of course, I could be wrong...??
> 
> Louisa
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, maybe what is smelly for you it's not for me. I've seen many smelly persons with other smelly persons. I've also known many men that enjoyed that their partner wouldn't get any epilation done
> I believe that people tend to find persons that relate to themselves, that have the same tastes, enjoy the same things.
> I think that the reproductive part is becoming less and less important when it comes to pick up a partner.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Sepia

Part of what he says is true - part of it is not:



. said:


> Yes. That would have been better. Now there is another alienated group.
> ....
> 
> EVERY professional photograph you see of a professional model has been airbrushed to within a picometre of reality.
> The whites of the eyes are whitened.
> 
> Yes, we do that
> 
> 
> 
> The teeth have been whitened.
> 
> 
> Yes, we usually have to - light is not always dirctly from the front.  Less light makes them look more yellow than they really are.
> 
> 
> 
> The waist has been narrowed.
> 
> Depends. Is possible. i have never done it. Usually not necessary.
> 
> The thighs have been thinned.
> 
> 
> Depends. Is possible. i have never done it. Usually not necessary, they are usually as skinny as can be.
> 
> 
> Sometimes the whole photo is stretched to make her look taller and thinner.
> 
> Absolute NO! If somebody does this (may happen) anybody with some sense of perspective would feel that something is not right.
> 
> Every skin mark is removed.
> 
> Definitely Yes.
> 
> The pupils are enlarged.
> 
> Yes, but this has another reason. Pupils are small because of the light. If you don't they'd look like they were on drugs. (Which they may be, but that is none of your business ...) Besides, there will often be disturbing reflexions of the light used. We do away with that at the same time
> 
> The whole eye is enlarged.
> 
> Is rarely possible to do so that it looks right. Better is to cast a model with big eyes and let the make up artist do a decent job.
> 
> 
> The most important thing to do with the photos, was not even mentioned: Giving the skin the right colour. But this is also subject to different trends. Compare e.g. Dior adverts now and 5-6 years ago. Skin does not look the same - printing or photography has not technically changend that much. It is just a simple trick, that has become popular.
> 
> 
> Tits are pumped up or deflated depending upon the situation.
> By the end you may as well be ogling a cartoon.
> 
> 
> Women (main part of the readers of fashion magazines) are usually not as obsessed with big breasts as men often are. However, this would be a lot easier than enlarging the eyes in a portrait.
> 
> 
> Fashion models are actually freaks or mutants, depends on which word you think suits.
> They comprise such a tiny percentage of the population that they qualify as freaks on a mathematical basis. ...
> 
> 
> There are lots of different kinds of fashion models. The majority of them are not Heidi Klum or Kate Moss. They are the ones you see in catalogues and adverts from department stores and such. This is just one of the jobs that are being done by less people with one or the other physiological or mental problem.
> 
> .,,




However, I should be flattered when I hear what people believe we can do with photos. We can do a lot, but there is a limit to everything, if we want it to look really fine.


----------



## LouisaB

Lusitania said:


> In general I agree with you. In many cultures and for many persons it might have to do with this ability and many other like to enforce the sociability of the mother/father and/or chidren....
> I believe that people tend to find persons that relate to themselves, that have the same tastes, enjoy the same things.
> I think that the reproductive part is becoming less and less important when it comes to pick up a partner.


 
I still think we agree! My tongue was firmly in my cheek with that quotation....

The point I was trying (badly) to make is that there is an argument for all of us, regardless of country or culture, being influenced (unconsciously) for the good of the species, so that we are attracted to those who will best ensure its continuance - for instance, women being attracted to big strong men who can protect them and provide for them. A UK newspaper (I'm really sorry I can't recall which) recently published results of a survey to show that we have actually 'updated' these biological urges, so that when women were shown pictures of men with varying degrees of supposed attractiveness and asked to select those they thought would make the best partners, they chose handsome ones for 'short-term partners', but those they were told were wealthy or in good professional positions as the best 'long-term propositions'. These days the best 'providers and protectors' aren't so much endowed with muscles as with money...

