It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Evolution of Beauty

page: 2
8
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 02:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vanitas
reply to post by seagrass
 



Oh, I wasn't referring to beauty as being necessarily symmetric!
I was talking about that old tale of facial symmetry being an indicator of the equally "symmetric" functioning of the brain hemispheres. That's BUNK.


totally bunk. I agree




posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 08:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Vanitas
 


Thanks for getting back to me .

Would it be fairer to say that we perceive proportional bodies to be more healthy . A crude indicator though it might be .A visible cue to perhaps some unseen abnormality . e.g one limb longer than the other, betraying some possible genetic defect , influencing our selection of mating parthers .

I realise that we are not symmetrical in the sense of some organ positions etc but there is some `mapping` taking place is there not ?

Please forgive my ignorance on the subject , if you could banish any further misconceptions i may hold, i would be very grateful.







posted on Nov, 27 2009 @ 09:44 AM
link   
reply to post by UmbraSumus
 


Oh, I have no doubts about bodily symmetry being perceived as more "healthy" (hence also more "beautiful") - and probably with good reason - although I believe one should be very wary of "darwinist" thought in socio/psychology.

(Having said that, FACIAL symmetry has the curious - but not really surprising - effect of rendering faces unmemorable. Do you remember the face of that woman who a few years ago was found to have the most "perfect" - i.e. most symmetrical - face? I have seen it many times - and I still cannot recall it.)

No, in my highly scientific repudiation - calling it "bunk"
- I was referring EXCLUSIVELY to the brain hemispheres/facial symmetry correlation that some speculate upon. In other words, I don't think there is any evidence to support the idea that people with a more symmetric facial bone structure have also a more balanced brain hemisphere activity.

P.S.

Here is an interesting-looking blog (not mine) about it.



[edit on 27-11-2009 by Vanitas]



posted on Nov, 27 2009 @ 07:49 PM
link   
For me it's the eyes on a girl I find myself paying attention to first, they reel me in like a helpless fish.

There are so many little things about girls which are all different, or for reasons you can't figure out why you're attracted to them though, those are the ones that get me.



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 10:10 AM
link   
reply to post by valiant
 


I can't say I blame you...

The eyes - the gaze - is the first thing I notice, too.
The voice is VERY important.
But it's the hands that are the final clincher.
(Or is it the smell of the skin...?
)




[edit on 29-11-2009 by Vanitas]



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 11:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Vanitas
 


Yes, deffinately
the voice is a good one!

It's a mystery though really, you think you have a ''type'' until another type comes along? i've had this convesation with myself so many times, I think having a type in your head can make you more attracted to somebody who isn't your type because not being your usual type makes them instantly more attractive and ready to be explored
if you get what I mean?



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 11:45 AM
link   
reply to post by valiant
 


Oooh, the type... Let's not even go there.
(Except it's fun, so LET'S!
)

It's funny, I've never had a definite "type" (or types, in plural) in my head - but the instant I see the person, I can tell whether he is my "type" or not. It has nothing (or very little) to do with the colouring or particular features; it's the way it all falls together. And by "all" I mean the complete picture, including voice, the manner of speaking and walking.
But it's the gaze that starts - or arrests - it all.




posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 12:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Vanitas
 


That's interesting, I think i'm the same, but have deffinately and still do go through type's stages
much as I try not to because of what I said before, but it's like an automatic switch in me.

True what you say though, about the complete picture, and the gaze, though I find i'm usually the one gazing into the gaze
I think i'd pass out if the complete picture gazed back



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by valiant
I think i'd pass out if the complete picture gazed back





Well, if you anywhere near as funny as here, you must be passing out all the time... :-)

I could blabber about this for hours (and if nobody stops me, I will), so let me just add that another thing I find extremely interesting is the things that put people OFF.

I, for example, cannot stand men with curved eyelashes (and doubly so if they are thick) - or any "baby-like" features, for that matter.
I also dislike small hands.
Not to mention a high-pitched voice...


I suppose it's all about the "archetypes" and other atavisms that haunt us, much more than purely evolutionary criteria.
(If it were about evolutionary "advantage", I - and all women, bar none - should be crazy about very tall and hairy men...
Well, I am not.)




[edit on 29-11-2009 by Vanitas]



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vanitas
(Having said that, FACIAL symmetry has the curious - but not really surprising - effect of rendering faces unmemorable. Do you remember the face of that woman who a few years ago was found to have the most "perfect" - i.e. most symmetrical - face? I have seen it many times - and I still cannot recall it.)


Women's faces and bodies are supposed to become more symmetrical when they are ovulating and oddly, women are evidently better able to distinguish symmetry in others at this time too.

humrep.oxfordjournals.org...



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 04:34 PM
link   
the question i keep asking myself is why a perfect face sells a product?
why are we inclined to buy something we see being endorsed by somebody that looks appealing? how do pretty eyes switch on the buy circuit?

we clearly know that we aren't going to get that person, or be that person, by owning the endorsed product, so why do we buy it?



