Is beauty objective fact or biological preference?

Is there an objective standard of beauty or do all races have their own set of ideals for what is considered beautiful?

Attached: 14325546.jpg (1080x1349, 138K)

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoteny
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

>Is there an objective standard of beauty

This. I read something about it, apparently childlike facial features in women go strong in basically every society of the world

Yes but I’d say there is some subjectivity which is where kinks come in

Attached: nigger magic style.jpg (800x1019, 319K)

It's a fact and jealous shitskins know this. This is why they have such inferiority complexes.

Westernized muds are raised to ahere to eurocentric standards of beuaty unlike their counterparts elsewhere in the world. It's why in the US we have a problem with black men raping white women.

Neoteny is basically the best way to tell if a woman will be considered attractive.

well done annon

There must be because I find 99% of hispanic and latin american women unattractive and the vatos go nuts for them.

>Is there an objective standard of beauty
yes. people telling you otherwise are either brainwashed by weird ass looking alien models pushed as attractive or trying to convince you that they're not racist

Attached: 1526036829043.gif (320x240, 3.1M)

Wew lad, what a stunner

Beauty is a white thing

Attached: thea3.png (820x817, 691K)

There is a universal ideal. Notice how the chart get progressively better the further right it goes (except for maybe the Asians who stay consistently beautiful?)

Attached: D6EFC258-7D63-4862-8973-C1F839621ECF.jpg (749x1253, 247K)

Beauty is correlated with health and functionality. If your funtional potential was always low you'll always look ugly. But if a dumb negro achieves his low potential, he'll look good for a negro.

implying african niggers dont do the same when they get to europe?

Attached: must_also_rape.jpg (577x435, 29K)

Beauty standards haven't changed despite what purple armpit hair college students tell you.

Attached: the-birth-of-venus-adolphe-william-bouguereau.jpg (643x900, 139K)

clear skin and symmetry. I believe those are the two universal preferences among all cultures.

Then of course we have preferences analyzed by big data. Which universally say white men and asian women are the "most messaged and responded to" which doesn't necessarily say attraction, but it's the best measurement available right now.

Black women and arabic men appear to be the least messaged and responded to. pic related.

Attached: okcupid 2.jpg (2000x1000, 119K)

it's a biological preference. Whether or not a milf or thot wants you is mostly up to your racial compatibility.

Attached: racial bias dating okcupid.png (598x419, 17K)

Both

A close relative could be smoking hot but taboos aside you shouldn't feel any biological attraction to them unless your fucked up. For the same reasons I'm sure different people have different preferences based on what is the best genetic match for them

This one is a little easier to read

Attached: responses racial dating preferences.png (1003x899, 248K)

I just came in my pants

Attached: final_5c00b00ec148f20012ef5203.jpg (1280x963, 227K)

she looks like a young tim curry in drag.

Attached: final_5c0175fb5fd57000136afbe7.jpg (1126x1280, 262K)

Non whites have a much lower standard for beauty it’s theirs shotgun method of breeding, where as Europeans had higher standards because we prefer quality offspring.

I actually had fun reading this :)

That's just, like.... your opinion, man.

#thotpatrol has been notified.

Biological preference is an objective fact.

They disfigured themselves to avoid slave traders, they still do it; probably to avoid slave traders. You think theres no more slavery in the world? Just lol.

I'd say same standard except a unique standard for Asians, because of very different eyes mostly. Just imagine white skin on a black beauty and face shape is same.

Attached: 090b94634349f62a0754f55b2fae02ce.jpg (719x720, 67K)

Another example:

Attached: 84752461.jpg (700x398, 29K)

the golden ratio

It’s both. Every man has subtle variations on the qualities we find attractive. Some guys like thicc women while some guys like slim women. That being said a lot of our preferences are hardwired by biology and that can be seen via statistics and media. Like the hourglass figure being the ideal body shape for fertility.

It also has to deal with exposure and your smv in relation to the best possible tail you can attract

I don't remember ever seeing black cam girls

Symmetry

Mostly objective. You can point to certain identifiable traits which make people sexually attractive.
Take this woman for instance. She has what is known as forward facial growth. That being, the lower two thirds of the face grow forward. In the negroid race it is more pronounced than this and in the Mongoloid race is is less pronounced, but this is a trait which is objectively attractive in all races and genders.
You will not find a single model that does not posses this trait.
And it is only one of many.

Attached: Forward facial growth.jpg (236x307, 10K)

the absolute state of 2018

Attached: Madeline Stuart Oct 2015 AWW.jpg (740x938, 65K)

>2015 picture but "she" gained popularity in 2018

i'd say cultural preference
2 generations ago the standard of beauty here was being fat/chubby

Another objectively attractive trait is the prominence of the zygomatic bone. This produces the pronounced cheek bones that are also found on most people we consider attractive. This trait is also directly linked with the forward facial growth I mentioned previously.

