Kurgan wrote:
Ectryon wrote:
Kurgan wrote:
Conventional beauty simply means the most healthy and fertile women.
I think that that is a too neat. Beauty standards do seem to change over time sometimes significantly. Its certainly true but only partly
It changed in men after birth control pills and mass media became more widespread (compare Georg Hackenschmidt to Justin Bieber, for instance), but beauty standards in women have changed very little apart from haircuts. Absolutely all cultures, at all times given that food was plentiful, valued hourglass figures with large eyes, small noses, small jaws, and typical feminine features.
All this says is that our perceptions of beauty are affected by cultural norms which are affected by the environment. I don't think that means one set of norms is more or less legitimate than another. It's not like having "plentiful" food is a default state of nature that lets us get at an objective viewpoint on what's attractive
It just goes to show that beauty is subjective and differs widely according to many factors.
You can't tell me a lady with a 20 inch waist and a thigh gap is more likely to be fertile than one with saggy breasts and belly and stretch marks on her hips because she's already borne a healthy child surely
Yet which one do men in the Western world fantasize about? The one they've been bombarded with since they were born!
I am not sexually attracted to women, but I find the women whose pictures were posted very beautiful and more interesting than what might be "conventional" beauties. I also think Maggie Gylenhaal is very attractive, and I second the earlier mention of Billie Holiday
[img][800:1655]http://media.celebrity-pictures.ca/Celebrities/Maggie-Gyllenhaal/Maggie-Gyllenhaal-1241106.jpg[/img]
Frida Kahlo is also a good example
[img][800:1282]http://thelacquerie.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/1939_photo_nickolas_muray.jpg[/img]