If yuu repeat a lie for fifty years...

[Joe Wordsworth]

Pffft... you want me. I'm that bad-boy that all the nice-boys complain about.

 

[sweetnpetite]

Pffft... you want me. I'm that bad-boy that all the nice-boys complain about.

You stud you.

I would never confuse arrogance with confidance.

 

[Weird Harold]

The disagreeement is over how close each girl -in your oppinion- comes to the standard. Not whether or not there is a standard or ideal.

There is no SINGLE standard.

Returning to the subject that started this thread, I watched many Miss America Pageants in the company of GIs -- a rather atypical sampling of "all men" in some ways but what I have to work with.

In my experience, the near unanimous opinion almost every time was, "why the hell did they pick her?" i.e. 80-90% of the men I watched thepageants with disagreed with the "standard' Miss America represents.

When you discuss weather such and such is a 'ten' or not, don't you find yourself measuring her by the same standards. (hmm, nice legs, great ass, amazing lips- oh god, but what a nose!)

There is in fact, an objective standard of what consitutes "Beauty" with mathematics statistics and diagrams to back it up. A woman who rates "perfect" by the objective standard will rate an eight or better anywhere in the world -- However, she'd be unlikely to win a beauty contest or make millions as a model.

as you said- you *don't* like fat girls,

Nope, Joe said HE didn't like fat girls -- both of my ex-wives were overweight, although not grossly so even up to the time we divorced.

*Most* men indeed, are little different from their peers in taste. That's how we get demographics, and as Joe said, it's how marketing manages to work so well.

There are large -- or at least significant -- groups of men who share a general taste in women, but there are MANY of those groups. If there weren't many different demographic groups, Playboy would never have had any competition and still be the only major magizine featuring "beautiful women."

That Objective Standard I mentioned is flexible -- applied to world-wide data will predict a "guaranteed eight;" Applied to a smaller demographic, it can generally predict a "guaranteed nine-point-five."

The smaller the demographic, the more accurate the prediction, but it's never produced a "perfect 10" that I know of.

Beauty is truly "in the eye of the beholder" and while small groups of men might agree on specifics, the larger the group the less specific the agreements on beauty become.

The very large group of "men willing to spend money on images of beauty" is still less than "all men" and the "standard" of "what sells" is a false "standard" that only applies to the target demographic.

 

[gauchecritic]

let us for a second use the term attractive rather than beauty.

Let's take the maxim (not the boy's magazine) that "the most attractive woman is the one that is attracted to you" (all else being equal)

Let's take symmetry as one of those mathematically attractive identifiers.

Let's take facial recognition which is apparently hard wired, hence smileys, and the ability of a focussing baby (3-4 weeks old?) to recognise one.

All faces, give or take, contain those attributes.

Where then is beauty except in a conditioned reflex?

Wipe your chin Joe.

Gauche

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by gauchecritic
let us for a second use the term attractive rather than beauty.

Let's take the maxim (not the boy's magazine) that "the most attractive woman is the one that is attracted to you" (all else being equal)

That seems kinda silly. Why would I believe someone to be attractive just because they're attracted to me?

Let's take symmetry as one of those mathematically attractive identifiers.

Let's take facial recognition which is apparently hard wired, hence smileys, and the ability of a focussing baby (3-4 weeks old?) to recognise one.

All faces, give or take, contain those attributes.

Where then is beauty except in a conditioned reflex?

Possibly a Form, possibly a natural sensation... possibly not behavioral at all.

Wipe your chin Joe.

Wipe yours, boocho.

 

[Guest]

I read a recent interview with Toni Morrison. Here's an apt excerpt; she begins with despair about her female students:

"They are hopelessly concentrated not on relationships, but on sex. They have taken the notion of "my body is my own", but they have focused on the most superficial part: breasts... Bits. It is really sad. Fashion reinforces it. So mommies look like their daughters, little children are sexualised out of their skulls. It's unbelievable the ages people begin to explore sex among their peers. That's commodification."

For Morrison, 'commodification' - the default setting of those who live in a consumer society - is a disease, one that came into play even after 9/11, when patriots were urged to go out and shop, to get back into the malls, in order to keep the wheels of the economy turning. "Why were we not told, 'Stay home, get 30 days' food in your house?"'

I had forgotten about the post-9/11 call to go out and spend money, to be patriotic consumers. I thought that obscene and immoral.

I would say any beauty pageant, whatever its mission or goal, contributes to commodification and the focus of capitalism. There is no comparison between it and ceremonies of former (pre-capitalist) times such as the crowning of a harvest queen (e.g., a character like Shakespeare's Perdita).

Mostly I agree with what Gauche has said on this thread. Some of the other posters are too philosophical.

Perdita

full interview

 

[gauchecritic]

That seems kinda silly. Why would I believe someone to be attractive just because they're attracted to me?

Wipe yours, boocho.

Great grief boy! Why do women paint their lips and wear eyeliner? So that they look as though they're aroused by you! And it works.


