Human Beauty, What is it?

amicus

Literotica Guru
Joined
Sep 28, 2003
Posts
14,812
An ongoing discussion about ‘objective’ definitions of abstract human characteristics has inspired this attempt at further illumination.

A recent ‘nerd channel’ program, Discovery/Science/History…one of those, asked the question of what men and women found ‘beautiful’ in each others physical appearance.

The program went to some lengths all around the world to illustrate the concept that there was an ‘objective’ means of ‘perceiving’ and identifying ‘beauty’ in many different nations and cultures.

They went so far as to have women smell worn t-shirts of men; to observe infants as they were shown examples of human and non human figures.

It should not come as a surprise that people all over the world chose the ‘same’ examples of both men and women as representing ‘beauty’ in a human being.

And of course, from a quick observation of film stars and supermodels, male and female, we already know what ‘most’ people consider to be ‘beautiful’.

If I were to just postulate that an objective definition of human beauty is a combination of symmetry, health and physical fitness, the outcry would be instantaneous and furious.

Beauty in the eyes of many is a purely, ‘subjective’ term. Depending on many things, society, racial characteristics, cultural preferences and even nurture as adult humans often seek a similarity in appearance to a mother or a father. The choice of eye and hair color, physical stature, tall, short, medium; many variables, all subjective, that go into making a choice about what one prefers.

Still, taking all of that into consideration, there does appear to be an absolute, universal response to those individuals who reflect those characteristics we recognize as ‘beauty’.

Beautiful babies, male and female, get more attention, more care, more nurturing. Beautiful women and handsome men have a wider choice of mates, they enjoy more sexual experiences. They also get better jobs and earn more money, just because they are, ‘beautiful’.

The conclusion of the program was, and I paraphrase, ‘beauty is that combination of human characteristics which reflect the best opportunities to create progeny…in other words, a physically symmetrical person appearing to be healthy, offers the best chance at producing offspring.’

There was even a magical numerical figure that gave proportion between breast size, waist size and hip size…that was found to be true in all cultures and throughout all of history in ancient paintings and sculptures.

So if your heart goes ‘pitty-pat, bump-thump when a dish or a hunk saunters on by, at least you now know why.

At the risk of unleashing the literary critics of this forum, I offer two examples of how a ‘writer’ might use the above information in a story. Both excerpts are from the work, ‘Billy’ posted on Lit.



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


“Boxer shorts?” laughed Billy.

“So?” She stepped out of the shorts and stood before him. She undid the watch and held it by a strap, slowly lowering it to the table. Molly ran a hand through her hair, tilted her head in a provocative manner; ran her other hand down her face, across her breasts and to her thigh. She twisted slightly, and posed with one foot up on tiptoes, lowered her eyes and ran her tongue across her lips.

She stood before the mirror, her small but perfectly formed breasts nippled and up-thrust; her mouth slightly open, nostrils flaring as she breathed; her chest and abdomen pulsing in time to her breathing.

For a moment there was silence.

“My God, Molly, you are gorgeous!” Billy’s voice was strangely uneven.

She smiled, “Oh, sure. I got tiny little boobs and mousy hair, not much butt, and I’m more than an inch under five feet tall. Not bad, maybe, but gorgeous? Not even in my dreams,” she said wistfully.

“You really don’t know? No one has ever told you how marvelous you look?”

“With Holly, a real beauty, around all the time? My folks were just happy I didn’t have warts on my nose or something. Holly’s gorgeous; I’m just, okay. I have mirrors; I can see myself. I know what’s beautiful and what’s not, I’m not.”

“Molly, Molly, Molly…you are a very smart girl... do you know what symmetry means? Of course you do. You are the definition of the word. Every physical feature on your body is exactly where it should be; the right size, the right shape, the right color, from your tiny waist to your delicate ankles.

If I were to try to create a perfect female body, I would create you. Your eyes! Step forward please, just a little, yes, yes, there! You have almost purple eye color. I thought so a moment ago. I have never seen a more beautiful woman, ah, girl, than you. You are truly lovely!”



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

She turned around slowly, and then turned again as directed by Billy. She stood about five feet six inches, about a hundred and twenty pounds with the firm glowing tone of youth. Her breasts were full and proud, her abdomen flat above the golden curls, her arms and legs unmuscled but her thighs full and firm.

“Take a deep breath, relax your body and let your arms fall away,” he said gently.

She did as he asked and raised her eyes, “Well…?” she whispered.

“Smile for me.”

She blinked her eyes, her chest heaving; the corners of her mouth twitching as if she were willing a smile to appear, “I can’t”

“Smile for me with your eyes, Kathleen. Those eyes that know I am looking at you and finding the sight very pleasant, you are lovely. You have a fullness about you that makes me think of a painting I know, of a tall blonde woman in a flowing long gown with a child’s hand in hers. She is walking in a garden of trees and flowers, natural, warm and wonderful to observe. There are artists who would pay you two hundred dollars an hour just to stand like that as they tried to capture the essential real beauty. Smile for me, Kathleen.”

Her eyes opened wide, “Two hundred dollars an hour? Just to paint me like this?” She spread her arms as a tiny smile lined her face and her eyes became warm and open. She looked down then up again and smiled into the mirror showing even white teeth with full lips and dimples on each side. “I don’t think so.”

Billy watched her posture change as she became less concerned about her nakedness and thought about his words, “What is beauty, Kathleen? How would you describe a beautiful woman?”

