I started a discussion in the tavern, based on a woman who had $100,000 of plastic surgery just to date doctors, more or less. This lead me to wonder about what people see as beauty, in women or men. I don't mean scientifically prove sexual attractors, or that nonsense. I mean what makes another person beautiful to you, for whatever reason. Based on the marketplace, the ideal woman is, well, Barbie! Is this because it's easier to use Vickie as-is, or is she really all that? Also- I see many people say that "T&A" is what people want to see in the galleries. Speaking as a woman, no thanks, I have a mirror. Is that really an aesthetic, or an excuse? What do you see as beauty, and why? In men or women- what do you think?

Well in art I think real beauty, that is beauty that lies beyond the aesthetic, is hard to produce. And I don't mean artistic beauty (we have museums full of proof that artistic proof exists) but art, in most of its forms up until the last century or so, concerned itself with ideals. Ideals of beauty, love, etc... But back on topic. I think that a 'barbie' ideal, in real life, certainly exists... there is no denying that. In earlier times it was different things (think the rennaisance in italy!!) but right now.. yeah, thats where its at for most men. I can't speak for women of course. Now... This is where it gets complicated. I won't pretend that when I see a girl like that my head doesn't swivel and heart maybe pump a bit more... but I take one look in their eyes, their face, their body language and ussualy I snort and don't look again. There is something we can identify in others that, for me, is where beauty comes from. It is is paired with physical attraction, we are flesh as well as spirit, but physical attraction is hardly tied to barbie alone. There are girls that I've gone out with that have been models and former beauty contestants, and there is no denying they were gorgeous but it was something else that got my attention. I dismissed them both out of hand, as shallow as the opposite, that. And then I was talking to one casually and we started talking about a Browning poem and then I looked at her again. But there was a girl I went out with that would probably be considered a bit above average who was the kindest, gentelest, most intelligent girl I've ever known and she's always going to be the one, I imagine, that I equate with beauty. Ultimatetly these types of ramblings have a lot to do with the person looking as well, I think most people don't get beyond the shallow and surface because there is not much beyond that for themselves, and they cannot recognize something so distant from them. Anz, putting his soap box away for later, though the smell of Irish Spring lingers....

True, inner beauty is difficult to capture. It takes skill as an artist to be able to portray a mood so that the viewers can immediately grasp it. However, that aside, how did the "barbie" type become a cultural icon? In whose culture? Why couldn't it be someone like, well, Maya Angelou? Michelle Yeoh? What are the deciding factors in this sort of thing? And why do they seem to be so easily accepted? Is it the media culture of passive acceptance? Or something else?

I lent my friend money to have plastic surgery but now that I need the money back I can't find her because I don't know what she looks like!

Well, if we wanted to go into the history of the Barbie mystique, that discussion could take years. Suffice it to say that Barbie was a marketing product of the 1950s, when the idea of a woman as a toy was making a huge comeback after women were laid off from the blue collar workforce with the return of the WW2 veterans. The beginning of the 1950s were the first era that actively sought the "leisure lifestyle", and Barbie, with her "perfect toy woman" look was not only the kind of role model kids sought in those days, she was also the expression of time that sought to refocus how men and women perceived each other. She was also the first toy to be heavily marketed on that new medium, television. Others were, sure, but not to the degree Barbie was. And being a passive medium by its very nature, the marketing could be all the more persuasive because it didn't allow interaction. And since many of the Boomers grew up with the Barbie image hopelessly ingrained in them, it's no surprise that she should be the model of "beauty" for not only the Boomers but succeeding generations. We've had nothing to counterpoint it. Just as a side note, I had a friend over for dinner the other night, an advertising art director whose agency handles a chain of women's clothing stores in the region. They were doing new ads for the chain's lingerie, and he commented with a laugh that they had taken the photos of the models and "selectively stretched" them to give them longer legs and a more "fashion illustration" sense of proportion. We seem to have life now mirroring not just art, but a particularly impossible art form at that...

