Beauty and its beholders

Remove all ads!

OK, enough about Iraq and WMD. Let's talk about the REAL right-wing obsession - beauty!

My question for the Alley: Is beauty real, or just in the eye of the beholder?

I read a cool book called "Survival of the Prettiest", which argues that beauty is illusory. Actually, when we say something is beautiful, what we really mean is that such-and-such triggers biochemical processes that evolution uses to encourage us to breed and survive. So, when we see that supermodel, she really isn't beautiful, but breedable. And this doesn't apply only to human attraction - for example, a sunrise isn't beautiful, it's a signal to wake up and start working. That Rembrandt oil painting inspires us to work harder, think happy thoughts, etc. Nothing is truly "beautiful" in and of itself - it's just that certain people, objects, and events are better at stimulating our biochemical bases.

The other idea is that beauty really is real. The supermodel truly is beautiful - the breedability, so to speak, is incidental. So it's OK for something to be beautiful and not have any other purpose - the sunrise is lovely, and that loveliness doesn't serve any particular purpose.

So the question rephrased: is a man attracted to a beautiful woman because she's beautiful, or does a man think a woman is beautiful because evolution wants him to be attracted to her?

[And incidentally, is Arcanum the only game to use Beauty as an attribute?]

 

Great question, interesting approach.

My question is, are those supermodels really well suited to childbirth? They're like broomsticks with designer clothes on; those skinny hips aren't suitable for giving birth. Nonetheless, I do believe that sexual attraction is a direct result of unconscious biological breeding desires. You also look at people with different sexual pursuits (namely homosexuality) who are not "suitable" for reproduction, based on their sexual orientation. Also, sexual deviants (pedophiles, etc.) also have sexual attractions to things that likely will not result in reproduction. This sort of ties in with the biological concept of population plateau; there are too many human beings, and some are developing in such a way so as to discourage reproduction. This is countered by social pressures against sexual deviance, so many of these people reproduce regardless.

I think that while the idea of beauty towards others of your race is mainly biological, and certainly many other things we would consider beautiful are biologically based, it seems too simplistic an explanation. Photos of huge whitecapped mountain ranges like the Alps or the Rockies are breathtaking, but these areas are not suitable for human habitation, nor do they serve any real purpose with regards to human survival. Dangerous animals such as tigers and lions are beautiful, but your body SHOULD be telling you to run away, not to stay and admire. Precious gems and metals are functionally useless, yet gold has been valued by western society for centuries. What was the book's explanation for examples such as these? The brain secretes chemicals like endorphins into our brains to make us feel good when we see these things.... but why?

 

Ah, but are 'social pressures' also an evolutionary mechanism anyway? To help keep the tribe together (for example).

I have no idea why people find scenery to be beautiful. I can't think of any evolutionary explanation for that. Maybe those who found scenery beautiful were more likely to travel and explore and hence were able to find new lands with more food and thus increase their chances of survival and breeding.

 

I see beauty as a culture thing, if you have been raised in one culture and "learnt" since you were a child what is beautiful and what is not it tends to stick with you. We have been taught since we were small that that supermodel is beautiful or that a sunrise is glorious. These standards for beauty arent the same across the world or across time. A few hundred years ago the female ideal was quite chubby compared to our current ideal. Heck, the female ideal seems to change every decade or so. The male ideal though seems to have stayed pretty much the same since the ancient times. Probably because we have always fought wars and a warriors well honed body was something to strain for.

However, I also think that biology plays a rather large part. There are some triggers which seem to talk to our instincts and not our intellect. For example big boobs or a large man as they signal a biological advantage. A large man should be better at protecting his woman and his young and big boobs should assure plenty of milk to all children.

 

First of all, let us set the record straight and make one thing clear: not all men believe that the bigger breasts the better. I, for one, pay more attention to shape, and generally prefer smaller to moderate ones.

Secondly, if we've already taken me as an example, I also typically go for women with relatively narrow hips and definitely narrow waist. I'm not an expert in biology, but it doesn't strike me as particularly breedable. The preference is so strong that it can only be overcome by a large input of alcohol.

