Are there, or should there be, objective standards of beauty?

[The_J]

I think there are already some sort of measurable standards for beauty.
At least I think I remember that different research groups have already computed the perfect man and woman, depending on ethnicity (might see if I can find that article).

I also read elsewhere that apparently most people will agree on that some people are overall beautiful, so there is also an internal standard for that. But if you go only a tiny bit away from it, it becomes totally subjective, and it could be the most beautiful woman for one man, and the ugliest for another.


In regards to the competition...er...the contestants are judged by humans, aren't they? Therefore there's no real need. If somebody is beautiful, the judges will vote for him/her. If not, then not. Why is there a need to apply a standard ?

 

[Quackers]

whatever the trouser snake likes is beauty

 

[Borachio]

<nvm>

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

Maybe, but couldn't we simply establish standards of beauty that contrast to these? I think smooth skin is most people would consider beautiful

What about people who like skin that is rugged because of exposure to the elements and hard work? What about people who like hair? Ugliness is far more clear-cut.

 

[Cutlass]

There are, but they are much more general than the event the OP referred to. For example, symmetry of features is considered far more beautiful than asymmetry. Other basic indicators of health, that sort of thing. While what culture finds attractive in a woman's measurement tends to change, the overall proportions of 3-2-3 for breasts, waist, hips, seems near universal.

 

[BvBPL]

Re Cutlass's statement: It seems worth noting that a ratio of 3:2 is pretty close to the Golden Mean (1.5 v. 1.618...). If you accept that the Golden Mean is, or might be, a standard of beauty then that 3-2-3 ratio matches up reasonable well.

 

[Borachio]

This is all culturally determined trivial nonsense. And causes a lot of unnecessary grief.

 

[bhsup]

I don't know about anybody else, but I'm done with anybody under six feet tall. Just too much of a hassle.

But I'm only 5' 11 1/2"!! But my cowboy boots put me over the limit!

Seriously, though, in your case that's understandable given your height.

With regard to the OP, no there shouldn't be objective standards because obviously there is no such thing as an objective standard for a subjective judgement.

 

[Borachio]

<nvm>

 

[galdre]

how can there be objective standards to beauty? We all have our individual tastes and women some guys find incredible I don't find attractive at all and vice-versa.

 

[LegionSteve]

I think Quackers hit the nail on the head with his trouser snake.

 

[Borachio]

<nvm>

 

[Disgustipated]

Can I be the one to measure their nipples?

 

[Disgustipated]

Standards of beauty fluctuate and change with each generation. Curvy women used to be considered pretty back in the 60s and in the 20s skinny women were considered beautiful. We are back to the skinny for now...

I don't see what a source of objective standards of beauty would be. You can point to evolution and how it shaped us over millions of years and honed our sense of what's pretty and what isn't - but those are very vague ideas and don't seem to be very specific at all.

Unless you can locate another source of such objective standards, I think you'd have to conclude that beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

We're back to skinny? I didn't think we are now in a skinny phase. I thought Kim Kardashian was the in thing. I don't watch her show, but I think she's fairly attractive. I certainly wouldn't turn her down. And iirc I don't think she's considered skinny.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

Don't the mod's delete ugly people in the babe-thread?

 

[GoodGame]

Over time?

Ok...let's agree that however you liked them at the start....they do tend to get worse.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

I think Quackers hit the nail on the head with his trouser snake.

But that's also subjective.

 

[Borachio]

Yes. But I'm sure you could, in theory, devise some panel of judges...I don't know...some weighing mechanism...calibrated in millihelens.

Then you could do all sorts of cross cultural referencing.


Should you wish.

 

[Quackers]

<nvm>

3 foot 69 year old dwarfs your preference?

 

[Borachio]

17 foot 19 year olds ftw.