The "why" questions are sort of pointless. Cultural favorites always change over time, without any particular purpose or motive. But those favorites don't necessarily reflect what most women or men actually want. They do influence some youngsters.... positively among the conformist types and inversely among the non-conformists (who are really conformists to a deliberate opposite.) Which fashion is more powerful among today's youngsters, Barbie or Goth? Both are forms of conformism, but the latter was designed specifically to be anti-Barbie. Here's a long quote from Virginia Postrel in the latest Reason mag, which has several thoughtful articles on this same subject: "A week after the Taliban lost control of Kabul, [a photographer] took a picture of an Afghan widow begging. Anyonymous behind her burqa, she flashes a once-forbidden sign of personality: chipped red polish on her carefully maintained nails. She applied the polish the day after the liberation of Kabul. ..... The Taliban outlawed wearing polish in the late 1990's, punishing some offenders by amputating a fingertip. ..... The impulse for personal adornment is hard to stamp out. "Making special" is a deep human drive -- all the more so when the object is one's own body. By reshaping or decorating our outer selves, we express our inner sense of self: "I like that" becomes "I'm like that". The right to wear nail polish, seemingly the most trivial of matters, is in fact a vital freedom, part of the very freedom to create oneself." (My comment: This association of rights with beauty will, of course, irritate Western feminists who basically agree with the Taliban's idea that adornment is evil.)

There's a thought. However, there is a difference between self-adornment for pleasure, and doing it because the person thinks that it is necessary to compensate for a lack of adequacy. Asking "why" is never pointless- you can never make intelligent decisions without an understanding of the basis for those decisions.

Micheleh wrote: "I don't mean scientifically prove sexual attractors, or that nonsense." Followed by: "Asking "why" is never pointless- you can never make intelligent decisions without an understanding of the basis for those decisions." LOL, so if you wish to gain an understanding of the basis for subjective appreciation of beauty, why rule out the most obvious route to gaining that understanding (and dismiss it as nonsense)? Plenty of scientific work has been done that does to point to a logical explanation. Those physical traits that are generally considered 'beautiful' happen to be indicators of health, both genetic and environmental. Health obviously has important implications for mating selection choice - our prime function outside of computer graphics. ;-) The woman you mentioned in the Tavern is on the right track for her stated goal, though no surgery can compensate for her relatively advanced biological clock.

The question of why not Maya Angelou or others like that is, and cynical as I am, even I cringe at it. Most people aren't capable of grasping such a thing. It's not our 'media culture' it's what people are. You give people too much credit, and they are undeserving of it. Most people can't appreciate something like that, something like her. Intelligent women often have issues out the WAZOO because they know they have something valuable with culture and society hitting them hard and not appreciating it. Intelligent men, as well, but is obviously more societally sanctioned to have intelligent men. Most people live entirely in the flesh, so they relate to the flesh. They want pretty people and pretty things and thats all, things that donot confuse them, things they can grasp. This is not to say most people, any people, do not want pretty things. It's just to say people with deapth often want more, or in the least, not as scared of it. Anz

If you're asking about stereotypes and how they occur, I'm afraid you're going to have to look beyond attraction. I believe that it is about status, not attraction. A kind of self reinforcing pattern. Being seen to have an attractive partner has always been a powerful status symbol. Therefore those who are considered attractive by a particular culture, are considered more valuable by that culture. Since this value is based upon what an individual percieves others to be thinking (rather than their own feelings), the archetype quickly becomes a stereotype as individuals seek to conform to the standard of accepted beauty....and so on. There is a biological basis, regular, symmetrical features, and a general appearance of health would make someone a more attractive proposition for healthy offspring. adly the cultural garbage we have added to this, has long since buried any reasoning. Personally, I've always considered that being willing and able to stand up in public and say "I love this person and I defy you to say anything about it", is one of the signs of growing up. Lets hope that more people can grow up a lot faster... I'll get off my pulpit now :-) peejay