Next, there's no common standard of beauty. You may argue that something is considered beautiful by the majority of people, while the minority have a deviated sense of beauty, but in that case every single human would carry several such deviations. Also, majority vote cannot establish an absolute standard - that reasoning contains an internal contradiction. Majority vote is merely a reasonably safe method of evaluation. In short: it's cognitive and not constitutive.

In brief, it all relies on comparing an object to an abstract ideal of beauty specific for each individual beholder. It doesn't matter if the comparison is conscious, or if the beholder actually cares at all about any abstract ideals. Basically, everyone has his own concepts of beauty and whether something or someone is beatiful depends on how well it or he or she fares when compared to the ideal.

And it's not true that someone "doesn't have any ideal". Every single human has a set of qualities he or she prefers. The set is not set in stone, but it's generally consistent.

Perhaps someone would like to argue?

Side note: This doesn't exclude biochemical explanations. Biochemical explanations look into the technical side. Whatever happens in an organism can be assigned a biochemical equation, anyway. I wouldn't say that everything is governed by biochemical processes. Those may be the cause, but they may be a result as well. For example, if you look on your right, it's different than if you look on your left. But you weren't biochemically determined to look on in either direction. Different processes take place when you walk and when you run, but it's you who make the decision, not some predetermined sequence of equations.

 

I'm not one to frequent the Alley of Dangerous Angles, but i do know one thing for sure (though moost of you would not agree). The reason things are beautiful to us is because God has made us in His image, and so we perceive things such as sunrise and nature as beautiful, usually. Perversion of this beauty, and attraction to the wrong things is a result of sin. But as i said most people would not agree.

 

Smaller hips doesn't necessarily mean that a woman is more or less 'breedable', but there is a certain ratio between the size of the hips and the waist, which makes women attractive. When looking at women that are considered beautiful, of the last few decades, it shows that the ratio is in place. If women have this ratio, they are more fit, and a better breeding partner.

It is also said that symmetry is important. If someone is more symmetrical, he/she has better genes and is a better breeding partner.


As for the original question: isn't this the same. Evolution wants him to be attracted to her. It is all about the survival of the fittest. Evolution made her beautiful (because she got the good genes), and a man wouldn't be attracted to a woman if he didn't think she is beautiful.

 

I'd say beauty IS in the eye of the beholder. There are some african countries where women are regarded beautiful by their size. The bigger they are, the more popular. It's not exactly my choice, but to each his own i suppose.

 

Okay, just to expose a small part of my very own philosophy of life (ahem ahem).

I believe in Beauty like others believe in God.
Beauty is in every natural phenomenon and is a timeless ideal that men strive to imitate and surround themselves with: it is in our very essence.
Standards of beauty may change with time and culture, still, it is a natural drive of the human mind.
At the begginning of humanity, an inexplicable phenomenon (like fire, sunrise, moonlight etc..) would be treated with awe that leads adoration and the primary religions like Anemism (spirits in trees, animals...), and the Ancient Greek and Egyptian religions. In turn, this adoration is linked to beauty as an ideal.

I see the developement of Art as a tribute to this beauty that the human being sees in his surroundings.

Once again, I am aware that my approach of this issue may be greatly influenced by my upbringing: both my parents are artists. Still, though I may not follow in their footsteps as a painter, I believe that true beauty is something we should all try to achieve, through any form, as it is the most fundamental act of consciousness of man.

To go back to physical beauty, it is present in every person of every shape and size. The beauty many of you have reffered to (supermodels), is entirely acceptable, but it is still only the manifestation of western beauty criterae. In other cultures, for instance in Nigeria, rounded curves are so highly prized that young brides are still sent to "fattening rooms". In such places, an androgynous supermodel is viewed as freakishly ugly or seriously ill.
However, I think current western beauty trends are too demonized: if the model is viewed as part of a whole, that is with the couture clothes and make-up, photographed by a genious such as Helmut Newton, the indvidual blends into the picture to become an artwork in itself: a thing of beauty.

/end lecture

 

I find beauty a personal thing, and don't believe there exist such a thing as something being beautiful unless the one who percieves it think it is.

 

Beauty does not exist as an indpendent thing to be appreciated. It is all subjective. I am one of those who find little interest in a mountain or sunrise but I know people who could stare in awe at such things all day if such were possible.