However, I'd also argue against this theory. Men (supposedly) were attracted to qualities in women that suggested good child-bearing potential - eg large breasts and wide hips. Yet there have been several times in UK history when fashion has dictated very much otherwise. Corsets to give the narrow waist considered 'attractive' actually impaired a woman's ability to give birth. The flat-chested figure of the 1920's and early 1960's was also a direct contradiction to the stereotype. However, as a woman, I can't comment on whether or not men actually found these 'boy figures' sexually attractive - it may be the fashion was driven by other considerations, and secretly men weren't attracted to it at all. 

So the honest answer is I don't know. The jury is still out in my corner.

Louisa


----------



## Lusitania

Louisa,

I'm a 1,76m tall woman in Portugal. So, that stereotype wouldn't fit me even if I wished so.  I would have to migrate.

Men could argue that Linda Evangelista is much sexier than Kate Moss or whatever. I believe that it depends on the person, also being thin will start to be seen as not fashionable as see we that women actually die because of these stereotypes.

I remember once that Claudia Schiffer said that she couldn't recognize herself in the photos that H & M took her. The photos were changed to the point that was impossible for a woman to have such body (waist and ties) and she was shocked. It's a fantasy, children are already born with celulite.

L.


----------



## tvdxer

In the U.S:

The standard for female beauty (or sexual attractiveness) seems to be changing.  I remember when I was 10 - in 1996 - the "sex symbols" for males were Pamela Anderson and Jenny McCarthy.  They both had large breasts (implants) and were thin - something that does not happen often naturally.  They also both had blond hair.  Today, Kim Kardashian is the sex symbol par excellence.  She has a somewhat "thicker" look - in other words, more visible body fat - with a large derriere.  The "back" of a woman seems to get a lot more attention now than it did in the 1990's, at least among white men.  This was perhaps influenced by the black and Latino cultures, which traditionally emphasized a large derriere and were more forgiving of extra body fat on their women.  It also might be because of the increasing rate of obesity, although Kim is nowhere near fat.

Kim's body has also developed a fan base among some women, which they see as empowering.

For men, I remember that Brad Pitt and Antonio Banderas were sex symbols among women in the mid-90s; I don't know who they are now.  Generally speaking, American women idealize the "V"-shaped torso and prefer a man above six feet in height.


----------



## Minnie121728

badgrammar said:


> have you ever seen a beautiful man/woman somwhere...  the most beautiful of them all... And then you talk to them, and...  The bubble is burst?
> 
> Have you ever seen someone who is not remarkable by their physical beauty... And then you begin talking to them?  And you notice the sparkle in their eyes, their smile, their personnality, the way they move, their hands, their neck, their...?  And then they become so irresistably attractive, so-die-for sexy, that you could not imagine a greater beauty?
> 
> Women are pretty, men are handsome... Both sexes are beautiful!


 
 Totally agree with you...you got to be a very interesting one...by the words you say, the feeling you express...Just can imagine...


----------



## ewie

tvdxer said:


> Brad Pitt and Antonio Banderas were sex symbols among women in the mid-90s; I don't know who they are now.


Brad Pitt and Antonio Banderas are still Brad Pitt and Antonio Banderas.


----------



## Packard

In college the "Twiggy" look reigned supreme.  This child/waif look really did nothing for me and I was gladdened when Paulina Porizkova came on the scene and had actual breasts.  See:  http://www.lilith-ezine.com/articles/fashion/images/Paulina-Porizkova-20.jpg

But my favorite look remains, as it was in college, when I fell in love with a ballerina.  That blalerina-look (figure) is still the only one that really moves me.  (And I am complete flummoxed by the body builder look on women--they are so heavily muscled I would have to continually check to see that I was not kissing a man.)

And I know that some women feel more self-confidence when they have breast implants (and self-confidence can make someone much more attractive), but I hate the look (and feel) of those things.


----------



## Goddess Mystyxx

In the Philippines, most women are so concious with their skin color. The lighter your skin is, the more attractive you will be. Men also find women with light skin very attractive. That's one of the reason why there are so many whitening products sold and most concious filipinos would invest so much in skin whitening. Theres very few sun-tanning stuffs available in the market. 

For guys, atleast tall, light skinned and with good physique. But it's very unrealistic coz only models have those attributes or those who has foreign blood in 'em. Most filipino men are not taller than 5'6. 

I personally believe that beauty is not just defined by your outer attributes. It's more than that, i find a person beautiful when he's intelligent, has good sense of humor, sensitive to others and very rational. 

