Is physical beauty even real?

[CRATUS]

For a woman who struggles with vanity, sometimes I wonder if physical beauty is even real? There are a lot of woman more beautiful than me. At the same time, I can name a few men who are simply not interested or attracted to them.
Not only this, but there is stupid theory of the Golden ratio. I want to say beauty is very subjective, but the same time I cannot deny how it influences and affects people. Marilyn Monroe is immortalized partially because of physical beauty. Many people make livings off their beauty.
St. Rose of Lima struggled with vanity because of her great physical beauty.

 

[Mystical_Seeker]

My eye likes to look at “beautiful” women, including the stereotypes we are fed. But it also likes to look at women who are not those stereotypes. But I can watch actresses on a movie, for example, and enjoy their physical beauty – while at the same time wanting nothing personal to do with them based on my thoughts of their characters, or sometimes even the actresses themselves. How they behave has a strong effect on whether I like to continue looking at them, but I can’t specify a formula. But I can just as easily enjoy watching others who aren’t of the stereotype, because even though they may fit “form B” instead of “form A” that doesn’t mean they aren’t having a great life. And I don’t look “so hot” myself and I’m pretty happy so I know self-image is important but I know the visual image isn’t everything at least in my “reality tunnel.”

The idea of “beauty” is completely subjective, and is very culture-dependent. Sometimes I like to see something that is so different than what we are fed in the US by advertisers, that I just wish I could for one minute be one of the members of these cultures just so I could feel and see what they feel and see. Because sometimes their joy comes out but since they are so different, it comes out in a way that is new to me. And funny thing is sometimes I think we can even see people and think they must be miserable, when really they are quite happy.

 

[v21337304]

Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. But spiritual beauty is what we should aim for.

 

[Mystical_Seeker]

Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. But spiritual beauty is what we should aim for.

We can know them by their fruits.

Spiritual fruits, listed in Gal 5, are: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control.

Also our eyes are trained to prefer certain visual scenes over others. Some seems built-in but a lot is cultural. I think the “concept” may be built-in…

Prov 27
19 As face mirrors face in water,
so the heart reflects the person.

20 Sheol and Abaddon can never be satisfied;
so the eyes of mortals can never be satisfied

 

[GEddie]

Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. But spiritual beauty is what we should aim for.

In fact, beauty is in the eye of the beast.



Seriously, nothing is more subjective than beauty. It’s not worth trying to solve out in our minds.

ICXC NIKA.

 

[grannymh]

For a woman who struggles with vanity, sometimes I wonder if physical beauty is even real? There are a lot of woman more beautiful than me. At the same time, I can name a few men who are simply not interested or attracted to them.
Not only this, but there is stupid theory of the Golden ratio. I want to say beauty is very subjective, but the same time I cannot deny how it influences and affects people. Marilyn Monroe is immortalized partially because of physical beauty. Many people make livings off their beauty.
St. Rose of Lima struggled with vanity because of her great physical beauty.

In December, I chose to have my left breast removed because of cancer. I did not choose reconstruction. Never had one thought what the remaining incision scar would look like. Good thing, because my opinion is that I have a weird scar. The physical healing went well. Praise God! And sincere gratitude for all the prayers. What surprised me is that there is more than physical healing. Surgery is a shock to the entire person. I am still trying to find the “me” in all this.

What questions about physical beauty would you like to ask?

 

[Lucy107]

For a woman who struggles with vanity, sometimes I wonder if physical beauty is even real?

No human is beautiful in broad daylight and up-close.

The perception of beauty only exists if one looks at a certain person from the right distance, under the right angle, in right lightning conditions.

Change the distance a bit, change the angle a bit, change the lightning conditions – and beauty is gone.

Broad daylight is the great equalizer of people.

 

[tafan]

Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. …

One of the great un-Catholic, relativistic sayings of our time. I hate it, its my pet peeve. The idea that beauty is subjective is WRONG. Beauty is objective. Thomas Aquinas taught us the following

For something to be beautiful it must possess the following qualities:

1. Completeness: eg a house cannot be beautiful if it is missing a kitchen
2. Clarity: it must fully appear as its ontological reality. A cat that looks like a dog, cannot be beautiful
3. Proportionality: eg A casino which is extraordinarily grand and exquisite cannot be beautiful because its grandeur is out of proportion to its base purpose. Or a basketball goal cannot be beautiful if it is 15 feet off the ground, because it has the wrong proportions.

All of these can be objectively considered. Beauty is not subjective. The believe that it is is why we have so many ugly modern buildings (including churches).

