Why is everything so Ugly now?

[Maia]

Yes, I'm well aware that beauty is not confined to the visual, thanks.

Oh you were being ironic then...forgive me for ruining your joke.

I was just pointing out that there's no accounting for taste.

[Wizard22]

I was just pointing out that there's no accounting for taste.

How pretentious... must be one of those Bri'ish traits I hear about.

[Maia]

I was just pointing out that there's no accounting for taste.

How pretentious... must be one of those Bri'ish traits I hear about.

Eh? Sorry, you've lost me there.

[Wizard22]

Eh? Sorry, you've lost me there.

Nevermind...

[Age]

Look AT the heading of your threads, and the words that you USE in your threads, you are 'fishing' for people TO BITE.

you ASK QUESTIONS, in the HOPE that you WILL GET OPPOSITION. So then you can EXPRESS YOUR VIEWS, in the hope that you WILL GET TO SHOW that you ARE right and they are wrong, which you HOPE would make you look FAR MORE SUPERIOR than "others" are, which is what you 'currently' BELIEVE is true, right?

Trolling presumes an intent to fool or misdirect people.

If that is what 'that word' PRESUMES, to you, then okay. But 'it' does NOT PRESUME 'that' to EVERY one.

SEE, one could be 'trolling' with the intent to just 'catch' "others", and/or to just 'catch out' "others", and NOT necessarily with the intent to just 'foo' nor 'misdirect' "others".

Some people might also 'troll', that is; looking for "others", so that those "others" could be USED by those people 'trolling' so as to make the people 'trolling' LOOK more 'smarter' and/or more 'superior'.

I haven't done that in this thread.

If you SAY and BELIEVE so, then okay.

I want to see how and why Western society has decayed and so quickly, with regard to Beauty.

LOL DEFINE and EXPLAIN the word 'Beauty'.

Also, do NOT FORGET that 'that DEFINITION and EXPLANATION' is FROM YOUR perspective ONLY.

AND, WHY do you capitalize the 'b' in the 'Beauty' word here?

I have my own suspicions of course.

Okay. What is your OWN 'suspicion' HOW and WHY so-called 'Western society' (whatever that even MEANS or REFERS TO, EXACTLY) has, supposedly and allegedly, DECAYED, SO QUICKLY, from YOUR perspective, with regards to some so-called 'thing' as 'Beauty'?

I suspect that the 1950's Beauty standards are now reserved only for the wealth, white, coastal liberal self-proclaimed 'Elitists'. So they are allowed to adulate, honor, preserve, and have (sexual) access to Beauty, but no longer the middle class or the poor. Thus the 1950s Beauty standards have become private, and hidden, rather than publicly displayed as before.

Okay, so you have been talking ABOUT and refer TO some 70 or so years, ONLY.

[Age]

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, so they say. In other words, how can one possibly judge what is beautiful to one person, or ugly to another?

No eyes, no beauty then?

There IS A SAYING, 'Beauty is in the 'eye' of the beholder'.

As can be CLEARLY SEEN here the word 'eye' is USED. And for those human bodies WITHOUT, and WITH as well, visually working 'eyes', there is ALSO the 'Mind', which, as it SAID and CLAIMED, is ABLE TO SEE 'things', which the physical and visual 'eyes' can NOT. And this is BECAUSE of the 'Mind's' 'eye'.

Which is what the 'eye' word REFERS TO, MORE Accurately, in that SAYING, and CLAIM, 'Beauty is in the 'eye', of 'the beholder'.

So, just like the SAYING, and CLAIM, ABSOLUTELY EVERY 'thing' is RELATIVE to 'the observer'. What these BOTH MEAN, and REFER TO, IS the ACTUAL 'one', or 'One' who is ACTUALLY LOOKING and SEEING 'things'. Which is WHEN the word 'SEEING' come to MEAN, and REFER TO, 'UNDERSTANDING', itself.

OBVIOUSLY those human beings WITHOUT 'visual sight' STILL SEE, and UNDERSTAND 'things'. And, this is DONE through ANY of the OTHER senses, which INCLUDES the sixth sense, which is JUST the Mind, Itself.

