If no one received any clues or direction on what beauty was, would they come to a conclusion on their own what beauty is?

What ever makes me smile.

Good question. I remember an old episode of Twilight Zone (I think) where a beautiful woman was not the norm, but everyone else was very ugly. She was ostracized and ridiculed.
I think your question asking if society’s norms or likes or dislikes are key to our thoughts on beauty is right on in many situations.

To each his own taste.

There are genetic predispositions to beautiful things; and studies have shown appreciation for similar things across cultural lines. Yes, there is fashion, but not everyone thinks that a current fashion is even attractive let alone beautiful.

Young children find some things beautiful before they have been given societal cues.

^ There are genetic predispositions to beautiful things; and studies have shown appreciation for similar things across cultural lines.
I know there are things that no matter what continent you go on, it is generally seen as beautiful, such as white sandy beaches with swaying palms, snowcapped mountains, the majestic lion, certain butterflies, etc. even if they are thought of as ”pretty” because they make one smile as @talljasperman says, society will give clues to back it up, like splashing those images on card, calendars, or using them connected to some pleasant situation, is that not a subtle persuasion that ”these things are pleasant”, even if they never came out to say they were? Not everyone things puppies are cute, but enough people do to form the conclusion that they are considered cute, not so much with armadillos.

Young children find some things beautiful before they have been given societal cues.
Such as what, some examples, flowers, butterflies, shiny things, etc.?

As @zenvelo has mentioned, there have been research studies done with children. As a matter of fact they’ve even used infants just a few months old so it’s obvious they haven’t yet the language facility or maturity to pick up on the dictates of society.

And it is independent of whichever culture they’re surrounded by.

So, here is the general rule of thumb. People (including infants) are attracted to faces which are symmetrical. This is why things such as buck teeth, small beady eyes, etc. are considered less attractive (or beautiful).

As a matter of fact there is a mathematical relationship known as the “Golden Ratio” or “Golden Mean” which is a series of numbers which represent this universal standard of beauty and symmetry in both objects and people. The closer a persons face or an object comes to representing this pattern the more attractive it is perceived to be.

It’s also known as the Fibonacci Sequence, named for the mathemetivian who first observed it.

I dont remember the specific numbers offhand but if you do a search on Fibonacci, it will give you the sequence of numbers as well as numerous examples where this pattern can be found. It’s really a fascinating read.

This was first observed in nature in things like flower petal disbursement and the shell of a Nautilus, to name just a few.

But it’s also used in fields of expertise as widely diverse as Architecture as well as reconstructive surgery. For a surgeon altering a face, there is a template of lines fitting over a face connecting all types of measurements like eye width, nose in relation to mouth and eyes and all other connecting points which depicts how the Fibonnacci sequence would bring all these points into the most balanced and symmetrical form.

They’ve also used this template and placed it over the faces of various celebrities (both those widely considered attractive and beautiful as well as those not so) and you can clearly see that the closer they fit the template of the Golden Ratio, the more attractive they’re considered to be.

This is why someone with the facial structure of Brad Pitt or Julia Roberts is considered more attractive than someone like Lyle Lovett or Sandra Bernhard. Symmetry.

(Obviously Lyle had other qualities of mind, personality, or creativity which Julia found attractive enough to marry but it wasn’t for his facial features.)

So, bottom line, speaking on a PURELY PHYSICAL basis, the more symmetrical and balanced the facial features, the more they are considered attractive by both infants and the majority of society as a whole.

This is also found in many works of great artists down through the ages. The Fibonacci sequence is all over the place with remarkable consistency.

As a matter of fact some have suggested that this is evidence of a Creator. Interesting.

www.io9.com/Fibonacci

This gives 15 examples of where this ratio can be found.

Fascinating read!

Birthing hips… If reproduction was the goal due to dieing at 30 due to needing a root-canal I would go for the girl with the biggest hips.

The waifs in the magazines would struggle to have a normal bowel movement. Doubt they could pop out enough babies to tend the farm when I am a fragile old man.