I am also less attracted to the typical supermodel than I am to the heavy-set gal with a sharp mind and great sense of humor. Most of the girls I REALLY wanted to *boink*, I did not decide I wanted to *boink* until after talking with them for several minutes.

As a formerly aspiring comic-book artist I could stare intensely at a muscular male just as I could stare at a beautiful female, for entirely different reasons.

In short, there are way too many factors in determining what is "beautiful" and these factors are entirely dependent on individual tastes/experience/outlook.

 

Oh, yeah, Grey? Who ever heard of a good piece of elephant?

 

Alright, I'm probably in agreement with the general population here (and Harbourboy, good point about social pressures being a kind of evolutionary mechanism). Beauty is subjective, and so on.... sigh. Everybody agreeing is so BORING.

So I'm here to argue the opposite. Beauty is NOT about conscious thought. It is mostly, if not ENTIRELY a product of biological processes, especially physical attractiveness between sexual partners.

Scenery is beautiful because it holds prospective farmland, or game, or some method of producing food. Many people would feel at peace when looking at a landscape painting as a result of your brain detecting no threat present in the picture. In most landscape paintings (like 80-90%, I've heard) there is also some sort of shelter present; a house, a shack, even a cave. When faced with even a painting of nature, people require some sort of shelter; while viewing nature at peace can be comforting, there is something deeply unsettling about the thought of facing nature alone, and unprepared. The reaction that thoughts of nature generates are inherently biological; land is used for agriculture, hunting, or gathering. A picture of rolling plains elicits a different response then one of a shadowed forest, because your brain detects a different kind of use (and threat) from different types of landscapes. Sunrise is another easy one; it signals the start of a new day, as our bodies generally run on a 24 hour biological clock, a sunrise elicits the image of a beginning, of waking up, and taking up the fight for survival anew.

As joacquin pointed out, the general male ideal of beauty, as being the muscular, physically fit Adonis, is a result of the strength needed to hunt, fight wars, etc. Female beauty is obviously culturally dependant (forgive me if I sort of shrug off the concept of male beauty; as a man I sort of have more experience in how men look at women), but differing cultural views on female beauty are based on biology. In the african culture that Pac Man mentioned, size would be a sign of health; the fatter the woman (or man, assumedly) the healthier they would be, especially in an area of the world where starvation is so prominent. In fact, when you look at the North American Ideal Woman, she used to be much chubbier, since weight was seen as healthy (and also possibly a sign of social status, can afford the best food, never goes hungry, as I refer back to the idea of sociobiology). As obesity began to replace starvation as the major weight-related problem in Western society, fatter women were seen as having a genetic propensity towards obesity, and the health problems that accompany it, and thus a move towards thinner females (and muscular males, as opposed to chubby ones) would be an evolutionary response to social situations.

If you look hard enough, you can really break down most visions of beauty into practical bio-evolutionary terms. The stereotypical North American ideal woman, the busty blonde hair blue eyes (yeah, I prefer a smaller, dark haired woman myself, but I'm going with the majority of men who vote for all those blond Playboy Playmates) is totally biologically based; big breasts can produce more milk, ideal for nursing children. Blonde hair (that totally, bleach blonde) is desirable because (get this; I've actually read it) young children are mostly blonde, their hair darkens with age, and so blonde hair elicits ideas of chidren, and children would equal biological propogation, health, and fertility. So men prefer blondes because we're all secretly pedophiles, further justifying women's assertions that all men are scum .

To say that everybody's vision of beauty is different is simply to touch on the concept of genetic variation. People will prefer some different styles of partner because they are looking for different genetic combinations for their offspring... sort of trial and error. Social pressures will drive people towards a specific kind of mate, but you'll get your share of "mutations" (sexual deviants) keeping things interesting, so to speak.

I'll stop my rambling now, and allow everybody to pick me apart; creates discussion and so on. Maybe somebody else will try to argue against what they believe to liven things up like I am. Beauty may be in the eye of the beholder, but your standards for beauty are irrevocably molded by millions of years of evolution. Keep in mind that the book Grey Magistrate is choosing to base the discussion on isn't actually saying "these things are universally beautiful"; it's saying "you think these things are beautiful because you are biologially hardwired to do so".