Says the man who is upset that there is no objective standard to beauty. Common sense isn't. Neither is friendly fire. But please provide us with these factual and objective criteria to beauty you claim exist.
Are you serious? If this is the case, why do corporations spend hundreds of millions of dollars on advertising? Before the woke non-sense began, who do you believe they were hiring to appear in the ads? Unattractive people? If people know anything, they know what is beautiful. Although the standards of beauty do change over time, for any particular time period, they are quite objective. For example, in the sixties and seventies, it was the perfectly proportioned [and tanned] bikini-clad California blond that was all the rage. That spurred the "blonding" of American women for decades.
Advertisers target what a majority considers is a standard for that time, but your very answer proves that it is subjective. If it was objective then it wouldn't change over time. Beauty is like any other opinion; We can objectively track what majority opinions are at any given time, but they still remain opinions.
Everybody knows, idont have to state the obvious. If you can't see it then it's not meant for you to see.
That's what someone who does know would say. If it's objective, then you can list the objective criteria. BTW the bold parts contradict each other.
But we only live in one time at a time. And there are no black/white issues. There's always a little bit of this mixed in with that, but you can certainly define what is accepted as beautiful or "in style." I would be that what you are wearing now would be considered in style [more or less]. The same goes with everything.
One shouldn't have to state the obvious in a forum where the participants are expected to be reasonably intelligent.
Most men aren't interested in "health". They just like women with good figures because it gives them a woody. They don't want to marry every woman they meet. If they are good looking, however, having sex with them is a concern.
In style is not the same as objective criteria on beauty. My idea of beauty may not be what is in style, currently. What Esau is trying and failing to claim is that there is one objective and consistent standard. For that to be true, then one standard would have always been "in style". I am not going to argue that each era and society in that era doesn't have what is accepted as beauty for a majority of that society. But it is not consistent across societies nor is it consistent across time. And there are always those whose idea of beauty is not the same as the overall society. This beauty is, always has been and always will be, subjective.
And yet you still can't provide that objective criteria. Until you can prove the objectiveness of beauty you have lost the argument. All you have is a claim, and no supporting facts.
I will agree with you here, but it still remains fact that what each man considers good looking varies from man to man. Some like them skinny, some see plump as beautiful. Some consider blondes as the height of beauty while others place redheads or brunettes in that position. There simply is no one universal standard of beauty to be had. Best anyone can show is the current majority opinion, but it's still an opinion.
Hence you prove my point. Personally I find women who have a good amount of "cushioning" to be more beautiful that those who are thinner, while at the same time, seeing those with flab as less beautiful. Now mind you, I have an attraction for all types for all kinds of reasons. Thinner girls make for better shibari subjects that thicker girls do.
Shibari? Is that sushi? But I understand that some men like "More cushion for the pushin'"... I just don't prefer that myself.
About fifteen years ago I went to an incredibly interesting continuing education lecture. It was given by a leading Beverly Hills reconstructive/plastic surgeon and this guy had so mastered his sub-specialty that you could hear a pin drop in a room of nearly 1000 physician attendees. The first half of the lecture was going through different cases of putting patients' faces back together after severe trauma, but the second part was on "What is beauty." It was absolutely fascinating. A lot of was about symmetry of features, and I am sure if you search the internet, there will be quite a bit of relevant information. If you take a look at a few women who are generally considered to be over-the-top beautiful, e.g., Grace Kelly, Sophie Marceau, to name two, how many people do you believe would disagree? There is a standard for beauty and although it might vary a bit from time to time, it depends on specific anatomical geometry. Check out the literature on it. It's pretty interesting.
