Our Reaction to the BEAUTIFUL as on today-2

"Attractiveness is not simply in the eye of the beholder. It's in the eye of the infant right from the moment of birth, and possibly before birth,"

With the urban scenario becoming much more comfortable with wearing less. One wonders whether there’s a change in the way our men view our women. One would think that with so much exposer and the male’s tendency to sexually obsess over women’s body parts. The age-old stereo-type of ‘leg men’ or ‘breast men’ has expanded to include other varieties like ‘naval men’  ‘butt men’ or ‘back men’. It is quite fascinating to watch a sharply woman with exposed abs and a belly button jewel gyrate in a film or at a disco.

Today’s item numbers focus so much on dancers in low-waist skirts that this region of a woman’s body has started to have a kind of sexual appeal.

It’s not surprising that the glutinous maxim us has become a new erotic zone too. One get thrill when girls wearing low-rise jeans and short tops bend over. Whether you catch a glimpse of thong or bare butt, it’s equally exciting.

Whether girl has a good face or not. But technically speaking, what are really important are her breasts.

By repeated exposer to the various parts of the female body through music videos, ads or films, men are bound to lose interest in long-term intimate relationship, as they will value a woman only for her parts and not be able to develop the ability to relate to her. This is the reason, why most people experiencing problems in their intimate life.

Supposing, by contrast, we prefer more subdued, delicate bird-song or more restrained, quieter colors in our flower beds, what then? Our scale of values will differ, and our response to the new song or the new garden will not be the same we will find, them ever beauty or flashy. It all depends on the previous experience that have been fed into the brain and which have established the rules of the song game or the flower game.

If stated boldly like this, these comments seem rather obvious, it must be remembered that the cherished idea that there is such a thing as intrinsic beauty still clings on touchiously and against all the evidence. Nowhere is this more vividly encountered them in the world of “feminine beauty.” The world of the human female form, of beauty contents and artists ideal models, for centuries men have argued over the finer points of feminine perfection, but no one has ever succeeded in settling the matter once and for all. Beautiful girls still persist in changing shape as era succeeds era or as the girl watcher travels from society to society. In every instance there are fixed ideals, which are hotly defended. To one culture it is vitally important that a girl should be extremely plump, to another it is essential that she should be slender and graceful, to yet another she must have an hourglass shape with a tiny waist. As for the face, there is whole variety of preferred properties with almost every feature subject to different “beauty rules” in different regions and phases of history. Straight, pointed noses and small snub noses blue eyes or dark eyes. Fleshy lips or petal lips each have its followers.

Because of these variations an extraordinary situation develops. When attempts are made to find cross-cultural beauty queens, as in the Miss World or as Miss Universe contests, whether we move across space or time these are dramatic variations in the female body ideals, and all hope of finding an intrinsically perfect feminine beauty must be abandoned. These does not of course, mean that there are no basic human female signals, “Nor” does it mean those human males is necessarily lacking to inform responses to such signals. Gender signals and sexual invitation signals are present in our species, just as in any other. But sexual body signal of that kind are present in all human females, regardless of how ugly or beautiful each individual may be considered to be by local rules. An ugly girl can own a complete set of female anatomical features, possess efficient reproductive organs, be an excellent friend, and have a charming personality, and yet despite all this a human male may find her so visually unattractive that he cannot bring himself to mate with her.

This would be hard for a monkey to understand. A male monkey does not consider the comparative beauty of a female of his species. To him a female is female. There are no ugly monkeys. But the opposite sex and as beauty rated individuals. His highly developed taxophilic urge invades almost of all of his areas of interest, classifying and grading remorselessly as it spreads, and his response to human females is no exception. The result is that a tiny variation in says, the tilt of a nose or the curve of a cheek, can make all the difference between attraction and repulsion.

In fact, it now appears that everyone is born with a pre-programmed understanding of what makes a person attractive

Obviously, the precise set of the face or, for that matter, the exact measurements of the female breast, make little difference to the qualities of a female in practical term, as a lifelong breeding partner. But these are the subtle ties that have arisen as important elements in human beauty rating and which frequently play a part in mate selection.

This invasion of the sexual arena by our powerful aesthetic tendencies has led to a number of social curiosities. At one end of the scale there are the thriving industries of plastic surgery, beauty culture and cosmetics which enhance local visual appeal, so that female who may in reality he had cooks, poor mothers and selfish companions are able to promote themselves as potential mates of the highest order. At the other end of the scale are the lonely-hearts clubs that cater for at least some of the many isolated and rejected females who although they might be good cooks, excellent mothers and wonderful companions nevertheless remain alone and unmated merely because of their plain features or unacceptable figures.

If this trend were to grow it would eventually lead to an increasingly wide gulf between the “beautiful” people and the “ugly” as beauty married beauty and ugly married ugly. When people marry, mate selection is often based on the partner’s beauty rating rather than on their qualities as lifelong breeding companions. As a result such pair bonds are frequently unsuccessful. Several factors help to prevent this, not the least of that is the fact that a “Rich ugly” may sometimes be preferred to a “poor beauty”. Also many individuals refuse to allow their compulsive beauty rating to dominate mate-selection when the final, crucial moment of decision arrives. Instead they make their choice on more appropriate grounds, even though they have always paid up service to the aesthetic appeals of the human body. Even after establishing a mate ship such individuals may continue to play the human beauty game, when assessing film stars, pin-ups or passersby in the street, but they relegate it to their fantasy worlds and do not permit aesthetic invasions to over power their real life breeding systems