Superficial Human Beauty: Born or Made?

[OneBadMother]

This is of course a somewhat subjective question, since people have varying standards of beauty. Nevertheless, this is regarding purely superficial human attractiveness that has nothing to do with personality or behavior. So, do you believe that one's attractiveness is more genetically encoded or easily influenced by outside factors? Have humans become more attractive over the past 150 years, or is it a purely technological difference? If the former, is it due to genetic hybridization, better nutrition, or some other factor?

An interesting study on facial attractiveness. (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)
A sort of before and after magazine airbrushing feature. (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)
Very old photographs. (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

[rwyatt365]

IMHO girls have gotten 150% more attractive over the last several decades. You young (straight) guys have it Soooooo much better!

All kidding aside (and I wasn't!), I think that better diet, a health-conscious mindset, the availability of excellent medical care, and general pampering have allowed humans to "optimize" facial and body features to present a more "attractive" population.

Damn! :irked: Your prettiness annoys me.

[vaguely dissatisfied]

"Beauty is in the eye of the beholder." If you look at history or across cultures you will see wildly varying criteria for beauty based on cultural standards. If you look at the individual it becomes even more varied.

What's interesting to me is the huge amount of influence that culture has on someone's idea of what is attractive. What I mean is that an individual may find a certain look attractive, but they may fight the urge to respond to this because society dictates that they are incorrect to feel attracted to that particular physical appearance.

[muguly]

I think related to the ease of life. We no longer have to live a life or hardships. Everything is 100 times better than it was just 50 years ago. Because the quality of life has improved, people begin to reflect that in their features. There is no need for stout bodies and strong faces because we don't chose mate based on the basis of who can provide the most physical protection but on finances and other variables. Women can be more beautiful because they don't have to have 10 children and still work in the fields to provide food. Now they can go the the grocery store and buy whatever they need in less time it taked to plant a garden.

It's all boils down to the simplicity of life. We have it easy.

[vaguely dissatisfied]

I think related to the ease of life. We no longer have to live a life or hardships. Everything is 100 times better than it was just 50 years ago. Because the quality of life has improved, people begin to reflect that in their features. There is no need for stout bodies and strong faces because we don't chose mate based on the basis of who can provide the most physical protection but on finances and other variables. Women can be more beautiful because they don't have to have 10 children and still work in the fields to provide food. Now they can go the the grocery store and buy whatever they need in less time it taked to plant a garden.

It's all boils down to the simplicity of life. We have it easy.
However, there is an arguement to be made that the hunter/gatherer societies actually have/had it better than us. This is based on lower overall stress levels in these societies vs. the modern high-stress pace of many developed countries. There are some who think that we are actually physically and mentally less healthy and, therefore, presumably less attractive than our hunter/gatherer ancestors.

[muguly]

However, there is an arguement to be made that the hunter/gatherer societies actually have/had it better than us. This is based on lower overall stress levels in these societies vs. the modern high-stress pace of many developed countries. There are some who think that we are actually physically and mentally less healthy and, therefore, presumably less attractive than our hunter/gatherer ancestors.

I agree 100% we have less mental and physical abilities compared to our ancestors. I guess it's a matter of what your definition of beauty is at the time. Generally speaking, if you examine pictures from the early 1900's versus the late 1900's, you can clearly see a difference in apperance. The features tend to be softer and rounder. If you think about it......ponder this: maybe in the past, soft facial features were a sign of genetic weakness.So in chosing a mate the one with more rugged features were seen as stronger and therefore genetically better than the next. As our lives began to evole from hunter/gatherer to business men and women and medicine improved, the need for a "strong" spouse declined in favor of other variables thus resulting in a "prettier" person.

Man, I have too much free time!

[thod]

agree 100% we have less mental and physical abilities compared to our ancestors.

Eloi cant survive without Morlocks.

As soon as you have a financial meltdown then the woman that can plant the crops while pregnant has the advantage. The modern vision of beauty in a woman is hips so narrow she would only be good for 2 or 3 children. The old fashion, hips wider than a house, could pop out 15, and give birth whilst washing the dish's.

