- Status
M
Magnanimity
Guest
It’s always tempting to win an argument by suggesting that other person is merely expressing an opinion. But in doing so, you don’t actually address any substantial issues being raised. Female dominance of the modeling industry would need to be explained, if you don’t believe that beauty is the unique expression of women. The disparity between males and females in this industry is as extreme as the disparity between males and females in sport. The argument could be pressed further of course. The clothing industry, the makeup industry, the hair-care industry—all of these exist in huge volumes in wealthy countries, and to what end? The right clothing, hair and makeup have the precise function of enhancing a female’s already extant beauty, correct? And again, the disparity between male and female participation in these categories of makeup, hair-care and clothing is enormous.
And this probably gets at the heart of why you or anyone else would try to deny the obviousness of female human beauty—it is a transcendent quality. Beauty itself, like goodness, is one of the great transcendentals and is therefore mysterious at its essence. It is not a calculable difference, in a way that strength could be. I am sympathetic with your difficulty is acknowledging the truth of these gender-distinctions. Beauty is indeed a mysterious quality to embody, whereas strength is fairly straightforward (and therefore a little boring by comparison to a transcendental).
Last edited:
J
JulianN
Guest
The desire to be more beautiful may be present, but it does not follow that physical beauty itself is the purview of women. And certainly not that Eve, as the first woman, was more physically beautiful than Adam.
Your arguments remain subjective.
Last edited:
T
TK421
Guest
Eve was definitely more physically beautiful than Adam.
No offense to Adam but he’s a guy.
M
Magnanimity
Guest
You have not attempted to address the enormous male/female disparity in the modeling industry, nor in the industries of make-up, hair-care and clothing. You have not even attempted to explain their existence and why they so uniquely apply to women. Perhaps you hold the rather wild position that female dominance in these areas is arbitrary. It has nothing to do with their being beautiful?
You have not addressed any of my arguments but merely asserted without proper warrant that I’m engaging in mere opinion and subjectivity. It’s saddening to me that something so basic as this fundamental difference between the genders cannot be acknowledged by some. But the attack on gender-differences is rampant these days. So I understand your hesitation. Since you can’t/won’t address my arguments, I think I’ll leave you here. Peace be with you.
S
Sarcelle
Guest
The foundation of strength and beauty is health.
Without good health, there is no strength or beauty.
Since there was no disease and physical infirmities before the fall, both Adam and Eve are prime examples of humans as God meant them to be.
Without good health, there is no strength or beauty.
Since there was no disease and physical infirmities before the fall, both Adam and Eve are prime examples of humans as God meant them to be.
Last edited:
S
Sarcelle
Guest
It’s interesting that you think of beauty as being integral to being female. Honestly speaking, only a small portion of women are truly beautiful. The rest of us women are just average looking and that does not make them any less female. Add to that age. Are older women less female than younger more beautiful women?
So no, beauty is not intrinsic to femininity, as only a few of us are gifted in that respect.
So no, beauty is not intrinsic to femininity, as only a few of us are gifted in that respect.
Last edited:
O
on_the_hill
Guest
My money is on Eve.
M
Magnanimity
Guest
I’m not sure what is meant by this. Surely, an enormous proportion of, say, Giselle Brady’s beauty is attributable to her genetics, in much the same way that Shaquille O’Neal’s size and strength were attributable to his genetics. And when a human is young, their health does not play nearly as important a role in their inherent beauty and strength as when they age. Over time, health is sought to stave off decline (in beauty and strength).
Agreed, and in this thread, the question at hand is that of beauty. How does beauty factor into what a human is “meant to be?”
For my part, I am endlessly fascinated by anyone who denies that beauty is inherent in human femininity.
Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that what you say here is true. I could further add that only a small portion of male humans are strong and fast enough to be professional athletes. These points do not address the issue of whether female humans exemplify beauty in a unique way, just as male humans exemplify strength in a unique way.
And yet, some men over time find the average one’s to be pretty (attractive and pleasing to behold). If they didn’t, they wouldn’t pursue them for romantic relationships. That is, at the biological level, the male human is drawn by the female human’s beauty—however much beauty she embodies.
I’m afraid age is not a factor. Strength too necessarily recedes over time in male humans, as they proceed ever toward decline and decay. The question would still remain, is the average male stronger than the average female. The answer is yes. Is the average woman more pleasing to behold than the average male. Again, the answer is yes. And when women want to make themselves even more pleasing to behold, they enhance themselves (with makeup, clothing, getting their hair done, nail’s done, and even some times with cosmetic surgery or chemicals like botox ).
