[Valentine]

I'm surprised by the lack of scientific evidence in this thread. There are plenty of studies demonstrating clear preferences for facial and body structure.


"..head shots of the same person with different distances from eyes to mouth or between the eyes. She was at her most attractive when the space between her pupils was just under half, or 46 per cent, of the width of her face from ear to ear. The other perfect dimension was when the distance between her eyes and mouth was just over a third, or 36 per cent, of the overall length of her face from hairline to chin." Source

[Guitarman]

(06-24-2016 04:48 PM)captain_shane Wrote:  

Yes beauty is objective, and I'll prove it right now.


Which one of these women is good looking, and which one is disgusting?






The subjectivity comes down to 2-3 points. Some men will find the woman on top a 1, and some might find her a 4. Some men might find the woman on the bottom a 7, and some might find her a 10. Average people will get ratings between 4-6.

Good looking people are good looking, and ugly people aren't. It's not hard to tell at all which is which.

That's not a good example, because the first woman has a serious congenital medical condition, whereas the second woman has a healthy appearance. The second photo also appears to be heavily airbrushed and edited.

For better examples of taste and subjectivity, look at the WYB? thread.

[Vronski]

(06-29-2016 02:17 PM)Valentine Wrote:  

I'm surprised by the lack of scientific evidence in this thread. There are plenty of studies demonstrating clear preferences for facial and body structure.


"..head shots of the same person with different distances from eyes to mouth or between the eyes. She was at her most attractive when the space between her pupils was just under half, or 46 per cent, of the width of her face from ear to ear. The other perfect dimension was when the distance between her eyes and mouth was just over a third, or 36 per cent, of the overall length of her face from hairline to chin." Source

+1.

And BTW any talent scout will confirm that beauty is very much a mathematical equation. Per exemple, the distance between the base of the nose and the chin must be the same than between the hairline and the eyebrows, the lenght of the mouth must be 2.5 its width, ect (among other recognized criteria listed in your link).

[Bury Zenek]

There was a whole documentary on this with John Cleese and Liz Hurley titled 'The Human Face', go check it out, it's quite informative.

[nomadbrah]

No one seriously disagrees about human beauty, even the worst of sjws and feminists know it too.

The real controversy is of the beauty of art, music, architecture, here you will find the most adamant attacks on beauty. Say that Wagner og Beethoven is better than Lil Wayne? Or that European rennesaince architecture is more beautiful than Brutalist glass and concrete? Or that Rembrandt painted much more beautiful paintings than did Picasso?

Now you're stirring the hornest nest of leftists. The fact is that all of the above are true. Ask a child to decide the above, they will all choose the former options. Children have excellent sense of beauty. Adults who are corrupted hate beauty because it reminds them of what they are not.

[Bury Zenek]

(07-02-2016 06:15 PM)nomadbrah Wrote:  

Children have excellent sense of beauty. Adults who are corrupted hate beauty because it reminds them of what they are not.

You earned a beer for this.

[innocent21]

There is objectivity to beauty.

• Symmetrical face
• Long hair
• Clear complexion
• Soft features
  

Quote:

Beauty Is Objective, Fair-Skinned, And White-ish
August 9, 2014 by CH
It seems there are still a few hermits and delusional freaks who think beauty is in the eye of the beholder and every beholder is different so, following the logic of this platitude, anyone can be beautiful if they immerse themselves in enough Jizzebel pep talks. Your Citadel Chateau stands athwart this march of moronic posturing, yelling shiv, but it never hurts to twist the knife and add a little more hurt.

Pierre Tourigny created composites of Hot or Not female profiles and the results are nothing short of dryly predictable. This first series is based on the 1-10 female beauty scale:



There are very few male beholders who will mistake the 1.0 girl for the 9.5 girl. There are fewer still who, given a free choice, would choose to have sex and romance with the 1.0 over the 9.5. The opinions of the beholders, averaged out, will reach a very objective consensus about the rankings of all these composites.

Tourigny notes,

What did I conclude about good looks from these virtual faces? First, morphs tend to be prettier than their sources because face asymmetries and skin blemishes average out. However, the low score images show that fat is not attractive. The high scores tend to have narrow faces.

There’s more to female beauty than that, but yeah, bloat kills beauty dead.

The ugly truth about beauty is about to get uglier. Here are composites of 2005 Miss Universe contestants by total, region and finalist:



The first thing that jumps out at you is just how similar very beautiful women look. Beautiful women from all races resemble each other more than they resemble the uglies of their own races. The big wide-set eyes, the bright smiles, the good teeth, the high foreheads and cheekbones, the dainty noses…. it’s almost as if there’s a universal objective standard of beauty that exists in the world inhabited by humans!



The second thing you notice (if noticing doesn’t make your bowels erupt) is how these worldwide representative composites of pulchritude converge, give or take a few racial idiosyncrasies like epicanthic folds, onto something close to what could be regarded as archetypical white woman beauty. Tourigny:

Miss Universe contestants owe their delegation to a mix of local and universal standards of beauty (or at least the pageant’s version of universal). I created multi-morph composites (see some details how here) for each continent from photos of the delegates.

The Americas composite most closely resembles the one from all delegates while the Europe composite more closely resembles the one from the finalists. Bias in the judging or in the standard? Who knows?

It could be bias. Or it could be an accidental revelation. If cosmetic surgery trends are equally indicative, it would appear that the pinnacle of universal female beauty coincides with the pinnacle of European female beauty. Where da white women at, indeed.

Finally, as Peter Frost has described, men all over the world prefer lighter-skinned women (relative to their own race’s hue). In the above Miss Universe composites, the representative African woman is not that much darker than the non-African women. And her nose… almost as petite as the European nose.

The trifecta of ugly truths about female beauty is complete with the following composites based on age:



Tourigny on the details of this composite,

The Hot or Not web site gives people the option of rating women of all ages or of seeing only a specific age group.I collected photos of women who scored at least a 9.5 average and created multi-morph composites (see some details how here).

The only thing I noticed was that the attractiveness standard people use is more lenient the older the subject.

Some people dispute the existence of The Wall, and point to the fact that beautiful 40+ year old women can be found in the wild. My answer to these Wall doubters is two-part: One, numbers matter. There are vastly more 25 year old female 9s than there are 41 year old female 9s. Two, longitudinal comparison matters. No matter how hot a 41 year old woman is, the 20 year old version of herself was hotter.

The exceedingly rare exceptions prove the rule.

People do get more lenient judging the attractiveness of older people, but that’s not proof of a magical reformulated age-adjusted objective beauty standard. Rather, what the leniency demonstrates is rationalization resulting from a restriction of options. As the average man gets older and falls out of the primary sexual market, he fools himself into believing his secondary sexual market female peers are just as attractive as the pretty young things he would prefer to fuck if the possibility were open to him. It’s Consolation Prize Syndrome.

That’s enough shivving for today. There’s blood all over the shag carpet. I’ll end on a hopeful note for the ladies: If you’re a pretty girl with boner-inducing face structure, you can avoid a premature impact with the Wall and sexual worthlessness by simply refusing to get fat. Look at that 41+ year old composite. No fat face there. No wrinkles either, but like Tourigny said, all he had to work with was blurry source images. Heh.
https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2014/08/...white-ish/

[Rush87]

In some respects yes, and in others no. Historically, the facial proportions of ideal beauty change. Within a specific era however, what is 'beautiful' is generally a consensus. Either way, nobody will ever mistake a 6 for a 9. What is beautiful in any given era, is obviously beautiful.