Consider what determines the plants that survive in the temperate zones. It is not which plant has the most efficient metabolism, or the best competitor. It is the ability to survive the once a year cold spells. It doesn't matter how great at growing a plant is, if it dies in the frost, the lesser plant will end up ahead simply because it survives. The beautiful but fragile people do not have a long term survival strategy.

[vaguely dissatisfied]

I agree 100% we have less mental and physical abilities compared to our ancestors. I guess it's a matter of what your definition of beauty is at the time. Generally speaking, if you examine pictures from the early 1900's versus the late 1900's, you can clearly see a difference in apperance. The features tend to be softer and rounder. If you think about it......ponder this: maybe in the past, soft facial features were a sign of genetic weakness.So in chosing a mate the one with more rugged features were seen as stronger and therefore genetically better than the next. As our lives began to evole from hunter/gatherer to business men and women and medicine improved, the need for a "strong" spouse declined in favor of other variables thus resulting in a "prettier" person.

Man, I have too much free time!
However, the 'prettier' person of today would be considered unattractive back then because they would appear gaunt. Whereas a rounder person would appear afluent and healthy and, therefore physically attractive.





vaguely dissatisfied added to this post, 7 minutes and 3 seconds later...

Eloi cant survive without Morlocks.

As soon as you have a financial meltdown then the woman that can plant the crops while pregnant has the advantage. The modern vision of beauty in a woman is hips so narrow she would only be good for 2 or 3 children. The old fashion, hips wider than a house, could pop out 15, and give birth whilst washing the dish's.

Consider what determines the plants that survive in the temperate zones. It is not which plant has the most efficient metabolism, or the best competitor. It is the ability to survive the once a year cold spells. It doesn't matter how great at growing a plant is, if it dies in the frost, the lesser plant will end up ahead simply because it survives. The beautiful but fragile people do not have a long term survival strategy.
Yes. And the modern version of an attractive man is one with narrow shoulders which makes him capable of pushing a pencil and changing the channel on the remote. Whereas, the old fashioned axe-handle wide shoulders of yesterday's man could plow the field while splitting wood and still have stamina left over to properly please his woman (sorry....got a little distracted for a moment).

[muguly]

However, the 'prettier' person of today would be considered unattractive back then because they would appear gaunt. Whereas a rounder person would appear afluent and healthy and, therefore physically attractive.

That is very apparent in classical art and sculptures where the image of woman was full figured and curvy. Very nice observation.

[vaguely dissatisfied]

That is very apparent in classical art and sculptures where the image of woman was full figured and curvy. Very nice observation.
Such an intelligent, nice young man................thank you.

So what's considered attractive to a neanderthal man? Probably nothing like our modern day women. And conversely a neanderthal woman would probably love the rugged, stocky, muscular body and sloping forehead of her mate. Maybe even.... the more sloping the better?

[muguly]

So what's considered attractive to a neanderthal man? Probably nothing like our modern day women. And conversely a neanderthal woman would probably love the rugged, stocky, muscular body and sloping forehead of her mate. Maybe even.... the more sloping the better?

Thanks:)

If you think about it, only the standard for men seeking women has changed. Women still look for strong, rugged looks. Maybe not the sloping forehead....I hope, but women still look for men to be providers and protectors and the majority base that from physical appearance. There are so many different variables in attraction but the bases are still the same. Hopefully the standards for men don't change because eventually we(men) might be just as pretty as the women............scary:scared:

[thod]

We can analyse this subject by considering subjects such as Adonis and Aphrodite. They were defined as the peaks of male and female beauty and have been depiced from 2500 year old statue through medievel paintings. We can see how preferences have changed.

I would say that the male model has remained much more consistant than the female model down the ages. The greek god image of the statues is still close to the ideal today. A roman male (adonis) and female (venus), I would prefer a larger breast cup on venus but she is pretty good.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Here is venus and mars in 1570, she is getting fat. As you can see it takes mars to support her weight and a cherub for a single leg. The cherubs and even the horse is fat, they were odd back then.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

But look how they change by 1729. He still seems in good shape but she is transformed into a beached whale. Skinny dogs and reasobnable cherubs. Now Venus is so fat she cant even get up by herself. The guy is pulling away from her, probably off to shag a thin woman.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Sorry about all the pics but only way to realy illustrate a discussion on body images.

