GameBanshee Forums

Originally posted by HighLordDave
We also see this with the ways people go about self-mutilating themselves for the sake of beauty: foot binding, neck stretching, piercings, tattoos, breast implants, etc. -snip-
In looking at many cultures around the world, these scientists found that health and youth were universally more desirable in every culture.

This sounds like a contradiction to me... How can self-mutilating
be considered beautifull when health always have priority?

I do however find it very likely that youth (and perhaps health on some occations) often is considered beautifull.

Originally posted by Dottie


This sounds like a contradiction to me... How can self-mutilating
be considered beautifull when health always have priority?

I do however find it very likely that youth (and perhaps health on some occations) often is considered beautifull.

I wonder how much of that is culturally ingrained, and how much is artificially generated through consumerism--after all, it's so much easier to control and exaggerate the buying habits of youth, and to create a market for new goods. Historically, many cultures looked more kindly at age. Imperial China felt that the value of a person increased as they grew older. The Renaissance Florentines lived in a gerentocracy, regarding all men under the age of 40 as wild and dangerous, unfit for any responsible task. (Women were regarded as unfit for any public task at any time.)

Originally posted by fable

I wonder how much of that is culturally ingrained, and how much is artificially generated through consumerism--after all, it's so much easier to control and exaggerate the buying habits of youth, and to create a market for new goods. Historically, many cultures looked more kindly at age.

I think that perhaps the beauty ideal have often been the young, but its much the fault of consumerism that grewing old is now more or less something you're supposed to feel ashamed about.

Imperial China felt that the value of a person increased as they grew older. The Renaissance Florentines lived in a gerentocracy, regarding all men under the age of 40 as wild and dangerous, unfit for any responsible task. (Women were regarded as unfit for any public task at any time.)

I think this is still in practice today to some extent. You rarely see politicians or company presidents being younger than 40.

@Dottie:
Self-mutilation is not necessarily unhealthy. For instance, body piercings and tattoos generally do not lead to prolonged health problems (once the pain and swelling subside). Other forms of self-mutilation (elective cosmetic surgery) are designed to make an individual more beautiful by societal standards and not necessarily to correct an unhealthy condition, and are not necessarily unhealthy themselves.

@fable:
While many cultures revere their elders, they also idealise youth because it is associated with virility and fertility. The appearance of youth is culturally more desirable (in terms of physical attraction) because younger people are more fecund than older people.

@Hld: Not all alterations of your looks are unhealthy of course... But some are. Im sure you can find examples on your own. Its just that in a time were anorexia is as common as it is on "beauty" people I find it quite strange to claim a connection between beuaty and health. And I dont think the claim serve to lessen the problem with our current beauty standards either.

Anorexia is not considered beautiful. Anorexia is an eating disorder brought on by an individual's obsession with meeting a perceived societal standard of beauty. I think you would find very few people who consider skeletal masses of flesh and bone attractive. I also believe that while people generally believe that thinner is better than larger, there is also a societal standard which gauges someone as too thin.

Unfortunately, western (read: American) standards of beauty are pervading other cultures and we're seeing things like eating disorders in places where there is no history. Maybe it's television's fault or Cosmo's or maybe it's just that people are generally insecure about themselves and look to outside sources for their own self-image, which in turn results in a low body-image.

I am of the opinion that while I find certain physical traits more desirable than others, they are ultimately less important in a mate or partner than other traits which are not related to physical appearance: intelligence, humour, sense of adventure, etc. Beauty and passion fade, but if you have a healthy relationship with someone beyond the physical realm, your future together is far more likely to last.

@HLD:Being unhealthy thin is considered beautifull by many people(look at what models are displayed at some underwear commercial or whatever). As well as other unhealthy ideals. (you meantioned foot binding and neck stretching for example)

Obsidian also claimed good looks were an obvious display of good genetics. I really cant understand the reasons for trying to promote such a thought.

Originally posted by Dottie
Obsidian also claimed good looks were an obvious display of good genetics. I really cant understand the reasons for trying to promote such a thought.

There is a theory out there which says that people are attracted to others based on their appearance of fecundity. That is, people are looking for prospective mates based on their ability to not only bear children, but to bear children which are likely to live a long time and produce lots of offspring themselves.

If you buy this theory, then you would say that people find a member of the opposite sex attractive who is young (and capable of having lots of offspring), healthy (since much of health is genetic) and ambitious (the strong are more likely to pass along their genes than the weak).

I think what quailfies as "good looks" is highly subjective, but I think it stands to reason that generally speaking, people who are muscular and athletic (as opposed to flabby and sedentary), have healthy skin complexion (as opposed to a pasty or ruddy complexion) and younger are more desirable then people who do not meet those criteria.

Of course, this theory is based on genetic influence only, and as we know cultural values are shaping the way we view our own (and others's) body image, and doesn't hold up in the case of homosexuals, who are not interested in a partner based on their ability to reproduce.

Thank you, thank you HLD for saying everything I was trying to say 10 fold better. Thank you!

To cover the point I was trying, poorly, to make, is that healthy people are likely to make better long term partners. Any trait that would make this more likely might be considered subconsciously. As has been so clearly stated, beauty and passion fade, leaving intellect, humour and other traits of inner beauty. A partner who is healthy is one you can live a long time with enjoying them for who they are. Makes sense to me.

So, what I'm getting at again, is Health is linked to beauty, but NOT vice versa. Beauty is not always healthy.