Ockham, I AM a western feminist... and I like wearing attractive adornments. However, they are unusual and distinctive, and I wear them for my own sake, not to please others. In the western culture, symmetry is perceived as perfection, and thus a symmetrical face or body will appear to be more beautiful. Take a mirror and cut the face of a movie star or fashion model vertically in half with it, and the reflected sides will still strongly resemble the whole. Our ideal is perfect balance. Memorable faces, however, are often strongly asymmetrical. Look at Abraham Lincoln, and do the same mirror trick. In a world of look-alike models, having a gap-tooth or a mole will often be the means to being remembered, and therefore in demand. Since the basic dials in Poser change both sides of the face, it is easier to get symmetry than to get distinctiveness. Beautiful faces are often young, because wrinkles and the scars of time seldom line up, but if the underlying bones are strong and balanced, the face can retain beauty through the decades. This is all a discussion of surface "beauty". "Charisma" and "attractiveness" are other matters altogether. The surface and the interior are often worlds apart, and those who judge by surfaces alone see only reflected light, not inner light. Carolly

Not to throw another issue into the mix, but why is it we seem to have one almost impossible standard of beauty for women and yet we seem to allow a wider variety in men?

... in the eyes -------------->;=] of [you know who]. ;=]

Interesting discussion. I think most of us like to look at attractive people. It's the 'what makes one attractive' that makes life interesting. I believe that it is different for each of us. Some of the most appealing women I have known wore no (or little) makeup. It was their smiles, the sparkle in their eyes, the intelligence that came through in their conversation, that made them beautiful. I may be different from many, but I think the first thing I look at in a woman is her face. I like a nice figure - certainly not the 'Playboy' image, but one typical of those who lead an active lifestyle. And the intelligence comes through once one gets past those first few casual remarks made to break the ice. Abigail Adams, the wife of John Adams, one of our first real patriots, once remarked to John that it was unfortunate that men essentially ruled the world, since women had so much to contribute. We have come a long way since then, I think. That does not mean that we have quit admiring beauty in women, or in men. I think one of the most beautiful things that ever happened to me was when the woman who is now my beloved wife sent me roses two weeks after we first met. No woman had ever done that before, and it touched me as nothing else ever has. Beauty comes in many guises.

It's not just western culture where we view symetry as beauty. It's world wide. Also.. man.. I wish I remembered the word :grins: perfunctity or something.. basically it is the youngness of the face - has to do with eye, chin, mouth and nose size proportion. There is also a hip/waist ratio that exists in almost all cultures. This is for women. It is less for men, though there is a slight feeling towards a shoulder/hip ratio (connotating a good runner, strong body.. etc.. hunter). And these things are biological, a most fundamental aspect of 'beauty.' These are the hardwired responces. It is not to say a little scar here or there will change things, but that the form is symetrical, balanced, and certain ratio's are maintained - it's nearly universal. These things show youth and ability to produce offspring that are healthy. And for the man (shoulders/waist) ability to provide because they are healthy and fit and can provide. NOW.... this is the biological template we work with. It's much more pure in many places (more tribal) in the west it gets much more funky. I look at in what I call the "burden of conciousness" issue. We are aware, sentient creatures, and that creates a psycological overlay that often overrides and interferes with our natural instincts. The reason there are not such high standards for men is that for women, it's not historically been as important as ablility to provide, status, etc.... For men women have, as someone said, always been a form of status but also healthy "baby machines." In the west we really have kept the traditonal, instinctive ideas, we have just... altered them somewhat. The powerful business mogal is a very attractive aspect for many women as long as they think there will be some stability. The more they change.. more they stay the same. Now it has became "someone who won't abandon me and can provide" but thats essentially whats its always been. Other aspects that men 'traditionally' look for (breast size, rear size etc) are also parts of this looking for reprodutive ability. Anz

Geep...you are the most on track, here. to me, beautiful people can capture a piece of ones soul with a glance....and, keep it for however long they choose. if the eyes don't speak....sigh. beauty is an essence....it is a presence...it is eyes, gestures, ENERGY....perhaps, it is better said to be "intangible". of course, we are all told what is "beautiful" in magazines, and flicks. that is the marketplace. in many respects, alot of us are just "vickis in the temple". "los ojos"...the eyes....are the first part of being beautiful. little latin american/carribean girls learn the eyes along with walking and speech.

:)

Jay
Who after being stuck at home sick for three days is starting to feel a little wacky. :P

There ya go Ron :grins: Anz

ah...ron..you are so lucky...beauty should be kind, i think. and, loving.

