Beauty Is In The Eye Of The Beholder?
It's actually not, blogs Satoshi Kanazawa at Psychology Today -- contrary to the widely held (and incorrect) belief that what people consider beautiful varies widely from culture to culture and from person to person. Nor is beauty in the eye of the media -- contrary to the other widely held (and incorrect) belief that what we consider beautiful in the west was hammered into us by Playboy, Vogue, movies and TV shows (it was not -- it seems to be innate). In Satoshi's words:
Within the United States, both East Asians and whites, and whites and blacks agree on which faces are more or less beautiful. Cross-culturally, there is considerable agreement in the judgment of beauty among East Asians, Hispanics, and Americans; Brazilians, Americans, Russians, the Aché of Paraguay, and the Hiwi of Venezuela; Cruzans and Americans in Saint Croix; white South Africans and Americans; and the Chinese, Indians, and the English. In none of these studies does the degree of exposure to the western media have any influence on people's perception of beauty. How is it possible for people from such diverse cultures to agree broadly on who is beautiful and who is not?It appears that people from different cultures share the same standards of beauty because they are innate; we are born with the knowledge of who's beautiful and who's not. Two studies conducted in the mid-1980s independently demonstrate that infants as young as two and three months old gaze longer at a face that adults judge to be more attractive than at a face that adults judge to be less attractive. Babies are wonderfully hedonistic and have no manners, so they stare at objects that they consider to be pleasing. When babies stare at some faces longer than others, it indicates that they prefer to look at them and find them attractive.
In the most recent version of this experiment, newborn babies less than one week old show significantly greater preference for faces that adults judge to be attractive. Another study shows that 12-month-old infants exhibit more observable pleasure, more play involvement, less distress, and less withdrawal when interacting with strangers wearing attractive masks than when interacting with strangers wearing unattractive masks. They also play significantly longer with facially attractive dolls than with facially unattractive dolls. The findings of these studies are consistent with the personal experiences and observations of many parents of small children, who find that their children are much better behaved when their babysitters are physically attractive than when they are not.
As for what humans find beautiful, here's another post by Satoshi on the details. I go into some more detail in my just-published Psychology Today piece, The Truth About Beauty.
Basic features are universal, but fashions aren't, I think that's what makes people think beauty is relative to the culture. Think about 80s poofy hairstyles and clothing vs 1920s, or the plate-lips or rings around necks. These things have nothing to do with facial features, and are more arbitrary. I think that's where the confusion lies, the difference between fashion and beauty.
NicoleK at November 7, 2010 12:07 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/11/07/beauty_is_in_th.html#comment-1778161">comment from NicoleKI think that's what makes people think beauty is relative to the culture.
Fashions change, yes, but I think people aren't talking about fashion but facial and bodily features. There's a tendency in feminism to blame the media for what men like. It's completely anti-science and anti-evidence, and victimist ideology-driven.
Amy Alkon at November 7, 2010 12:11 AM
Thor Heyerdahl wrote somewhere that looking foreign adds several points to your attractability quotient. That may be less influential as we become more of a global village.
Jim S. at November 7, 2010 12:49 AM
Oversimplification. True, some standards are universal, but people have unconscious associations they make through their lives, and may pick up on some aspect that has pleasant associations for them.
Not everyone likes the same thing.
Patrick at November 7, 2010 3:18 AM
>> There's a tendency in feminism to blame the media for what men like.
This tendency is common within Leftist critiques generally. It's how they explain the transmission of unconscious biases and beliefs. Without it, their social criticism falls apart, because there's no way to support the generalizations they're making about society. They need for there to be some communal 'world spirit' that infects us so that they can justify their coercions.
What's interesting is that the other political alignment that uses this device is religious conservatism.
mona at November 7, 2010 5:27 AM
>>"When babies stare at some faces longer than others, it indicates that they prefer to look at them and find them attractive."
That's a bit of a leap, surely, to insist the babies' response is primarily an aesthetic judgment?.
I agree with Patrick. This is just more oversimplified coffee table soft science - from professional provocateur Satoshi Kanazawa - who has been previously forced to admit major mistakes in his research. (See his wiki entry).
