Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Social Life, Food & Drink, Travel › High Demands of Beauty Here
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

High Demands of Beauty Here - Page 6

post #76 of 83
Thread Starter 
To be fair, there are minimum standards that one probably cannot lower. For example, obesity is innately repulsive to many. It's worth wondering whether obesity is, in effect, causing increased competition for a smaller pool and if that is fueling competition in other aspects of appearance.
post #77 of 83
Originally Posted by Mentos

In response to the original post, and partly in response to the current direction, the ultimate goal of a lifelong relationship (and I am not in one) is not to have someone to screw or show off. If you look for that, don't be surprised if you end up with someone who is nothing more than a trophy for you (because the sex will fade in a loveless relationship). If you attempt to judge anyone, potential mate or not, strictly on some hot meter, you'll fail to let a lot of really great people into your life.

I think the SF posters take a pretty rounded view of life. I'm sure that we all have physical attributes that we look for, but I don't think of this as a superficial place. Indeed, that's why I like it.

GQ, based only on this thread, you seem to have a lot to sort out. You should attend to that before you attempt to start a serious relationship.

First off, a disclaimer: I hope I'm not offending any of the married guys. That's really not my intention and I sincerely hope you're all happy with your marriages. I'm not trying to imply that anyone shouldn't be. Everyone has a right to their own approach to life.

Mentos, I don't know how i can explain it any clearer. Looks are not my only criteria (as I've stated several times), however they are important to me. I sort the women I meet. Some are suitable as friends, some as sexual partners, and others as potential girlfriends. I apply my criteria to the latter. Women do the same thing although they probably don't use such a defined system and they place more emphasis on other things, such as financial security.

I don't think I can get everything I want in a woman and I fully expect that whomever I eventually settle down with will not be perfect. However, I don't see how looking for a certain level of attractiveness, no matter how high or low, has to be mutually exclusive to all other considerations. Everyone does it, some just set their standards a little higher and/or refuse to compromise on whatever criteria, whether consciously or subconsciously established, that they deem important.

The fact that I'm searching for a certain level of attractiveness in a mate has got absolutely nothing to do with showing her off. Nowhere have I made unreasonable claims that I'll only date perfect 10s. Nor do I hang-out with people that are constantly trying to one-up each other and show off their money and possessions. I've dated the type of girl that's pure eye candy and they've never held my interest.

However, I will not start a relationship (which is to be distinguished from dating) with someone that doesn't turn me on and whom I don't expect would continue to turn me on over the years, despite aging & all that other stuff. I would rather remain single and bide my time until the right one comes along. I'm not in a rush. At the same time, I believe this increases my chances at finding a desireable match since I don't get bogged-down in longer term relationships that lead nowhere. I'm sure you all know people that exclusively date attractive women, but I think you're all getting upset because I've put in place a system for something that in many peoples' minds should not be objectified.

Look at the statistics, just because people decide that whomever they're dating is good enough for marriage doesn't make them any happier as a group vs. single people. ~50% of marriages end in divorce. And let me ask you, how many of those marriages that last for longer than 10 years are truely happy marriages? Every marriage has ups and downs and I can accept that, however I've met so many married couples throughout the years that are just going through the motions or treading water, with neither party really satisfied. Here's an interesting question, what defines a successful marriage?Is it just staying together?

Getting back on point, how many women complain that their husbands don't touch them anymore? Obviously the frequency of sex decreases after marriage, but when a man never tries to have sex with his wife, maybe it's because he's no longer attracted to her? I just want to eliminate that possibility as much as possible because I know it can't be good for the marriage. After all, women can sense if you're not attracted to them anymore and I'm sure it leads to all sorts of negative thoughts which only act as a further wedge between the two parties.

Taken alone, none of this should mean that I have issues to sort out because in actual fact I'm quite enjoying my life. I meet lots of women, some of whom I date, and others whom I befriend. I haven't had a real girlfriend in a couple years but I'm fine with that as I have an active social life, can get dates when I want them, and don't need to depend on any one person.