No...you can hear beauty in song, classical compositions in particular. There is a brilliance in symphonies and concertos that others cannot replicate.

Hence why Jazz fans like Prom and Ivana feel the need to compensate with lesser quality music...

[Age]

Yes, I'm well aware that beauty is not confined to the visual, thanks.

Oh you were being ironic then...forgive me for ruining your joke.

The amount of times people, SAY what they do NOT MEAN, or, MEAN what they do NOT SAY, in WRITTEN FORUMS, is pretty amazing considering how much EASIER and SIMPLER it is to be UNDERSTOOD WHEN, and IF, people just SAID and MEANT what they ACTUALLY SAID, and MEANT.

It is like 'the people, back then, just ALWAYS WANTED "others" TO JUST KEEP CONTINUALLY ASSUMING what 'they' MEAN, in what they SAY.

This was DUE to the Fact that they JUST ALWAYS WANTED TO JUST KEEP ASSUMING "themselves", INSTEAD of JUST SEEKING OUT and OBTAINING ACTUAL CLARIFICATION, and CLARITY, FIRST.

But WHY 'these people' 'grew up' LEARNING to ALWAYS KEEP ASSUMING was BECAUSE of the ABSOLUTELY FAULTY so-called 'education-system', which they HAD TO ENDURE, which RIDICULED 'them', and BELITTLED 'them', for ASKING QUESTIONS, and SEEKING CLARITY, FROM one's who OBVIOUSLY did NOT YET KNOW 'the ANSWERS'.

[Gary Childress]

AND ANY one here could have CHOSEN OTHER pictures in the same date range, and then WROTE, 'Why is everything so Beautiful now?', and you STILL would have AGREED that the individuals pictured on the left are generally more 'beautiful' (or less 'uglier') than the ones in the pictures on the right.

That is true, in some ways,

I ABSOLUTELY and TOTALLY MESSED 'that' UP. I was MEANT TO have SAID and WRITTEN, 'right' INSTEAD OF 'left', and, 'left' INSTEAD OF 'right'.

however, in terms of media and culture, beauty (especially for women) was highlighted or emphasized more (to whatever extent) in the early to mid part of the 20th century in the US than it is today. If there were people who deliberately tried to be ugly (tattoos, body piercing, deviance in various forms)

WHY are you UNDER some sort of DELUSION that 'this' IS 'ugly'? Some people might see 'this' as 'beauty' or 'beautiful'.

WHY can you NOT JUST SEE and UNDERSTAND that 'beauty', and thus 'ugliness', IS IN 'the eye of the beholder', as some say, or IS 'absolutely RELATIVE TO 'the observer'?

they were not featured in fashion as prominently then as now. It seems to me that there are a few constants in terms of beauty that are more or less biologically (reproductively) bounded.

'Attractiveness', or more Correctly and more Accurately, 'attraction', itself, IS an INNATE 'instinct', which has been around FOREVER, and which is ABSOLUTELY TOTALLY NECESSARY in the Natural Order of 'things'.

'Beauty' and/or 'ugliness' ONLY came-into-being with the evolution of human created 'arts', 'modifications', and/or 'creations'.

I suspect a physically and mentally productive or healthy female is always going to be viewed by the majority of males as more attractive and an extremely obese and unhealthy individual is going to be seen as less attractive.

What about the MOST so-called and so-labeled 'mentally productive' and thus 'MOST mentally healthy' female but who is also in the MOST largest female body?

Do you find 'this one' MORE or LESS 'attractive'?

AND, more or less 'attractive' to WHO and/or WHAT, EXACTLY?

Furthermore, are 'you' YET AWARE that what you find 'attractive' "others" may well NOT AT ALL, and vice-versa?

I suspect that overeating is a biological indicator to us that there is no need to become sexually active.

Thus, 'this' 'diagnosis of human thinking and perception', which you have just shared here with us, might be the very reason WHY 'you' are NOT sexually attractive to ANY woman. 'you' may well appear to have NO need to be 'sexually active' ANYMORE.

By the way, do you REALLY BELIEVE that the human bodies that weigh more than others are ACTUALLY an indication of NO need to become sexually active or are NOT sexually active?