And? Jenny, no disrespect, but this is the same thing we associate with Barbie. And just as a side note to all: could someone at CL please fix those eyes?

So, like...do you aspire to be beautiful, like that image? Do you wish you looked like that? I guess we all view things differently. To me, the vicki in the image just reminds me of a blow-up rubber dolly. To me...she is not at all magnetic or "special". Not to mention, her eyes are a bit crossed. And, she doesn't look real smart. If I ever wake up "beautiful" like that, I pray god will just kill me. :*)

Virtual, no disrespect but the topic of the thread is what each individual sees as beauty-not what YOU associate with "Barbie". If JennyAddict sees that as a beautiful woman, thats his/her perogative. I know a few men who are attracted to fat women. Others associate those women with pigs. Does that make those men wrong to be attracted to them? Of course not. Is beauty a look? A feeling? An energy? An attitude? It is all/any/more of the above to each individual. Nobody is right (or "on the right track"), nobody is wrong.

Attached Link: http://evolution.anthro.univie.ac.at/institutes/urbanethology/beauty/beauty.html

There are different types of beauty.. The beauty for an artist is something subjective and it's relationed with the external beauty, the phisical. And not all likes the same canon beauty, by example to the artist Botero likes the fat women and all his sculptures and pictures are relationed with the fat women he look the fat women very attractive. My case is different I like the woman with beautiful faces, and I don't give very importance to the rest of the body . with 2 exception, i don't like fat woman and i don't like the thin model woman, I like woman with curves. But there are another beauty that is very better that the phisical. The spiritual beauty. It's easy of understand. You can know the woman more beautiful of the world and she can be too the woman more stupid of the world. I think that noone would love this woman. Excuse my the english... it's not my natural language

Hahahha, this is a great thread :) Here's something which I find amusing. All my life I have been a size 8 (which I think in America is a size 6). Even after having my three children I returned to that size. My bra cup size was the smallest available (with the exception of a trainer LOL). Anyway, a few years ago I began to put on weight. Now I'm not overweight, but I now have full possession of a curvy body. Plus my bra size is now one to be extremely proud of ;) (I like big boobs) Not a single week will go by now where someone will say "Wow, you look so healthy, you were wayyy to thin before." And the majority of those comments come from men. The other one I hear often is "It's nice to see you with some meat on your bones." So, of the men and women I know they all seems to prefer curves to bones. I do too ... I'd pick Marilyn Monroe over a skinny little thang like Kate Moss any ole day s

Virtual, no disrespect but the topic of the thread is what each individual sees as beauty-not what YOU associate with "Barbie". And if you read the very first post in the thread, the comment is made that our current standard of beauty is Barbie -- and, frankly, this image just confirms it. I got to thinking about this a little more last night and started wondering -- when you look at movie stars of the 20s, 30s, and 40s, they have a wide range of "beauty". But since about 1955, we've narrowed that concept down more and more to the point where, surprise!, they all now share a common look, a common standard of "beauty". I mean, can you imagine the young Katherine Hepburn or the young Bette Davis being seen now as "glamorous"? And yet, in their time they were. Now, to be sure, standards change over time, and yet that standard doesnt seem to have changed much in the last fifty years.

Ron, your entry about Dodi is the best one in the thread and you had me in tears. You spoke the greatest truth there. That's beauty. Barbie comes out of a cookie cutter, as VirtualSite basically states here in entry #30. They all look alike. How do you even define beauty other than something like perfect teeth, big violet eyes, thick blonde hair, flawless complexion, etc. There used to be a clerk in a local grocery store, a young woman of about 19 or 20. She was overweight by about 30 lbs. or so, but she had skin I would kill for. You only saw her pretty face, in spite of her weight. So wearing a size 3 and having all the right elements that Hollywood dictates is the standard of "beauty" is pretty insignificant. I've known people whom you would describe as somewhat nerdy or plain at first sight, but when I got to know them, I realized they were a lot more attractive than I first thought. Maybe the guy in the next cubicle wears glasses, his hair is getting a little thin on top, but he has a very handsome smile. I think that's what counts. There really isn't any such thing as perfection. It's all a standard that the fashion industry has created and planted in our minds. I prefer to see individuality rather than cookie cutter perfection. My two cents worth. Melanie

