Discussion in 'Odds & Ends' started by TMF, Dec 1, 2012.
Amanda Seyfried is 5 feet 3. Pure hotness.
Height is an element of proper proportion and someone who is very short can be beautiful, but not one of the most beautiul.
Wood is cute, pretty in a teen kind of way but not very beautiful.
Well, I disagree. A very beautiful face remains a very beautiful face regardless of whether she's 5'2 or 5'9.
It just seems a random arbitrary rule to say shorter women can't be the most beautiful. There's no logic behind it.
You're conceding an awful lot if your argument is now reduced to talking about whether one should only consider the face when talking about beauty.
The reality is that if you were to make a set of criteria concerning beauty height would have to be on it.
But the definition of beauty doesn't need any criteria, it's not an objective thing. It's subjective.
You yourself may think height should be a factor, but others won't. Like myself.
There's no rulebook that exists to define all this.
If beauty is so subjective, why do psychological tests show that people share roughly the same aesthetic ideas about it.
At dog shows do they all get medals, no, there are criteria that the dogs must meet to be best in show.
For humans, height, large eyes, fulsome lips, etc are pretty universal criteria for beauty. You don't have to share them, but that's it just the same.
No, that's all a load of nonsense.
Comparing it to dog shows? Are you for real?
There is no technical formula for beauty - otherwise we'd all agree who's the most beautiful. This much should be obvious.
Yes, its a perfectly sensible comparison.
Dogs and humans may share perfect white healthy teeth.
The bodies have to well proportioned, etc.
Humans are just more brutal about these things when it comes to animals.
When we deal with people we just pretend that things like height don't determine what we consider beautiful or not.
I disagree. It's a natural response to determine beauty - I've yet to see you explain how this isn't the case.
I don't quite understand your obsession with height. I know it's something that I don't consider at all - and I'm not pretending it's not an issue.
Whether you like it or not, your theory only works for you and certain others who think height is important. For everyone else, it's irrelevant.
I don't have an obsession with height. I said it was one important criteria that tended to disqualify Ms Wood from being considered one of the most beautiful actresses of all time.
And I'm just saying that's a subjective thing, since there are plenty who wouldn't disqualify her for that reason.
I'm just a bit concerned why you think I'm 'pretending' to myself that height doesn't matter. Which is a bizarre statement.
Considereing Salma Hayek to me is the hottest actress ever. Her heght withing an inch or two is clsoe enough. And I think she is only like 5 foot 3 or so. Probably shorter in real life.
Height does come into play with someone of moderate or average looks.
Height will make an average looking 5 foot 3 be good lokking if they were 6 foot.
But I havent seen a 6 footer as hot as Salma is.
Yes, the fact that beauty is subjective allows one to call ugly children beautiful with a good conscience.
If Natalie Wood weighed twenty kilos more would she still be considered beautiful?
And if that's a no then why is the fact that she's twenty centimeters on the short side not be a problem?
And if her teeth were cigarette stained?
Selma Hayek is very attractive, but not stunning. Its another psychological fact that men prefer short curvy women, but that's male insecurity at work.
Eva Longoria isn't tall either but she's beautiful.
You know its seemingly easy to say what a beautiful face is from an image, and it will probably meet rather objective criteria, but how can you judge someone as beautiful if they are not in front of you so that their qualities are completely clear, iincluding of course their height.
Why do movie makers go to extreme lengths to hide the height of short women and men if its not an issue? The reality is that actresses are often on the short side because they're playing people not models, and they're actors and not simply beautiful.
Well my psychological male insecurity tells me Hayek is #1. I dont think thats changing anytime soon.
Again, silly presumption. I guess we'll leave it there then.
I find it quite interesting though how some people can try and attribute systems and technical analysis to something so subjective - and then arbitrarily assume something random when someone disagrees. It's a little bit... odd in my opinion, but whatever...
Luckily, back in the real world, a woman's height doesn't block her from being beautiful.
Who said they're blocked from anything?
And there are commonly shared perceptions about what constitutes beauty such that it is not simply subjective without of course thereby being objective.
You need to read Kant.
You did, you big silly. :lol:
Go back and read your own posts. You couldn't have forgotten them already.
Langoria looking short:
No I didn't. You can't read. And you can't argue. You just repeat subjective as if you've said something profound when you're simply repeating what passes for the received opinion.
The camera and fashion can be cruel:
Enough height talk, take it to PM and more pics of hotties.
I want nose to tail shots.
Height is a very minor aspect of beauty in a woman. And I'd argue that 5'3" is more attractive than 6' for a gal. I'd say the sweet spot for women is 5'4" to 5'9".
Unless one is freakishly tall or freakishly short, it really don't matter. 5' is not freakishly short, so Natalie Wood is a certified hottie.
she is a major ugly girl. I would sleep with oprah before her.
What about Mayleen Ramey? Did you propose to her as you were planning to?
That's a little unfair. I think most guys here would wife Oprah immediately given her net worth.
Hardly - you never once explained how judging beauty wasn't subjective. The onus is on you to do so.
Good to see Sharon Tate and Paz Vega getting some love but how has this thread gone 7 pages and nobody's mentioned Megan Fox!?!
She looks much like Daniela Hantuchova.
I would also like to submit the following as belonging on that list...
She's 154 cm..short sexy thing.
James Cameron frowns upon you
I did so on numerous occasions, but your intellectual horizon is wedded to a defective notion of 'subjectivity'.
Certified hot, yes, but would I like to photograph her face?, yes, but would I choose her to photograph a figure?, no.
San Diego State babe
Y'all sleeping on Anne Ramsey
Who's more beautiful between Olivia Wilde and Olivia Newton John? I take Newton John.
Oregon Ducks gangnam style
The Oregon Ducks cheerleader in long black yoga pants.
Laetitia Casta (french actress)
What? Almost 150 posts and no mention of Angelina Jolie?
....nor Penelope Cruz?
Separate names with a comma.