Physical attraction subjective or objective?

Unknown

This content has been removed.

bamamom02

Bullet_with_Butterfly_Wings wrote: »

Need2Exerc1se wrote: »

Subjective. 100%

Also beauty and attraction are not synonyms.

This is so absolutely true to me. I believe that beauty and attraction are both 100% subjective, and I agree that they are not synonyms. I don't believe that I have ever had a specific "type," but I've always wanted to be around people or date people who connected with me on an intellectual level. My husband and I fit--we are both nerds together.

cee134

LearningToFly13 wrote: »

cee134 wrote: »

LearningToFly13 wrote: »

newmeadow wrote: »

You guys are full of it. Beauty standards are universal. Even an infant, regardless of where or to whom it was born, knows the difference between a good looking person versus someone who isn't.

Symmetrical and evenly proportionate facial features, symmetrical and evenly proportionate body construction, waist to hip ratios, shoulder to hip ratios, the width between the eyes, the set of the jaw and width of the jawline, the width and height of cheekbones, nose size proportionate to the other facial features - these are all universally recognizable measurements of beauty, to both the trained and untrained eye alike, crossing all cultural barriers and applicable to all ages and eras of human history.

Are you for real or doing sarcasm, I can't tell?

How can I do sarcasm? I would like to learn.

cee134 wrote: »

LearningToFly13 wrote: »

newmeadow wrote: »

You guys are full of it. Beauty standards are universal. Even an infant, regardless of where or to whom it was born, knows the difference between a good looking person versus someone who isn't.

Symmetrical and evenly proportionate facial features, symmetrical and evenly proportionate body construction, waist to hip ratios, shoulder to hip ratios, the width between the eyes, the set of the jaw and width of the jawline, the width and height of cheekbones, nose size proportionate to the other facial features - these are all universally recognizable measurements of beauty, to both the trained and untrained eye alike, crossing all cultural barriers and applicable to all ages and eras of human history.

Are you for real or doing sarcasm, I can't tell?

How can I do sarcasm? I would like to learn.

Nailed it

Nailed what?

43501

vm007 wrote: »

Love is hormones right?

So physical attraction is societal ? since it's 100% subjective. I have traveled not a lot but at least to different continents and I've noticed huge difference between preferences.

I ain't conspiracy whisperer or what not but is it true then -companies push an agenda- people start getting brain washed then we look for those attributes in potential mate -potential mates also tries to live up to or try to imitate the standards set in society -using/buying/trying those products and what not?

Must be society setting standards because with times they keep changing.

Is there something universally ugly ?

Physical attraction can't really be distilled to one thing or another, there are objective and subjective factors to it (and as you duly noted, different societies prize vastly different things).

400+ years ago plump women were highly prized and considered attractive because plumpness indicated good health and good social status - if you were fat, it was because you could afford a bounty of food (i.e. you were wealthy) and you didn't have to toil out in the fields like a lower-class person would. In the contemporary West this concept is flipped: being slender and tanned with flawless makeup and hair highlights is the standard for "attractive" because it indicates wealth and calls to mind the idea of having leisure, being fat is synonymous with poverty, unhealthiness and being sedentary.

What you're talking about isn't a conspiracy, it's an accurate and truthful commentary. Every society at every period in time has had a certain set of beauty standards/things that are desirable and, of course, everyone wants to emulate those things because hey, who doesn't want to be attractive?

I could spend an eternity talking about how all this relates to capitalism and how it's hyper-magnified in this day and age and only going to get worse (i.e. the idea of "seasonal fashions" is a construct to shame people into tossing away their perfectly good clothing to go buy more clothing and continue the cycle of consumption, lest they be viewed as "lame") but I won't because we could be here all day.

> is there something universally ugly?

I'm not sure, but I remember one thing that is universally attractive is facial symmetry. A symmetrical face (and plain, without features that "stand out") is universally attractive. Asymmetrical faces indicate possible genetic issues. Unfortunately. I have a very obvious asymmetrical face (one eye bigger than the other).

Motorsheen

TheRoadDog wrote: »

callsitlikeiseeit wrote: »

subjective.beauty is in the eye of the beholder, after all.

I'm thankful that my wife's vision is poor.

Ha, yeah... I tell my friends: I definitely out-kicked my coverage.

Merkavar

if it was objective, fashion and beauty standards wouldn't change over the centuries, decades, yearly, monthly.

but they do, so it has to be subjective.