Where do beauty standards come from?

[ManyAntsDefeatSpiders]

So, what makes, in one society, for example, large breasts attractive, yet in another society small feet are a sign of beauty? Where do these diverse, and sometimes conflicting, beauty standards come from?

It's something I admit I have little understanding of. However, although I understand that the media does perpetuate beauty standards for the purposes of selling products, this doesn't explain where those beauty standards come from originally (or indeed, prior to mass media & commodity fetishism).

Are some beauty standards inherent in our biology? For instance, the ideal woman is younger - is this because of the increase chance of fertility which deems younger people more attractive than older people?

A result of patriarchy: of men setting beauty standards and women conforming to those beauty standards in order to be socially accepted? (Yet what about male beauty standards?)

What about the face and the golden ratio?!

What do people think? :)

[Bastable]

Are some beauty standards inherent in our biology? For instance, the ideal woman is younger - is this because of the increase chance of fertility which deems younger people more attractive than older people?

A result of patriarchy: of men setting beauty standards and women conforming to those beauty standards in order to be socially accepted? (Yet what about male beauty standards?)


I think the attraction to younger women is a cultural hangover going way back i.e when a 20 yr old man would marry a 12 yr old girl, perhaps this has left an imprint on society at large. I remember, my first girlfriend i ever had was two years older than me, which is of course in the scheme of things nothing, yet my male friends still heckled me about it calling her "ancient" etc...

I would say with a resounding yes that beauty standards for women result from patriarchy, as for male beauty standards perhaps through the media?

[BurnTheOliveTree]

The Golden Ratio, as far as I know, has not been backed up properly by evidence yet, it's still just a hypothesis, so I think we can rule that one out.

I am tempted to say that it is biological - it seems compelling that women with large breasts are attractive because it suggests fertility/maternity or whatever. Still, this runs into the inevitable objection of beauty standards changing, and being inconstant across cultures. I remember reading some article that said in ancient rome, if you had a large penis it was something to be ashamed of, for example.

Meh, I honestly have no idea on this one. I even wonder if beauty standards aren't to some degree arbitrary, and then perpetuated by sheer pervasiveness.

-Alex

[eyedrop]

I have always believed that beautystandards always corresponded to what was hard to achieve at the time. (mostly focusing on womens beauty standards are more clear and focused)


Thats why it was in for women to have as pale skin as possible, when most working class were where working in the fields. Working class women got naturally tan while upper class women walked around with sun umbrellas to avoid getting tan. It is what is hard to achieve for working class women.


In most old tribes it was a sign of beauty to get chubby since that would mean you had plenty of food. Most old figurines of godesses are chubby by todays standards.


Imo it seems like beauty standards mostly correlates with what is hard for most people to achieve. It's easier for privilieged persons to spend more time and energy on them. In todays world that would mean cash for operations, time for sunbathing/alternatively vacations (for pale people") and so on.

[BobKKKindle$]

There are certain aspects of beauty which are related to position in a socio-economic hierarchy. For example, it was once seen as attractive to have pale skin, because a darker skin tone suggested that someone spent long periods of time outside, performing manual labour in the heat of the sun, and so was of a lower social group. However, this is no longer applicable in the West, where a tan is now seen as attractive. In general, standards of beauty are arbitrary (as shown by the variation in conceptions of beauty between cultures) although it is possible that some aspects of the beauty image are connected to what is desirable from an evolutionary perspective.

It is unlikely that men consciously created beauty standards to exert control over women, because men are socialized to find certain features attractive, based on how women are presented in the media, the appearance of female authority figures, etc. I never made a conscious decision to find long hair attractive, and there is no way I can force myself to find "fat" women attractive - because sexual attraction is, by definition, something which cannot be subject to individual control.

The assumption that men should pursue a younger partner may be due to the perception that men should act as protectors of women, and a protector is generally older than the person who is being protected, due to the association of age with wisdom and experience.

[ManyAntsDefeatSpiders]

In general, standards of beauty are arbitrary (as shown by the variation in conceptions of beauty between cultures) although it is possible that some aspects of the beauty image are connected to what is desirable from an evolutionary perspective.

So, standards of beauty differ from culture to culture and hence are arbitrary.

But are cultures arbitrary? ;)

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

I wouldn't agree that beauty standards differ from culture to culture or from class to class. I think they likely remain constant throughout and its the norms of human physical appearance which change, and there is a preference among those norms, but there is probably a constant that all classes and cultures find beautiful.

[Tower of Bebel]

If you want to know why you should define these standards as part of human culture. The complexity of human culture provides the clue to the question why many different beauty standards exist. As we know socioeconomic structures determine cultural preferences. Some historian suggest that perception and behavior also influence these standards, but we all know that a certain behavior is developed by biological and socioeconomic factors as well.

[Mariner's Revenge]

For the most part, beauty standards work in the same way as all cultural norms and social doctrines, such as racism and homophobia, do. So the answer to your question would simply be society.

