If women never wore make up, didn't try to stay thin or keep their figure, didn't keep their hair long and cut it short like men, didn't remove body or facial hair, didn't wear sexy, cute or feminine clothing....
In other words, if women dressed and groomed themselves like men, would they still be considered more beautiful than men?
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
@vivify saidBy whom?
If women never wore make up, didn't try to stay thin or keep their figure, didn't keep their hair long and cut it short like men, didn't remove body or facial hair, didn't wear sexy, cute or feminine clothing....
In other words, if women dressed and groomed themselves like men, would they still be considered more beautiful than men?
@vivify saidI would say yes with the proviso that I’m not sure how hairy they get.
If women never wore make up, didn't try to stay thin or keep their figure, didn't keep their hair long and cut it short like men, didn't remove body or facial hair, didn't wear sexy, cute or feminine clothing....
In other words, if women dressed and groomed themselves like men, would they still be considered more beautiful than men?
Given that beauty is in the eye of the beholder it’s difficult to answer the question. I see my partner without makeup all the time and she is 63 so her days on the social catwalk are long gone but I still think she is beautiful with her soft curves and cute facial features.
@kevcvs57 saidIf your wife at 63 has soft curves and cute facial features, you are quite blessed to have such a woman. A toast to you and your wife.
I would say yes with the proviso that I’m not sure how hairy they get.
Given that beauty is in the eye of the beholder it’s difficult to answer the question. I see my partner without makeup all the time and she is 63 so her days on the social catwalk are long gone but I still think she is beautiful with her soft curves and cute facial features.
@vivify artists throughout history, not just the Greeks and Romans, have found the male body beautiful. Heterosexual men, regardless of their culture, are attracted to women with a distinct ratio between the bust, waist and hips. Studies have been done measuring male response when viewing photos of a female figure. Large bust, small waist and large hips are the most stimulating. These attributes are generally more indicative of fertility and good health than other ratios. I suppose over the millennia, natural selection has favored female figures that tend to align with better health and fertility
Also, women with more fat in their hips and legs seem to produce smarter children and tend to be more intelligent then their slimmer sisters. Here's the science behind this statement. "That’s what men’s brains are telling us—that a woman’s figure signals the abundance of her DHA supply. Studies show that women with curvier hourglass figures have more DHA stored in their body fat. And because DHA makes brains work better, these curvier women also tend to have smarter children and, contrary to what you might expect, to be smarter themselves." https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/articles/201207/eternal-curves
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/26749439_Eye-Tracking_of_Men's_Preferences_for_Waist-to-Hip_Ratio_and_Breast_Size_of_Women
@shallow-blue saidThere are prevailing opinions, however.
The world is not of one opinion.
If a world-wide poll were taken asking who is more emotional between men and women, you could safely bet on what the majority of opinions would be. Likewise with who is more beautiful between the sexes.
@vivify saidI don't think of objective beauty is a thing. It's all in the eye of the beholder.
If women never wore make up, didn't try to stay thin or keep their figure, didn't keep their hair long and cut it short like men, didn't remove body or facial hair, didn't wear sexy, cute or feminine clothing....
In other words, if women dressed and groomed themselves like men, would they still be considered more beautiful than men?
If women did nothing to make themselves "attractive" they'd still be more attractive, on average, to heterosexual men, than would men be. But objective beauty seems like a meaningless concept.
Many types of meals, for example, look "beautiful" to many people when those same color combinations would look repulsive in most other contexts.
@sh76 saidNot quite. Certain physical attributes usually signify health and fertility, as Phranny pointed out. White teeth are considered more beautiful to look at vs. yellow teeth; and white teeth are usually healthier than yellow ones.
I don't think of objective beauty is a thing. It's all in the eye of the beholder.
A person, male or female, with a flat stomach is usually healthier than someone with fat in their midsection, and considered more attractive. Same with clear skin, vs. blotchy skin, toned physiques vs flabby, etc.
The objective criteria for health often translates to beauty, making beauty not quite as subjective as that saying makes it seem.
Also, look at the Miss Universe competition, which features beauty pageant winners from all over the world. These women generally have similar slim body types with high cheek bones. These women don't vary that much, apart from the natural racial differences. Clearly, beauty is more universal than given credit for.
If women did nothing to make themselves "attractive" they'd still be more attractive, on average, to heterosexual men, than would men be. But objective beauty seems like a meaningless concept.
Being attractive and being beautiful is not the same thing. Women have no problem saying they think another lady is beautiful, even if they're not attracted to females. A man can think his daughter is beautiful without being attracted to her. You can find a flower to be beautiful without being "attracted" to it.
Conversely, women may find a man who is rugged or even slightly unkempt to be attractive (like a Clint Eastwood character), even though no one would consider him "beautiful".
Sexual attractiveness and beauty aren't the same thing.
What a strange topic.
Some woman are beautiful, others look like dogs’ breakfasts.
And when one person looks at a dog’s breakfast that person thinks: “Jesus, I’d rather roast in hell or listen to a republikkunt than touch that with your cock, let alone mine.”
And another person will look at a dog’a breakfast and think: “That looks more than edible.”
I’m of the opinion that you can’t call yourself European if you haven’t licked the unwashed and hairy armpits of a sweating elderly French woman.
@shavixmir saidAhh, Shav, dont miss a chance to ruin a pleasant thread. But, its OK, Shav.
What a strange topic.
Some woman are beautiful, others look like dogs’ breakfasts.
And when one person looks at a dog’s breakfast that person thinks: “Jesus, I’d rather roast in hell or listen to a republikkunt than touch that with your cock, let alone mine.”
And another person will look at a dog’a breakfast and think: “That looks more than edible.”
I’m of the o ...[text shortened]... lf European if you haven’t licked the unwashed and hairy armpits of a sweating elderly French woman.