Is beauty really in the eye of the beholder?

Or is that just something fat, ugly people say?

Eye of the Beholder … a great TSR based video game. A nice first person role playing game … filled with both fat and non fat, ugly and nonugly people and monsters.

A festival of video gaming delight.

that is what you were talking about, right?

Or was this a discussion about how the ever changing outlook of society views physical beauty and how the changing form of beauty over the years, with the spread of fast delivery multimedia over such technologies as television, print matter, and the internet, has led to a growing pressure on the youth of today to fit into tighter and tighter molds of what is attractive?

Mmmm … I love video games.

You know warcraft 3 is coming out.

I know it’s not “trendy” to say so right now, what with the controversy over Napster, but I really do enjoy Metallica’s “Eye of the Beholder.” Does that make me ugly?

“Eye of the Beholder” did have some nice cinematographic work but on the whole it failed to really wow me. The composition of the shots is occasionally beautiful.

Not conclusive evidence in any sense of the word, but I remember watching an investigation on ABC’s 20/20 on whether beauty is in fact subjective or if there are innate criteria by which beauty can be judged. I think their idea was to determine whether we find certain people attractive because society tells us that certain features are attractive or if we’re born with a sense of what is beautiful and what is not (nature/nuture).

They conducted two “experiments”. In one, they rounded up a bunch of babies and displayed two pictures in front of the infant. One image was of a more attractive women while the other was of someone less attractive (I assume this was determined simply by passing out pictures and asking random people "Who do you think is more attractive?). They found that the infants tended to fixate on the image of the more attractive woman.

In a second test, they hired two women to pose as pre-school teachers, again, one more attractive and one less so. They both performed the same functions in class (read the children stories, led activities, etc…). The children were then asked who was the better teacher, and the majority of children replied that the more attractive was the better teacher.

IMHO, while tastes may vary, beauty is, at least is part, NOT in the eye of the beholder at all.

I think that when people say “beauty is in the eyes of the beholder”, they mean that tastes may legitimately vary. This is true. There is no inherent quality of “beauty”. It is purely a perception of the viewer. Thus if for Person A so-and-so is more beautiful and for Person B someone else is, neither can be said to be “right” or “wrong”. Both are describing their own perceptions.

The implication is that people should not worry if they or their mates match up to some absolute standard of beauty. As long as it works for them, it’s as legitimate as any other.

The specifics vary from culture to culture and over time, but there are certain traits which we seem to be biologically programmed to like, such as symmetric features & a waist-hip ratio of about 0.7 (for women).

Certain physical traits indicate health/fertility, & we tend to gravitate to them. Whether one prefers blonde hair or dark, full-bodied or petite, is more individual.

I’ve seen pictures of you pal,and all I behold is ugly.

HEY !!! , I resemble that comment!

“It is only with the heart that one sees rightly, what is essential is invisible to the eye.”

                        St Exupery

 For me, that says it all!!!

Nuk nuk nuk nuk!!!

Yes, beauty is indeed in the eye of the beholder. How many times have you seen a couple and wondered how in the world that ‘ugly guy’ is dating that ‘hot chick’.
(…ok, well I can think of a few reasons why, but anyways.)

I absolutely agree with you!

My first class in law school, I sat behind a woman with gorgeous long black hair. I looked forward to seeing the rest of her. But when she turned around…to be blunt, she was ugly.

But over the next months I talked to her, and something happened–it turned out she wasn’t ugly after all. In fact, she was beautiful–she just needed people to take the time to realize it. I was engaged at the time, so I didn’t ask her out…but if I’d been free, I sure would have.

So not only is beauty in the eye of the beholder, it comes from the inside, not the outside. I feel sorry for those who never realize that…and even sorrier for the beautiful people they hurt with their attitudes.

I think people with a whole lotta piercings in their faces are ugly, no matter what they looked like before they started punching holes in their skin and inserting pieces of metal. Does that count?

beauty is in the eye of the beholder of the camera lens. its beheld by the media, just as culture taught us too…that’s why i’m so messed up…

‘Beauty’ is an ephemeral term more suited to IMHO and MPSIMS than GD, as it relies on cultural norms more than genetic ones. However, physical attraction is fairly constant and is dependant more upon genetic traits. For example, symmetry is very important. Symmetry means that the person is healthy, has not lost limbs/eyes/ears/cheeks/etc., and is young enough not to have scars or other disfigurements. Proportion is also important. In females, an hourglass shape is desirable, with a wide chest area and healthy breasts, a narrow waist, and wide hips. In men, an inverted pyramid with a broad chest and a narrow waist. Both of those figures are very much related to reproduction, and as such remain nearly constant because whatever happens, the genes must be passed on.

>> an hourglass shape is desirable, with a wide chest area and healthy breasts, a narrow waist, and wide hips…

Derleth, stop! You are turning me on!

See? Very sexual. Ultimately related to the propogation of genetic information.