From: Erik Aronesty (erik@zoneedit.com)
Date: Sun May 09 2004 - 20:35:55 MDT
I have to agree with rhino.
The people I've found attractive rarely fit into any pattern, let alone some universal norm.
My guess is that what researchers are studying is a large memetic attractor revolving around culturally promulgated “ideas of attraction” and not anything physiologically meaningful.
For example, TV stations and magazines indirectly poll audiences for what they find attractive. They cannot be all things to all people, so they have to hire people that are “in the middle” and appeal to the majority of viewers. This “majority imagery” then becomes some sort of standard. This standard, in turn, affects th audiences - modifying their notions of status and beauty.
We all know that throughout history, standards of beauty have changed. All evidence points to it being cultural - not physiological.
Overall this sort of pseudoscience is harmful to the consumer.
Kindof like “everyone likes sweets, so let's make our products sweeter” mentality. Good for the short-term market share, bad for the kids. Products get sweeter and sweeter, in order to compete.
But what products have very-long-term viability and vitality? Cherios, corn flakes and rice-krispies. None of them are excessively sweet.
Likewise, so-called beauty is nothing more than the “chocolate count dracula coco poofers” of the modern day. And it is equally as false, unhealthy and fleeting.
--- To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun May 09 2004 - 20:36:45 MDT