Is beauty objective or subjective?

Is beauty objective or subjective?

Subjective but subjected to cultural and social influences.

Define "Beauty"

You are a retard confusing beauty with sexiness.

That which is aesthetic, which is to say that which is pleasant to look at or experience.

Some should make an edit where the lady on the lefty is pregnant Anne frank

Definitely subjective but it's inarguable that a large amount of people can have the same perspective and, particularly when they notice something new, flock to it as a whole and want to have more of it. Eventually, they get bored with the new when something else comes along. People like new things and new experiences. These experiences are valuable as stories and memories and things that join each other in our collective history.

What humans consider beautiful is objective, and has mostly biological and evolutionary causes.
Whether aesthetics themselves are objective in some sort of philosophical sense or not, I would say no, but there's no consensus among philosophers.

Neither, there is no such thing as beauty to begin with. People are attracted to "beautiful" features mostly for health reasons, like obesity is generally unattractive it generates many risks during pregnancy. The woman also needs to be sufficiently developed to be able handle childbirth and nursing.
People who are attracted to unhealthy features (chubby chasers, homosexuals, pedophiles etc) tend to be unhealthy themselves, in the brain. It's a pathology.

objective yet subject to cultural and social influences you mean.
Facial symmetry, youth, and health are the definition of beauty. The exact way it presents itself varies with culture and social influence though.

A marble statue is beautiful
A nude woman is sexy

Know the difference between sexiness and beauty.

When you get to a certain point of unfathomable beauty it is (pic related), the same thing happens also in the opposite way with ugliness, in between there's a degree of subjectivity

>unfathomable beauty
>black hair
Dream on Pedro

It's a bit of both, there are things such as symmetry of facial features and lightness of skin in females that nearly all humans find preferable, but individual taste is largely shaped by early childhood imprinting.

homosexuals are fine since their genitals still work and their sex is consensual. Also, provided that they are young and healthy, they are capable of reproducing with the opposite sex so they are not completely useless.
Pedophiles are not capable of having consensual sex and it would result in no kids.
You have a point about obesity only assuming they are on the verge of Diabetes.

>that
>beautiful
Get laid virgin

>consent
Meaningless social construct not existing in biology.

You see, in order to prove that anything is subjective, one must first prove free will exists. As subjectivity can only exist where there is pure freedom of choice in the decision making, in this case the decision as to what is more aethetic than the other.
Ergo, let's debate free will first Veeky Forums, does free will exist?

Naw,
I think the fair female skin thing only applies to culture where fair skin is a some what common trait. India has heavy Persian influence for example. Asia and Europe have fairness as a common triat.

well, it is in human minds and so long as it does, it is not "meaningless." Lest we be nothing but animals. Our frontal lobes prevent us from such an experience though. Does yours?

Fair skin is actually preferred in most cultures tho

>potato-faced white bitch
>objetive beauty.

Free will =subjecticity
But that's wrong, user.
it's only one aspect. Subjective aslso means subjective experience. Your experiences will shape your world view.

Majority of human interactions don't feature consent. Consent validating or invalidating anything is a concept not really found before the enlightement.

Half and half, really.
What do you mean, the majority of interactions don’t feature consent?

this

>The left has bigger boos
u know he's right

Completely subjective, although there is the traditional (western) values of beauty

pic related

Im,saying in cultures where fair skin is a common triat.
Subsaharan Africans probably never gave a shit about fair skin before imperialism. Just saying.
They have a long history of killing albinos(and still kind of do) after all.

Most humans are subjected to laws of the country or municipality they reside in and nobody asked them if they consent to that. Did you consent to your parents making rules for you when you were a child? Did you consent to being born?

You're really going to have to give some serious examples to support that claim, user. Because I have no idea what you're talking about either.

the form of the beautiful is objective and immutable, but its manifestation in the world is varied and diverse

Consent theory originates with John Locke, and historically most cultures or religions didn't grant human beings much autonomy. Some, like Calvinism, even completely strip it away.