There is plenty of food and no need to overpopulate to the point where food would become scarce. However, if there is widespread scarcity and shortage, then sexuality is heightened to accommodate for shortened life expectancy and infant mortality.

REALLY?

Here we have a GREAT example of WHERE, WHEN, and HOW these people, back then, WOULD say just about ANY 'thing', which they HOPED WOULD 'fit in WITH' what they were ALREADY currently ASSUMING or BELIEVING was true.

Fair enough. Maybe I'm wrong.

[Age]

That is true, in some ways,

I ABSOLUTELY and TOTALLY MESSED 'that' UP. I was MEANT TO have SAID and WRITTEN, 'right' INSTEAD OF 'left', and, 'left' INSTEAD OF 'right'.

however, in terms of media and culture, beauty (especially for women) was highlighted or emphasized more (to whatever extent) in the early to mid part of the 20th century in the US than it is today. If there were people who deliberately tried to be ugly (tattoos, body piercing, deviance in various forms)

WHY are you UNDER some sort of DELUSION that 'this' IS 'ugly'? Some people might see 'this' as 'beauty' or 'beautiful'.

WHY can you NOT JUST SEE and UNDERSTAND that 'beauty', and thus 'ugliness', IS IN 'the eye of the beholder', as some say, or IS 'absolutely RELATIVE TO 'the observer'?

they were not featured in fashion as prominently then as now. It seems to me that there are a few constants in terms of beauty that are more or less biologically (reproductively) bounded.

'Attractiveness', or more Correctly and more Accurately, 'attraction', itself, IS an INNATE 'instinct', which has been around FOREVER, and which is ABSOLUTELY TOTALLY NECESSARY in the Natural Order of 'things'.

'Beauty' and/or 'ugliness' ONLY came-into-being with the evolution of human created 'arts', 'modifications', and/or 'creations'.

I suspect a physically and mentally productive or healthy female is always going to be viewed by the majority of males as more attractive and an extremely obese and unhealthy individual is going to be seen as less attractive.

What about the MOST so-called and so-labeled 'mentally productive' and thus 'MOST mentally healthy' female but who is also in the MOST largest female body?

Do you find 'this one' MORE or LESS 'attractive'?

AND, more or less 'attractive' to WHO and/or WHAT, EXACTLY?

Furthermore, are 'you' YET AWARE that what you find 'attractive' "others" may well NOT AT ALL, and vice-versa?

I suspect that overeating is a biological indicator to us that there is no need to become sexually active.

Thus, 'this' 'diagnosis of human thinking and perception', which you have just shared here with us, might be the very reason WHY 'you' are NOT sexually attractive to ANY woman. 'you' may well appear to have NO need to be 'sexually active' ANYMORE.

By the way, do you REALLY BELIEVE that the human bodies that weigh more than others are ACTUALLY an indication of NO need to become sexually active or are NOT sexually active?

There is plenty of food and no need to overpopulate to the point where food would become scarce. However, if there is widespread scarcity and shortage, then sexuality is heightened to accommodate for shortened life expectancy and infant mortality.

REALLY?

Here we have a GREAT example of WHERE, WHEN, and HOW these people, back then, WOULD say just about ANY 'thing', which they HOPED WOULD 'fit in WITH' what they were ALREADY currently ASSUMING or BELIEVING was true.

Fair enough. Maybe I'm wrong.

Saying, 'I am wrong', or 'I'm wrong', is NOT even 'Right', and thus IS 'Wrong', itself.

That is; 'I' IS NOT 'wrong', and IS NEVER 'wrong', ALWAYS. Now, OBVIOUSLY 'we' ALL SAY and CLAIM some 'things', which ARE 'wrong' and some of ARE VERY 'wrong', and WILL continue to SAY and CLAIM some 'things', which ARE, ACTUALLY, 'wrong', and VERY 'wrong'.

BUT, the 'I', Itself, can NOT be 'wrong', can NEVER be 'wrong', and thus IS NOT 'wrong'.

So, what 'you' could have SAID here, which would have been LESS 'wrong', and thus MORE 'right' IS,
'Maybe some of what I have SAID and CLAIMED here IS 'wrong'.