Yes, fashion designers, beauty magazines, and such do have an impact on beauty standards in our world but to say they directly dictate what our standards are is as invalid as saying FOXNews dictates the amount or racism in our country. As I mentioned, they do have an impact but when it comes down to it, fashion magazines and FOXNews have to serve the people's interests. If a fashion magazine attempts to make lip plates the new beauty standard and the population rejects it, the fashion magazine will either be forced to change or go out of business.

As of now, I see the beauty standards in general as a white female the displays African traits or a person of color who displays white traits. No single group or person decided that this would be our standard of beauty, but society itself.

To put it another way, look at racism in the United States as an example. Most suburban white kids are taught to give up racism and that all "races" are equal but many still show open and closeted racist behavior. Why? Because they picked this up from our social structure that is more powerful then some racially accepting individuals. To push it even farther, imagine if we killed all the open racists in the United States. Would racism still exists? Yes, because racism is so ingrained in our society that it doesn't need direct action to continue, hence why most racism in our world today is institutionalized.

The same basic concept applies to beauty standards and all cultural norms. Why do we dress the way we do? Why do we talk, accent wise, in the way we do? Why do we consider some social acts acceptable and some not? It is a social phenomenon that really has no single source.

[Svante]

i like bi g boobs so what culture d o i come from

[Mariner's Revenge]

No single trait has to be defined to a single culture just like no single social norm has to be defined to a single culture. But in the end, beauty standards, like social norms, are still cultural.

When I need to get somewhere, I walk. This is common throughout all cultures. Beauty standards can work in the same way. If all cultures consider big boobs a sign of beauty then that means you don't have to be part of of a certain culture to appreciate large breasts in the way I don't have be part of a certain culture for walking to be my main mode of transportation.

[F9]

The beauty standards are set by our minds and eyes!Every single person has different opinion of what is beauty and what is not.

Fuserg9:star:

[Pawn Power]

The beauty standards are set by our minds and eyes!Every single person has different opinion of what is beauty and what is not.

Fuserg9:star:

Well, thats not completely true. There are obvious "standards" that are dominant in certain cultures, regions, and demographics. Certainly, there are other factors a play besides our "minds and eyes," that is, people are influenced by a range of things.

Here is an article/ interview which touches upon corporate medias construction and propagation of beauty standards. http://www.alternet.org/sex/85977/ Here, it is suggested that perhaps certain standards are promoted which drive consumption... and hence profits. Often these standards are unachievable thus creating a consumers which must be constantly seeking new products to "enhance" themselves.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

You must rember that some people are atraced to things which are not the norm such as animals

[Pawn Power]

You must rember that some people are atraced to things which are not the norm such as animals

Okay... what are you getting at comrade joe?

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

Okay... what are you getting at comrade joe?


That it can not be entirely "what socitey sees as attractive" because some people like some strange shit ( such as shit)

[Voice_of_Reason]

That it can not be entirely "what socitey sees as attractive" because some people like some strange shit ( such as shit)

That is simple over pervertedness and you cannot base such things on such a small group of perverted or mental people, that would be like saying humans have two eyes, of course there is going to be a baby born with three eyes but the vast vast majority has 2 eyes.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

That is simple over pervertedness and you cannot base such things on such a small group of perverted or mental people, that would be like saying humans have two eyes, of course there is going to be a baby born with three eyes but the vast vast majority has 2 eyes.

I dont think its right to call these people perverts they just enjoy flinging shit and bumming sheep.

By that logic you would call gay people "perverted or mental" because they are in a minority

[Voice_of_Reason]

perverted
adjective 1. (used of sexual behavior) showing or appealing to bizarre or deviant tastes; "kinky sex"; "perverted practices" [syn: Kinky]

Straight from the dictionary

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

Ok i admit i was wrong but mental?

[Voice_of_Reason]

You can be born metal and like crazy stuff, and by mental I guess I mean being born with perversion (being messed up in the head) such as people who like children, mass murderers, that are not gradually formed or get more perverted they just had a problem with their brain (I'm not exactly sure how it works) when they are born. Mostly it is perversion but I wasn't ruling out the mentally ill

[TC]

I'll probably write more on this later (i haven't reviewed the topic) when I have time, but for now, I think in looking at this from a scientific, materialist perspective, one has to separate out the phenomena of finding someone or a group of similarly appearing people attractive (i.e. sue and maggie but not alice), the phenomena of finding particular style on them (i.e. curly hair, dread locks, but not afros) and the concept of 'beauty standards.' If you start with a category or a conceptual framework and then try to gather data points to support certain claims from it without examining whether there is a real empirical basis for the concept as a coherent and distinct category you can get very misleading results that presuppose what they are trying to prove. (for instance if you say take the SAT scores of black kids and white kids and compare them and say 'wow look racial differences in intelligence exist' you assume that these are organic categories, when if variables like income to 3 generations prior, time spent studying, etc were controlled for the results might be radically different).