I have a 'morena' (filipina light-brown skin) skin and it doesn't bother me. I also am not into the skin whitening fad as most of the women my age are into. I love my color.. and I feel beautiful.


----------



## Packard

Goddess Mystyxx said:


> In the Philippines, most women are so conscious with their skin color. The lighter your skin is, the more attractive you will be. Men also find women with light skin very attractive. That's one of the reason why there are so many whitening products sold and most conscious Filipinos would invest so much in skin whitening. There's very few sun-tanning stuffs available in the market.
> 
> For guys, at least tall, light skinned and with good physique. But it's very unrealistic coz only models have those attributes or those who has foreign blood in 'em. Most Filipino men are not taller than 5'6.
> 
> I personally believe that beauty is not just defined by your outer attributes. It's more than that, i find a person beautiful when he's intelligent, has good sense of humor, sensitive to others and very rational.
> 
> I have a 'morena' (Filipina light-brown skin) skin and it doesn't bother me. I also am not into the skin whitening fad as most of the women my age are into. I love my color.. and I feel beautiful.



Move to the USA. "morena" is in style here. 

Sun tanning in the USA as a prestige symbol relates to leisure time. In Scarlett O'Hara's time (before the U.S. Civil War) it was fashionable to be quite pale. Women carried parasols to maintain that paleness. The lack of tan separated them from the field-hands who were heavily tanned. A pale skin in the summer said, "I'm a person of leisure".

In the USA currently, a tanned body is in. Having time to sit out at the beach to tan yourself says, "I'm a person of leisure". So the motivation is the same; the results are polar opposites.

But in the USA at this time a "filipina light-brown skin" would put you squarely in the leisure class.


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

How bizarre that in Asia people want to be white, and in Europe we all want to be brown.


----------



## AngelEyes

Who makes all the money and gets all the rich men? Young, skinny girls with big boobs and no butt.

All you guys out there: when you stop spending money and dating the girls with a body to die for, a face to get lost in, someone who swallows whatever - and I mean _whatever_ you throw at her - and who gives a crap if she has a soul and a brain - PLUS she's not over 30 - then you'll be closer to showing the world you mean what you say when you go on and on about personality and humor and depth...women don't believe you!


We KNOW what you want. What you say you want and what you turn and ogle at are two different things!

PLEASE! We just don't buy it.


----------



## Packard

AngelEyes said:


> Who makes all the money and gets all the rich men? Young, skinny girls with big boobs and no butt...



You are almost right. The women who make all the money and get all the rich men are women who have an abundance of self-confidence. Self-confidence makes women very sexy. And if being slim and having big boobs makes you feel self-confident, then that is the _by-product_ of the physical attribute.

A man in a red Ferrari spyder is sexy. Why? Because the car gives him the self-confidence to behave that way.

Old money people have this self-confidence (even without the Ferrari spyder); some new money people never get it. 

Breast implants can do the same for women. It is not what makes them desirable (though it makes them noticeable); it is the self-confidence that makes them so.

So if big boobs and lipo will enhance your self-confidence, then go for it.


----------



## JamesM

AngelEyes said:


> Who makes all the money and gets all the rich men? Young, skinny girls with big boobs and no butt.
> 
> All you guys out there: when you stop spending money and dating the girls with a body to die for, a face to get lost in, someone who swallows whatever - and I mean _whatever_ you throw at her - and who gives a crap if she has a soul and a brain - PLUS she's not over 30 - then you'll be closer to showing the world you mean what you say when you go on and on about personality and humor and depth...women don't believe you!
> 
> 
> We KNOW what you want. What you say you want and what you turn and ogle at are two different things!
> 
> PLEASE! We just don't buy it.



Wow!  That's pretty harsh.  Have you ever considered that what men consider good for ogling/dating and good for relationships might be two different things?  Don't you think that's also true of women? 

I know several women who are very happy with their husbands and couldn't be paid enough to live with a Chippendale's man but they're certainly not above drooling over them and fantasizing about them.  

Don't lay this all in the laps of men... so to speak.


----------



## Packard

I didn't read all the posts all that closely so this might have been covered earlier.  But calling a man "beautiful" in my neck of the woods will get you a fairly dramatic response.  Men are "handsome"; women are "beautiful" (among heterosexuals, and referring to appearance only).  I'm not sure how the homosexual society views this, however.