SPEAKING and WRITING 'this way' just REMOVES 'the words', (which can be 'wrong'), FROM who and what 'I' AM, EXACTLY, (which can NEVER be 'wrong').

[Wizard22]

LOL DEFINE and EXPLAIN the word 'Beauty'.

Also, do NOT FORGET that 'that DEFINITION and EXPLANATION' is FROM YOUR perspective ONLY.

AND, WHY do you capitalize the 'b' in the 'Beauty' word here?

Why do you load your questions with conditionals, Age? Confirmation Bias on display?

Beauty means something that absolutely grabs your attention and captivates your desires, to 'Have' or 'Own' it. Beauty is necessarily linked to Rarity in Nature. Even birds are attracted to gold, or sparkling jewels, for example. Thus what is considered Ugly tends to be base/basic, common, available to all, like Dirt and Mud.

Beauty symbolizes superior Health, Vitality, Constitution, Intelligence, and a myriad of positive traits within Biology. Negative traits, illness, disease, asymmetry, these tend towards Ugliness.

This is not to say anybody or anything is 'Perfect' of course, but Superior examples rise to the top. This is why there is a "Beauty Industry" around the world, and beautiful women (or handsome men) are paid very well to model products.

[Age]

LOL DEFINE and EXPLAIN the word 'Beauty'.

Also, do NOT FORGET that 'that DEFINITION and EXPLANATION' is FROM YOUR perspective ONLY.

AND, WHY do you capitalize the 'b' in the 'Beauty' word here?

Why do you load your questions with conditionals, Age?

IF there ARE ANY 'conditionals', then NAME 'them'.

And, considering you will NOT be ABLE TO, what we have here is FURTHER CLEAR PROOF of how one's OWN PRESUMPTIONS and ASSUMPTIONS does NOT ALLOW 'them' to LOOK AT and SEE, and thus FIND, the ACTUAL Truth of 'things'.

Confirmation Bias on display?

IF 'this' was even REMOTELY TRUE, then you could VERY EASILY and VERY SIMPLY INFORM the rest of 'us' 'what' ACTUAL 'confirmation bias', 'on display', you ARE ACTUALLY SEEING here.

But BECAUSE you can NOT, 'this' WILL BE FURTHER PROOF of EITHER, this one's PRESUMPTIONS and/or BELIEFS are getting IN THE WAY, ONCE AGAIN, or that this one WILL 'try' MANY WAYS to 'try to' DEFLECT AWAY from what I have been ACTUALLY POINTING OUT and SAYING here.

Beauty means something that absolutely grabs your attention and captivates your desires, to 'Have' or 'Own' it.

LOL Well then 'this' does NOT APPLY AT ALL TO 'Me'.

Also, WHY do you WANT TO 'Have' OR 'Own' 'things'? Do you feel somewhat EMPTY or SHALLOW, and so NEED OTHER 'things' to feel somewhat FULL, BETTER, or MORE?

Or, are there OTHER reasons WHY?

Furthermore, do you even KNOW WHY 'you', adult human beings, have COME TO 'this way' of WANTING or DESIRING OF 'things'?

Beauty is necessarily linked to Rarity in Nature.

WHY 'necessarily'?

And what do you mean by 'Rarity'?

Even birds are attracted to gold, or sparkling jewels, for example.

Is this ALL 'birds' or just SOME?

Either way, so what?

Thus what is considered Ugly tends to be base/basic, common, available to all, like Dirt and Mud.

if the truth be known i find more of what you call 'Beauty', (with a capital 'B' for some reason), in water and even in soil, then I would EVER in some shining piece of rock. But, 'each to their own', as some say.

Beauty symbolizes superior Health, Vitality, Constitution, Intelligence, and a myriad of positive traits within Biology. Negative traits, illness, disease, asymmetry, these tend towards Ugliness.

MAYBE IF 'you' STOPPED viewing 'things' from a LEARNED self-projected view of 'negative' AND 'positive', then you WILL, ALSO, START SEEING 'things' for what 'they' Truly ARE, EXACTLY.

This is not to say anybody or anything is 'Perfect' of course, but Superior examples rise to the top.

