Since beauty is subjective do you think that also means leagues are subjective?

[Anonymous]

[sunshineglow]

I think there is such thing as a match... But objective leagues are to large extend just popularised images in the media and don't necessarily represent what is objective "beauty". Any human being can be found aesthetical in one way or another. It depends on what is currently a trend in a given time, society and culture. Even in one and the same age, across the earth, you have completely different understandings and preferences of what is "desirable". This just proves people don't know nor dare to think and feel for themselves, but somebody needs to suggest them that some particular trait in appearance is more "desirable", and now individuals who have it will be seen as more "desirable" as well. If people were more honest to themselves, many of these fake beauty standards would cease to exist.
Example: if a 21st century young man who regularly spends time in a gym trying to become more muscular in looks, would travel few centuries into the past in the Europe, his muscles wouldn't be perceived as attractive by any female who is of any bit higher social status. They would look at the face or hair or attire. Muscular silhouette would simply imply he is from the lowest class, whose job is strictly physichal.
Similarly, these "hipster beards" would be sign of primitivism and lack of care for one self throughout quite a time in the past, regardless of the rest of the body. Furthermore, has anyone ever noticed Mona Lisa, one of "beautiful aristocratic women of affluent italian background" - had no eyebrows? That was simply a fashion of a time. For many artists throughout the art history of Europe, small chested women were seen as highest examples of sensuality and beauty. Women with larger chest were seen as vulgar in character. Often times in vintage novels, operas, plays (which date from relatively recent time, 19th century), you can see the female owners of taverns are relatively vulgar women with voluptuous chest, often owners of "ladies of the night's hotels" . "Beautiful", nice, cultured women that are represented as actually desirable are thin, covered in million of layers. There waa also a time when large lips were seen as vulgar. Similar when it comes to hairstyles, clothing fashion and so on. There is less objectivity to an untrained and uneducated eye. To one that understands however - everything is relative. Who kniws what is going to be a standard 100 years from now and what "leagues" will people invent based on those invented preferences.

[DWornock]

80% of beauty is a fact. 20% is subjective. There are universal characteristics of beauty that apply to all societies and races. For women, they are bilateral symmetry, an hourglass figure, smooth clear skin, a youthful appearance, and big eyes. Every Disney princess whether real or animated has those characteristics.

[sunshineglow]

Not true. They often don't have hourglass figure, but hourglass shaped crinoline DRESSES. Never forget standards of beauty were very much changing throughout the history. What a greek or renaissance man or woman would find beautiful, we nowadays wouldn't, and vice versa. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

[DWornock]

@sunshineglow It was found that a women is most attractive when her hip to waist ratio is 70% (an hour-glass figure). Studies continue that “interest is lost” (nice way to put it, huh) when the ratio exceeds 80%. Interesting; this study used photos of Playboy models.

The mode size of a Playboy model is 34-24-36, weight is 110, and height is 5’7″.
Waist-Hip Ratio of.7 and BMI of 17.8.

Beauty icons including Marilyn Monroe, Alessandra Ambrosio, Sophia Loren, Kate Moss, and even Venus de Milo all have ratios around 70%. Notice they have significantly different weights.

Regardless, if you wish to disagree, that is your right and, after this post, I'm not going to argue with you.

[sunshineglow]

It is only animalistic, subconscious way of perception, but people who actually care to aske themselves what do they personally find beautiful - have all very diverse answers. Let's not forget men here as well, not only women. As for women with hourglass figure - that is, like I've said, animalistic paet of us, instinctively recognising that this particular woman can give a lot of offspring. Wide hips suggest she will feel less pain while giving birth, especially if in a bit older age, as that position is uncomfortable as hell and birth can take several hours to deliver. Larger breasts give idea that they can bear more milk, in case she is having twinsor is pregnant year after year after year (which in time of no protection was always the case). Now, if you want 5+ children year after year, perhaps take these things into consideration, but otherwise it's just uneducated and stupid. Talking about science ~

[PositiveNote]

I am experiencing a translation problem... how are you using the word "leagues?" I am not familiar with the context of the comparison to "subjective" (or beauty, either.) 😐

[forthright]

Yes, but we're always subjectively observing &/or embodying objective reality.

[Astarlessnightsky]

No, leagues don't exist.

[Avicenna]

Yeah, to a large extent, yeah

[Sun_Kim-Ai]

Naturally, yes.

[Anonymous]

No since that’s classes

[Iron_Man]

No I don’t

[In_Trance]

yeah