Ok, now will you shut up?

There’s actually evidence from a lot of subs Aharon tribes that fair skin was preferred even before europoors showed up, tho

Bambara (Mali) -
The Bambara are not unmoved by the beauty of a woman's form; they can distinguish a well-formed body from a malformed one, a pretty woman from an ugly one, and they find a coppery skin more attractive than one of ebony black. (Henry 1910:217)

Tallensi (Ghana) -
In skin colour they vary from black through chocolate brown to bronze, which the natives call "red" (bon-ze'e) and regard as the most attractive bodily hue. (Fortes 1945:7)

Hausa (Nigeria) -
Light skin colour, referred to as "red", ranks high in the Hausa criteria of beauty; many variations of colour, from black to a very light reddish brown are seen. (Smith 1965:264)

Ibo (Nigeria) -
In Ibo culture, however, these yellowish or reddish complexions are considered more beautiful than the darker, ‘blacker,’ complexions. ... It is true that, in West Africa, government has for many years been identified with pale-skinned Europeans, but the Ibo evidence suggests that preference for paleness of complexion is indigenous. (Ardener 1954:71-72)

Azande (Sudan) –
Of the women and girls, some with babies, he kept the most beautiful in Zande eyes, those brightest of eye and clearest of skin and with full breasts, for his couch. (Evans-Pritchard 1937:60)

Berti (Sudan)
Men and women affirm without any hesitation that men are black, hot and hard and women are white, cold and soft. (Holy 1988:471)

Somali (Somalia) -
Men appreciate women of good height and stature, with good hips and breasts, and plump but not fat. A reddish tinged skin is thought highly of in preference to a dark dull black. (Lewis 1962:13)

Yes lighter skin colors are more beautiful in humans of both genders.

Also I find it unlikely that they’d come to associate white women with beauty through colonization, since most tribes wouldn’t interact with female colonists nearly as much as they would male colonists. Wouldn’t it make more sense for them to associate white skin with strength and/or general assholishness than beauty if the white people they’re interacting with the most are men who are constantly conquering, brutalizing and trading with them?
My point being that I don’t think Eurospoor colonialism is the main reason why nogs also like fair skin

yes it's for women. women are sterotyped in many places to be paler. "fair" That is another issue in of itself.
Alright, I'll consider it but chacolate is a long way from light.
Let's talk about the meat of the issue though:
Regardless if it is ubiquitous or not, this standard of women light, mild, and/ or meek is built on gender roles so, you can't say it's truly objective.

>you can’t truly say is objective
While I’m not a /pol/tard that denies the existence of social constructs, it’d be silly of us to completely discount the role that biology has to play in gender roles. If something is as near-universal as preference for lighter skin tone then their must be SOME element of objectivity to it. Same thing for gender roles.

Im talking about consent to sex mostly.
Rape was defined differently yes(abduction), but consent of someone was still of importance.
You're speaking of individualism vs. nonindivdualism. Not consent vs. non consent.
Also history did not start with writing. Only recorded history did.

THICC

Don't get me wrong women and men are kind of different but gender roles are just an efficient system, not a requirement. Other times, its just stereotypes/ expectations. Clearly women are not born "mostly red or pale" and men not "mostly dark or swarthy" It's expectations at work here.
As far as, I can tell, the only natural gender roles are the expectation for women to breast feed infants. And perhaps women wearing "padding" or some form of sanitary napkin for menstration. Otherwise, it creates a mess and spreads body fluids.
We're out of scope here though. Feel free to disagree

>Clearly women are not born "mostly red or pale" and men not "mostly dark or swarthy" It's expectations at work here.
I disagree. Men are actually generally born with darker skin than women in the same population, so technicAlly speaking, men ARE generally more “dark and swarthy” and women are more “pale and red”.

beauty is health