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

It depends on men too after all, I know people who couldn't date a girl with small breasts, and others who couldn't stomach one with large breasts.

On the whole though, the "Latina" look definitely seems to be in as of late.


----------



## Canela Mad

Packard said:


> (...)
> 
> A man in a red Ferrari spyder is sexy. Why? Because the car gives him the self-confidence to behave that way.



No. Brad Pitt with that Ferari is sexy, with a Taurus, still sexy, in a bus, still sexy.  The regular midle-aged bald owner of a Ferrari is not sexy but his money might be quite sexy for some women.


----------



## AngelEyes

I think of the term _beauty,_ or in the case of men, _sexual attractiveness_, as two-tiered. I interpreted the basis of this thread as a discussion of physical beauty/sexiness.

I do believe there is another layer or level, though. It's spiritual beauty. Inner beauty. That's totally different and births a totally different set of answers.

However, when trying to give an opinion of what's considered beautiful in any society, I feel that money rules. It charts who gets what, how good-looking that what is, how much of that good stuff a person gets. Of how the power is in the hands of the person with the most money.

Did you know that there's a website where rich men can go and connect with college-age girls who have college loans to pay off? It's a fine give-and-take proposition here: the girls have bills; the guys have the money. The guys with the money choose to spend it on young girls in financial need, in exchange for a wide variety of favors. That's because young, firm bodies are beautiful to men of all ages. Money will always tell you the answer to your question. It will always show you the way that is so innately natural in the mind of men.

The men will always gravitate to the young, firm females for satisfaction and control. 

Does that mean that spiritual beauty isn't important or valued by people? No. But that's not what's being discussed here, and that's not what controls the masses.

It's powerful, and I believe, ingrained in humanity at this time.

I say at this time, because as we evolve, I believe that spiritual beauty of men and women will grow.


----------



## Istriano

Beautiful Brazilian woman: Gisele Bündchen, Ana Hickmann, Alessandra Ambrosio,  Adriana Lima


----------



## Vanda

Ana Paula Arósio, Aline Moraes...


----------



## Macunaíma

Istriano said:


> Beautiful Brazilian woman: Gisele Bündchen, Ana Hickmann, Alessandra Ambrosio,  Adriana Lima



For those who go for a bonny type.

EDIT: uhmm... on second thought, Adriana is hot even though she needs a good meal! And since we are talking fashion models, I think Fernanda Tavares was (she retired ) the most beautiful, all-Brazilian model ever.




AngelEyes said:


> Did you know that there's a website where rich men can go and connect with college-age girls who have college loans to pay off? It's a fine give-and-take proposition here.



If you think you've seen everything... in this site, a donor chooses a girl of his preference and pays for her breast implants. Creepy, uh?


----------



## Packard

Macunaíma said:


> For those who go for a bonny type.
> 
> EDIT: uhmm... on second thought, Adriana is hot even though she needs a good meal! And since we are talking fashion models, I think Fernanda Tavares was (she retired ) the most beautiful, all-Brazilian model ever.
> 
> 
> 
> If you think you've seen everything... in this site, a donor chooses a girl of his preference and pays for her breast implants. Creepy, uh?



Creepy, yes.  But where else can you "make a difference" for only $1.00? (Is there some sort of quid pro quo going on here?  Or are you just "making friendships"?)

I wonder if the plastic surgeons are the sponsors of this site...


----------



## Fernando

At last, we drop talking aboout lust and flesh and bodies and we move to good-hearted people helping poor boys (girls, in fact) to improve and get a better tomorrow.



Packard said:


> Creepy, yes.  But where else can you "make a difference" for only $1.00?



Somalia comes to my mind. (1)



Packard said:


> (Is there some sort of quid pro quo going on here?  Or are you just "making friendships"?)



I expect there is some compensation. There is only something sadder than a man giving money to a girl for sex. And it is a man giving money to a girl for nothing (except some kind of bizarre sublimated sex).


(1) I hate rethorical questions.


----------



## Goddess Mystyxx

AngelEyes said:


> All you guys out there: when you stop spending money and dating the girls with a body to die for, a face to get lost in, someone who swallows whatever - and I mean _whatever_ you throw at her - and who gives a crap if she has a soul and a brain - PLUS she's not over 30 - then you'll be closer to showing the world you mean what you say when you go on and on about personality and humor and depth...women don't believe you!
> 
> 
> We KNOW what you want. What you say you want and what you turn and ogle at are two different things!