She searched her mind, “I only know what I have been taught. Beauty in a woman is patience and kindness, compassion and understanding and caring for others. The body is just the flesh and true beauty is of the spirit, of knowing God and the oneness of all things.”

“Then you don’t care what you look like?”


amicus….
 
Hmm.

I'd have to see it before I could say anything for sure.

I'll admit to being cynical or doubtful going in only because I know in modern cultures there seem to be vast differences in beauty. For instance the Twiggy model that has become so popular in EuroAmerica, the looks like a child model in Japan, the wide hipped model of Africa, and the bizarrely mutilated styles of some of the more forgotten tribes. Heck a simple perusal of what is beauty on a club scene versus in a country club will see massive differences. And this is all before going back to the middle ages where fat was considered beautiful because that meant they had wealth and a better chance to survive.

I know about male and female scents carrying pheremones though and the phenomenon of babies. In fact the main theory for why people like certain animals is because those animals have faces that look like a baby's. Doesn't explain though the groups of people that love pets and think they're cute and yet believe babies to be hideously ugly.

Anyway, I'd have to check it out and see what proofs they are using, whether they are focusing on facial features more than body features, where they visited, etc...

Especially since I can remember that the first girl I fell in love with was considered ugly or at best "plain" by the right minded minions and I find starlets and supermodels terribly unstimulating. (But oh wait, I'm never in the normal distribution curve so I don't count). Never mind.
 
Interesting you should mention 'Twiggy'. Her body ratio is the same as Marilyn Monroe, Julia Roberts and a host of others they mentioned but that I do not recall.

The program may have been The Science of Sex..but I am not certain with that.

amicus
 
amicus said:
Interesting you should mention 'Twiggy'. Her body ratio is the same as Marilyn Monroe, Julia Roberts and a host of others they mentioned but that I do not recall.

The program may have been The Science of Sex..but I am not certain with that.

amicus

Um, I believe that show was sadly mistaken. And I mean sadly. Marilyn Monroe was curvaceous with a 35-22-35 and weighed in at 140 lbs. She was the healthy hourglass type.

Twiggy started a revolution of basically twig-like models. Anorexia and showing one's ribs became the new standard of beauty. It was the beginning of unhealthy beauty which has since forth haunted American teen girl body image. Her measurements were 31-22-32 aqnd she weighed barely 90 lbs.

They are both the same height. About 5'6".

I'm afraid that if they had trouble differentiating the body types of these two starlets and believed them to be the same, then their margin of error is far too large for me. I'd still like to watch it sometime, but I am starting to doubt heavily its suppositions if that is one of them.
 
Ah. Yes, that'd be a connection then. I take back what I said.

Hmm, now I can't stop thinking about half-faced Mazikeen of the Lillim from The Sandman comic books and then the Lucifer comic books.

Is it wrong to find her more beautiful than all the combined symmetrical overpolished underfed starlets?
 
No, it's not wrong. Just not the average.

It was also determined that people generally thought of "beauty" as the most homogenous amalgamation of features, i.e. the least remarkable.

mlle
 
Human beauty is undefinable. It is much too subjective and opinionated a subject. Take one woman and ask three different men their honest opinions, you will get three different answers.

Personally, I dislike being able to see a ribcage on a woman, but I also don't judge by appearance. Physical beauty changes throughout the years, a kind-hearted woman tends to stay kind-hearted (if you treat her well).. so I wouldn't say no to a possibility with a woman who was so thin her ribcage was exposed.. if she was a nice person, and had some personality and a sense of humour. But I don't just chase after thin women, my ex-wife is by no means thin.. and it wasn't my choice that we are apart now..

Anyways, I think you know what I mean.. Its completely subjective.. Its like having a group of people standing around discussing an art masterpiece and none of them know anything about art... Not going to be a very intelligent conversation now is it..


The "media" image of what beauty is, is stupid. That the media can control so many people's outlook on what beauty is supposed to be just shows you how many people in this world are sheep, and are content being sheep. That many models will starve themselves half to death to be able to perform for their jobs is moronic, throw real food at them all and a real job and lets see how much time they have to do their exercising they claim to do, and still look 'fresh' on the runway..

Thats what women try to do who aren't models.. live an every day life.. and do everything at once... and do the stuff that these models are paid to have the time to do.. Exercise, go to health spas, manicures, all that "beauty" stuff.. Bah
 
The question asks what "human" beauty is. Why is everyone discussing only women and the media's representation of 1% (or less) of their population? Silly question to me anyway.

Perdita
 
Snooper,

I would disagree with that, slightly.

Beauty is in the eye of the BEHELD.

Most of the people traditionally associated with being beautiful (male or female) were wracked with insecurity. So even those people, faced with adoration and the subjective view of millions, did not feel they were beautiful. You cannot tell someone they are beautiful and expect to be believed. They may be persuadable, over time, and preferably with your undying admiration for other aspects, but it will be they who make the decision.

Look at people who are not "beautiful" in the ascribed manner, but ooze self-confidence, self-awareness, and display so many other qualities we admire. THEY are beautiful. People who have a nice haircut, or a firm body, or good cheekbones are NOT beautiful, unkless they also have other qualities. They are transiently viewed as attractive accoridng to the fashions of the day. If you don't believe me, look through some fashion catalogues from the 1960s, or a painting by Reubens. The world's stereotype of beauty waxes and wanes, real beauty comes from one's view of oneself.

Viewing someone as beautiful is fine, provided you put it in the same category as sports and politics - interesting, but not as good as real life.
 
Back
Top