bodhi Posted April 24, 2018 Posted April 24, 2018 How do you answer that question? If a person is more physically attractive than 90% of the population, is he or she a 10? If you are less attractive than half of the population, are you a 4? Are we talking early morning with mashed hair or evening gussied-up? https://www.sfgate.com/opinion/article/Jamie-Lee-Curtis-has-nothing-to-hide-2805025.php#photo-2210632
S1988 Posted April 25, 2018 Posted April 25, 2018 Why ask the question in the first place? Not only it's subjective, it's superficial.
barn Posted April 25, 2018 Posted April 25, 2018 Hi @S1988 5 hours ago, S1988 said: Why ask the question in the first place? Not only it's subjective, it's superficial. Are you referring to this (op's) question or beauty in general? Don't know if you've heard, the later isn't subjective. Why do you think it's a superficial query?
barn Posted April 25, 2018 Posted April 25, 2018 Hi @bodhi I'm not going to say anything that'd rock your world by stating Jamie Lee Curtis has aged, after surgery... etc. She's perhaps prettier than many in her age but her SMV (Sexual Market Value) has undoubtedly decreased, considerably. 6 hours ago, bodhi said: If a person is more physically attractive than 90% of the population, is he or she a 10? I'd say the person in question could be anywhere from 9.1 - 9.9 6 hours ago, bodhi said: If you are less attractive than half of the population, are you a 4? Not necessarily. What sample group are you comparing yourself to (where in the world, size of group, only physical attractiveness) ? Are you just a bit or a lot less attractive? Did you know that although beauty isn't subjective (good looking/pretty, features), you can find traits that act as compensatory/diminishing factors? Barnsley
S1988 Posted April 25, 2018 Posted April 25, 2018 15 hours ago, barn said: Hi @S1988 Are you referring to this (op's) question or beauty in general? Don't know if you've heard, the later isn't subjective. Why do you think it's a superficial query? I'm referring to beauty in general. I'm not sure why you say beauty isn't subjective. For example, some people think that obesity is unattractive while others, like some cultures in some African countries, actually encourage this with fattening huts. Girls are put in these huts to be fed a lot until they're fat enough for their potential husbands since skinniness is considered unattractive. (There are people who are protesting this practice, though, and with good reason.) It's superficial because one's pulchritude doesn't say how intelligent or how moral someone is. Someone can look like a supermodel and be very evil while another can have spectacles and braces and be one of the sweetest people on earth. I remember during my school days when I would walk down the halls and would just laugh at me and treat me like a circus sideshow just because I didn't meet the shallow standards of beauty, and I still have some insecurities from that today. Even my own mother put me down and mocked me for valuing inner beauty, and focusing on my inner beauty was something I had to learn on my own. Besides, pulchritude is ephemeral. Not only one could lose it with age, one could also lose it through an accident that results in disfigurement, so emphasizing it is rather pointless. It's sad that there isn't enough focus on inner beauty. Even kids as young as five are concerned about their looks. Kids that young shouldn't worry about attractiveness; they should just focus on being kids. It was bad enough when I was concerned about my appearance starting when I was 10/11 because people were picking on me.
barn Posted April 26, 2018 Posted April 26, 2018 Hi @S1988 Thanks for expanding on what you'd meant. I realise, you have strong opinions on the topic and that we seem to have quite different viewpoints. Let me share what I have come to understand so far: 11 hours ago, S1988 said: I'm referring to beauty in general. I'm not sure why you say beauty isn't subjective. For example, some people think that obesity is unattractive while others, like a culture in Uganda, actually encourages this with fattening huts. Girls are put in these huts to be fed a lot until they're fat enough for their potential husbands since skinniness is considered unattractive. (There are people who are protesting this practice, though, and with good reason.) 1. Judging physical beauty when looking at physical features is coded in our genes, for the most part. Without cultural appropriation, it defaults to the baseline; it connotates with cross-border in-group preference observations. If anyone is to blame, it's mother nature. Wish it wasn't the way it is... or not, I haven't made up my mind on it yet. The example of fattening hutts/rooms in Uganda... After a bit of reading I could figure out/it looks like, it's about status, wealth in a culture lacking a variety of resources. Associated & myriads of health risks, regardless those sane arguments... it's culturally accepted/reinforced there to fatten women, something that has been normalised there. I don't see any reason why poverty isn't the only reason for it, there. I mean, in an environment where food is a scarce resource, it makes sense. Do you have a better argument? 2. What are 'markers' for beauty in men, aren't the same for women and in each sex they're HIGHLY correlated with the health of the individual's gene pool. (exceptions, such as plastic surgery apply here, too) 3. Attractiveness has a HUGE impact on opportunities/social interactions, though far from sufficient (only) for success, happiness, virtue, finding a virtuous partner... etc. Humans generally are highly social creatures. 