REAL women

[slant]

I know, I'm saying that your usage makes more sense than the standard.




I can only speak for myself on this: visual attractiveness has little or nothing to do with my sexual orientation. I think some men are attractive to look at, even though I am not sexually attracted to them.
Furthermore, I would split sexual attraction into two categories. I can be sexually attracted to a person without remotely wanting to have sex with that person (if that makes any sense). Some sexual attraction is driven solely by visuals and instinct; other sexual attraction develops over time, fueled by awareness of personality and such, and is part of wanting to develop an actual relationship.

Ragner's model states that there is primary ( attraction at sight) and secondary ( built over the long term through a romantic relationship) attraction.

I have not naturally had the ability to pick people out who were attractive. I used magazines in my early teens and eventually was able to catch on through social cues.

It's difficult for me to understand that what we think is 'beautiful' is already programmed in people because of this.

 

[DoveAlexa]

Ragner's model states that there is primary ( attraction at sight) and secondary ( built over the long term through a romantic relationship) attraction.

I have not naturally had the ability to pick people out who were attractive. I used magazines in my early teens and eventually was able to catch on through social cues.

It's difficult for me to understand that what we think is 'beautiful' is already programmed in people because of this.

Well, you already have proven yourself to be quite different from the norm. I doubt this trait would be an exception in this.

I've been perfectly capable of figuring out for myself who was or wasn't attractive to my own eyes since I could remember.

 

[TheLastMohican]

Do not take the word "taught" literally.

Okay, what would be a better word for the concept you wished to convey? It was not at all obvious that you were using "taught" for anything other than the definition of the word "taught." If you did not mean "taught," then what exactly did you mean?

Symmetry is about signal patterns, and a fetus is exposed to a lot of signal patterns in the womb. The study shows that (within our culture!) a baby is more likely to be exposed to more symmetrical signal patterns, than not - and that made me happy.

Symmetry is not the only attractive trait being discussed here. That said, I would like to know more about these signal patterns. Where do they come from, how do they affect a fetus, and how do they relate to visual attractiveness?

 

[Lumi Spitsbergen]

I can only speak for myself on this: visual attractiveness has little or nothing to do with my sexual orientation. I think some men are attractive to look at, even though I am not sexually attracted to them.
Furthermore, I would split sexual attraction into two categories. I can be sexually attracted to a person without remotely wanting to have sex with that person (if that makes any sense). Some sexual attraction is driven solely by visuals and instinct; other sexual attraction develops over time, fueled by awareness of personality and such, and is part of wanting to develop an actual relationship.

I would agree.

I also noticed that a lot of what constitutes as a "real [beatiful] woman" was a natural skin tone, and the retention of things like tattoos in the photos.
I'm someone who will spend a lot of time in the sun - but you'd never know it to look at me. I'm pale with light freckles and this just does not change no mater how many rays I soak up. I've stopped trying, instead lathering on the sunscreen and wearing hats to hopefully preserve my sin for my old(er) age.

So it was nice to see a campaign that doesn't highlight the three "model" types of skin tone (you know, light "glow" natural "tan" and "dark tan" skin tones).

 

[enfp can be shy]

Symmetry is not the only attractive trait being discussed here. That said, I would like to know more about these signal patterns. Where do they come from, how do they affect a fetus, and how do they relate to visual attractiveness?

I'd like to know too, I don't claim that I know. Where do you think this newborn's preference comes from? I only know that visual and auditory signal patterns are very similar, as information, that's why some people also experience synesthesia.

To me taught does not involve conscious teaching through another person. For example, when I first see a ball falling on the ground, I'm being taught that's how objects behave. By this I mean interaction.

 

[TheLastMohican]

I have not naturally had the ability to pick people out who were attractive. I used magazines in my early teens and eventually was able to catch on through social cues.

It's difficult for me to understand that what we think is 'beautiful' is already programmed in people because of this.