As I say above, I find it truly surprising that folks try to deny that beauty is part and parcel of human femininity. So very odd.
J
JulianN
Guest
So let me get this straight. The modeling industry, along with the plethora of consumer products targeted to women, is your argument for Eve being more beautiful than Adam?
One could make the argument that the modeling/cosmetic industry exists because men are so visually driven that women are always trying to look younger and prettier to attract them. It could be that those industries are so profitable not because women are inherently beautiful, but that men are unable to look more deeply.
Mark121359
Well-known member
Neither Adam nor Eve.
Rather;
The New Eve…Mary!
Rather;
The New Eve…Mary!
Last edited:
M
meltzerboy2
Guest
Yet for non-human animal species, it is generally the male that is more beautiful and colorful (even without make-up). Also, women are stronger than men internally, if not externally: beginning at birth and throughout their lifespan, females are more resistant to disease and their internal organs are stronger, as well as the fact they live longer on average (probably because they, at least up to the present day, are not married to women).
Last edited:
S
Sarcelle
Guest
Yes
The females are more drab, less likely to grab attention. It is the males with their more colorful plumage that are more ostentatious. The down side is the attention could not just be from potential mates but also from predators.
The females are more drab, less likely to grab attention. It is the males with their more colorful plumage that are more ostentatious. The down side is the attention could not just be from potential mates but also from predators.
LaughingBoy1503
Well-known member
As a straight male I would assume Eve but there is no way to know the answer at all.
M
Magnanimity
Guest
The world is our teacher. We all must observe and learn from her. What I’ve noted above indicates that female humans uniquely exemplify beauty. As I’ve already challenged you, feel free to point out what all of these things tell us about the world, if not that female humans uniquely exemplify beauty. All of them—the modeling industry as well as every other industry I’ve brought up. If I’ve learned from the world that female humans uniquely embody beauty, then yes, as Eve is the first female, she would embody beauty in a way that Adam would not.
What are the men driven to? You suggest that women are attempting to look “prettier?” I thought you were supposing that women do not uniquely embody “prettiness.”
M
Magnanimity
Guest
A great point. You have looked out at nature and chosen to learn from her how she is, rather than imposing some a priori belief upon her. Those of us who have had a keen ear to biology for some time have been aware that among some non-human animals, it is in fact the male that exemplifies beauty and not the female.
And yet, the question would still remain what we would so easily grant the truth of this gender-distinction among non-human animals but question it among our own species? Bizarre, indeed.
Perhaps, but I’m not sure how you’d establish this.
Preposterous. If women were as strong as men “externally,” then they would compete against them in sport (which they don’t) or the Olympics (which, again, they don’t) or the MMA (which, well you know…) Moreover, men overwhelmingly dominate (in sheer numbers) the number of physically violent crimes (domestic violence, rapes, aggravated assaults). If men and women were near equals in “external” strength, how could this be the case? Why wouldn’t women be able to resist these acts of violence perpetrated by men if they’re equals in external strength?
You selectively learn from nature, it seems. So easily do you admit the beautiful genders among non-human animals but for some peculiar reason you cannot grant the unique beauty of female human animals?
Last edited:
S
Sarcelle
Guest
One good example of an interior strength from a physiological standpoint in the difference n the immunological systems between men and women.
A woman’s immunological system is more fine tuned and effective than that of a man’s. It has to be since in the case of pregnancy it’s trying not only to protect the mother but the growing fetus as well.
Last edited:
M
Magnanimity
Guest
All very well indeed. And the external beauty of female humans is obvious by everything I’ve noted above. If you doubt this, I invite you to provide an explanation for the enormous disparity between male and female incomes and participation in the modeling industry, as well as the existence of every other industry I’ve noted (makeup, apparel, salons, etc). Why do these industries uniquely apply to females? Why do they exist at all if not to enhance female human beauty?
Last edited:
L
Lea101
Guest
I’m assuming here, but surely straight men would say that. As a straight woman, I would say men are more beautiful to look at. Lol.
I don’t really see how this directly correlates though. Women are pretty much objectified and made to be ornaments more than men, while men’s intellect, money and capabilities define them more.
Men have power for a pretty long time, so it makes sense that the sex they’re mostly attracted to are the ones that are commodified and pressured to look better at all times.
I’m sure there are different perspectives out there, but it just shows it’s not clear cut.
Last edited:
M
meltzerboy2
Guest
Poor wording on my part. I meant “although not externally” rather than “if not externally.” But my main point remains, which is that women are stronger than men internally, and this is the kind of strength that counts most medically. As cardiologists maintain, you’re as young as your arteries.
- Status