 You have a point here. Sometimes women do all of those unecessary things because they want to get noticed. Usually girls under _that_ catergory are what guys want and notice. So it becomes a standard as to how we see beauty and eventually what women _will _do to become attractive to men. 

But, ofcourse, I know (or hope) that there are a good percentage of sensible ones out there who looks at women more deeply than what is just on the outside. 



Packard said:


> Sun tanning in the USA as a prestige symbol relates to leisure time. In Scarlett O'Hara's time (before the U.S. Civil War) it was fashionable to be quite pale. Women carried parasols to maintain that paleness. The lack of tan separated them from the field-hands who were heavily tanned. A pale skin in the summer said, "I'm a person of leisure".
> 
> In the USA currently, a tanned body is in. Having time to sit out at the beach to tan yourself says, "I'm a person of leisure". So the motivation is the same; the results are polar opposites.
> 
> But in the USA at this time a "filipina light-brown skin" would put you squarely in the leisure class.



Wow, good to know that out there light-brown skin is seen as beautiful or a person with 'leisure' as you nicely put it. Asian beauty is defined as women with very light-porcelain like skin. And that makes us with light brown skin feel less attractive. 

I just hope people here would appreciate beauty more fully and not just by the color of the skin.


----------



## Vós

The beautiful woman is that woman which have harmony in your body, no big ass no big tits no big legs and yes, all in the same song in the same dancing in another words a woman "NORMAL" without those crazies bodies with that thing too big.

Then the women more beautiful are those which is day a day in our lives and are perfect to have our sons...



Sorry my english people... I tried to comunicate


----------



## SPQR

Beauty, to me, is 90% attitude.
Most of the "beautiful people" I've met from stage and screen are narcissistic, spend too much time in front of the mirror, and vacuous.


----------



## mataripis

the beauty of both man and woman is their attractives.The carnal types prefer the physical appearance but the sensitive types have the taste based on the aura or energy field emitted from the body of a person.In Tagalog handsome is "makisig" could be mean strong/robust/perfect. and in beaytiful woman it is simply "maganda".But the common Pilipino words are based in Spanish.Beautiful/handsome is Guapo/Guapa.


----------



## Minnie121728

Canela Mad said:


> No. Brad Pitt with that Ferari is sexy, with a Taurus, still sexy, in a bus, still sexy.  The regular midle-aged bald owner of a Ferrari is not sexy but his money might be quite sexy for some women.


 This is really truth, see, I have two brothers, one is handsome, sexy, strong, naughty, cheeky... no matter the way he goes dressed, everyone looks at him in the streets or places he is, he can go elegant, or sport, or casual, however, he is sexy by himself, no matter, how he is, I think it's in his attitude. The other one is serious, sensitive, formal, buys expensive clothes, parfums, clocks, it's a serious and responsable guy, but he's not that sexy as the other one, even when he can dress better or look better. Then I say this thing it's inside a person, regardless money, status, clothes, cars, everything.



Vós said:


> The beautiful woman is that woman which have harmony in your body, no big ass no big tits no big legs and yes, all in the same song in the same dancing in another words a woman "NORMAL" without those crazies bodies with that thing too big.Then the women more beautiful are those which is day a day in our lives and are perfect to have our sons...Sorry my english people... I tried to comunicate


  Just beautiful...



badgrammar said:


> have you ever seen a beautiful man/woman somwhere...  the most beautiful of them all... And then you talk to them, and...  The bubble is burst?  Have you ever seen someone who is not remarkable by their physical beauty... And then you begin talking to them?  And you notice the sparkle in their eyes, their smile, their personnality, the way they move, their hands, their neck, their...?  And then they become so irresistably attractive, so-die-for sexy, that you could not imagine a greater beauty?Women are pretty, men are handsome... Both sexes are beautiful!


 Waooooo, this is just amazing and great to discover.