Applying such objective analysis to potential partners might not seem romantic to some, but it's my way of avoiding future problems. Some women age gracefully, and others start to look really bad after 10 years. I went to testify at a friends child support hearing and I couldn't believe how ugly his ex had gotten. I asked him what he was thinking and he swore up and down she looked a lot better when he was with her.

I think it only prudent that I do everything in my power to ensure that when I do settle down with someone, I'm not going to want to cheat on them in a few years time. I can tell you this, if I marry a woman that goes rapidly down-hill in terms of appearance, I will lose interest in her. Maybe this makes me a terrible person, but I think it would be foolish (and potentially very expensive) to ignore what I know to be true about myself.

Having said that, walking around town I see many women in the 35-50 range that make me pause and think that if my wife still looks like that after so many years, I'll be a happy camper. I really don't believe that a 7 on to the scale above is all that much to ask for. Hell, even the super in my new building is quite attractive. She's gained some weight from when she was young (she's around 40) but she's got a beautiful face, takes great care of herself, and has a wonderful personality. Then again, she didn't start as a 5.

If anyone wants to take issue with any of the reasoning that i've put forth, go ahead. I'm open-minded and perfectly willing to debate any aspect of this. I've deferred to the collective wisdom of the forum in the past. However, I'd appreciate if you avoid making statements of the sort that I have issues to sort out because despite the fact that i've been quite willing to discuss aspects of my personal life on this forum, it's quite presumptous to think that you can arrive at any meaningful conclusions based on a few posts, as I think I illustrated in my response to LAGuy. Despite their apparent detail, there is also a lot of information left-out.

Anyway, I do have work to do ;p
post #78 of 83
Originally Posted by Rome
Define "slut".
You might try googling it
post #79 of 83
Not uninteresting article from The Wash Post:
Beauty is an eternal obsession, the Italian brainiac Umberto Eco explains, though the obsession finds new channels and expressions according to time and place. "Beauty has never been absolute and immutable, but has taken on different aspects depending on the historical period and the country," he declares in his History of Beauty -- a sumptuously illustrated book that makes you think every philosophical tome might benefit from pictures of good-looking naked people. The question, then, is not whether we are more obsessed today than ever before, but what today's modes of obsession might tell us about ourselves. Consider an advertisement that appeared this summer in key fashion magazines. Three figures are shown against a vague, gray background: two beautiful young men and one beautiful young woman. Their feet are obscured by wispy fog, as though they might be walking in a cloud. All three are facing away from the camera. Each one is the proud owner of a well-shaped tush, easy to discern, because two of them are wearing tight jeans, and the third -- one of the fellas -- is clad in a loincloth that covers just half his loins. Besides the loincloth, his only adornment is a pair of fluffy white angel wings. This angel is standing between the mortals in jeans and has a wing around each one. Maybe he is comforting them through a dark night of the soul. Maybe they have died in a terrible accident and he is taking them to heaven. But whatever he's up to, the woman has hanky-panky on her mind. She is reaching to lay a hand on his celestial rear. The startled angel swings his head to look at her, and what do you know? He has the profile of a Greek Adonis. The ad team for Diesel jeans packed this picture full of enough symbols and allusions to choke a grad student. But one striking fact about it is that images used by Greek philosophers to exalt their gods (curly-haired Adonis, seductive Venus), and later used by Renaissance popes to promote Catholicism (near-nude angel, curvy Madonna), are now employed to sell $200 jeans in 300-page fashion slicks. In those earlier eras, physical beauty was treated as a gateway to higher virtues. "What if man had eyes to see the true beauty -- the divine beauty, I mean, pure and clear and unalloyed," Socrates muses in Plato's Symposium. Physical beauty, to Plato, was but a shadow of ideal beauty; the reason to gaze on a beautiful body was that it might inspire contemplation of the ideal. This concept held sway over Western aesthetics for much of 2,000 years. The rippling abs, coiled calves, full breasts and buns of steel in the work of Phidias of Greece and Michelangelo of Italy make today's Abercrombie & Fitch kids look prudish and wan. But the purpose of those erotic creations was (in theory, at least) to lead viewers toward a Platonic divine. The beauty of youth was but a step toward the beautiful Truth, and so every canvas was an allegory and every hottie a god or goddess. No history records the names of the gorgeous models who posed for those statues; instead, we know them as Diana or Mary, Achilles or David. Today, beauty doesn't sell ideas or religions; it sells products and lifestyles. Obvious, perhaps. But what are the implications? For one thing, this change in the purpose of beauty has had the effect of democratizing beauty. Looking good is no longer the exclusive province of gods and near-gods. Everyone can join in.
post #80 of 83
Facial development is related to brain development such that severe brain disorders often lead to severe facial deformities. Of course this doesn't mean that beautiful people are smart. Just that beautiful people probably don't have mental retardation (personality disorders or other psychiatric disorders OTOH may be another story).

