Is Beauty Really In the Eye of The Beholder?, What do you think? Options

[Dreamers]

Feel free to move it if it's in the wrong forum.


Well, anyway, what do you guys think? (This is meant to be a friendly debate, by the way)

Is beauty REALLY in the eyes of the beholder?

I mean, science talks of all these features considered attractive ona woman like waist-hip-ratios of 0.7, and men being tall, and everyone having smooth skin, but is that really all true?

Is that stuff required to be beautiful?

In my opinion, no. Beauty really is in the eyes of the beholder, and I think one can see someone as beautiful, even if they have all the features that are considered ugly. It just depends on the person.

People are constantly swooning over, oh, Ionno, Rihanna and the typical Brad Pitt, but honestly I don't find either one extremely attractive. Then I see an average, or maybe even below-average guy on the street and I'm like, 'Wow, he's cute! '

So, that's my opinion onit. Is there anyone who doesn't believe in the phrase?

Or others who do?

[Reidar]

Beauty is not in the eye of the beholder. Modernism erroneously equivocates the aesthetic effect of beauty on one's cognition with the definition of beauty itself. Individual perceptive influence is subjective, but the concept that it's reacting to isn't. In and of itself, beauty is a concept ontologically external to what someone may or may not make of it.

[*Steven*]

Beauty is not in the eye of the beholder. Modernism erroneously equivocates the aesthetic effect of beauty on one's cognition with the definition of beauty itself. Individual perceptive influence is subjective, but the concept that it's reacting to isn't. In and of itself, beauty is a concept ontologically external to what someone may or may not make of it.

I would argue that personal influence would override most factors that would shape one's definition of beauty.