I'll use my one link per comment allowance for the paper examining the statistical flaws which - uncorrected - were the basis for Kanazawa's book "Why Beautiful People Have More Daughters".
http://tinyurl.com/2bfwryt
Jody Tresidder at November 7, 2010 5:57 AM
Along with this I have wondered about humor,too.
The first time my daughter heard the word "fart" she just started laughing like crazy. The word alone was hilarious to her. After I told her what it meant it was all over.
Mb at November 7, 2010 5:58 AM
The blog posts were interesting, but I was sort of hoping for more information about the physical variations between ethnicities. I mean, does this fall into the "facial average" domain? I'm just wondering - would a person of African descent be more attracted to broad noses and full lips, innately? Would an Asian be more attracted to smaller eyes?
Just curious.
Jessica F. at November 7, 2010 6:08 AM
Cross-culturally, there is considerable agreement
- - - - - - - - - - -
And also considerable diversity.
Again, you are oversimplifying already dubious pseudoscience to push your "dating tips for chimps" agenda.
There is a lively debate in several central African countries about the new "skinny girl" esthetic of the Western media.
Similarly, Brazilians view the US fixation on large breasts as vulgar.
Et cetera.
Combine this with the fact that traditional garb in Asia and other regions obscures the "waist-hip" ratio you've been blathering about.
Ben David at November 7, 2010 7:13 AM
"This is just more oversimplified coffee table soft science..."
Thank you. What passes for "science" in the psychology and medical research communities (among others) is a scandal.
Astra at November 7, 2010 7:22 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/11/07/beauty_is_in_th.html#comment-1778369">comment from Ben DavidCombine this with the fact that traditional garb in Asia and other regions obscures the "waist-hip" ratio you've been blathering about.
So, you're contending that men prefer women who are less likely to be fertile, women with more android figures? This would mean those men would be less likely to get women pregnant and have children.
And because one bit of Satoshi's research has been attacked doesn't meant that his book should be thrown out. I don't know the research well on the "sexy son" hypothesis, etc., but men generally preferring youth, women with long hair, symmetry, etc., is right on.
People love to knock ev psych as "coffee table science," etc., but there's plenty of it that well-founded.
People also like to say there aren't innate human preferences. There may be some outliers in certain places -- there's an anthropologist I've quoted who studies Brazil and breasts, etc. -- but around the world people are remarkably similar.
Why is no one questioning David Buss' finding that men and women around the globe prioritize kindness in a partner? Hmm...could it be because that doesn't offend feminisim-driven preconceptions of what is proper to think?
Amy Alkon at November 7, 2010 7:57 AM
>>And because one bit of Satoshi's research has been attacked doesn't meant that his book should be thrown out.
It wasn't just that he was "attacked". Kanazawa also acknowledged his statistical analysis - the subject of the attack - was indeed seriously flawed.
Maybe that shouldn't automatically raise questions about his later work. But it doesn't inspire absolute confidence either.
And I am still curious about how a researcher can interpret with absolute certainty the reason for a tiny infant's lingering gaze on a particular face.
Jody Tresidder at November 7, 2010 8:31 AM
How would this affect a child with an ugly mother? Would he be more disobedient or unwilling to focus on what she was saying? I find the baby study a little questionable.
Certain facial symmetry is universally appealing, but, beyond that, there seems to be a lot of variation over what is considered sexy beautiful, even on the hourglass criteria. For instance, our culture tends to celebrate very slim, hipless women with bigger boobs as beautiful. Or they may not seem to be hipless because their waists are so small, but, by other cultural standards, they'd have no real hips.
I once showed my ex an article about women with anorexia and he asked, "What's wrong with them? They look great." He prefers a size 2...but size 2s have very small waists, which make even small breasts and hips look much larger. It's hourglass, but on a very different scale than other cultures.
As an architect, he said it all had to do with proportion, which is the point...that there's a hip to waist ratio, but that can be applied to much heavier women as well, so I think the ratio is more diverse than assumed. A comparatively small waist is probably a must, but what it's compared to - the hips and bust size - varies in appeal from man to man.
lovelysoul at November 7, 2010 9:00 AM
The Clueless Goddess:
Why is no one questioning David Buss' finding that men and women around the globe prioritize kindness in a partner? Hmm...could it be because that doesn't offend feminisim-driven preconceptions of what is proper to think?