When looking at the entire package, people's senses of attractiveness are not exactly the same. Only when we break down specific characteristics do we find the close correlations (which usually have good evolutionary reasons attached).

As with just about any mental function, I expect there are exceptions. You are probably one of those exceptions, in at least some respects regarding visual attractiveness. I would venture that you did have preferences for symmetry, healthy skin and moderate body shape/weight, even if you did not have particulars like WHR and facial subtleties. I am occasionally surprised at the expressed preferences of other males for certain people, because there are some obscure physical traits that I find more or less attractive than the average male does, even if I can't put my finger on them. I don't feel like I've learned much about attractiveness from my surroundings, let alone media. But in the end, most everyone shares the basics.

 

[slant]

When looking at the entire package, people's senses of attractiveness are not exactly the same. Only when we break down specific characteristics do we find the close correlations (which usually have good evolutionary reasons attached).

As with just about any mental function, I expect there are exceptions. You are probably one of those exceptions, in at least some respects regarding visual attractiveness. I would venture that you did have preferences for symmetry, healthy skin and moderate body shape/weight, even if you did not have particulars like WHR and facial subtleties. I am occasionally surprised at the expressed preferences of other males for certain people, because there are some obscure physical traits that I find more or less attractive than the average male does, even if I can't put my finger on them. I don't feel like I've learned much about attractiveness from my surroundings, let alone media. But in the end, most everyone shares the basics.

I sort of understand what you mean here. Like, severe skin rashes kind of creep me out, I think that's the same with most people. That would technically mean I have a preference for people without severe skin rashes but...I'm not attracted to either of them, or drawn to them, it's just there is an initial shock with severe skin rashes that one typically has.



On a side note, in accordance with symmetry, one of my eyes are further up on my face than the other eye. You can only notice this when you look really closely, and a lot of people have this.

A lot of people also have uneven breasts; one is bigger than the other---and this is natural.

None of these things bother me when I see them on other people. I don't have much of a preference.

 

[TheLastMohican]

I'd like to know too, I don't claim that I know.

Since you put forth that explanation, I thought you would know something more about the details. As it stands now, I'm left with little more than pseudoscientific gibberish. Where did you get the information in the first place?

Where do you think this newborn's preference comes from?

At the most basic level, genetics. It's something that arises in the brain along with the capabilities of speech recognition and sensory processing.
I'd compare it to asking how a newborn calf learns to walk, or how a spider knows to build a web. Some things are buried in the instinct long before we can even think about them.

To me taught does not involve conscious teaching through another person. For example, when I first see a ball falling on the ground, I'm being taught that's how objects behave. By this I mean interaction.

So... again, how exactly does a fetus learn in that way? There are no slide projectors in the womb.

 

[TheLastMohican]

On a side note, in accordance with symmetry, one of my eyes are further up on my face than the other eye. You can only notice this when you look really closely, and a lot of people have this.

A lot of people also have uneven breasts; one is bigger than the other---and this is natural.

None of these things bother me when I see them on other people. I don't have much of a preference.

It should be noted that while we have a preference for symmetry, we don't like perfect symmetry. It's a funny effect: we want to be almost perfect, and true perfection looks disturbing. Try it: cut a photo in half and mirror it. It will look unnatural.

 

[VH]

When women complain that men are too attracted to ideals of beauty, I always have the urge to remind them that they are just as attracted to ideals of success and power.

Women don't want a guy with no job, no ambition, and no ability to protect them... but somehow that's okay despite it almost being a crime that men want a woman that is physically attractive.

Double standard, ladies.

Honestly, would you rather have these 'real men' over a rock star, rich company owner, doctor, or attorney?

No, you wouldn't.

 

[TheLastMohican]

When women complain that men are too attracted to ideals of beauty, I always have the urge to remind them that they are just as attracted to ideals of success and power.

Beauty is innate. Success is not.

