Beauty- is it in the eye of the beholder? - Empty Closets - A safe online community for gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered people coming out

nerdvain · 17th Sep 2011, 04:59 AM

Hey everyone.

I stumbled across these articles on Psychology Today's website and I'm wondering if you guys agree with them. They're written by Satoshi Kanazawa, an evolutionary psychologist who is somewhat estranged from much of the psychological community for his findings. Read them, if you please; the jist is:
Beauty is never in the eye of the beholder, and all standards of beauty are exactly the same; beauty is NOT only skin deep, beautiful people are just better people; you can certainly judge a book by its cover; and generally, gay men are just uglier than straight men.

Despite not being a trained psychologist in any respects, I think a lot of his stuff is, well...kinda crap.
I will acknowledge that standards on physical attractiveness are rooted in our genes, and there are just some people who achieve these standards more than others. But is that really beauty?

Here are the articles; you can reach your own opinions.
All stereotypes are true, except... II: "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder" | Psychology Today
All stereotypes are true, except... III: "Beauty is only skin deep" | Psychology Today
All stereotypes are true, except... IV:
All stereotypes are true, except...V: "All extremely handsome men are gay" | Psychology Today

What do you think?

zeratul · 17th Sep 2011, 05:35 AM

I read the last article and my impression is that his argument is this:

Handsome/Tall men ---> [attractive] ----> reproduce ----> genes carry on.

Ugly/short men ---> [not attractive] ----> [somehow becomes gay] ---> genes don't carry on.

There are several assumptions here that are not substantiated.

1. Attractive leading to reproduction:
a) some Handsome men like to sleep around in their youth and by the time they want to "settle" they are unattractive.
b) some Handsome men are gay and therefore does not reproduce.
c) It assumes that handsome and tall are the attractive attributes of men to a woman who would reproduce with that man throughout history of the human kind. Which is not true.

2. It suggests that gay men are gay because they were not able to attract women. The tone of the article contains this assumption. Because in reality, attractive physical attributes and homosexuality (if assumed to be genetically disposed) are two unrelated variables in the genetic code, and the transmission of these two codes under the following assumptions would only lead to the disappearance of beautiful gay men:
-- all gay men do not reproduce with women throughout the history of the human kind.
(and this assumption is in fact false)

3. As a corollary to 2, we should also consider the mechanism of transmission for the two genetic variables.
suppose that we assume that "all gay men does not reproduce with women throughout the history of human kind" IS TRUE.
And that the mechanism we stated in 2, that this assumption leads to the disappearance of men who are both attractive and gay, then this should lead to the disappearance of men who are gay altogether.
This is also in fact false in reality.

With this I would say that the person who wrote the article has not really grasped his logics very well, and without logic, one of the basic tools in the scientific method, you cannot claim to be a scientist of any specialization.

Mad Man L · 17th Sep 2011, 05:56 AM

He also forgot to mention bisexuals.

But homosexuality can "choose" anyone, regardless of whether they're straight, gay, bisexual or whatever. His study is BS, the reason "more" straight guys appear handsome/attractive is because they make up 95% of the male population. At the same time, there are also "more" ugly ones.

He may be right about the ugly ones not reproducing, but they're not going to "turn gay" unless they seek to have sex with men in desparation to lose their virginity.

malachite · 17th Sep 2011, 07:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nerdvain

Beauty is never in the eye of the beholder, and all standards of beauty are exactly the same; beauty is NOT only skin deep, beautiful people are just better people; you can certainly judge a book by its cover; and generally, gay men are just uglier than straight men.

What do you think?

I think whoever wrote this is damn idiot

Fugs · 17th Sep 2011, 08:33 AM

^ what he said.

Zontar · 17th Sep 2011, 08:53 AM

If this were true, wouldn't there be no good looking gay men?

Because I've seen more than my fair share of fucking bangable guys.

17th Sep 2011, 04:59 AM	#1
nerdvain Well Known Full Member Gender: Male Orientation: Gay Out Status: Out to everyone Location: Philadelphia area Posts: 124 Join Date: Sep 2011	Beauty- is it in the eye of the beholder? Hey everyone. I stumbled across these articles on Psychology Today's website and I'm wondering if you guys agree with them. They're written by Satoshi Kanazawa, an evolutionary psychologist who is somewhat estranged from much of the psychological community for his findings. Read them, if you please; the jist is: Beauty is never in the eye of the beholder, and all standards of beauty are exactly the same; beauty is NOT only skin deep, beautiful people are just better people; you can certainly judge a book by its cover; and generally, gay men are just uglier than straight men. Despite not being a trained psychologist in any respects, I think a lot of his stuff is, well...kinda crap. I will acknowledge that standards on physical attractiveness are rooted in our genes, and there are just some people who achieve these standards more than others. But is that really beauty? Here are the articles; you can reach your own opinions. All stereotypes are true, except... II: "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder" \| Psychology Today All stereotypes are true, except... III: "Beauty is only skin deep" \| Psychology Today All stereotypes are true, except... IV: All stereotypes are true, except...V: "All extremely handsome men are gay" \| Psychology Today What do you think?

