No, I haven’t looked into the SDBM’s Mr Beauty, 2000! thread (yet). However, I was just wondering…
Just what does everyone else consider beautiful to be, anyway?
Over the years, I’ve discovered that my own scale of beauty consists of two parts, and physical appearance is the least important part of that equation.
Physical (a two-parter in itself):[ul]First: NOBODY gets a “10” unless they have staff (hairdresser, makeup artist, couturier, personal trainer, etc.)
Second: Anybody gets a ten doesn’t have time to be “real people”. It takes time to look like the beautiful people in magazines and movies – valuable time that can’t therefore be used in developing relationships, enjoying pleasant conversations with friends, etc.[/ul]REAL beauty only becomes apparent after some period of observation. An honest smile, a sense of humor, the way one carries oneself – these are all clues to beauty. One of the most beautiful women I’ve ever met weighed almost 200 pounds, but she carried herself like a queen, was interested in what other people thought (without discounting her own opinions), and generally treated others with respect while insisting (often nonverbally) that she receive the same respect herself.
By those standards, there are a lot more beautiful people in real life than you see on TV. Many of the “beautiful people” one sees in the media don’t make the grade. Extreme physical beauty is a characteristic that often fades with time. One can maintain the veneer of beauty with cosmetics, medical assistance and physical training, but the beauty inside the body is more important and lasts longer than the external kind.
I think there are a lot of beautiful people here. Have your contest. Maybe next time we can have a contest for equally important characteristics, like “Who’s the best Whistler?” or “I can belch the national anthem!”
I have to agree with the two-part component of beauty.
Physical beauty is not always interesting. In fact, it’s boring sometimes because all you have to do to see a beautiful person is turn on the TV or look in any magazine.
According to my social psych class I took last year, physical attractiveness in humans is characterized by symmetry and regularity of features- that is, no feature should be far from the average, ie- no big noses or too-small breast, or oddly-shaped ears. This is contradictory in a few ways-
Exceptionally beautiful people are those whose features are closest to average? That doesn’t explain for the super-skinny craze or large or small breast preferences.
I think physically, people usually go for bodies that look the healthiest- the whole natural selection thing.
That’s the boring part.
Now for REAL beauty, I agree that it’s the way the person carries himself or herself. A friend of mine is living proof of this. He is heavy, and not all that good-looking.
But when I first met him I was attracted to him. It was the way he moved and spoke. And he has no trouble getting girls.
I wonder if this is a double standard, though. You mentioned a woman who was fat and you considered beautiful, but does she have a hard time getting dates?
Also, if i go out to clubs an such, I get a lot more attention if i am in a good mood than if I am miserable and only forcing myself to go out so I don’t say home and sulk.
There’s the argument for the way you are carrying yourself.
Really, a majot part of beauty is people who feel beautiful, or are comfortable and happy with the way they look. The more miserable you feel about yourself, the crappier you look. Not to mention, a smile is a beautiful thing…
As far as physical beauty, I follow turpentine’s model and like to see someone who is healthy.
Hmmm, I feel like this is a bit to me,
because I started that thread.
Someone asked there, what beauty is
and I replyed that it isn’t just the outside,
it’s the inside too.
For me the inside is the most important.
You can see in that thread that some of the person who got
nominated doesn’t have a picture on that page where they are.
I’m really sorry if I hurt some people with it,
it was just for fun and also to give the guys here a bit of attention,
since I think the women gets that more here.
Maybe I give the wrong impression of me sometimes here,
but really I’m a nice and carying person.
So, I really feel if I did something wrong.
Maybe I should have called it something else.
So once again, I’m sorry.
When I think of ‘beauty’ as some THING about someone, I’d have to define it as a certain quality of discovery. Whether it’s physical or some inner uniqueness, my concept of beauty is in MY reaction to a person. How they make me feel. It’s in that moment when I realize something special is there and it’s appealing to me in some way–physically, emotionally, intellectually, whatever. Those truly beautiful people who make you feel like a better person just by being near them–the turn on the head, the eyes that you can drown in, the smile that claims you, the voice that catches your breath, the words that touch you. It’s when I discover that I’m being effected by their beauty and it makes me ache to be like that for someone else.
I don’t want much, do I?
There’s a reason there isn’t a post from me in that “beauty pagent.” To say one person is the smartest (aside from Unca Cecil, of course), the best, or the most beautiful is silly. It’s completely subjective, and 90% of the time I don’t even know why I find someone beautiful.
Trying to define beauty falls into that category of “talking about music is like dancing about architecture.”
Exactly. Beauty, like reality, is retrospective, retroactive, and illusory. It’s all from your point of view. I remember reading an article where a hundred couples were asked the same questions about their relationship to see how they remembered them. Hardly any remembered things the same way. You could say that reality only exists in the mind. And, following from this, beauty exists in the mind. It’s all about what you find attractive, and what you’ve been exposed to in the past.
Of course, I should point out that I’m ugly. But that’s just my opinion.