 

[slant]

When women complain that men are too attracted to ideals of beauty, I always have the urge to remind them that they are just as attracted to ideals of success and power.

Women don't want a guy with no job, no ambition, and no ability to protect them... but somehow that's okay despite it almost being a crime that men want a woman that is physically attractive.

Double standard, ladies.

Honestly, would you rather have these 'real men' over a rock star, rich company owner, doctor, or attorney?

No, you wouldn't.

Who are you to say that I wouldn't? You are not me. You don't know what I would choose. I would pick one of these people-- they are real men. They aren't beefed up on steroids, brown haired, brown eyes, husky, machos. They are how men really are.

I'll make a thread real men as well if you'd like.

Also; who is to say that it is only men who feed into the ideals of 'fake women'. It takes a society to embrace these things. Males and females are pinning this image to females.

If you note in my initial post, I never stated anything about men just putting this on women. This is not a sexist thread. I understand the implications of sexism and don't encourage them.

I want to state as well that just because someone is in a position of prestige does not make them superior to the rest.

For example, my father is an attorney, and he has never been able to maintain a girlfriend for longer than six months.

 

[enfp can be shy]

At the most basic level, genetics. It's something that arises in the brain along with the capabilities of speech recognition and sensory processing.
I'd compare it to asking how a newborn calf learns to walk, or how a spider knows to build a web. Some things are buried in the instinct long before we can even think about them.

How does it arise? The research so far is mostly limited to looking at genes and looking at end results, matching similarities. But people do not know in detail how one causes the other, so this assumption is hasty - especially since other explanations are possible, as I pointed out.

To get more into the study of the newborns itself, there is a number of factors that can affect the babies. As a start, the choice of the faces is made by the adults. If they were to always show them only "ugly" faces would the babies protest and whine forever? Probably not. They would get used to these faces.

 

[VH]

Beauty is innate. Success is not.

Attraction is instinctive.

Males are attracted to physical beauty because it implies health, and the healthier a female, the more likely the offspring would live. males are also visually oriented because the human race evolved with males in the role of hunters.

Females are attracted to power, because they needed to be protected from predators 1 week out of 4 when they were bleeding, and during pregnancy and child rearing.

It's immaterial what people are attracted to. The simple fact of the matter is that these are base instincts and nature is not fair.

 

[slant]

Attraction is instinctive.

Males are attracted to physical beauty because it implies health, and the healthier a female, the more likely the offspring would live. males are also visually oriented because the human race evolved with males in the role of hunters.

Females are attracted to power, because they needed to be protected from predators 1 week out of 4 when they were bleeding, and during pregnancy and child rearing.

It's immaterial what people are attracted to. The simple fact of the matter is that these are base instincts and nature is not fair.

That does not mean that an unrealistic perception of false, impossible beauty can not be projected in our society.

Beauty is different from culture to culture, and the Amercian Culture has been led to dramatically modifying natural looks to go for something that is 'attractive'. Other cultures look at this and think it is disgusting. These are cultural norms and differences;

I see what you're saying. I am talking about the way that the focus on only ONE TYPE of attractiveness, ONE SORT of beauty. Just as with cloning, I am sure that the genetics of human beings have people naturally attracted to different traits to keep enough genes and DNA in the pool making us stronger- the correlation to cloning is that when you clone plants with the same exact DNA and traits it makes them more susceptible to disease and whatnot. Humans are programmed to breed with people who differ in genetics from them as much as possible.

American culture, however, counteracts this.

 

[TheLastMohican]

How does it arise? The research so far is mostly limited to looking at genes and looking at end results, matching similarities. But people do not know in detail how one causes the other, so this assumption is hasty - especially since other explanations are possible, as I pointed out.

I know genes determine the manufacture of proteins. That's about it; they're just complex molecules, not sentient entities. The whole process of fetal development is extraordinarily complex, but at least we know that DNA is the first variable, and abnormalities like high alcohol or drug levels are required to screw things up (that is assuming that the DNA was not harmfully mutated to start with).
Biologists do, however, know the processes in detail, from DNA replication to cell function to tissue generation... there is a vast amount of information available about human growth.

