The Biology of Beauty

[MuresanForMVP]

Allow me to preface: I was in a Comm. class today (yea special-ed central I know) and we were on the topic of "beauty". Essentially my TA, along with the other people in the discussion agreed that virtually all of what is understood to be "beautiful" is culturally defined, and not cross-cultural (in the Western World's case defined by the Media). I took a very different stance, claiming that "beauty" is more biological in that it is quite universal, and certain quantifiable attributes are things that ultimately make one "attractive", in general cases.

Certain aspects such as Hip-to-Weight ratio, the size of the chin,level of estrogen, symmetry are more often than not what defines what people all over the world take into account (even subconsciously) when assessing someone's beauty. After saying this I was bombarded with angry women, yelling about how I'm wrong, how they listen to too much Christina Aguilera (in my mind that's what they said), etc,etc. I'd be very interested to hear the opinions of others on this board regarding the issue of biological beauty vs. culturally defined beauty and which stance you take.

Here are some articles I found on my stance:

http://hss.fullerton.edu/sociology/orleans/symmetry.txt (tl:dr Newsweek article that references a large number of studies, some even done with 3-6 month old infants)

http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/biology...ekanayake.html

http://www.jyi.org/articletools/print.php?id=537

[madnak]

You are probably correct, though the "science" of attraction is tentative at the moment. There are definitely stimuli that humans naturally respond to in certain ways, and our aesthetic sense tends to value patterns that would have been safe in our natural environment and to be upset by patterns that correspond to danger. Furthermore, many human traits appear to have been sexually selected, which implies some kind of inherent selection bias. The exact nature of this bias, and the specific characteristics we're biologically attracted to, are a matter of controversy.

Most likely, traits that indicate health and fertility are universally appreciated.

[borisp]

you are right

[Nielsio]

This thread is worthless without pics.

[MuresanForMVP]

[ QUOTE ]
This thread is worthless without pics.

[/ QUOTE ]

[tame_deuces]

They are wrong. Afaik, the accepted version almost everywhere is an interaction effect. Biological bias towards some forms of beauty adjusted by culture.

[scorcher863]

If beauty is culturally defined, it's been that way for thousands of years. ie. helen of troy, cleopatra

[furyshade]

[ QUOTE ]

They are wrong. Afaik, the accepted version almost everywhere is an interaction effect. Biological bias towards some forms of beauty adjusted by culture.

[/ QUOTE ]

yeah, generally things, at least for women, like narrower chins, bigger breasts (a few hundred thousand years ago buoyancy was a survival necessity), and other things we find attractive in women were at one point necessary to survival or inidicative of more estrogen/fertility. a lot of these things are vestigial and dont really apply to life anymore, but these are built in things.

some of these evolved culturally though, there was a time when fat people were attractive because that was a sign of wealth and affluence. a main difference is that evolutionary attractions stick around whereas cultural ones tend to go away as soon as they are irrelevent.

[ALawPoker]

You're definitely right, and it's sort of amazing that people in a college class (people who are theoretically interested in learning) can be such bad thinkers. But of course they yell and moan and claim strong opinions anyways. You didn't go into much detail, but I feel like I have a good hunch into what types of arguments and attitudes they held.

It seems like you basically have to have a poor intuitive sense for how existence works if you don't think attraction evolves biologically based on very real criteria. Cultural stuff might account for some very superficial differences, but you could raise me anywhere and as long as I'm a human being dog [censored] still smells like dog [censored], and palm trees blowing gently on a calm autumn sunset is still beautiful. And Lindsay Lohan is still really hot even if she's nuts.

[guids]

[ QUOTE ]
You're definitely right, and it's sort of amazing that people in a college class (people who are theoretically interested in learning) can be such bad thinkers. But of course they yell and moan and claim strong opinions anyways. You didn't go into much detail, but I feel like I have a good hunch into what types of arguments and attitudes they held.

It seems like you basically have to have a poor intuitive sense for how existence works if you don't think attraction evolves biologically based on very real criteria. Cultural stuff might account for some very superficial differences, but you could raise me anywhere and as long as I'm a human being dog [censored] still smells like dog [censored], and palm trees blowing gently on a calm autumn sunset is still beautiful. And Lindsay Lohan is still really hot even if she's nuts.

[/ QUOTE ]

this is wrong, imo. Yes, to you dog [censored] smells like dog [censored], but that doesnt mean it is some inherent truth. Ever smell a "foreigner", that smelled horrible to you, do you think they smell themselves? do you think they smell bad? Ever been to africa? your cologne that you spent 100$ on smells terrible to them. It isnt completely cultural, but to say that "there are no cultural influences on what people think is beautiful" is completely ridiculous.


what do you find attractive:







heres a nice page on female beauty:

http://theaestheticelevator.com/2007...ugh-the-years/




cultural influences play a huge part, do you find fat chicks hot? well they did in the 1700s.