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
... or maybe because it resonates with what we know first hand about human bonding, trust, and intimacy?
Because kindness is, uh, relevant to the prospects for building a real relationship?
As opposed to the ratio between a woman's hips and waist, which is unrelated to ANYTHING we know about how human beings fall in love and build intimacy.
But of course, if we're all in thrall to our chimp-inherited genes, intimacy does not compute.
Which is why you are (temporarily, I hope) clueless about such an obvious point.
Ben David at November 7, 2010 11:22 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/11/07/beauty_is_in_th.html#comment-1778454">comment from Ben DavidKindness may be essential to BUILDING a "real relationship," but a man isn't going to approach you to find out how kind you are if you are unattractive. Furthermore, a man is not going to remain sexually attracted to a woman if she is merely kind, but does not take care of herself.
In no place in my piece do I suggest beauty is everything or the only thing, but it matters a great deal. It is respectful and loving and KIND for a woman to continue taking care of herself throughout her relationship with a man. Men, too, should not "let themselves go," but a woman's appearance is of enormous interest to a man in a way that is not commensurate the other way around.
Amy Alkon at November 7, 2010 11:28 AM
Symmetricallity of facial features and waist-to-hip ratio don't really have anything to do with taking care of yourself though do they? I mean, you could be the most gorgeous and in-shape person but if you don't have an hourglass build then you don't have an hourglass build. Plenty of celebrities don't have this build. Or you could be 250 pounds but still have even features and a .7 waist-to-hip ratio.
I wonder how much factors women can control (like their weight, dress, hair, makeup) impact perceived attractiveness compared to factors they can't control (height, body type, facial features).
Shannon at November 7, 2010 12:09 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/11/07/beauty_is_in_th.html#comment-1778477">comment from ShannonAs I wrote in the piece:
What's amazing is that I worked to put what I thought was some valuable information in here; for example, if you're a woman who's overweight, DON'T do as you're often told and wear a tent. Do as I often saw the sexy black and Latino secretaries near NY's city hall doing. Sometimes, they'd be a bit plump, but back when I was living in NYC, I'd often see even the plump ones dressed like sexy peacocks in bright colored, figure-hugging ladylike skirt/suits. These women often looked hot. They had waists and womenly figures -- even if some were a wholelottawoman, and these women in their bright clothes tended to strut a little. Okay, I'm generalizing, and I'm sure there were many who didn't dress like that, but it was definitely a style and a type I saw on a good many black and Latino women, mainly. Contrast the well-dressed, accentuated hourglass figure on the plump side marching proudly along with the woman slumping along dressed in some drab tent.
Amy Alkon at November 7, 2010 12:16 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/11/07/beauty_is_in_th.html#comment-1778481">comment from Amy AlkonThe thing I get out of many of these comments -- especially those by the angry feminists posting here -- is that they didn't really read my piece. Shannon apparently also missed this:
There are things we can all do to look more attractive. Being more attractive seems to increase your opportunities with men and in general. How can you argue with that?
Amy Alkon at November 7, 2010 12:19 PM
I think my link was too long so it spammed, reposting without the link:
I'm not an angry feminist and I'm not arguing with your piece or questioning your research! I guess I'm not expressing myself very well.
What I'm curious about is how factors within your control matter compared to factors outside your control. In my own experience as well as what I see with celebrities, magazines, TV, etc, women who are thin and in good shape with flat stomachs are generally considered very attractive regardless of whether they have an hourglass shape. For example Cameron Diaz is unquestionably gorgeous but definitely a rectangular body type, and there's not much she can do about that. Yet I imagine most men would find her more attractive than an overweight woman with an hourglass figure-although maybe I'm wrong.
I wonder if there is a tipping point where other factors like weight, chest size, muscle tone, grooming, etc override the genetically hard-wired predisposition to waist-to-hip ratio, or whether that varies by individual or culture. That's all I'm saying-not questioning the importance of being attractive by any means!