I think that looks is one of natures ways to check that you don't mate with someone with severe genetic defects.
post #81 of 83
What an awful theme: "Our obsession with physical appearance may not be so shallow, after all". And I believe the bust of Nefertiti he quotes is not in the New York Metropolitan but in Berlin's Ägyptisches Museum.
post #82 of 83
someone almost sort of touched upon it above, but appreciation of body beauty is innate at some levels.

guys prefer women with a certain amount of curvature, actually called a waist to hip ratio. it indicates fertility. the same with breasts, large eyes, small chin, plump lips, they're all signals of high estrogen, and the tendency towards these features cross cultures. it's no accident that these features are what we consider "beautiful'

another thing is the "average" face (ie features are average, nose not too big not too small, etc etc) or lack of deformities. it indicates healthier individuals who are more likely to produce offspring (sorry to call human babies offpsring) who are healthier and less chances for congenital diseases or defects.

the same goes for women and men though...women like men who can provide. often physically this can be a male with a great body and great face, who is very masculine. he's got testosterone, he can be a baby making machine. but then you see women who go for ugly rich men..yeah well they provide in another way. they've got the money to support kids and whatever and a girl theoretically won't have to worry about her own life or any kids she might have.

yeahhh sorry i just got out of a class in animal behavior and we talked a lot about sociobiology. but a lot of this is at least a biological reason instead of these crazy theories some people are coming up with.

oh yeah and obesity --> sickness, less likely to carry babies to term...and yeah doesn't look so good either :-p
post #83 of 83
Darwin: It's not just survival of the fittest it's also Sexual Selection. It's been studied. Biologically if you can reproduce with a better looking mate, then you will likely produce a better looking offspring that will infer a greater chance of them producing a mate. Some researches believe art, song, dance etc. are derived from sexual selection mating practices and actually probably are. It's all about reproduction. Hence why a majority of men would love to sleep with Anglie Jolie and no man wants to sleep with rosie o'donnell. I've seen many attractive women, but there are a few that cause 'racing heart' Heart palpitations and cause my head to spin. I've also noticed that when an attractive female is working out in the gym, I naturally spurred to workout harder, definitely a biological and innate mechanism at work as there is not a conscious choice persay causing these 'reactions' to said stimlus. Hardwired biology.

Some plag: Probably the most fundamental form of sexual selection is mate choice for various "indicators" of viability (likelihood of survival) and fertility (likelihood of reproduction). These can take many forms. Almost any perceivable bodily or behavioral trait can function as an indicator — revealing age, health, nutritional status, size, strength, aggressive dominance, social status, disease resistance, or overall vigor. Such indicators may reveal both heritable genetic traits that would be passed on to offspring (selection for `good genes'), and chances that the mate will survive to give provisioning, protection, and support to offspring (selection for `good parents').

Lastly, you can fall in love and after that you may not give a damn
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Social Life, Food & Drink, Travel › High Demands of Beauty Here