[vkut79]

Interesting. The preference for larger women during the Renaissance (sp?) period is really unusual. Any ideas why?

[Nomad]

Well fed, better access to resources, less lilkey to die because they have "better" nutrition.

I've been looking for the study to reference, but I can't find it. They did a study and discovered that certain measurement ratios of body type and facial features scored significantly higher on attractiveness scales through multiple cultures. Then they ran this ratio through art throughout history, and discovered the ratio held true. The dimensions mattered little, as did the specifics of features, it was the ratio that mattered. For instance, Marilyn Monroe was a size fourteen.

That being said, je ne sais quoi counts for much.

-Nomad

Found it: To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[vaguely dissatisfied]

Thanks:)

If you think about it, only the standard for men seeking women has changed. Women still look for strong, rugged looks. Maybe not the sloping forehead....I hope, but women still look for men to be providers and protectors and the majority base that from physical appearance. There are so many different variables in attraction but the bases are still the same. Hopefully the standards for men don't change because eventually we(men) might be just as pretty as the women............scary:scared:
I've actually seen a change in the standard for men within my own lifetime. I see many idealized male bodies as very thin, whereas, younger (and maybe older too) women find them slim, trim, athletic, and attractive. Also, guys that look pretty to me........i.e. Orlando Bloom and Johnny Depp are sex symbols. When I point out the sex symbols of my generation to my children (Charleton Heston) they see them as ugly vs. handsome (which is how they were percieved at that time).

For myself, I was raised in a different era and find bigger, stronger bodies much more preferable to what's considered slim and athletic. For instance, I remember when James Bond was Sean Connery (amen)......and I was floored when they chose Pierce Brosnan (Bronson?) as the new J.B. My immediate reaction........"But he's so skinny!"

[Lucid]

If you look at the examples thod posted above, the men have a lot more muscles on the sides of their chests, right beneath their arms, and their hips are generally about as wide as their chests, creating a very straight up and down look, with the exception of the roundness in t he chest created by the muscular sides.

I don't think this is the modern idea of an attractive male.

This: To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

seems to be closer to the norm for the modern standard of beauty in a male. The shoulders are still broad, and the pectoral muscles are still defined, but the hips are narrower than the ones in the paintings above, and there are fewer muscles, giving him a much smoother appearance.

However, it seems that the variations in what is considered attractive in females changes much more frequently, and much more drastically than what is considered attractive in men. Even the example above is closer to the men depicted in ancient and renaissance art than the women depicted in such art is to the modern standard of female beauty.

[vaguely dissatisfied]

It also probably depends on who is producing the art. After all if most artists of that period were male, then they would be more inclined to reproduce what they thought male beauty and female beauty was, so we may not be getting a complete picture of male beauty from the female point of view. If the artist was a gay male, then it might be even more skewed.
There's also the question of facial beauty. It seems that modern day male beauty is more like modern day female prettiness.

[thod]

There's also the question of facial beauty. It seems that modern day male beauty is more like modern day female prettiness.

Which indicates low testosterone levels since its that that give the large square jaw and pronounced brow.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Those guys will have no libido. Most women want a strong healthy man with good glands. Doesn't testosterone also affect genital size? In old times you would have been able to reject them since they would have wispy and incomplete beards since that is testosterone.

[Lucid]

Which indicates low testosterone levels since its that that give the large square jaw and pronounced brow.

Those guys will have no libido. Most women want a strong healthy man with good glands. Doesn't testosterone also affect genital size? In old times you would have been able to reject them since they would have wispy and incomplete beards since that is testosterone.

It seems like you're arguing with women about what they consider attractive in men. Is this the case? Or are you just lamenting the current standards in male beauty?

[thod]

Not at all. The standards of beauty vary. A Sikh guy I know told me recently that a good beard is essential (they all have them), the women place it in high regard. Cant do that without testosterone.

The problem with female perceptions is that they vary over the menstrual cycle. She prefers the 'manly' man while she is fertile, presumably for good genes. The gay looking man otherwise, good child carer, no chance of getting her pregnant, a cuckoo in other words. Lots of research on this.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Lucid]

Not at all. The standards of beauty vary. A Sikh guy I know told me recently that a good beard is essential (they all have them), the women place it in high regard. Cant do that without testosterone.