Ok so I didn't quote my source, the main reason being that I can't find it.

Experiments were conducted whereby a person was asked which of identical twins he preferred (all else being equal as a qualifier, do you even read what I write Joe?)

One of the twins was given eyedrops to enlarge their pupils (a common signal that even though you may not be aware of it you do actually read) the majority of cases showed that the person who was showing interest (wide pupils, taking in more light with which to see their observer better) was considered to be the more attractive. Ok?

Boocho? I can see my subtlety is far too evasive. Wipe your chin?.. conditioning?.. salivating?.. Pavlov's cat?.. (rang the bell, cat buggered off) Forget it. I'll use a brick hammer next time.

Gauche

 

[Belegon]

The reason I asked about the Barbi Twins (and thank you, you were the only one who replied) is that they were seriously anorexic, buliemic and completely unhealthy- and at this time they were basicly considered the ideal in the minds of the majority of men.

~~~~Belegon retreats to a corner to pout and try to figure out a way to get Sweet N' Petite to notice him...without shooting a President...~~~~

 

[sweetnpetite]

I read a recent interview with Toni Morrison. Here's an apt excerpt; she begins with despair about her female students:

"They are hopelessly concentrated not on relationships, but on sex. They have taken the notion of "my body is my own", but they have focused on the most superficial part: breasts... Bits. It is really sad. Fashion reinforces it. So mommies look like their daughters, little children are sexualised out of their skulls. It's unbelievable the ages people begin to explore sex among their peers. That's commodification."

For Morrison, 'commodification' - the default setting of those who live in a consumer society - is a disease, one that came into play even after 9/11, when patriots were urged to go out and shop, to get back into the malls, in order to keep the wheels of the economy turning. "Why were we not told, 'Stay home, get 30 days' food in your house?"'

I had forgotten about the post-9/11 call to go out and spend money, to be patriotic consumers. I thought that obscene and immoral.

I would say any beauty pageant, whatever its mission or goal, contributes to commodification and the focus of capitalism. There is no comparison between it and ceremonies of former (pre-capitalist) times such as the crowning of a harvest queen (e.g., a character like Shakespeare's Perdita).

Mostly I agree with what Gauche has said on this thread. Some of the other posters are too philosophical.

Perdita

full interview

I like your argument- but *still* how is this different from porn? Doesn't porn count as commodification?

 

[sweetnpetite]

~~~~Belegon retreats to a corner to pout and try to figure out a way to get Sweet N' Petite to notice him...without shooting a President...~~~~

Hi Bel. What R U pouting about? I see you over there... come on out and share....

 

[Belegon]

Hi Bel. What R U pouting about? I see you over there... come on out and share....

just this...

(and thank you, you were the only one who replied)

I replied right away...

To be honest, they sorta weird me out...

What's worse, they are one of the "great examples" of how all Southern Californians are supposed to be only focused on the superficial...

That was all...I'm just playing for attention. Re-learning it from my kids LOL.

 

[sweetnpetite]

just this...


I replied right away...



What's worse, they are one of the "great examples" of how all Southern Californians are supposed to be only focused on the superficial...

That was all...I'm just playing for attention. Re-learning it from my kids LOL.

Oops! sorry 'bout that. Thank you belegon

 

[oggbashan]

I've said it before...

...my imagination is important to my view of women.

When I see a woman I have been aware of for over 20 years, a family friend, a neighbour, an acquaintance - I don't see her as she is, or even as she was 20 years ago.

I see her as she could be, or could have been, dressed in a style that enhances her particular body, her hair and face professionally styled and any imperfections concealed or ignored.

If I see a mother in a shabby track suit, with a baby slung over her shoulder with burp trails down her back, I see her as she could be dressed for a night of partying and at her best, knowing that she looks her best.

I know that the image is false. I know exactly how she looks now, yet what I see is an idealisation of what that particular woman could be.

If I see an elderly woman, I see her as she might have been 40 or 50 years ago, not as she now is. She may have been nothing like my imagination of her, and she might deny or reject my visualisation, but what I 'see' is my ideal version of that woman.

It makes my days interesting!

Og

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by gauchecritic
Great grief boy! Why do women paint their lips and wear eyeliner? So that they look as though they're aroused by you! And it works.

Chill with the "boy" stuff, cocko.

I see what you're saying. I saw a Dateline story on it, once. Something about more open looking eyes and flushed face and that like. Makes sense now.

Boocho? I can see my subtlety is far too evasive. Wipe your chin?.. conditioning?.. salivating?.. Pavlov's cat?.. (rang the bell, cat buggered off) Forget it. I'll use a brick hammer next time.

If you can't see how that is not reasonably misunderstandable, you're too much in love with your own "complexity".

 

[Guest]

I like your argument- but *still* how is this different from porn? Doesn't porn count as commodification?

I was not arguing anything, simply making a point about beauty pageants. P.

 

[sweetnpetite]

I was not arguing anything, simply making a point about beauty pageants. P.

sorry 'dita.

Edited to say, I like your *point*