--- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <no_re...@...> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], grate.swan <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > I wish that I remembered the name of a public TV > series I saw once that dealt with this very issue, > but I do not. It was great, because it examined > the issue of "What do we consider attractive in a > human being?" *across cultures*. > > What I remember is that in specifics it isn't the > same.
Some good points. > * Symmetry of features -- the more symmetrical the > face or body, the more we find it attractive. And > the opposite. I have log heard this, and have verified it for my own tastes on some sites that test this. But why is it so? Symmetry is the last thing I would think of on my own. Is it that when we see subtly different halves of a factor (or body) it does not compute as well in our sensory / evaluation mechanisms? Maybe like the distance, relaxed eye thing, below, the brain is more at rest, requires less processing, in viewing a more symmetrical face. Maybe asymmetry is just plain hard for the brain to reconcile -- and tho we are not conscious the specific process, we do get the message from our brains "WTF!" when an asymmetrical face comes into vision -- and our chagrin and frustration from brain tightening up results in a displeasurable association with the asymmetrical woman or man. If the "relaxation" theory is true -- it explains your funny picture about Tequila. Relaxed brain and everything is gorgeous. And is consistent with the lament "I never have gone to bed with an ugly woman, but I woke up with a few". So it would follow that the greatest beauty would be appreciated at deepest states of mind relaxation. Thus ANYTHING seen at most refined functioning of the mind during meditaion would be awesomely beautiful. Thus the descriptions of Lakskmi (as posted recently) or other Godesses.Maybe it was just a mind ripple of nothingness, of no significance, but people came out thinking "I saw this most awesomely beautiful woman ..." > * Long hair in women -- physically, an indicator of > good health (not all women can even grow their hair > really long), and again a "positive flag" in terms > of childbirth and "passing along one's genes." > > * A V-shaped torso -- both in men and women, more > important in men. > > * Good skin -- again, an indicator of health. So I get the genetic beacon call within to be attracted to those whom have the higher probability of bearing progeny. nature appears to favor quantity over quality -- a bimbo with great tits, ass, hair and skin is in the reptile brain seen as far more desirable than a brainy, articulate, creative plain jane. But given that much if not most sex has no procreative intent -- why isn't recreational and bonding sex then focussed on women with markers that scream "not much chance of progeny here" -- bad skin, short gray hair, droopy tits, and a woobly ass. Why arn't such women the first on our list for lusty non-procreative sex? >It's purely physical. > The muscles of your eyes (which are very close to the > brain and are important to the brain as an indicator > of stress or lack of stress) are "at rest" (un-tensed) > only when the eyes are focused on infinity. Thus if > you are indoors, or on a city street surrounded by > buildings, the eye muscles are always tensed. But go > to the seaside or stand on the rim of the Grand Canyon > and look out, and the eye muscles relax. Thus your > brain assumes that your whole body is more relaxed, > thus the perception of "beauty." > So it may be a blessing that the hottest woman in the universe will always be the one on the other side, and far horizon of the Grand Canyon from us. Unattainable.