Now, before you continue on dismissing all this as hasty, why don't you get around to elaborating on your own theories? Thus far, you've only made very vague claims, and then declined to explain them.

To get more into the study of the newborns itself, there is a number of factors that can affect the babies. As a start, the choice of the faces is made by the adults. If they were to always show them only "ugly" faces would the babies protest and whine forever? Probably not. They would get used to these faces.

The babies in the study were only hours old. They had no time to get used to certain kinds of faces, and your suggestion of getting them used to ugly faces is precisely the kind of teaching that you dismiss as fake.

 

[VH]

I see what you're saying. I am talking about the way that the focus on only ONE TYPE of attractiveness, ONE SORT of beauty.

I can say with all experience, different guys are attracted to different forms of female beauty... just like different women are attracted to different forms of power. Some guys like skinny girls. Some guys like women to 'have some meat on em'. Some women are attracted to celebrity. Some women are attracted to a bank account. How these instincts manifest will always be a function of the individual, but that doesn't negate the fact that these instincts exist.

 

[slant]

I can say with all experience, different guys are attracted to different forms of female beauty... just like different women are attracted to different forms of power. Some guys like skinny girls. Some guys like women to 'have some meat on em'. Some women are attracted to celebrity. Some women are attracted to a bank account. How these instincts manifest will always be a function of the individual, but that doesn't negate the fact that these instincts exist.

VH, you are entirely missing the point.

I am not talking about men and their attractions.

That's not the purpose of this thread.

 

[TheLastMohican]

Attraction is instinctive.

Yeah, I know. My point is that females have a legitimate personal gripe when their insufficiently pretty looks send their relationship prospects down the toilet. Males, however, need only apply themselves better if they want to appear more attractive in terms of success and power. It can't really be helped, but I would not begrudge those unlucky females a bit of fist-shaking at the heavens.

 

[DoveAlexa]

Since you put forth that explanation, I thought you would know something more about the details. As it stands now, I'm left with little more than pseudoscientific gibberish. Where did you get the information in the first place?


At the most basic level, genetics. It's something that arises in the brain along with the capabilities of speech recognition and sensory processing.
I'd compare it to asking how a newborn calf learns to walk, or how a spider knows to build a web. Some things are buried in the instinct long before we can even think about them.



So... again, how exactly does a fetus learn in that way? There are no slide projectors in the womb.

Thank you Mohican, you pretty much said everything I wanted to say for this conversation.
Enfp, not having anything on your side of the argument, who are you to try and tear down genetic predisposition? It's far more developed a theory than yours, which consisted of just dropping a name and not backing it up but acting like it magically proves us all wrong.

Double standard, ladies.

Honestly, would you rather have these 'real men' over a rock star, rich company owner, doctor, or attorney?

You know what, this is the first time I'm going to have to tell you, VH, to piss off.

Who are you to say that I wouldn't? You are not me. You don't know what I would choose. I would pick one of these people-- they are real men.

Yeah, the two first guys in these pictures were quiet cute looking, and I love gaming. I couldn't get along with a guy who didn't. The two guys on the right in the last picture are cute as well.
I look for a connection first, and attraction to them is part of that, but they don't have to be gods. I would never marry or even look twice at a rock star, or a lawyer, they are just bad news. The rockstar would be more likely to be constantly cheating, drinking and doing hard drugs then doing any good for either of us. Lawyers just make me weary and wary.

If we are offended by fake women, and the culture surrounding it, why would you assume we were then perfectly fine with male stereotypes?
Would you call Chaz some kind of male stereotype? I love him to death and I find him perfect for me and what I want for the future.

I think its another stereotype that women are shallow greedy whores. Those are the women in Shai Gar's thread, not the ones arguing about them.