----------



## Ukrainito

*Ukrainian women* are generally considered to be some of the world's most beautiful women (although I'm gay, I won't argue with that). The most TYPICALLY UKRAINIAN female beauties that first come to my (purely subjective) mind are probably *actress Milla Jovovich* (who, in case you didn't know, is Ukrainian and was born in Kyiv), 
*singer Ani Lorak* and our former *Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko*


----------



## Ukrainito

There are no strict "standards of handsomeness" as far as *Ukrainian men* are concerned. Older generations' preferences would differ greatly from the younger generations'. To name a few Ukrainian men who are generally agreed upon as being really HANDSOME, let's say, *boxing champions Klytschko brothers **, swimmer Oleh Lysohor **, soccer player Andriy Shevchenko *


----------



## tvdxer

In the 1990s, the "sex symbol" standard in the U.S. for men was blonde hair, large breasts, and little fat tissue in other areas.  Pamela Anderson typified this look.  In the 2000's, the focus of male sexual attraction began to shift to "thicker" or curvier women.  I believe "thick" used to describe women comes from African American Vernacular English (AAVE); whatever the case, women who are described as "thick" have a large, rounded derriere, defined breasts, and often have extra "meat" (in other words, can be slightly overweight).  This more or less mirrors what Hispanic and Black men have been stereotypically attracted to all along.  The beauty ideal also became darker, with the exotic "Latina" or "morena" (not that any other American would call it that) look fashionable; Jennifer Lopez, Beyonce Knowles, Jessica Alba, etc. are some examples of this.  

Women allegedly place less stock in the physical appearance of men and more in their personality and wallet.  Nevertheless, the ladies tend to fawn over certain men too.  One thing that rarely or never occurs with men but seems to perpetually be the case with women is a separation between the younger girls' idols and the sex symbols of grown women (who young girls also seem to be attracted to).  For example, women in the mid-1990's were up in arms over Brad Pitt, and girls over Jonathan Thomas Taylor (?); in the early 2010s, I don't know who the current standard for male beauty is among mature women, but millions of teen girls are almost hysterical over Justin Bieber.


----------



## Istriano

Ukrainito said:


> *Ukrainian women* are generally considered to be some of the world's most beautiful women (although I'm gay, I won't argue with that). The most TYPICALLY UKRAINIAN female beauties that first come to my (purely subjective) mind are probably *actress Milla Jovovich* (who, in case you didn't know, is Ukrainian and was born in Kyiv), View attachment 8962*singer Ani Lorak* View attachment 8963and our former *Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko*View attachment 8964



You forgot Mila Kunis.  And Ruslana. 
I think Slavic and Germanic girls always dominate the catwalk because they're so tall.


----------



## uchi.m

Fernando said:


> I expect there is some compensation. There is only something sadder than a man giving money to a girl for sex. And it is a man giving money to a girl for nothing (except some kind of bizarre sublimated sex).


From this, one can imply that the bank clerk next door must secretly be a x-rated wanker then.


----------



## almostfreebird

A beautiful (wo)man in your country?


----------



## 涼宮

Ukrainito said:


> *Ukrainian women* are generally considered to be some of the world's most beautiful women (although I'm gay, I won't argue with that). The most TYPICALLY UKRAINIAN female beauties that first come to my (purely subjective) mind are probably *actress Milla Jovovich* (who, in case you didn't know, is Ukrainian and was born in Kyiv), View attachment 8962*singer Ani Lorak* View attachment 8963and our former *Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko*View attachment 8964



The things one learns everyday!!  I never thought that the rude girl from *Resident Evil* was Ukrainian, Milla! . Although I don't really like her physical appearance, just her eyes.

Latin American girls are considered to be one of the most beautiful too, and from mouth of foreigners, Venezuelan girls are really beautiful and hot. 



almostfreebird said:


> A beautiful (wo)man in your country?



Sorry, I don't understand the joke . Japanese girls are beautiful, many of them are. Do you not like your own ethnic? 

In Venezuela they pay more attention to a good arse and not breasts. Here it's regarded a beautiful woman who has a good arse, is a feminine girl and generally slim. Skin color in this country actually doesn't matter because we are a mix of everything, but still it exists the commonness of seeing black-black, white-white, Asian-Asian, Latin-Latin, I have seen many kind of mixes, but still those ones remain.