19 hours ago, barn said: Why do you think it's a superficial query? 11 hours ago, S1988 said: It's superficial because one's pulchritude doesn't say how intelligent or how moral someone is. Someone can look like a supermodel and be very evil while another can have spectacles and braces and be one of the sweetest people on earth. 4. 'pulchritude' = physical beauty, 'ephemeral' = short lived. (As you used them... I prefer/will be using simpler terms.) Evaluating physical attractiveness isn't superficial. It's like saying, evaluating physical health is superficial. It isn't, it's objective. Sure, I understand it's not the one and only thing we should (or sane to) look at but I don't see any problem establishing objective standards such as 'this person is, the other isn't'. (biologically, plenty correlations with gene health, easy to do for humans all over the world/everywhere interestingly) Physical beauty is more important in the earlier stages of women's life than in the men's because of the 'ticking biological clock' property, highest chance for healthy offsprings before it takes a rapid decline... after which, it's gone. Her SMV (Sexual Market Value) decreases faster than the man's increases. Without going into it too much, a man's starts out low and increases over time, lasts much-much longer. Generally speaking that is. SMV calculates-in both, gene health and availability of resources. 5. There are ways in which one can compensate for / diminish physical beauty to a certain degree but that doesn't change the BASE VALUE, genes; the 'starting out' number isn't relative. Loosing weight is one of the 'easiest' way to greatly affect physical attractiveness. Highly recommendable, I think. 11 hours ago, S1988 said: I remember during my school days when I would walk down the halls and would just laugh at me and treat me like a circus sideshow just because I didn't meet the shallow standards of beauty, and I still have some insecurities from that today. Even my own mother put me down and mocked me for valuing inner beauty, and focusing on my inner beauty was something I had to learn on my own. 6. Parents who let/facilitate their children to become overweight are saboteurs. Guiltily of sabotaging their children's social opportunities, indoctrinating them with toxic ideologies, hiding/withholding/erasing essential life-skills such as the importance of deferral of gratification, healthy self-care, weakening willpower ...tons more but they are definitely not wreckless, they're saboteurs for causing longlasting negative consequences for the child. Did the best they could, didn't know... bla-bla, can't apply since it's been everywhere but they chose to not follow reason & evidence. No exceptions, no excuses here imo. I'm fully empathetic to your struggles while being a child, dependent/under the care of your parents. They were sabotaging you, neglected your needs... it seems to me. It must have been really hard to start recovering and healing. Sounds like she wasn't motivating/supporting you in a healthy way, didn't teach you through good examples... 11 hours ago, S1988 said: Besides, pulchritude is ephemeral. Not only one could lose it with age, one could also lose it through an accident that results in disfigurement, so emphasizing it is rather pointless. A. Emphasizing? Seems to me, the culture war is partly about trying to erase it. B. it doesn't matter at large how tiny amount of people have accidents compared to the population. 7 billion people. C. Age. Everyone ages, not everyone ages the same 'gracefully' and men ages slower in general, but even then... So, what? We shouldn't go to see a movie because it's going to end eventually?! In order for your argument to have any traction, people should be blind to physical beauty. They're not. I'm sorry, it's how it is, has been, don't know if it will be always as is... but most likely it'll be the same for a few (many) more generations, given other phenomenons such as our tribal nature, irrationality... etc. changed very little, some argues none whatsoever. 11 hours ago, S1988 said: It's sad that there isn't enough focus on inner beauty. Oh, yeah. Sure, it's tough. I just think a biologically honed in mechanism should be respected and understood, used as best possible, not despised. It would be like getting upset for evolution trying it's best to do its job. 11 hours ago, S1988 said: Even kids as young as five are concerned about their looks. Kids that young shouldn't worry about attractiveness; they should just focus on being kids. It was bad enough when I was concerned about my appearance starting when I was 10/11 because people were picking on me. I agree, kids need to do more outdoor, exploring, moving, playing with each other stuff. However, since humans are highly social beings, attractiveness having a huge impact on interactions... I think attractiveness is important, age appropriately for 5yrs old too. As in: clean, tidy, NOT RIDICULOUS or OLD FASHION, normal haircut... etc. Sensible approach, showing the parents DO CARE, show a good example, invested in the development of a healthy & independent individual. Kids can be 'cruel and heartless', especially when picking at someone... having said that, isn't the weak, the loner, the unsupported that gets targeted? Is it true that confident kids aren't seeked out by the 'vultures' and the confident kids have parents helping them, so they know how to deal with such situations?
Recommended Posts