Similarly I don't think there is necessarily any organic category of 'beauty standards' with a unitary explanation. Some preferences might be biologically based in basic neurology, while other preferences might be socially conditioned by class and culture, while others might be not cultural in a strict sense but not biological in a deterministic sense but instead generated as a non-adaptive byproduct to humans complicated visual, emotional and sentimental neurology. For instance there may be no particular evolutionary advantage or socio-historical influence for someone to find a particular glass skyscraper beautiful, but the capacity to make such an aesthetic judgment may be built into complex brain functions which are themselves adaptive for other unrelated reasons.

It is extremely difficult however to find a decent methodology for distinguishing these three etiological possibilities. One way to rule out a deterministic adaptive feature is if its not strongly cross-cultural (i.e. if only Chinese pre-revolutionary aristocratic men find tiny deformed feet sexy, its probably more the product of their class and individual psychological fetishism than it is their biology), but its almost impossible to confirm that something exists because it is biologically adaptive (showing that it has the potential to be adaptive is clearly not a demonstration that it actually came about for that reason as evolutionary just-so stories can be used to show that about almost everything and there is no way to demonstrate whether it is in balance a net-advantage genetically; not to mention that such explanations almost necessarily rely on the scientifically incorrect presumption that adaption leads to optimization which in reality it does not).

[RHIZOMES]

A result of patriarchy: of men setting beauty standards and women conforming to those beauty standards in order to be socially accepted? (Yet what about male beauty standards?)

There are male beauty standards as well, although they're different to female ones.

[Kropotesta]

There are male beauty standards as well, although they're different to female ones.
Agreed. It's infuriating how men are percieved to not have a certain body image to aspire to.

[ManyAntsDefeatSpiders]

Erm...I did say there were male beauty standards. :unsure:

I think it would be safe to say, however, that they are as not as demanding or comprehensive as the one's affecting females (for instance, various statistics put the number of males bulimic or anorexic at 10%, although figures vary depending on age groups & the study).

[Kropotesta]

Erm...I did say there were male beauty standards. :unsure:

I think it would be safe to say, however, that they are as not as demanding or comprehensive as the one's affecting females (for instance, various statistics put the number of males bulimic or anorexic at 10%, although figures vary depending on age groups & the study).
It is also proven that men are less likely to speak about things such as this, to conform to a hard and macho standard for men to asspire to.

[ManyAntsDefeatSpiders]

It is also proven that men are less likely to speak about things such as this, to conform to a hard and macho standard for men to asspire to.

Yes, that is true.

But you also mentioned a male 'beauty standard' right there: hard and macho.

Being skinny is not really a standard which most men aspire to - it is seen as effeminate and hence 'weak.' (Of course, studies show that this is somewhat slowly changing - there is evidence of males aspiring to what was typically seen as a female beauty standard).

So whilst men would probably be less likely to report being anorexic or bulimic or another eating disorder, it also statistically occurs less often, owing to the fact that being skinny does not really come to mind when thinking of the 'ideal man.' Of course, a female being skinny to the point of her ribs showing is also deemed unattractive by society in general.

[Kropotesta]

Yes, that is true.

But you also mentioned a male 'beauty standard' right there: hard and macho.
That was my intention.


Being skinny is not really a standard which most men aspire to - it is seen as effeminate and hence 'weak.' (Of course, studies show that this is somewhat slowly changing - there is evidence of males aspiring to what was typically seen as a female beauty standard).
Many men aspire to appearing muscley and toned opposed to skinny, at least in the west. There are only variations between the sexes beauty standards, both are deeply entrenched into society. This desire to become more toned could lead to steriods abuse.


So whilst men would probably be less likely to report being anorexic or bulimic or another eating disorder, it also statistically occurs less often, owing to the fact that being skinny does not really come to mind when thinking of the 'ideal man.' Of course, a female being skinny to the point of her ribs showing is also deemed unattractive by society in general.
Overly muscley people isn't attractive nor thin muscley men.

[Don't Change Your Name]

Are some beauty standards inherent in our biology? For instance, the ideal woman is younger - is this because of the increase chance of fertility which deems younger people more attractive than older people?

Based on what I've seen on the internet, when it comes to faces at least, research suggest that even babies agree on which faces are "beautiful" and which aren't, which could point to a biological basis. I've also read that some research discovered that men whose faces women considered attractive turned out to have a more fertile sperm or whatever. I guess this could be explained as that attraction evolving and both genes reproducing more frequently as the consequence. In that case it could have lead to this standard becoming what's considered "attractive" in men or so.

But even if this is the case, it doesn't explain why these beauty standards change in different societies. Perhaps we are biologically "prepared" to detect what others think about other people and base ourselves on that to choose who's attractive (as in popularity). But perhaps it works like it does when it comes to architecture or art and it's not relevant to sexuality. It would be interesting to see if people who were born in an isolated ethnic group can develop the same preferences as those which form the "beauty standards" of that society if they go to live to a different one. I don't know if such things were tried, but in any case it doesn't seem like we know enough about our brains to explain all this things.

[Don't Change Your Name]

Overly muscley people isn't attractive nor thin muscley men.

Also, some evidence suggests that people prefer an "average" of physical characteristics.