The problem with female perceptions is that they vary over the menstrual cycle. She prefers the 'manly' man while she is fertile, presumably for good genes. The gay looking man otherwise, good child carer, no chance of getting her pregnant, a cuckoo in other words. Lots of research on this.

Why is it a problem?

You're right about varying perceptions though. I think most women in the west prefer clean shaven men or men with a small amount of facial hair at the moment. Although this has been known to change by decade. For that matter, preferences about female body type have been known to change by decade as well. At least with regard to what's depicted in popular culture.

[thod]

Why is it a problem?


hmm what is not clear. Lets go over the recent points for you again.

1) poster notes that modern male perfection is prettier than in her generation.
2) poster points out that these features are testosterone related.
3) poster says that women select these exact types of feature based on the postion in the menstual cycle.

Thus any attempt to find a perfect male is not possible. We would need to find 2 perfect males. An average would be considered imperfect in both phases. Yet all we would get from an internet poll for example would be an average.

[Lucid]

hmm what is not clear. Lets go over the recent points for you again.

1) poster notes that modern male perfection is prettier than in her generation.
2) poster points out that these features are testosterone related.
3) poster says that women select these exact types of feature based on the postion in the menstual cycle.

Thus any attempt to find a perfect male is not possible. We would need to find 2 perfect males. An average would be considered imperfect in both phases. Yet all we would get from an internet poll for example would be an average.


From your article, it doesn't seem that the preferences for masculine or feminine features vary that drastically during the menstrual cycle. The illustration which accompanies your article shows very subtle differences in the men pictured.
Otherwise women who were attracted to their husbands for one week a month would find him repulsive the rest of the time. Your link mentions that women in long-term relationships find their partners attractive throughout their cycles. "For a short term sexual relationship, the preferred face shape was less feminine during the high conception-risk phase, whereas preferences remained constant when women judged attractiveness for a long-term relationship."
And I thought this was interesting too: "An analysis of data from subjects that were using oral contraception revealed no cyclic changes in face shape preference."

You seem to be stating that a slight variance in taste depending on the position in the monthly cycle, whether the female in question is on birth control or not and whether she is considering a long-term partner or a short-term partner means that it's impossible to extrapolate a commonality among preferences. I'm sure that these things are all factors, but since we're speaking in such broad generalizations anyway, I don't think that this phenomenon can be a problem when trying to determine standards of male attractiveness compared to the problem of individual taste, which seems to vary much more drastically for both genders than what you're talking about here.

It's not as if women who find Johnny Depp attractive will only do so for part of their cycle and unattractive for another. And if a woman finds a particular man or type of man unattractive she will probably find him unattractive all month long. Rather, the results of this study seem to suggest that a woman who finds both Johnny Depp and, say, George Clooney attractive might have a slight preference to one or the other depending on their menstrual cycle.

Believe me, Johnny Depp is attractive no matter when you ask me. And likewise, so is Henry Rollins.

[vaguely dissatisfied]

Speaking only for myself, I prefer ruggedly handsome to pretty regardless of where I am in my cycle. So for me, the perfect man (physically anyway) would be very easy to find.

[PRBori]

This is of course a somewhat subjective question, since people have varying standards of beauty. Nevertheless, this is regarding purely superficial human attractiveness that has nothing to do with personality or behavior. So, do you believe that one's attractiveness is more genetically encoded or easily influenced by outside factors? Have humans become more attractive over the past 150 years, or is it a purely technological difference? If the former, is it due to genetic hybridization, better nutrition, or some other factor?

An interesting study on facial attractiveness. (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)
A sort of before and after magazine airbrushing feature. (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)
Very old photographs. (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

I think that the new technologies, inventions, and the fact that hygiene is more important this days than it was before, people are in fact more attractive.

In regards to what I look in a men, well, for me the face is important, the rest of the body is not as important since I understand that the body always changes. However, I do seek a clear minded person with a pure heart and soul. I have extreme requirements and certain qualities that are a most, but they are not necessarily physical. I like to look pass those areas you can see... I like to look deep into a persons soul.

