Are looks subjective or false?

[Anonymous]

I want to believe looks are subjective but if that's true why are so many people attracted to the same person? I honestly think we as humans value looks more than everything else.

yes it's lies i tell you

No it's not. In the eye of the beholder.

Unsure, let me see the answers.

Updates

+1 y

Okay to what extent are looks subjective?

[ak666]

Ultimately subjective, but I think there are some biological reasons and not just cultural reasons that shape a person's subjective criteria. I think that's why we can somewhat reach a consensus on these topics excluding some anomalies.

For a simple example, apparently men unanimously prefer women to have about a 45 degree arch to the lower spine/pelvis. It tends to give the appearance of a shapely derriere that kind of sticks out. It's very similar to the kind of effect you get if a woman wears heels.

That's supposedly tied to an evolutionary advantage women have when possessing such physical characteristics naturally that improved their biological fitness during pregnancy.

Also nurture is an extension of nature. Cultural ideas of beauty don't arise out of thin air. There's some kind of natural process that has to be a guiding force behind it. Sometimes cultures might develop seemingly arbitrary ideas about beauty as a result of layers upon layers of abstraction, but at the heart of it was still some kind of motivator which is tied to nature -- it's not arbitrary even though different cultures might branch out in different paths in terms of their beauty standards.

[ak666]

>> Okay to what extent are looks subjective?

That's incredibly difficult to answer. For a start, humans are complex beings. They're not purely driven by instinct, not even close. They may even violate their most fundamental biological imperative for survival by committing suicide if they develop a complex enough rationale that this is the only way to avoid a lifetime of hopelessness and suffering.

In the same way, their choice for a mate may not always be driven, and sometimes not even slightly, by those biological instincts.

The only thing I can say is that it tends to be more objective than people tend to give credit, as the default stance is often that beauty is purely a social construct.

Take corsets, for example. Those are not arbitrary inventions of the Victorian era. They've appeared in various civilizations, including ancient ones. Likewise fashion cannot be entirely arbitrary -- again social norms sprout out of our underlying nature, although branching out in unique ways.

[ak666]

One of the most universal criteria that appears for beauty throughout cultures is *health*. Whatever is considered to constitute good health tends to be a fundamental criteria.

Some people point out cultures that traditionally favored obese women, which might contradict our modern notions of a healthy figure.

However, many of those cultures had an aristocratic class. The healthiest women in those cases were often somewhat obese aristocrats whose lifespans were likely to long surpass the impoverished lower class of peasants working below them.

[ak666]

If such is the case, then such cultures exemplify a blending of objectivity and subjectivity. The objective source is the biological programming to favor mates in good health (something that improves the biological fitness of anyone in any environment). The subjective source is the cultural beliefs that lead to the idea of the type of figure that is in good health.

[Bandit74]

Well we don't all find the same exact things attractive, but it's also incorrect to think that each individual has a standard of beauty that is completely unique from everyone elses and that no two peoples standards are alike. There are a lot of common trends shared preferences. Also there is probably more agreement about which traits are unnatractive than there are about which traits are attractive. While we may not be in agreement about which hair and eye colors are best, we almost unanimously find lazy eyes, obesity, asymmetry, acne, under/over bites, and huge noses unnattractive.

Generally it is good to have an aesthetically appealing face ("golden ratio" symetry) and then there are sexually dimorphic traits that increase sex appeal for each gender like height and broad shoulders for men and hourglass figure, long hair and high cheekbones for women.

[Nightshades]

Actually teeth in Japan is preferred to be crooked

[BronzedAdonis]

@Nightshades Japans the exception

[Nightshades]

they also don't have feminists

[Nightshades]

because they hunt whales a hahaha 😂😂😂😂😂

[Idonthaveausername]

It's not that simple

The golden (2/3) rule, symmetry, and.70 waist to hip ratio (in females) are all scientifically proven to be the most attractive features. People with these traits are the most attractive to a human being despite preferences in age, skin color, hair color, and athletic build because they're signs of good genes and fertility. This is why most guys go crazy over Megan Foxx.

But there is a certain amount of subjective beauty out there because having similar likes and personality types and general compatibility trumps having a large nose or snaggly teeth or facial scar or being born with no arms. Men who have been married to their wives for 50 years still view their wives as beautiful because emotional attachment and history causes your view of someone's beauty to become inflated

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but there are some hot people out there who are considered more beautiful than others based off aesthetics alone

[btbc92]

Looks ARE subjective. Think of how they shape you through media? They brainwash you to think what a physically attractive person looks like compared to what they could look like. This is due to genetics, not stupid evolution crap they sell you. What you consider attractive may not be attractive to everybody else. The rest is just due to lust as well. Attraction is attraction. But when we add to the looks departments it's mainly about sexual attraction. Who you are most likely to have sex with. Most would get upset if you're not attracted to and liking the same person. What matters is being with the person you're most happy with excluding the looks department.

[Nightshades]

Orrrr a skinny female with big boobs and hips are all signs of fertility so is being younger, all of this can stem back to our ancestors when babies regularly died at or before birth and needed to find healthy women

[btbc92]

Actually, no. You're wrong. A women whose skinny and and breast size have no basis for fertility. In fact a women with a slim waist has a very hard time concieving and being pregnant than a woman who has a larger waist and has healthy body fat. What you think yoir attracted to is why such women don't get pregnant easily. Do your research. on ancient history. These women back then did NOT look like us women now. Hense why the. bigger the woman the more prized she was. Ghe slimmer and the less attractive and signs of comong from a poor family.

