Is Beauty Really In the Eye of The Beholder?, What do you think? |
Here are the general forum rules that you must follow before you start any debate topics. Please make sure you've read and followed all directions.
Is Beauty Really In the Eye of The Beholder?, What do you think? |
![]()
Post
#1
|
|
![]() Lose yourself and fly away, hide away for the day ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Member Posts: 242 Joined: Jul 2006 Member No: 446,527 ![]() |
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? |
|
|
![]() |
![]()
Post
#2
|
|
![]() Senior Member ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Member Posts: 493 Joined: Sep 2004 Member No: 47,340 ![]() |
Yes, it does lie in the eye of the beholder - some people believe that if one thing is beautiful then other things are not. At the same time, beauty is constantly changing so our perceptions on beauty are always changing.
Fact: Babies are drawn to beautiful faces and they spend more time looking at beautiful faces (faces that have big lips and big eyes). Other things that are considered beautiful are; good bone structure, components of both the adult beautiful face and the baby beautiful face, high cheek bones, symmetry (which also ties athletic ability - people with symmetric ears run faster than people who do not have symmetrical ears, this is a factor in why some athletes are so beautiful), etc. But.. since the beholder's thoughts are based off the fashion industry, then the fashion industry calls what is beautiful and what is not. Scientist found that people all judge beauty the same. Causing the major problem of ordinary people comparing looks to "models" and the "more attractive people" making anyone else feeling inadequate. Beauty used to be such a rare thing, but now since it is everywhere, everyone wants it. ... For my sociology class we just watched a sequence of movie clips called The Human Face and we just watched the "Beauty" episode last month. Kind of became a buff on the "beauty" subject. |
|
|
![]()
Post
#3
|
|
![]() Senior Member ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Official Member Posts: 6,349 Joined: Aug 2006 Member No: 455,274 ![]() |
Yes, it does lie in the eye of the beholder - some people believe that if one thing is beautiful then other things are not. At the same time, beauty is constantly changing so our perceptions on beauty are always changing. Fact: Babies are drawn to beautiful faces and they spend more time looking at beautiful faces (faces that have big lips and big eyes). Other things that are considered beautiful are; good bone structure, components of both the adult beautiful face and the baby beautiful face, high cheek bones, symmetry (which also ties athletic ability - people with symmetric ears run faster than people who do not have symmetrical ears, this is a factor in why some athletes are so beautiful), etc. But.. since the beholder's thoughts are based off the fashion industry, then the fashion industry calls what is beautiful and what is not. Scientist found that people all judge beauty the same. Causing the major problem of ordinary people comparing looks to "models" and the "more attractive people" making anyone else feeling inadequate. Beauty used to be such a rare thing, but now since it is everywhere, everyone wants it. ... For my sociology class we just watched a sequence of movie clips called The Human Face and we just watched the "Beauty" episode last month. Kind of became a buff on the "beauty" subject. -.- who told you that was a fact?... I'd love to meet the mind reader. |
|
|
![]()
Post
#4
|
|
![]() Senior Member ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Member Posts: 493 Joined: Sep 2004 Member No: 47,340 ![]() |
-.- who told you that was a fact?... I'd love to meet the mind reader. ![]() It is a documentary on the Human Face. There is a segment about beauty and this was stated in that episode. I would think the information is accurate considering the documentary was nominated for 2 primetime Emmys. |
|
|
![]()
Post
#5
|
|
![]() Senior Member ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Official Member Posts: 6,349 Joined: Aug 2006 Member No: 455,274 ![]() |
![]() It is a documentary on the Human Face. There is a segment about beauty and this was stated in that episode. I would think the information is accurate considering the documentary was nominated for 2 primetime Emmys. I wouldn't title it fact though. Maybe the person who's making claims of such should prove they can read minds before making a documentary about children staring off into "beauty" and it being fact. And Emmys doesn't hold weight... (this is nothin against you) |
|
|
![]()
Post
#6
|
|
![]() Senior Member ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Member Posts: 493 Joined: Sep 2004 Member No: 47,340 ![]() |
I wouldn't title it fact though. Maybe the person who's making claims of such should prove they can read minds before making a documentary about children staring off into "beauty" and it being fact. And Emmys doesn't hold weight... (this is nothin against you) Who said anything about reading minds? I didn't. And I was just using the Emmys as a way of saying; I doubt they would educate false information on a documentary that is widely known. If it weren’t accurate it wouldn't be as popular as it is. I can't believe I’m arguing over writing the word "fact:" ![]() |
|
|
![]() ![]() |