Shannon at November 7, 2010 1:20 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/11/07/beauty_is_in_th.html#comment-1778574">comment from ShannonPeople needn't have every factor in what's considered beautiful to be considered beautiful. Diaz has features that are neotenous (childlike -- big white, eyes), and blonde straight shiny hair, and she is slim and looks healthy.
Amy Alkon at November 7, 2010 2:01 PM
"I wonder how much factors women can control (like their weight, dress, hair, makeup) impact perceived attractiveness compared to factors they can't control (height, body type, facial features)."
I think the question is how much should we try to control these things, and for how long? The science is certainly there regarding what generally sparks a man's interest. But, like I said before, many of the happiest couples I know have totally "let themselves go", and probably weren't that attractive to begin with.
The issue is really for those of us who can be attractive within the general standards of beauty, but is that really best side of ourselves to sell?
And I'm saying that as a woman who has always used my looks to lure men...but also as one who has learned there can be a heavy price for that too. A man, like my ex, who is extremely visual and responded to my beauty was also incapable of shutting his eyes to all other beautiful temptations. In retrospect, it might not have been the best bait to use.
I think most of us women want to be viewed as attractive by our partners, but we also want to feel that this isn't the main reason he stays with us...because, ultimately, we all deteriorate physically whether we try to keep ourselves up or not.
So, it's all well and good to say lure a guy in with beauty, then impress him with your mind and heart afterwards, but that isn't always the outcome. Relationships based on looks tend to stay based on looks, at least a lot of the time.
And many women, who thought their minds and hearts had surpassed the physical attraction find out the hard way when their looks, through the normal aging process, begin to decline, and their partner runs off with the hot new symmetrical thing.
So, I'm being cautionary here. A woman should try to look nice, but don't go overboard. Be attractive, but don't make that the whole bait. The hottest women often attract the biggest jerks, so yeah, they have more options, but they're not necessarily better ones.
lovelysoul at November 7, 2010 2:08 PM
So - who thought Neytiri, the Naavi in Avatar, looked hot? How did you recognize big golden eyes and blue skin as attractive?
Radwaste at November 7, 2010 4:23 PM
"Would an Asian be more attracted to smaller eyes?"
Asians are obsessed with big eyes. They wear contacts that make their eyes look bigger as well as having surgery to create a lid. Korea is big on plastic surgery, esp. to create more "western" noses. Remember this is in countries where "western" influence wasn't all that great.
I think Amy's right. There are "features" that are considered more attractive than others. Some things are of recent fashion in western culture, like Angelina Jolie big lips and super skinny girls. Does that mean that women in the past were judged as attractive based on different features? Not really. Big eyes, rosy cheeks, healthy hair and hairless women with healthy skin...etc...there are universal traits that people find attractive.
Ppen at November 7, 2010 7:44 PM
I saw something on the waist/hip ratio a few years ago. The study I saw was conducted using drawings, not photos, and the features on the drawings were very generic. The men were asked to rate the attractiveness of each one, with the ratios varying from about 0.5 up to 1, and the 0.7 ratio was consistently chosen as the most attractive.
Remember, though, this is only ONE component of attractiveness. There are also the facial qualities mentioned, as well as a host of nonverbal communication cues. The way a person walks, how they act while speaking, facial expressions, and more affect all this as well.
Also, remember that Amy is referring to up-front attractiveness. It IS true that if circumstances place you in contact with someone in the long term, you may go on to find them attractive for their personality, even if you didn't find them so originally (it has happened to me), but unless outside circumstances intervene this way, a person won't likely get the CHANCE to show their personality to be wonderful.
WayneB at November 8, 2010 6:23 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/11/07/beauty_is_in_th.html#comment-1778806">comment from WayneBAlso, remember that Amy is referring to up-front attractiveness. It IS true that if circumstances place you in contact with someone in the long term, you may go on to find them attractive for their personality, even if you didn't find them so originally (it has happened to me), but unless outside circumstances intervene this way, a person won't likely get the CHANCE to show their personality to be wonderful.
Exactly, WayneB.