Every human receives direction from the latent memories of the Body Thetans that saturate the planet’s atmosphere and entered their bodies at birth.
Body Thetans of course are the souls of all the aliens that the Alien Lord Xenu killed with Hydrogen Bombs after he shipped them to earth from all over the universe in DC8 shaped spaceships and dumped them into volcanoes.
Those Body Thetans’ latent memories are also the source of every religion on Earth.
That is why it is so important that you visit your closest Church of Scientology™ as soon as possible.
They will help you, for a modest recurring fee, to cleanse your body of these Alien Body Thetans and their vicious false memories.

GA.. for simply talking shit about Scientology.

I remember on a certain thread one Jelly (I think it was ETPro) talked about how some things are genetic. For instance, humans are repulsed by the smell of feces because it contains toxic substances. This relates to our basic instinct for survival.

Indubitably, indubitably…

I know it when I see feel it

Beauty is of course subjective and in part learned by experiences we are exposed to especially when people close to us express and appreciation for something they consider beautiful we are often inclined to agree. But “beauty” is also very much instinctive and part of our DNA that we observe and see specific members of the opposite sex as beautiful and attractive despite any real definition of this attraction all in order to assure the propagation and survival of that species. I am attracted to only a very select type of women I would then call beautiful. It seems there is a mate for every person the planet that is attracted to that person.

Even at my age in life I will still see something truly unique I had never seen before or even knew about that I will take a step back and go…“wow…that is beautiful!” Almost everything in nature to me is beautiful and I can spend hours taking macro pictures of insects others would cringe in horror at.

True beauty is universally, instinctively recognized. It has to do with symmetry. The more symmetrical the two halves of the human body are, the more beautiful we perceive the person to be. That symmetry might also be a clue as to how well a woman could withstand pregnancy and labor.

@Dutchess_III hit the nail on the head. Our notions of beauty were hard-wired by evolution – millennia of people choosing healthy partners, judged by symmetry and proportion, to pass-down good DNA. In our modern world, it’s cruel and wrong to reject someone, or call that person “ugly,” because a facial anomaly or physical disability. During primitive times, however, men and women simply wanted to have healthy children who’d survive and thrive.

@Buttonstc So, here is the general rule of thumb. People (including infants) are attracted to faces which are symmetrical. This is why things such as buck teeth, small beady eyes, etc. are considered less attractive (or beautiful).
If that were the case, then no one seeing people who have those features cannot be said to be shallow if they do not consider anyone with those traits as attractive, because scientifically they aren’t. Also, more babies and toddlers I have seen in the US (don’t know what it is like in other nations), are scared of clowns; the white face, funky hair, etc. Later when they are older they are not terrified of clowns in a general sense, I would suspect in part because society teaches them clowns are fun, and represent a good time. Had society never associated clowns with fun and celebration would children grow up never shedding their fear of clowns (those who are scared of them)?

So, bottom line, speaking on a PURELY PHYSICAL basis, the more symmetrical and balanced the facial features, the more they are considered attractive by both infants and the majority of society as a whole.
There are things that fall out of that equation and seem to be more leaning on what the given society at hand believes. Take indigenous people of which nearly all women go topless with breast exposed. They do not seem to place any emphasis of pretty boobies or ugly ones, as much as they do not see them as something to get a boner over. They are just part of the female and you see it that way from toddler on up. Even in industrial societies where the breast take a higher consideration, some big water balloon breast are seen as attractive and hub caps are not, while others like myself would find hub caps way more attractive then big floppy water balloon breast. I came to that on my own but when I was young and watching men’s mags like Playboy, I was more attracted to those women with big bazooka boobs because that is what society said made a woman more attractive, yet as much as I tried, I never found myself totally sold out on that idea.

As a matter of fact some have suggested that this is evidence of a Creator. Interesting.
Personally I see more glaring and direct examples in nature and science that point to that.

@Cruiser But “beauty” is also very much instinctive and part of our DNA that we observe and see specific members of the opposite sex as beautiful and attractive despite any real definition of this attraction all in order to assure the propagation and survival of that species.
Exactly how would it work on the DNA level? If there were some genetic disposition to find Blonde, leggy women beautiful, but you were in China or the Middle East where those types of women would be very scarce, and if seen would be tourist, one is doomed to pine away for something that is not readily available where they live? This DNA propensity would override any societal proclivities for women that were not Blonde and leggy?