ONCE AGAIN, you WANT to BRING OUT the 'Superior' word, (with a capital 'S'), AGAIN, as though 'this' somehow RELATES TO 'you', and YOUR SUPERIORITY OVER the rest of 'us'.

This is why there is a "Beauty Industry" around the world, and beautiful women (or handsome men) are paid very well to model products.

LOL
LOL
LOL

This here is FURTHER PROOF that these adult human beings, back in the days when this was being written, HAD BEEN SO CONDITIONED, INDOCTRINATED, and INFLUENCED that they could NOT even RECOGNIZE the Truly GREEDY and SELFISH human beings that they HAD BECOME, and of HOW they ACTUALLY BELIEVED that WANTING and DESIRING MONEY, and 'things', was a Truly NORMAL 'thing' AND 'behavior'.

They WERE CONSTANTLY 'trying to' just about ALWAYS "justify" and "rationalize", TO "themselves", their OBVIOUSLY OWN Wrong WAYS. As can be CLEARLY SEEN here ONCE AGAIN.

[Wizard22]

IF there ARE ANY 'conditionals', then NAME 'them'.

I'm giving up on you Age.

You are not self-conscious, do not have a self-consciousness. If you did, then you would be able to address my and other people's arguments against you. Instead you predictably react in a playing-stupid fashion, which is hard to distinguish whether you are just pretending in the first. Furthermore, if you were self-conscious, then you would understand how socially awkward and obnoxious you are with your presented "style". On top of these, you show no real interest in learning anything, or accepting positions debating your own. So you are close-minded. This was further proved by me, when you repeatedly denied before that you have "no beliefs whatsoever".

You're either lying, very dumb, or empty minded. In either of these situations, there cannot be a fruitful nor productive philosophical dialogue with you. But you do what you do best, Monologuing-only. Quite sad...

[Age]

IF there ARE ANY 'conditionals', then NAME 'them'.

I'm giving up on you Age.

Let us NOTE, and REMEMBER, the VERY NEXT SENTENCE I wrote, after this one of mine, which you quoted here.

And, considering you will NOT be ABLE TO, what we have here is FURTHER CLEAR PROOF of how one's OWN PRESUMPTIONS and ASSUMPTIONS does NOT ALLOW 'them' to LOOK AT and SEE, and thus FIND, the ACTUAL Truth of 'things'.

You are not self-conscious, do not have a self-consciousness. If you did, then you would be able to address my and other people's arguments against you. Instead you predictably react in a playing-stupid fashion, which is hard to distinguish whether you are just pretending in the first. Furthermore, if you were self-conscious, then you would understand how socially awkward and obnoxious you are with your presented "style". On top of these, you show no real interest in learning anything, or accepting positions debating your own. So you are close-minded. This was further proved by me, when you repeatedly denied before that you have "no beliefs whatsoever".

LOL AND I WILL CONTINUE TO DENY what I DO NOT HAVE.

How much MORE BASIC and SIMPLER could I EXPLAIN 'this' TO you.

You're either lying, very dumb, or empty minded. In either of these situations, there cannot be a fruitful nor productive philosophical dialogue with you. But you do what you do best, Monologuing-only. Quite sad...

YES 'it' IS, REALLY.

Now, as can be CLEARLY SEEN here, we have ANOTHER one who FAILED, ABSOLUTELY, WHEN QUESTIONED and CHALLENGED over its OWN BELIEFS and CLAIMS. Instead this one, also, RESORTED TO looking AT "the other", seeing 'them' as 'an opponent' and just spent most of 'its' time 'trying to' ATTACK "the other", rather then just remaining FOCUSED on the words ALONE.

[attofishpi]

Why is everything so Ugly now?

Perhaps it's the mirrors that are the problem?

[Age]

Why is everything so Ugly now?

Perhaps it's the mirrors that are the problem?

Yes, after all 'they' were made for 'you', human beings, to take A LOOK AT "yourselves". Which some might say, 'Could be a good metaphor here'.

1. NEVER blame "yourselves" for ANY 'thing', especially when you can BLAME OTHER 'things'.

2. NEVER take a GOOD HARD LOOK AT "yourselves", especially when 'you' just just use a mirror and SEE ONLY the SMALLEST and SHALLOWEST reflections, of the ACTUAL Truth.