There you are. You just helped me clarify something I'd been thinking, Melanie. I think you could call it harmony. People can talk about the aesthetic appeal of balance, but gues what? That's cultural. Look at decorating (home). In european influenced homes, you see symmetry. If you draw a line down the middle, both sides of a room or wall will match. Many people find that pleasing. Most oriental decor, however, such symmetry is bad- it blocks the flow, or "chi" of a room, and is a negative thing. Perceptions vary from culture to culture. (I subscribe to the 'chi' theory, and hate symmetry in my suroundings.) When I look at a person, I react in terms of harmony. Do the apparance, the personality, and the spirit seem to flow, work together? Does this person seem to be happy with their uniqueness, at home in their body? If so, I find them attractive. If not, the can be technically "perfect", but I won't see them as attractive. Scientific measurement is a yardstick, but when it comes to attraction, people go by feelings. Who someone reminds you of. If they seem to have an equable emotional state harmonious to your own. (Not necesssarily positive, just equable.)

And I think you'd be hardpressed to see people accept this as "handsome" in the current acceptance of the word, even though I certainly wouldn't throw him out of bed (... well, maybe I would, just to see if he'd fight his way back in, but that's another issue for another time.....). Still, the fact that someone this... well, ordinary could be in the light just emphasizes the point I made earlier -- a guy has more leverage in this than a woman. A woman, it seems, must adhere to some particular formula while men have more latitude. And of course, what makes this all the more interesting -- to me, anyway -- is that in the rest of the animal kingdom -- it's usually the other way around: the males have more attractive coloring (birds certainly follow this) than females. We're the only species, it seems, that flaunts this.

LOL @ micheleh....he has some capturing eyes, there. I'll take interesting over mass produced any day of the week.

Not that this has anything to do with this thread, but I intend to purchase Jennyaddicts new character :p - Gazzy!

Hummmm....i am not familiar with the jennyaddict name. i did a market search, and came up with nothing, as well. do you have a link, to his/her stuff...Gazu?

Everyone has a different perspective on beauty, too. A friend of mine has always said she prefers "quirky" looking men over the male model perfect ones, and I tend to agree. For years, she's been a devoted fan of F. Murray Abraham, and finds him very attractive. It's all so subjective. People would probably think I'm nuts, but I find the Pharaoh Akhenaten oddly attractive, even though he's always described in text books as "grotesque." It's a matter of opinion, I guess. Isn't it interesting how differently we see people? It makes the world more interesting, and it would be a pretty boring place if we all looked alike. Melanie

-Poppi- jennyaddict is creating a new character, she is pictured in his above image. She has been seen in other pictures in other threads dicussing comments / technical aspects. I like the facial morph mostly ; ) Also off topic, Ron had another thread earlier on "what is sexy". I think that Bruce Campbell is a handsome man, anyone else think so? - Gazzy!

This discussion has made some very interesting turns and twists. I'm not sure myself what makes a man attractive, but I know what my lovely wife thinks about male movie stars. Two of her very favorites are Sean Connery and Michael Caine. I can't disagree, because they both have a quality which I value - character. I have watched Caine develop over the years from "Alfie", the first of his movies I ever saw, to something like "The Cider House Rules", and the evolution is startling. For me, people like Audrey Hepburn are my favorites. She was, to me, one of the more beautiful, and interesting stars in the movie industry. I think that Laura Bush has much of that, also. (Whatever you think of George, you have to like Laura, I believe.) Of course, my favorite beauty is my own wife. After seventeen years of wonderful marriage, I still look at her across a room sometimes - at a party or something - and, like Shakespeare's Romeo, think "It is my lady. It is my love." And so it goes.

Laura Bush has a grace and poise that is what really makes a person beautiful. I think it's those inner qualities that shine through that are most important. I know that might sound corny or cliche, but it's true. How a person treats others and how they behave is a lot more important than how symmetrical or perfect his or her face and figure are. I've known people who can be considered physically beautiful or devastatingly handsome, but they're rude and obnoxious. And I've known people whose physical appearance would be called plainer, but because they show kindness and a caring heart, they seem beautiful to me. Melanie