@Dutchess_III True beauty is universally, instinctively recognized.
How do your accounts for things that are truly seen as beauty in one’s given society but hardly anywhere else? Take for instance those African tribes where women wear the metal collars that stretch their neck, there it is seen as a trait of great beauty, downtown Munich, the streets of Calgary, or the beaches of Sydney I would find it hard to be seen the same way; but wouldn’t it if it was a universal trait of beauty?

@Hypocrisy_Central You took my answer and played with it like silly putty and stretched it till it snapped! The survival of a species wholly depends on genetic diversity as the more diverse gene pool a species can provide, the more opportunity that species has to survive a mega attack by a rampant disease. (think plague or 1917 Spanish Flu) In both cases, certain peoples were able to walk amongst the infirm unscathed and tend to the sick and dying….those were the ones who were blessed with the genes to survive the latest viral attack. When the next bird flu outbreak happens…cross your fingers and hope your ancestors got a whiff of that strain of flu and just maybe you will be spared! ;)

@@Hypocrisy_Central Many attributes that individuals find that they prefer, such as “blonde,” “leggy,” etc. are socially defined. We grow up being told that this is what we prefer, so we do.
Same with the African tribes where the women stretch their necks with the collars. Their society tells them that that is beautiful. Our society tells us it’s gross.

Actual beauty, on the other hand, is something most people can’t quite put their finger on, but they know it when they see it. I happen to know it’s about the symmetry, because I read it in a book, and it is spot on. Before I read that, though, I’m not sure that I could tell you why I view certain women, and certain men, as beautiful.

Beautiful woman

I think so. I think that there is a quality, call it beauty if you like, that is appealing in lines, in symmetry, in healthy attributes and in harmony that come naturally to the human mind. I find no reason to think it improbable that an inherent basis for what we consider beautiful exists within us all and that society and social norms do is refine it, not refine, but channel it in certain directions and that this is an ongoing event, after all, our ideals of what constitute beauty seem to change or evolve over the course of our lifetime to become more inclusive, not exclusive.

@Dutchess_III Symmetry and proportion. The eyes shouldn’t be either too close- or wide-set. The nose has to match the size and shape of the overall face. The chin’s strong and well-defined, but not too prominent. Defined cheekbones are often called “good bones,” but a face shouldn’t be gaunt and hollow beneath them.

Right.

@Dutchess_III Out of the slideshow (I went as far as 35 women, but it went further, not sure just how much. If I had linked that show I can imagine what would be said or the motives behind it, but that is Fluther, bygones) myself, not speaking for men, I found none truly attractive to me, though #1 and 12 to be mildly attractive, and #2, 10, 24, 25, 30, and 31 to be cute, the rest were not attractive to me, not to say others would not find them stunning. I could not see the face of number 19 really but she did have a cute vagina ;-p.

@Cruiser The survival of a species wholly depends on genetic diversity as the more diverse gene pool a species can provide, the more opportunity that species has to survive a mega attack by a rampant disease.
Maybe that is where we got off; I am not really linking how humans view attractiveness or beauty to species survival. Humans finding beauty in sunsets or snowcapped mountains would not hasten or quicken the extinction of the species. Somethings, like rainbows are appreciated as beautiful no matter where you are, other things seemed to be more cued by society, plump women in this place, anorexic women more in that place, etc.

Sorry…I thought I linked to a picture of only one woman, not a slide show. And certainly not a slide show of vagina’s. :/

Seeing beauty in a sunset or an object is a different thing, I think. I think it’s unique to humans to see beauty in something so abstract. That ability is also linked to the human questions of “Why? What?” and ultimately religions.
However, “beauty” in the opposite sex is an animal thing. For example, the males of some birds have really long, long tails, or very brightly colored feathers, and the reason they have them is because female birds over the millennium have found that attractive, so they agree to mate with them and the gene is passed on and eventually exaggerated. They don’t have the word “beautiful” in their vocabulary, of course, but they see something that attracts them, for whatever reason.

Usually, in the wild, the biggest and strongest males attract the females.

