>beauty is subjective therefore it's illusory/artificial/arbitrary/contrived in some way
>>857963
Beauty is objective. Plebs are just too dumb to understand it.
>>858034
So what are fetishes? Why dont we all want to fuck the same thing?
>>858041
sexual attraction isn't the same as aesthetic beauty
it's a mechanism, like appetite, that's shaped by your surroundings and crude conditioning practices
>>858041
Sex has nothing to do with "beauty". In fact it is the opposite of beauty. Vaginas are disgusting slimy bloody stinking holes. Just look at a vagina and tell me it has any aesthetic value. Sex is a relict of our archaic primitive evolutionary past and it is out duty as civilized conscious human beings to overcome it.
>>857963
> Not specifying if it's ontologically or epistemologically subjective
This is how you spot someone not knowing what they're talking about.
Only in very general evolutionary way beauty can be objective. That is we tend to like symmetry, certain features speak highly of fertility and so on.
However when comparing two person who fill these general parameters, it is impossible to say which one is more beautiful. That's down to personal preference (whether blonde hair is better than dark, or tall over short).
>>858050
no homo bro
>>858041
>beauty and sexual complexes are equivalent
dumb millenialposter
>>857963
>beauty is subjective
>
It's not. There's beauty and there is personal taste - personal taste is subjective. Most people will agree that, for example, Henry Cavill or pic related are beatiful, and it has nothing to do with personal taste.
>>858075
You just argued it doesn't have anything to do with personal taste by appealing to people's personal taste.
>>858088
Personal taste doesn't cover beauty. It covers your preference for shit like red, blonde or dark hair.
>>858088
You could argue, for instance, that Tom Cruise is less attractive than Brad Pitt because Cruise's nose is too large
That would be personal taste, but you would not deny Cruise is a beautiful person independent of your preference
>>858107
So how would I know if it's beauty or personal preference. Because what you posted sound more to me like you've a thing for cosplaying girls who don't sleep enough than someone being objectively "beautiful".
>>858126
Symmetry, for one.
Every single face here is pretty because it's an "average" of a large sample size.
>>858233
must have used an outdated source, thanks for correcting it
>>858075
I would. I don't think she's ugly but there's nothing really special about her.
>>857963
Something being subjective doesn't make it arbtiary. It's often what makes it meaningful.
For instance food is highly subjective and that's exactly what makes it awesome. It would be dull if we all ate the exact same thing and used the exact same recipes: you wouldn't even be able to decide whether you want extra onions or not.
>>858233
>tfw no symetrical mongolian gf