[muguly]

I've actually seen a change in the standard for men within my own lifetime. I see many idealized male bodies as very thin, whereas, younger (and maybe older too) women find them slim, trim, athletic, and attractive. Also, guys that look pretty to me........i.e. Orlando Bloom and Johnny Depp are sex symbols. When I point out the sex symbols of my generation to my children (Charleton Heston) they see them as ugly vs. handsome (which is how they were percieved at that time).

For myself, I was raised in a different era and find bigger, stronger bodies much more preferable to what's considered slim and athletic. For instance, I remember when James Bond was Sean Connery (amen)......and I was floored when they chose Pierce Brosnan (Bronson?) as the new J.B. My immediate reaction........"But he's so skinny!"

Once again, my friend, you are right. The picture of male beauty today is often that of a little boy, with smooth skin and soft facial features. If you want to think too much about it, this also stems from the Greek/Roman era. The men have soft features and most times it's hard to tell the difference between the little boys and little girls.To me, the rugged looking male beauty went away with the decline of western movies. No longer did men need to be men and do manly things, now men could sit behind a desk and push papers all day, go home and pay someone to do things that men used to do. So no wonder we(myself excluded)look like little boys.

[thod]

Which do you prefer?

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[vaguely dissatisfied]

Once again, my friend, you are right. The picture of male beauty today is often that of a little boy, with smooth skin and soft facial features. If you want to think too much about it, this also stems from the Greek/Roman era. The men have soft features and most times it's hard to tell the difference between the little boys and little girls.To me, the rugged looking male beauty went away with the decline of western movies. No longer did men need to be men and do manly things, now men could sit behind a desk and push papers all day, go home and pay someone to do things that men used to do. So no wonder we(myself excluded)look like little boys.
I think that there have always been men that have youthful, pretty looks (well maybe not pre-homo sapiens), as well as, men that are rugged looking. The difference is what is considered attractive to women at any given time in history.... and that is just a fad after all. If someone truly knows themself and is comfortable and accepting of themself, then they will allow themselves to be attracted to someone regardless of what society dictates.

Personally, I am attracted by personality more than any other feature. I can look at a man and think that he is extremely attractive. I may even fantasize about him, but if he were a mimbo I would not indulge myself because I would be repulsed by his character. Conversely, I may meet a man who is considered butt ugly and I may be extremely attracted to him because of his personality.

[rwyatt365]

Personall, I think that fad, fashion, and the "pick of the day" determine the ideal Man or woman for 80% of the population. For those that think beyond what they're told to think, true personal preference holds sway.

My preference is towards the "Rubinesque" body style. The model-thin body type just doesn't do much for me.

[muguly]

I think that there have always been men that have youthful, pretty looks (well maybe not pre-homo sapiens), as well as, men that are rugged looking. The difference is what is considered attractive to women at any given time in history.... and that is just a fad after all. If someone truly knows themself and is comfortable and accepting of themself, then they will allow themselves to be attracted to someone regardless of what society dictates.

Personally, I am attracted by personality more than any other feature. I can look at a man and think that he is extremely attractive. I may even fantasize about him, but if he were a mimbo I would not indulge myself because I would be repulsed by his character. Conversely, I may meet a man who is considered butt ugly and I may be extremely attracted to him because of his personality.

Butt ugly.....priceless! I hope we as a society can one day break away from the (here comes a buzz word) paradigms we have placed ourselves in and just do what makes us happy. It shouldn't matter what you, me, he, she we, or they think as long as what is being done makes that person happy. Beauty is subjective, bottom line. If everyone was blind, what could they compare but personality?

I love women, all shapes, all sizes, all colors. What I find attractive about a woman is how she carries herself. Most women try too hard to attract a man when all a real man looks for is companionship.....and...uh....an exceptionally good.....physical relationship....once it reaches that level. No amount of make up, accessories, or other distracting mess will make a real man approach a woman.

[Lucid]

Which do you prefer?