Rant over.

 

[christofirst]

We can discuss and disagree on a definition of physical beauty, but it cannot be denied that we are attracted to some things or people more than others. For one reason or another, these beautiful beings are more appealing and pleasing to us than others, and this varies from person to person. Is beauty real? It is real when it is experienced.

But I also agree with those who maintain that physical beauty is more than what we see on the surface. I think of Mother Teresa, who would not win any beauty contest by our culture’s usual standards, but who manifested a sense of joy, peace, and purpose that was certainly beautiful to behold. Since the beauty of youth is fleeting, despite our best efforts, we should perhaps strive to cultivate and recognize the kind of beauty we saw in Mother Teresa.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Probably the following will be easy to argue with, but here goes anyway.

There are, indeed, theories as to what most of us consider “beautiful”, and they have a certain persuasiveness to them.

On the other hand, there are theories about “attraction” that can supersede “beauty” as the latter is considered by those who consider symmetry, proportion and so on. But that truly does not explain why it is that I, for instance, might consider a particular woman “attractive” even if she’s not “beautiful” according to the theories about it, while someone else does not.

There is a view that people seek out, for mates, those people whose DNA gives them a certain complementariness with the seeker. That can, we’re told, be manifest in a number of ways including (strange to tell) one’s very scent. If, say, my genetic makeup contains a tendency toward diabetes, I will seek out (without knowing it) a mate who somehow communicates that her genetic makeup counters my genetic weakness. That message might be communicated in terms of scent, skin appearance, movement, mood or other things.

And if that complementariness is strong, I will perceive the other as “beautiful” in ways I am hard put to explain, while what I’m really perceiving is “attractiveness”.

Now, I’m not playing down the role of “interior beauty” or any of that. Nor am I downplaying the “argument from symmetry”. There are probably all sorts of things that enter into it. But I really do think there is something to the “genetic argument”.

 

[Beautiful]

No human is beautiful in broad daylight and up-close.

The perception of beauty only exists if one looks at a certain person from the right distance, under the right angle, in right lightning conditions.

Change the distance a bit, change the angle a bit, change the lightning conditions – and beauty is gone.

Broad daylight is the great equalizer of people.

Some have more prisms of light/beauty. Brilliance sheds light on this fact. It differentiates …not equalizes.

Actually, broad daylight and close vision can reveal perfection and health. That is the best time to look for exquisite.

Health of mind, body and soul is a delight.

Jesus recognizes this fact about light.

 

[GEddie]

No human is beautiful in broad daylight and up-close.

They can be, but the vitality of youth, or the curvature of well-defined musculature is normally needed.

The perception of beauty only exists if one looks at a certain person from the right distance, under the right angle, in right lightning conditions.

Nobody looks good in “lightning” conditions

Change the distance a bit, change the angle a bit, change the lightning conditions – and beauty is gone.

Broad daylight is the great equalizer of people.

As is darkness.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Lucy107]

They can be, but the vitality of youth, or the curvature of well-defined musculature is normally needed.

I’ve never seen a beautiful person in broad daylight.
That is, anyone who in somewhat dim light seems good-looking (such as in the afternoon or sometimes indoors with artifical light), stops being so in broad daylight. To me at least.

I used to be into photography back in the day when film was still used; meaning it was common even for an average photographer to fiddle with the settings. This really put things into perspective for me. I’ve stopped seeing people’s faces and bodies as “beautiful” or “ugly,” people’s faces and bodies became just shapes and colors to me, aesthetically neutral.

But the expression on a person’s face is another matter.

A person can have a cosmetically impeccable face, and yet look absolutely vile.

Nobody looks good in “lightning” conditions

Uh. One n too many.
But I’m sure you know what I mean!

 

[Mystical_Seeker]

Even if we’re going to consider the “social expectations” for what passes as “prize-winning beauty” in the commercial world, the models who “make us jealous” when they are camera-ready, look like “just normal people” outside of their professional facade. And that’s what makeup and hairdo are, are human facade – here’s a video with side by side views of models with and without makeup. I assume it’s legit – it’s on the Internet, right?

Supermodels without makeup

And then of course those Dove spots with the police artist – everybody seen them? It shows an artist sketching a person’s self-description which is “less attractive” compared to another person’s description of the same people.

Dove Real Beauty Sketches

 

[Beautiful]

They can be, but the vitality of youth, or the curvature of well-defined musculature is normally needed.

normally? I disagree

Vitality/health of mind, body and soul can be identified at all ages.
Beauty is for all from day 1 to 100+ years.