Attached: redhead_reference.jpg (1920x1080, 251K)

It's probably a mixture of many factors. I think that there is some sort of baseline, some aspects that are objective but can be heavily modified by many things.
This is actually my current take on most things. An objective core with addons and modifiers that could be present or not seems like a good perspective to decode the world.
Sort of how you have humans, but variances in genetics and epigenetics modify the result wtihout changing baseline nature.

Pretty much.

Attached: sarah_snyder4.jpg (960x1200, 222K)

>I read something about it, apparently childlike facial features in women go strong in basically every society of the world
It's called neoteny you dumb fagget.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoteny

Attached: painfullyaverageenglishman.jpg (600x400, 33K)

Show me an instance where the European definition of beauty is not considered attractive. Anywhere on the world. Go.

>Asians who stay consistently beautiful
Guess how I know (You) have a rice fetish

When it comes to body shape, the difference in attractive standards becomes more apparent.
With men, Broader shoulders, smaller hips, and a larger torso to leg length ratio.
With Women, Wider hips, narrower shoulders, and legs longer than torso is more attractive. This combined with a small wist gives the very desirable "hourglass" figure.

And no, chubby women were never perceived as being more beautiful in the past.

Attached: proportions.jpg (600x525, 30K)

>insert obvious beauty is in the eyes of the beholder statement here.

I think there are a lot of factors when it comes to standards of beauty. Age, race, build, personal preferences and culture. In the end I believe it is up to the individual.

It is objective and indirect proof is that most ppl from all races find same phenotypes appealing.

Other circumstantial evidence that points towards this direction is art creation. Take for example anime where character form evolved to what is nowadays as for more ppl to find them appealing. Interesting is that you can instinctually recognize beauty even if you didn't met anything similar in your entire life or even if your ancestors didn't met anything with that appearance or aesthetics. Now this goes fuckin deep.

I wonder though if other animals see beauty in the same places where we see it from their unique perspective. It would be exciting to see what the visual stimuli responses would be for animals from different species. And not only mammals, but insects and reptiles too.

regarding the changing of beauty standard over time. Thin to average women with proportionally wider hips have always been seen as the attractive standard. Most any medieval or renaissance art reflects this.

Attached: birth-venus-botticelli.jpg (840x429, 167K)

Her eyes,.. p

1. The human is not perfect. From this evolvement of its standards seems only natural.
2. Wider hips as the standard in classic art might have just cultural roots. Like the "child bearing hips" millenary meme.

Only to a degree.

Health and youth which is health.

>Wider hips as the standard in classic art might have just cultural roots
Still, this is a pretty consistent trait across most cultures and time periods.
>The human is not perfect. From this evolvement of its standards seems only natural.
Humans have evolved to perceive healthiness as sexually attractive. Since humans haven't evolved much since the dawn of civilization, there has been very little change in what the human perceives as healthy and therefore attractive.

You would need to take in account a time before imperialism and globalization. When the chinks meet europeans they though their deep set eyes and long noses were hideous.

>work
KEK!

Kind of a moot point at this stage, but I would like to see how non-anglo white mixing with anglo would average, since that's what many white Americans are.

Attached: Tea Leoni Dangle Earrings Dangling Diamond LUA_jK13cR0l.jpg (498x594, 91K)

There is probably a little bit of both.
In feudal Japan, dying the teeth black was considered attractive, for example.
But some characteristics (larger eyes for women, for example) seems to be preferred everywhere.

1. it is consistent because life=good, death=bad.
It is like the incest taboo where incest had larger prevalence of birth defects. So wider hips had gave larger prevalence of healthy children compared with slimer ones. Though I still remember some like 30 years ago as our middle school latin teacher cite a lot of roman writers and proverbs where feminity ideal was presented as all things delicate (what is pretty much the consensus today) instead.

2. We talk about beauty here not only about boner givers. And no, humans didn't evolve as that. Or did only in some archetypal part. Otherwise we wouldn't find fragile little cunts as beautiful, but heavylifter men or something.

the standard is set by the (((folks))) who own the media, thus the "embrace my curves" and "body diversity" rage we have seen over the past 5 years

Attached: 1542852681647.jpg (2000x1500, 931K)

indoctrination into ugliness would never result in a real standard and should wash up the moment that pressure gets diminished or gone.

White girls are non ironically the best looking girls on Earth, but due to modern US culture their egos are sky high

Attached: 1518235906337.png (714x1090, 327K)