[Nightshades]

Actually fatness wasn't considered fertile it was a sign of class thus doest affect what I said. a women with wide hips have easier chance of popping babies out cause their hip are wider and this mostly means they have a big ass, women with larger breasts have an advantage over women with smaller boobs bigger boobs more milk making membrane. of course women then don't look like now because of natural selection attractive features will stay and ugly features won't. we should consider stopping people with cancer in their family from giving birth and then natural selection can get rid of inherited cancer

[btbc92]

cancer is manmade. You can't stop people from having a life. Cancer is a mutation. Any ody who is effected can trigger a malignant cell. Aka carcinogens. Plus Im a women with a big bust, there is no advantage to it. Breast is still breast. And no. Having a latge hip doesn't mean you will have a larger butt. Its about body frame and bmi. Not all women are gentically the same nor have the same productive system.

[Nightshades]

are you going to refute my point or just say "no its not true"

[btbc92]

@Nightshades Not saying it isn't true or not. Just saying that everybody has their own convictions on what is right for them and what's isn't. Everybody's priorities is not the same.

[Luci92]

Looks are subjective to an extent, but there's definitely a component that's objective, like facial symmetry, hip to waist ratio, etc.

[reixun]

There are people who are naturally attractive, they might not be aesthetically ideal but they have a quality to them that appeals to the opposite gender. Allure, I'd like to call it.

[flypaper]

Well said!!

[madhatters4]

i don't really understand the poll answers.
is b saying yes you think it's subjective

beauty is subjective. just because lots of people think the same people are attractive doesn't change that. it just means that lots of people have the same subjective opinion.

[ADFSDF1996]

Based on things that I've noticed, they are subjective. I actually had a crush on a girl when I was in high school that I thought was gorgeous but many other guys thought she was average or ugly. She was tall, skinny and had nice facial structure yet many guys preferred other girls.

[Anonymous]

Not entirely. There is universal features for both genders that majority of people would consider attractive if present on a person. In addition, even if you aren't attracted to a person you can still identify that this person is attractive.

So no it's not subjective for the most part.

[BronzedAdonis]

well said

[AnonRom]

It's both. Like there are people who are just attractive and 98% of people will see them as such. Most people however filter them out as unattainable and thus their standards lower so you might be the top of someones self set standards (even if they are more attractive than you objectively speaking)

[Blonde401]

It's subjective. Of course there are conventional standards of beauty and for biological reasons, men and women are drawn to certain physical traits in the opposite sex but there's someone for everyone and everyone has different tastes.

[Sara413]

A bit of both.

It is largely subjective, but within the context of a social environment that shapes our personal preferences.

[Bluemax]

There is an element of subjectivity to it, however it is more objective than most people are willing to admit.

That being said, being unattractive is much more objective.

[BronzedAdonis]

Care to elaborate on first paragraph?

[Bluemax]

@BronzedAdonis
If you look at Bandit74's opinion, you'll find he has very ably spelled it out.

[Atlas67890-]

I think its a sliding scale for most people:

https://i.imgur.com/EsOwgTg.jpg

[WaterRat]

Wow this should be it's own Q&A. My choice of 9/10 is in row 7 column 5.

[Atlas67890-]

@WaterRat I actually think some of the 8's and 9's look stupid. I hate these new make-up trends and hairstyles. Besides you're deep into cunty narcissist category there. 6's and 7's are a good balance i. e. girl next door.

[WaterRat]

Haha well said.

[twotimestwo]

It's about who you find attractive. I find some women attractive that some guys won't touch with a 10 foot pole. I feel the same way about some friends partners.

[Kolya]

it is subjective, always was and will be, though some have that something we all find beautiful, it is kinda sad really

[RedThread]

There are regional subjective beauty standards but there are universal beauty standards as well. Universal standards are like symmetrical features being a sign of good health and shit like that. Everything else is pretty subjective.

[Anonymous]

s23.postimg.org/.../...olden_Square_and_Spiral.png
I run not walk from guys who mention this.

[lazermazer]

Same block gets bigger?

[Anonymous]

Yes to a certain point. There are people that a lot of people find attractive and there are people that few people find attractive. But there are people you might find attractive but your friend does not.

[Pegasio]

They're subjectived, but highly influenced two things:

1. Features that show health and competence.
2. Our instinct to look for gene compatible people.

[helloitsmethere]

It's subjective, because different cultures are attracted to different features.

[Liam1993]

Looks can reflect who you are but who you are is not reflected in what you were.

Think of this.

What have I become? ಠ_ಠ

[bloodmountain1990]

Yep, what may be attractive to one, may not be to another

[BronzedAdonis]

I think objective because even if you aren't attracted to someone you can still recognise beauty in a conventionally attractive person.

[lucky1234567]

Personality is the first thing everyone watches and our brains are made that to like a person through his looks.

[Anonymous]

Of course it's subjective, just a lot of people have similar taste

[CT_CD]

true

[Asker]

Hey courage!

[CT_CD]

sup dawg

[Asker]

How's muriel and eustace?

[CT_CD]

Dead