@Dutchess_III Sorry…I thought I linked to a picture of only one woman, not a slide show. And certainly not a slide show of vagina’s. :/
It is the Internet, sometimes seemingly innocuous words or phrases can lead you to some kinky, or dark alleys on the Web, some very interesting questions I have had come from such happenstance. However, some of us can have that happen to them without people applying sinister motives behind it. There wasn’t anything there I have not seen before, though some would call it objectifying women.

However, “beauty” in the opposite sex is an animal thing. For example, the males of some birds have really long, long tails, or very brightly colored feathers, and the reason they have them is because female birds over the millennium have found that attractive, so they agree to mate with them and the gene is passed on and eventually exaggerated. They don’t have the word “beautiful” in their vocabulary, of course, but they see something that attracts them, for whatever reason.
That being a given in the animal kingdom, and people if right, we are just another form of animal, going further to dabble in evolution that we all came from common subhuman ancestors way back when, why would humans not have the same innate disposition buried in there somewhere? Coupling with the fact of “Golden Ratio”, introducing an idea I had presently, if a person goes after another because they are pretty, beautiful, handsome, etc. does that make them shallow? After all, if one extrapolates the evidence here, it is hardwired in the DNA or it is the default settings of genes to gravitate to those who best fit the “Golden Ratio”, or scientific best symmetry, it is something a person has a proclivity for and not just as if all people no matter the features are equal.

It only makes them shallow if, after they get to know them, and find they don’t really like them, or have any thing in common with them, but they stay for the looks or the status or the sex, whatever.

If I understand your final question, then yes. That is what we have been saying there is a “Golden Ratio.” It’s symmetry and proportion, and that is often tied in to over all health and strength.

For me, personally, if I find a man physically attractive, I may accept the drink he offers, or sit and talk with him awhile. I can usually tell within a few minutes if there is any future promise there.

There are two issues here, the perception of beauty in humans and the perception of beauty in general. To an extent, as has been pointed out, the two overlap. Symmetry is a general aesthetic property, but symmetry in humans is an indicator of healthiness and we may have an evolved preference for it in humans. On the other hand, small waist to hip ratio in women is universally considered attractive, but it would be hard to argue for a general aesthetic principal to be at work in this case.

As far as I know, it is still uncertain as to why we have a general aesthetic sense. One theory that I like is that works of art that we consider beautiful represent a complex presentation in a compact form, the idea of a picture being worth a thousand words, or that the sense of a poem derives not just from the meaning of the words but from its rhyme and meter as well.

Could you clarify what you mean by ”...it would be hard to argue for a general aesthetic principal to be at work” in the case of small waist to hip ratio, @LostInParadise?

What aesthetic principle makes small waist to hip ratio beautiful? Is an exaggerated body contour necessarily artistically better than a gentler one? What makes more of something always better? Don’t get me wrong. I like looking at curvy women as much as the next guy, but I don’t try to justify it on artistic grounds.

@LostInParadise What aesthetic principle makes small waist to hip ratio beautiful? Is an exaggerated body contour necessarily artistically better than a gentler one?
Isn’t that cued by society? For instance, if it were possible to have a society where having hips X % wider than the waist was seen no more or less attractive figure wise than having a figure straight as a 12yr old boy, would men not look at the figure and deem an hour glass figure attractive, or on their own with no prompting from their society think ”Um….Nancy has an hourglass figure, and she looks so much better than Brenda who has no shape but straight”?

Preference for the hourglass shape or, more accurately, the bottom portion, has been found to be universal across all cultures. It would seem to be due to a built-in biological preference based on presumed healthiness. On the other hand, the fetish for large breasts is not universal across all cultures.

OK, I see what you were saying, @LostInParadise. Actually, that ratio is a clue as to how well a woman could withstand giving birth. It’s an idea of her abdomen-to-pelvis ratio. That’s where that preference comes in, instinctively.
In @Hypocrisy_Central‘s example, “Brenda,” who has no “shape”, also has narrow hips. This is not good from a birthing POV.

As for artificial exaggeration, whether it be breasts or butts or waist…that is where societal preferences come in. Some may like it because they’ve been brainwashed into thinking “the bigger the better,“as have the woman who opt for the surgery, but it certainly isn’t universal.
I appreciate a nice figure, male or female. I am repulsed by artificial exaggeration, either male or female.