The formula for facial beauty

I've read somewhere that most people wind up in romantic relationships only with people who are comparably as beautiful (in physical terms) as themselves and that over time most people develop bases for attraction to other people that are commensurate with what they themselves possess that someone else might find attractive. There are exceptions of course, but in general, less physically beautiful people tend to cultivate and to learn to appreciate other charms besides physical beauty, while more physically beautiful people are less like to cultivate or to appreciate other charms, or at least more likely to value those other charms less relative to physical beauty. This is a roundabout way of saying that I think Rod's sense that the woman on the right is the more "beautiful" is the more "attractive" is not an idiosyncrasy of Rod's, but rather fairly typical behavior. The woman on the right would turn most people down how asked her on a date and in any case would probably turn out to be less interesting based on criteria besides a certain kind of beauty -- physical beauty -- than she at first seemed. Conversely, the woman on the left would be more likely to accept one's offer of a date and would also be less likely to disappoint on the actual as opposed to the hypothetical date.

And asian or africa faces aren't anywhere to be found, only white faces are beautiful?

Of course, being over 40 myself, maybe that makes a difference but.. I liked most of the before better.

With what they did to Bardot, I think if they shifted her lips up, after deflating them, it wouldn't have looked so off. I don't think it was the less fullness so much as there was suddenly a lot more distance between her nose and lips that threw the image off.

"only white faces are beautiful? "

Yes, that is exactly the point.

I too liked most of the "before" pictures better, and had the same reaction as Rod, that I thought they looked more interesting.

I usually have the same reaction to the "before" and "after" photos in adds for weight-loss products and services; the "after" pictures look, to me, too generic (and, for that matter, too skinny).

I remember watching a few episodes of a terrible show called "The Swan" a few years ago. Women who had some physical "problem" and also serious self-esteem problems would work with a team of plastic surgeons, dietitians, and counselors on "improving" themselves. Of course, the focus of the program was on the plastic surgery and weight loss, even though it was apparent that most of these women had problems that went far deeper than their discontent with their physical appearance. And some of them did have some serious physical problems that needed to be corrected (bad overbites, etc.). But what really struck me was that after the plastic surgery, so many of these women ... ended up looking all alike! It's as if the plastic surgeons had a single template of what feminine beauty was supposed to look like, and shaped these women to fit it, sort of like Procrustes and his bed. After the surgery they were often more attractive than they had been before, but in a bland, generic, mannequin-ish way.

The show did make some effort to give the women some psychological counseling; but I couldn't help wonder what was going to happen to these women when they went back to their lives, after undergoing all this surgery ... and found that many of their problems were still there?

"I usually have the same reaction to the "before" and "after" photos in adds for weight-loss products and services; the "after" pictures look, to me, too generic (and, for that matter, too skinny)."

I think I speak for every woman here when I say, God bless you for that, David! :)

One thing that struck me is that the images didn't really make the people more "beautiful;" they merely made some of them more photogenic. It's easy to forget about the medium, isn't it? But the ability to show to advantage in a photograph is often not the same thing as beauty: some amazingly photogenic people look uninteresting or even odd in real life, while some truly striking people are "flattened" so to speak, by the camera, which can't quite capture their presence, their interesting jaw line, the depth of their eyes, or other qualities that add to their beauty.

I think one of the most beautiful set of photographs I've ever seen of a human being is this one:

ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2002/04/afghan-girl/index-text

but they remind me that photography, like any other visual art, is an art--not a science. That instantaneous and seemingly miraculous encapsulation of something that is true and that somehow contains goodness is what makes beauty, as the poet said rather more succinctly.

The best we have are finite flawed and Platonic gropes in the dark. God sees beauty as a whole. One that is not humanly finite, sinfully flawed,or culturally platonic/neo-platonic. I believe unlike us it is impossible for God to separate a person's inward nature from their outward nature. Therefor we cannot categorize human beauty the same as beauty of the rest of nature. This is because we and nothing else was created in God's image.

I think the Golden Mean (think chambered nautilus) is beautiful when it comes to the symmetry of classical architecture. But it is the nuances and the playing with the Mean that makes such buildings interesting.

Same with Bach's music. There is a mathematical precision to it all. But he plays with it; turning those phrases upside down and backwards, mirroring them, even inserting his name, that makes his music startling in it's brilliance. I never hear the same thing twice!

But those things are man-created. A face is God-created. Even the parents of identical twins will tell you that there are very subtle nuances to their children that allows them to tell them apart. We are not all the same, nor should we be.

To me, there is beauty in "breaking the rules", whether it is in architecture, music, or poetry.

Here, we seem to be going backwards. Creating rules to "be beautiful". I say we ought to leave well enough alone. Women, and men!, don't need any more psychoses to add what's already there...

Ditto Lancelot Lamar's comment. It's always been the girl or woman who looks somehow a little offbeat who catches my eye, which tends to pass over the more conventional beauty. I tend to use the word "depth" to describe the difference, although I'm not sure what I mean...some spark of intelligence, intuition, warmth, imagination, humor, sensuality. Not necessarily in that order...heh. My wife is the primary example.

I wonder where Liv Ullman fits into that ideal. She's my choice for Pretty Much The Most Beautiful Woman Ever.

I have a bias against really good looking men. I automatically assume they are less intellectual, more shallow, less reliable, and more self centered.

I have yet to meet the woman who does not express this sentiment, or some variation thereof, in fairly insistent fashion. But I realized that the fairer sex is not wired all that differently from the piggish one when I worked with a dude blessed with Pitt-level good looks. He was indeed something of a "bimbro." Shallow, narcissistic, probably never read for pleasure in his life. Well, it was a revelation going to lunch or happy hour with him and watching the women in the joint watch him -- furtively, mostly, but some openly ogled. (He pretended not to notice the attention he was drawing but I'm pretty sure he did, and liked it.)

The average guy is a sucker for a pretty face? So is the average woman. The latter just talks a better game. Who knew?

"bimbro."

Hah! That's one I hadn't heard before. I've usually heard "himbo".
;-)

Although, I agree that the computer constructed faces have visually made themselves more appealing to the beholder...I would also suggest that the life they encountered growing up being outwardly symmetrical caused them to be accepted and approachable, thus causing their inner self-esteem to be able to escalate. This in turn could have caused two different type persons to mature, one who has great value and can show self confidence and appeal or one who is self-centered and absorbed and now repels the viewer. So, although the features draw, the inner being is usually what can attract or disgust.

Very intresting