Tuesday, December 22, 2009

Is beauty really in the eye of the beholder?

And if so, how come do we acknowledge that some film stars are classically beautiful, and therefore fulfil certain guidelines of beauty?Is beauty really in the eye of the beholder?
yes. beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but that doesnt change the fact that as a society we have a view of what is attractiveIs beauty really in the eye of the beholder?
No. That's just what ugly people are told by people who are too nice to tell them the truth.
well of course. people have different opinions...i'm sure there are people out there who consider those ';classically beautiful'; stars way ugly. it's just bc a majority of people consider them pretty so guidelines and standards are formed but not everyone follows them. i know alot of people think gisele bundchen is beautiful, but i don't find her attractive at all.
yeah because it's our opinion who is pretty and since we think they are pretty we want to be like them
no. it's what ugly say so they feel good about themselves.
There is both the classic beauty and the type that is the eye of the beholder. That is when you are talking about everyone that doesn't fall in the first category!
Yes, but charm is universal. It's the way they hold themselves, the way the act, and the way they make you feel.
Those ';film stars'; you're talking about have half a dozen people working on their hair, make-up, and clothes every day before they are seen in public. If you find pics of them without that, most of them aren't any better looking than anyone else. But at the same time, if you or I had that many people working on us before we went out, we'd look just about as good as them. People you meet in real life have their own kind of beauty. I much prefer the real life people, because I can talk to them and do things with them and sometimes touch them.Someone that's real and natural is always better than a film star, so yes, I think beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

No comments:

Post a Comment