Amy Alkon at November 8, 2010 6:28 AM
Yes, but there is a limit. It's not generally ok to let yourself become a shapeless blob, but the feminists do have a point about the TYPE of man a barbie figure attracts, and how that may not be the type to appeal to. It's not the type they want, which is fine.
Living in FL, one of the plastic surgery capitals of the world, I see women going to great lengths to achieve that perfect hip/bust to waist ratio. And also whatever they can do to improve their facial features. Then, they dress in ways that show off all this physical "perfection", which garners lots of male attention, but not necessarily the best kind.
I still think the average sweet, sensitive intelligent guy shys away from those types of women, at least for marriage material. Most would rather have a less flashy woman who uses limited makeup, who can wear jeans and a sweatshirt, or a little black dress, and still look pretty.
In fact, that phrase, "I'm looking for a girl who's just as comfortable in jeans as a little black dress" is a mainstay in guy's online descriptions. So much so it's become a cliche.
So, I believe women need to give a lot of thought to who they're looking for and adjust their appearance accordingly.
If you want to be a trophy wife, by all means, go for that barbie doll look. But know he probably won't love you for you.
If you'd rather have a sweet, nerdy type - or a more rugged, camping/fishing kinda guy - it's best to go for a more natural, low-key look.
And if you're looking for a kind, cheerful, loving guy who shares your fondness for culinary overindulgence, then find an amazing chubby guy and just have fun! Go out to eat and enjoy that slice of pie!
Really, none of these are a problem. It's only when the type of guy a woman wants doesn't match her appearance.
lovelysoul at November 8, 2010 7:25 AM
Or I guess I should add that it's also a problem when a woman attracts a guy and then her appearance drastically changes. Those are the guys writing to Amy.
lovelysoul at November 8, 2010 7:37 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/11/07/beauty_is_in_th.html#comment-1778816">comment from lovelysoulYes, a lot of the time, lovelysoul.
Amy Alkon at November 8, 2010 7:43 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/11/07/beauty_is_in_th.html#comment-1778817">comment from lovelysoulIt's only when the type of guy a woman wants doesn't match her appearance.
Both sexes are guilty of overestimation of their possibilities, but as I mention in the piece, men are judged more on success (although tallness matters), so the converse is the guy with the unimpressive job and income who expects a modelicious girlfriend.
Amy Alkon at November 8, 2010 7:45 AM
From "Miss Manners' guide to excruciatingly correct behavior" (first edition, "Family Relations," pages 208-209):
"As befits a highly advanced society, ours has a vast amount of accumulated wisdom on the interesting and crucial subject of Romance. Where to find it, how to encourage it, how to recognize whether it is genuine - all this is discussed exhaustively in our literature. After careful research in the monthly women's magazines and other philosophical journals, Miss Manners has been able to discover only two tenets dealing with how to sustain love, once it has been found, recognized, and acknowledged. It seems there are infinite ways - not to say techniques or tricks - of conducting courtships, but only two principles of marriage:
1. Don 't let yourself go.
2. Don't let yourself be taken for granted.
(Or perhaps it's not to take the other person for granted. Miss Manners sometimes reads these periodicals upside down without noticing that she is doing so.)
What these solemn injunctions actually mean, Miss Manners is not sure. The last time she saw them spelled out, they meant that women were not supposed to wear curlers and men were supposed to bring home flowers, but that was a long time ago, before the invention of the instamatic hot curler and the house plant.
Even then, these rules troubled Miss Manners. They seemed designed to supply marriage, artificially, with the suspense and tension of courtship. Now, courtship is a wonderful thing. There is nothing like it for inspiring attractive, new sensitivities and underwear. Miss Manners will go so far as to say that the "best behavior" of courtship, both in looks and manners, is the best starting place for the daily habits of a household. What disturbs her is the implied threat that lapses — not into rudeness, but into familiarity and comfort — will kill love. People who behave well only under such threats, and there seem to be many who can live together happily only until they marry and erase that threat, don't know much about love. Any love worth the name ought to be able to indulge the life changes, such as added weight and age, or the relaxation techniques, such as old bathrobes and unshaven weekends, commonly grouped under "letting yourself go."