Neither. :yuck:

[vaguely dissatisfied]

Butt ugly.....priceless! I hope we as a society can one day break away from the (here comes a buzz word) paradigms we have placed ourselves in and just do what makes us happy. It shouldn't matter what you, me, he, she we, or they think as long as what is being done makes that person happy. Beauty is subjective, bottom line. If everyone was blind, what could they compare but personality?

I love women, all shapes, all sizes, all colors. What I find attractive about a woman is how she carries herself. Most women try too hard to attract a man when all a real man looks for is companionship.....and...uh....an exceptionally good.....physical relationship....once it reaches that level. No amount of make up, accessories, or other distracting mess will make a real man approach a woman.
An individual who is not easily swayed by societal pressures is someone to be admired. It is not an easy thing to stand alone in the crowd. It takes a great deal of determination, courage, and thoughtfulness to be your own person.

Very well done.

[muguly]

An individual who is not easily swayed by societal pressures is someone to be admired. It is not an easy thing to stand alone in the crowd. It takes a great deal of determination, courage, and thoughtfulness to be your own person.

Very well done.

What I've come to understand is that all it really takes is love and respect for yourself to accept that what you want might not fit into society and that's fine. It is a wonderful epiphany. Thank you.

[vaguely dissatisfied]

What I've come to understand is that all it really takes is love and respect for yourself to accept that what you want might not fit into society and that's fine. It is a wonderful epiphany. Thank you.
And somehow, based on what I've seen of your posts, this love and respect for yourself translates into love and respect for your fellow human.

[OneBadMother]

Testosterone does indeed affect the size and function of genitalia. While I'm not sure if estrogen does the same, it definitely results in rounder, softer features and skin in large enough quantities.

Ahnold is an interesting question right there. How much of his physique and appearance is due to genetics and how much to a good wax job and bodybuilder-level workouts and diet? :P Would women find him less attractive if he were covered in body hair, or do women find him attractive at all? It also seems that there may be generational differences in what is considered physically attractive.

[vaguely dissatisfied]

Generational differences have alot to do with the fads your youth. I still love alot of the 60's and 70's music. But, I suspect that alot of physical attraction is based on what your parents looked like. I think that alot of women are attracted to men who resemble their father both physically and in their personality. There is a whole psychological theory surrounding this.

[thod]

More than pschological. People are attracted to people that look like themselves. You are perpetuating genetic combinations that worked well in the past, you are both still here. There is also research that shows that such couples report happier marriages than no resembling couples.

[vaguely dissatisfied]

The psychology I'm thinking of is about trying to retrieve and correct childhood issues through the selection of a partner who resembles your parent. I'm not sure how valid this theory is, but it is a theory.

[muguly]

The psychology I'm thinking of is about trying to retrieve and correct childhood issues through the selection of a partner who resembles your parent. I'm not sure how valid this theory is, but it is a theory.

The theories you speak of are the Oedipus/Elektra complexes. They simply state that young man or young woman, falls in love with their parents and therefore tries to attain someone just like them. There's more to the story but that's the meat of the theory.





muguly added to this post, 4 minutes and 46 seconds later...

And somehow, based on what I've seen of your posts, this love and respect for yourself translates into love and respect for your fellow human.

Thank you, I have to admit I get the same from your posts as well. I enjoy our correspondence. You are very wise yet compassionate. Thank you for enriching my mind.

[prometheus]

If we aren't too far into physiology, here is my opinion.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Lucid]

If we aren't too far into physiology, here is my opinion.

That's a good looking horse, I can see why you're into him. :p

[Aurelia]

The beauty we have today is a combination of technological advancements (see Extreme Makeover before and after shots below) and better nutrition / genetic hybridization. In this day and age, even though you may not be born with attractive features -- if you have enough money you can change that.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Women generally tend to go through great lengths to be considered beautiful. Whether it be to undergo surgery for breast augmentation, elongate their necks with metal rings (link below), bind their feet, wear corsets or bleach their skin. Every culture and generation has their definition of beauty.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[prometheus]

That's a good looking horse, I can see why you're into him. :p

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[yondyr]

I must admit the latest crop of male heart throbs look like a bunch of weaklings to me - without even brains to compensate. And.. watching a movie, I'm hard pressed distinguishing one from another, they're clones.