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 05:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Vanitas
 




thanks

So you're not into the pretty boy craze that's swept the nation
you're a dying breed


Pieman....honestly, I was thinking the same thing earlier myself, i'm even guilty of it, it's a funny thing



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 05:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by pieman
the question i keep asking myself is why a perfect face sells a product?
why are we inclined to buy something we see being endorsed by somebody that looks appealing? how do pretty eyes switch on the buy circuit?



By identification, of course. The same instinct that makes us enjoy - or dislike - films, books, any human situation we witness (either personally or in our mind). You want to be that.

Not to mention that beauty (in general) is a sort of messenger, "signpost" of the transcendental. That, of course, is something of a mystery, buried deep within our "wiring".

On the other hand, the things that people buy or acquire by any means are perceived by them as extensions of themselves, providing a sense of security.

Having said that... I am not sure that pretty faces really do sell better, unless it's beauty products, of course.
(You may or may not know this, but it's very often the less elegant and downright "tacky" advertisements that sell the best. Sleek elegance or high beauty only sell to highly sophisticated target groups - and they aren't very numerous.)

But since this IS a beauty product, that is something of a moot point.
(And personally, I must say the person in the original ad does nothing for me; I find the face totally unappealing. But that's beside the point - hence this parenthesis. :-)







[edit on 30-11-2009 by Vanitas]



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 05:35 AM
link   
reply to post by shamhat
 


I know that (heterosexual) women's perception of men does change slightly depending on the time of the month, and that during ovulation they - we - seem to prefer more "masculine" looking men, while during hormonally calmer periods they seem to prefer more tame-looking partners...

But I must say, this "Darwinian" trend in modern anthropology, while it sounds sensible, is full of unanswered questions. Any theory that has that many seeming "exceptions" to the supposed "rules" is clearly not thought out as well as it should be.






[edit on 30-11-2009 by Vanitas]



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 05:38 AM
link   
reply to post by valiant
 


"Pretty boys"...?
(Where is that puking icon again?)

I like good-looking people (men and women).
But I also like adult men to look (and sound) like adult men. Period.

And if that makes me a dying breed... I'd rather die, frankly!






[edit on 30-11-2009 by Vanitas]



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 11:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Vanitas
 




I think we're on the same page


it's kind of a good thing that what's ugly to one person is beautiful to another and this is true in most cases, but when their is so much push towards what a large number of the population see as perfect/ideal, which I see everywhere, armies of people looking the same/similar, it makes me feel a little sad, it's good to have variety, and i'd hate see the world with less.



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by valiant
 


Ah yes - variety really IS the spice of life.


I'd hate to see this thread turn into a list of my personal likes and dislikes, but there is no better way to illustrate certain points than by concrete examples.
I consider Alain Delon - the epitome of a "pretty boy" - to be one of the most gorgeous men that ever walked the Earth.
However, if I absolutely had to choose between him and, say, George C. Scott (not NOW - I mean, when he was alive
)... I gotta tell you, I am almost sure I would go with roadkill-faced Scott.

But men (or women, for that matter) really shouldn't care all that much about seeming preferences in terms of desirability, anyway.
If social history has taught us anything, it is that beauty is NOT necessarily synonymous with sex appeal - and that's, basically, what matters.












[edit on 30-11-2009 by Vanitas]



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 03:55 PM
link   
well i dont know what to say other than pretty boys annoy me as all the girls want them hehe maybe a hint of jealousy.

any way i will post some girls names of who i consider my type and who i take fnacy to.

Jennifer connerly in blood diamond i know shes abit old for me however yum.

rachel mcadams in the time travelers wife she makes my mind wonder.

elizabeth mitchell from lost woah.

that will do, now i know i dint pick any paris hilton copy sorry they just dont do it for me.

beauty is something within which cant be copied in my opinion.



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 04:16 PM
link   
By the way, and to add some "academic" content to the thread (instead of just my pet peeves
), those interested in beauty as a social phenomenon might like to have a look at Arthur Marwick's book "Beauty in History".

(I must say, I am not entirely convinced by it; I think he bases a lot of his judgements on assumptions. Then again, the same could be said about "The History of Beauty", by Umberto Eco, who happens to be one of my favourite writers - and yet...)

And here is a short online overview of beauty through history.



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 06:52 PM
link   
My examples of the what I see as beautiful would be....

Natalie portman, one of the naturally prettiest faces i've ever seen, and she carries herself so well.

Chloe agnew, just has everything, and a voice so beautiful you would not believe
perfect!

evanna lynch, just so dreamy


carla gugino, always been a fan of older women, and carla is at her peak


Thanks for the link vanitas, i've skimmed through it and just going back for a proper read now.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1   >>

log in

join