The entire point of marriage ought to be the luxury of being able to take someone for granted, to know that he or she will always be there, through good times and bad, no matter what. Compared to that, the thrill of wondering whether you will be wanted from one day to the next is rather a crude form of excitement. Miss Manners trusts that none of this will be misconstrued as an endorsement of household ugliness. You know that she believes that manners are even more important at home than in company. If familiarity will breed contempt, there is something wrong. It is the business of the family to be familiar.
(end)
lenona at November 8, 2010 9:40 AM
"The entire point of marriage ought to be the luxury of being able to take someone for granted, to know that he or she will always be there, through good times and bad, no matter what. Compared to that, the thrill of wondering whether you will be wanted from one day to the next is rather a crude form of excitement."
Very true. Thanks, Lenona. I love Miss Manners.
It's all about balance. Nobody wants to be worried that a few extra pds will derail their sex life and marriage. I've been there myself, constantly having to stay super skinny and look beautiful to maintain a man's attention and affection. That's no fun, and certainly not a situation anyone should strive for.
At the same time, partners shouldn't become so familiar and relaxed that they're complacent about the other person's needs.
I like what someone (was it CousinDave?) said in another thread on this topic - that it's not about her cutting her hair, it's about WHY she cuts her hair...or gains weight, or stops dressing up, etc. If you're drastically changing your appearance, even though you know your partner likes it, what message is that sending?
Too often, I think it's passive aggressive - a way of expressing underlying resentment. I suspect most of the men who write to Amy about this are not as upset by the weight gain itself as they are about the message it's sending to them...that their wives don't care about their needs and feelings.
lovelysoul at November 8, 2010 10:12 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/11/07/beauty_is_in_th.html#comment-1778872">comment from lovelysoulYou can love somebody but not be attracted to them any more, and you should do your best to stay attractive so you remain attractive to the person who loves you.
And yes, lovelysoul, the message the wives are sending is important, but the weight gain is what is what's most disturbing to the men who write me about their wives who've grown obese.
Amy Alkon at November 8, 2010 10:35 AM
Perceived social status seems to be more important than career or financial success. The two are highly correlated, but if you look at the outliers a broke pick-up artist will do much better with women than a well-paid but socially inept geek.
Brian at November 8, 2010 10:36 AM
>>"When babies stare at some faces longer than others, it indicates that they prefer to look at them and find them attractive."
That's a bit of a leap, surely, to insist the babies' response is primarily an aesthetic judgment?. Jody
--------
I wonder if they did any tests using faces of people with serious deformities or burn victims because kids cannot help but stare at people with those physical attributes and surely no-one can claim it is because they are aesthetically pleasing.
Ingrid at November 8, 2010 12:34 PM
>>I wonder if they did any tests using faces of people with serious deformities or burn victims because kids cannot help but stare at people with those physical attributes and surely no-one can claim it is because they are aesthetically pleasing.
Ingrid,
I did a bit more googling about other studies of tiny infants and perception & couldn't find anything along those lines - but I am even more bewildered by Satoshi Kanazawa's claims.
His full quote: "Babies are wonderfully hedonistic and have no manners, so they stare at objects that they consider to be pleasing. When babies stare at some faces longer than others, it indicates that they prefer to look at them and find them attractive."
What's odd is that few other researchers (none that I could find) ever assert they can KNOW why very small babies stare longer at X than Y! (Let alone suggest that babies pop out of the womb with an innate appreciation of human beauty!)
Though I have learned that lots of babies appear interested in monkeys!
Jody Tresidder at November 8, 2010 3:02 PM
And yes, lovelysoul, the message the wives are sending is important, but the weight gain is what is what's most disturbing to the men who write me about their wives who've grown obese.
Something that I've observed, regarding weight gain among married women, is that it often seems reflective of their social context. Not their social class per se, more so the expectations of their circle of friends and acquiantences. I've come to wonder whether women might put subtle pressure on each other to conform to a certain look. Because you'll notice that groups of women, in a given social circle, tend to gravitate to a similar weight range.
Norman at November 8, 2010 4:22 PM
"Because you'll notice that groups of women, in a given social circle, tend to gravitate to a similar weight range."
