posted on Aug, 7 2006 @ 12:00 PM
Nothing more beautiful than beauty. That's what I say.
Of course I believe beauty is in the eyes of the beholder, but let's be real. There is a
minimum level of perspected beauty that most people won't go below. I'm sure that
level varies between cultures and environments.
In my experience, I am generally attracted to a petite, thin, healthy looking women.
From that benchmark, there are all sorts of little things that can change that. Say tattoos, dread-locks, piercings, gate, swagger, voice, etc. All
these variables and more tend to push and pull between more or less attractive. I've been attracted to women of larger stature as well. I also
notice my tastes change as I grow older, which lends me to believe that beauty is also dependent on current needs. I also believe that for many,
it's not how beautiful your mate is, it's how many NON-beautiful traits they have.
Everyone has standards.
American beauty standards are easy, considering IMO there is only one: Perfection.
Sad really, but I think thats the case of our high speed society. I'm curious to know
how many people in western society feel they have to settle, not being able to find
one of those perfect model types that seem to be everywhere if you watch and read
Worth mentioning: From a tv show I had seen many many years ago about this exact
subject, Polynesian and other island cultures in the Pacific tend to find plump women
and men the more attractive. It had to do, If I remember correctly, child bearing capability, and a sign of health. I imagine it's percieved, if
your larger, you have no problem finding food to feed your family. This was also the case I'll say pre-victorian
or thereabouts that larger was more attractive. The term child-bearing hips comes to mind.