17th Sep 2011, 05:35 AM	#2
zeratul Prelate Full Member Gender: Male Orientation: Gay Location: Toronto Posts: 748 Join Date: Jan 2011	Re: Beauty- is it in the eye of the beholder? I read the last article and my impression is that his argument is this: Handsome/Tall men ---> [attractive] ----> reproduce ----> genes carry on. Ugly/short men ---> [not attractive] ----> [somehow becomes gay] ---> genes don't carry on. There are several assumptions here that are not substantiated. 1. Attractive leading to reproduction: a) some Handsome men like to sleep around in their youth and by the time they want to "settle" they are unattractive. b) some Handsome men are gay and therefore does not reproduce. c) It assumes that handsome and tall are the attractive attributes of men to a woman who would reproduce with that man throughout history of the human kind. Which is not true. 2. It suggests that gay men are gay because they were not able to attract women. The tone of the article contains this assumption. Because in reality, attractive physical attributes and homosexuality (if assumed to be genetically disposed) are two unrelated variables in the genetic code, and the transmission of these two codes under the following assumptions would only lead to the disappearance of beautiful gay men: -- all gay men do not reproduce with women throughout the history of the human kind. (and this assumption is in fact false) 3. As a corollary to 2, we should also consider the mechanism of transmission for the two genetic variables. suppose that we assume that "all gay men does not reproduce with women throughout the history of human kind" IS TRUE. And that the mechanism we stated in 2, that this assumption leads to the disappearance of men who are both attractive and gay, then this should lead to the disappearance of men who are gay altogether. This is also in fact false in reality. With this I would say that the person who wrote the article has not really grasped his logics very well, and without logic, one of the basic tools in the scientific method, you cannot claim to be a scientist of any specialization. __________________ I am a lord of shadows. I claim the shadows that the Shadow may not. I am the strong arm of deliverance. I am Shadowstrider. I am the Scales of Justice. I am He-Who-Guards-Unseen. I am Shadowslayer. I am Nameless. They shall not go unpunished. My way is hard, but I serve unbroken.

17th Sep 2011, 05:56 AM	#3
Mad Man L EC Addict Full Member Gender: Male Orientation: Bisexual Out Status: All but family Location: Brisbane, Australia Age: 16 Posts: 1,244 Join Date: Jul 2011	Re: Beauty- is it in the eye of the beholder? He also forgot to mention bisexuals. But homosexuality can "choose" anyone, regardless of whether they're straight, gay, bisexual or whatever. His study is BS, the reason "more" straight guys appear handsome/attractive is because they make up 95% of the male population. At the same time, there are also "more" ugly ones. He may be right about the ugly ones not reproducing, but they're not going to "turn gay" unless they seek to have sex with men in desparation to lose their virginity. __________________ I really should get a proper signature...

17th Sep 2011, 08:33 AM	#5
Fugs EC's Local Furry Full Member Gender: Female, trans M-F (Wishes she was a kitty) Orientation: Straight Out Status: Out to everyone Location: Bowling Green, OH Age: 18 Posts: 408 Join Date: Sep 2011	Re: Beauty- is it in the eye of the beholder? ^ what he said. __________________ We love youes! Please accept a hug from us so that we can give <( ^ω^)> (≧∇≦)/ (^O^)／ (^。^) (づ｡◕‿‿◕｡)づ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ ಠ_ರೃ your face the smile that everyone around you wants to see!

17th Sep 2011, 08:53 AM	#6
Zontar Mister Funny Man Full Member Gender: Male Location: Binghampton, NY Posts: 1,539 Join Date: Oct 2010	Re: Beauty- is it in the eye of the beholder? If this were true, wouldn't there be no good looking gay men? Because I've seen more than my fair share of fucking bangable guys. __________________ Get up and open your eyes...Don't ever let yourself ever fall down... Get through it and learn how to fly...I know you'll find a way...today. -Days of the New, "Dirty Road"

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Beauty tips?	DoriaN	Health and Well-being	21	28th Jul 2011 01:15 PM
'The Twilight Zone' : The Eye of the Beholder	mnguy	Chit Chat	1	31st Dec 2010 05:32 PM
The Importance of Beauty	Étoile	Chit Chat	25	19th Apr 2010 06:09 AM
200 Pounds Beauty	BeautifulStranger	Entertainment and Media	21	10th Jan 2009 10:57 PM
Jamaica, An Isle of Beauty -- Unless You're Gay	JSG	Chit Chat	9	19th Feb 2008 09:47 PM