I think this is more along the lines of people with similar "morals" or habits tend to come together.
Ppen at November 8, 2010 4:38 PM
But are feminists and the media criticizing beauty, or fashion? I've never heard of anyone saying that a cross-eyed person or someone with a cleft palate shouldn't get corrective surgery. It's usually things like fake boobs or make-up or weight gain/loss... which tend to be more fashion trends than universal beauty the way symmetry of face is.
Also, someone who is very fashionable can sometimes trick people into thinking they are beautiful. Even if they aren't.
NicoleK at November 8, 2010 11:44 PM
I think the feminist argument is that this is not how we should advise women, particularly young girls, to go about appealing to men. That focusing too much on looks it's not the best way to attract a partner because the men who respond don't usually make the best partners.
There's some merit to this, as long as it's made clear that downplaying one's appearance isn't going to result in a lot of male attention and choices for the highest status partners.
If a woman is fine having a smaller pool to choose from, there's really no problem. But what happens is that many feminists get angry at the men who don't respond to the more homely women, rather than accepting that if a woman chooses to be fat or grow a mustache, she's invariably not going to have lots of guys beating down her door for dates.
However, I'm looking at wedding dresses lately, and judging by the abundance of plus sizes, there's a lot of heavy women still finding partners and getting married. And they may, in fact, be happier in marriage than the beautiful women.
I mean, if a guy falls in love and marries you knowing you're overweight, he's not likely to be the guy writing to Amy down the road about how miserable he is that you're fat.
lovelysoul at November 9, 2010 5:40 AM
Kind of on topic. Ugly person's dating site has first engagement:
http://www.stylelist.com/2010/10/29/ugly-people-dating-site-first-engagement/?ncid=txtlnkusstyl00000003
lovelysoul at November 9, 2010 7:28 AM
I just wanted to say that I've read and re-read your piece in PT and absolutely adored it. It was exactly what I needed to hear. Thank you!! --HT
Hannah at November 9, 2010 8:12 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/11/07/beauty_is_in_th.html#comment-1779284">comment from HannahHannah, thank you so much! I hope you'll consider writing a letter to the ed.
Amy Alkon at November 9, 2010 8:28 AM
Aw, that's sweet! I'm glad the ugly people found love.
To be honest, they aren't even that ugly. A little makeover would go a long way. They're both overweight with bad hair. Fixing just the hair, which is faster than losing weight, would do a lot.
NicoleK at November 10, 2010 7:09 AM
Every person has his/her own perception to beauty, but as time passes by, we also have to consider that beauty will stay constant. We need to take care of ourselves and faces and we can do that by seeking medical advise. Maintaining balance and taking care of ourselves is what keeps us beautiful outside.
Sharon Miller at November 11, 2010 9:07 AM
Radwaste, the reason why Asians are obsessed with big eyes is a cultural one. You mentioned that they are trying to get the western look and then you said that it is a universal standard. Obviously it's not if they're trying to a "Western" look. The look would not be "Western" look if it was universal. The fact that they even refer to those features as "Western" shows that Western influence is great enough for them know that those features are considered "Western." You can't like something that you have never been exposed to and have no knowledge of. By the way, Amy, I disagree with Cameron Diaz being unquestionably gorgeous. To me, she isn't very attractive. I also think it's a stretch for Kanazawa to say that those infants are staring at the images because they think they are beautiful. He can't read their minds. There are several reasons why those babies could have been staring at certain images.
Chan at November 26, 2010 10:54 PM
This is so good to see. We have do more things like this for the military families. They are protecting us and we need to support them in this way
nerd herd at June 29, 2011 5:29 AM
It's very disconcerting what's happening with the London riots but the unappealing truth is we may look back on these times with some nostalgia as things worsen. Right now it seems to be just kids out there 'protesting' but as the police and political responses become increasingly hysterical and overbearing - special powers aren't needed, just maintain the already present laws - you'll soon have Mr & Mrs Middle Class out there in the streets looting and burning. Who will the authorities have to blame? Nobody but themselves.
ACE at August 8, 2011 4:41 PM
Leave a comment