But, everyone has different opinions  in my case, I always prefer foreign girls, Japanese, Korean, Peruvian,  Polish, Romanian or Brazilian girls. I actually don't understand why some people don't date a girl even though they like/love her personality because they are black or white(And they call themselves non-racists). Skin color is just so pointless, in my opinion. Although I am not black I would marry/date any girl I love/like, I have seen really beautiful black/white/mixes/milky coffee/brown skin girls, beautiful women. Every country has beautiful women, in both aspects, physical and psychological.


----------



## Angelo di fuoco

Packard said:


> I didn't read all the posts all that closely so this might have been covered earlier.  But calling a man "beautiful" in my neck of the woods will get you a fairly dramatic response.  Men are "handsome"; women are "beautiful" (among heterosexuals, and referring to appearance only).  I'm not sure how the homosexual society views this, however.



However, in older times you could use "handsome" for women, too... just read a Jane Austen novel and you'll see it.


----------



## uchi.m

almostfreebird said:


> A beautiful (wo)man in your country?


She is cute, but her taste for cigarettes only crossed the thin line of normality. That's all.


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

涼宮 said:


> In Venezuela they pay more attention to a good arse and not breasts. Here it's regarded a beautiful woman who has a good arse, is a feminine girl and generally slim. Skin color in this country actually doesn't matter because we are a mix of everything, but still it exists the commonness of seeing black-black, white-white, Asian-Asian, Latin-Latin, I have seen many kind of mixes, but still those ones remain.
> 
> But, everyone has different opinions  in my case, I always prefer foreign girls, Japanese, Korean, Peruvian,  Polish, Romanian or Brazilian girls. I actually don't understand why some people don't date a girl even though they like/love her personality because they are black or white(And they call themselves non-racists). Skin color is just so pointless, in my opinion. Although I am not black I would marry/date any girl I love/like, I have seen really beautiful black/white/mixes/milky coffee/brown skin girls, beautiful women. Every country has beautiful women, in both aspects, physical and psychological.



Your use of the word arse is quite stupendous.


----------



## SusanBryan

In the end we just want to love and be loved, at least that´s the way I see it.
 About beauty, does it really matter? My question goes to meeryanah. I don´t think beauty can be considered a question of country tastes but of maturity.
 In my country people is free to show/share his/her love and that´s what´s really important for me.
 By the way, love you all, you are great guys, but don´t argue so much, enjoy yourselves instead.


----------



## Fernando

SusanBryan said:


> About beauty, does it really matter? My question goes to meeryanah.



I am not meeryanah but I hate to leave rethorical question unanswered:

YES.


----------



## uchi.m

SusanBryan said:


> About beauty, does it really matter? My question goes to meeryanah. I don´t think beauty can be considered a question of country tastes but of maturity.


I always go for inner beauty. Attractive looks is often misleading. It often turns out to be a lure in the dating scene, I mean, you may end up falling into her trap if you ever have the chance to cross the first step of chatting her up, which is often none in my case, you know.

That's because I'm shy and I just don't know how it could add to the topic and why I'm telling you this, but anyway.

Right now I'm fallen for a Brazilian singer, not only because she is good-looking, but mostly because of her voice, and because her interpretation of songs is just so overwhelmingly true. She has won many Latin Grammy awards since her debut in 2003. I won't tell you her name, sorry, I just can't.


----------



## dreamlike

Poland is renowned for woman that inhabit our land, but one can see a lot beautiful girls that are not from Poland here, we have got a lot of students, who came here from Arabic countries or from Scandivia, and well, those womana also add to the beauty of our country


----------



## barkley04

Well, I do agree that the majority of ordinary men would think like that. I personally do believe in only one proverb: the beauty is in the eye of the beholder.


----------



## Mirlo

I think there is beautiful "people" everywere... from continent to continent... But I agree with some "inner beauty" it is important also. We used to say when I was hmmm 'younger' "why would you want an ornament only to see it...oh well.


----------



## arielipi

ever heard of Bar Refa'eli? to me her face is a bit child-look-alike but....
also some say esti ginzburg...

thats michael lewis: some people say hes got the ugliest face on earth but.... to my research E! channel picked him as #25(bar reached #2!!) on sexiest men on earth so...
http://malebeautyphotos.blogspot.com/2010/02/michael-lewis-on-tetu-magazine.html
http://cisoto.blogspot.com/2008/03/michael-lewis-himself.html

just look here... http://www.imdb.com/list/uFPymv4F0TE/


----------