@ HLD, that study you mentioned, I think I saw it on television not to far back, and I believe men of all cultures found a certain silhoute attractive. The slim one with medium breasts and pronounced curves I think.

I remember the study of "universal beauty" HLD is referring to, I have been trying to find it but not succeeded yet - I may be more lucky tomorrow if I have time to look for it at work.

The results of this study, support that some element of health can be found in the universal beauty ideals. I clearly remember that healthy teeth (ie whitish in colour and having your teeth as opposed to having lost them) was a cross cultural beauty ideal, as well as a spotless and even colour skin as opposed to spots, rashes or other visible flaws. For both men and women, universal beauty ideals of body shape could be derived to an index of similar proportions, for men it was the proportion between waist and shoulders, for women the proportion between waist and hips that was similar. But even if the proportions are similar, the absolute measures may differ, the index used in the study was relative (ie a womens waist should be about 75% of her hips or whatever). A polynesian matrona and Naomi Campbell may thus have the same index.

Anyway, neither HLD or Obsidian mentions that in this study, there were also lots of cross cultural variation. There were actually more features that were not shared universally, than were shared. This IMO supports what most posters have already concluded: that the major part of what we perceive as beauty is not connected to functional selection, "survival or the fittest" but instead is mostly cultural and individual. Cross culturally, we have a lot less in common, than we have differences between us.

Originally posted by HighLordDave
Anorexia is not considered beautiful. Anorexia is an eating disorder brought on by an individual's obsession with meeting a perceived societal standard of beauty. I think you would find very few people who consider skeletal masses of flesh and bone attractive.

Whereas I agree with most other things HLD has posted here, I strongly disagree with this. Having anorexia does not mean you must look like a skeleton, even though this is observed in many severe cases. In males, anorexia often manifest itself as excessive training, extreme low fat diets and use of dangerous substances to increase the effect of exercising, such as steroids. Many people who are considered beautiful in Western society, such as models, actors or athletes, are suffering from anorexia and use drugs to keep slim or fit. For instance, use of amphetamine and cocaine to keep down appetite is very common in the world of fashion. Bulimia (eating and throwing up) is extremly unhealthy, but do not result in people looking extremly thin.
Anonymous studies of models and actors, tragically reveal that eating disorders of all kinds, including anorexia, is very common. Western fashion models are significantly underweight, which cannot be considered heatlhy since malnutrition is never an advantage.

Unfortunately, western (read: American) standards of beauty are pervading other cultures and we're seeing things like eating disorders in places where there is no history.

As recently demonstrated by the Harvard study of Fiji published in British Journal of psychiatry. Depressing stuff.

Originally posted by C Elegans
Whereas I agree with most other things HLD has posted here, I strongly disagree with this. Having anorexia does not mean you must look like a skeleton, even though this is observed in many severe cases. In males, anorexia often manifest itself as excessive training, extreme low fat diets and use of dangerous substances to increase the effect of exercising, such as steroids. Many people who are considered beautiful in Western society, such as models, actors or athletes, are suffering from anorexia and use drugs to keep slim or fit. For instance, use of amphetamine and cocaine to keep down appetite is very common in the world of fashion. Bulimia (eating and throwing up) is extremly unhealthy, but do not result in people looking extremly thin.
Anonymous studies of models and actors, tragically reveal that eating disorders of all kinds, including anorexia, is very common. Western fashion models are significantly underweight, which cannot be considered heatlhy since malnutrition is never an advantage.

My (rather flippant) comment about anorexia was more in response to our friend Dottie's remarks about "Its just that in a time were anorexia is as common as it is on 'beauty' people I find it quite strange to claim a connection between beuaty and health" and his other statements about people being too thin than it was about accurately representing anorexics.

As you say, people suffering from anorexia are not necessarily "skeletal", although the most extreme cases are. To put words in his mouth, I think Dottie's point is that our society (at least western society) is rife with images of people who are thin and gaunt, particularly of women, and this leads people who are susceptible to being influenced by those images (the young and those with low self-esteem) to want to be waif-like and equally as thin, which is in turn unhealthy. This seems to contradict our friend Obsidian's claims about health being more desirable and attractive.

I think that my point about eating disorders being societally-motivated is a valid one because they seem to be unique to western society and only appear in other cultures once western values and images are introduced. For instance, the traditional "desirable" body type in Samoa is of large, round people, both men and women (because people there are generally large and round). However, after prolonged exposure to American media, Samoans are seeing an explosion of eating disorders among its youth and people are slimming down trying to meet this new standard of beauty brought on though media outlets.

The bottom line is this: Everyone is built to look a certain way. Some people are bigger, rounder and softer in some places than other people. Some folks are taller, some shorter; some have broad shoulders and narrow waists and others do not. It is my belief that everyone (barring other factors like thyroid imbalance) has the ability to be both beautiful and healthy provided that they exercise regularly and have a balanced diet of moderate portions.

At the same time, people are aware of what others consider beautiful and try to meet those standards, at times going to great lengths and risks to conform to what they percieve as "desirable" in their culture. However, not everyone can conform to those standards and remain healthy simply because not everyone is built to look like Salma Hayek, but that doesn't stop people from trying. It is by placing pressure on one's self and a feeling of inferiority brought on by peer pressure and societal messages that leads to eating disorders, plastic surgery and image-obsession.