So, a few things
- More news on the science and sex appeal front. Lucy, from Australia, recommended this recent New York Times article to me. Men, the Times reveals, don’t just look at women’s bodies! They look at their faces, too! And those faces better be perfect. And by perfect, I mean Plato’s Golden Ratio. And by Plato’s Golden Ratio, I mean something about the eyes having to have an eye’s width between them and the base of the nose being half of the length of both ends of the mouth that are not covered by the shadow of the base of the nose. Or something. Anyway, I don’t have that face, which I think is the bottom line.
(Golden ratio. Bam. source) - Along these (perfectly symmetrical) lines, Joyce, from California, sent me this article, from National Geographic, which discloses that women actually care more about how healthy the color of a man’s skin is than anything having to do with his features. Ha! Now the two theories can battle it out. Fight! Fight!
- Lastly, I want to introduce the new blog of a good friend of mine. It’s called Relentless Enthusiasm, and it is a mommy blog. I believe that’s the technical term. Erin is brilliant, hilarious, and really, really brave. I wrote about her here, when she had Lily and I panicked because I’m completely self-centered and I immediately had an existential crisis about being of an age and place in life when I could actually reasonably have a baby myself. So far, I have definitely not had any babies myself. But Erin definitely has Lily, and she writes about the experience in a unique way that you should check out. It involves a giant bow. And this:
(Will Lily grow be a hipster when she grows up? source)
* * * *
Un-roast: Today I love how my hair looks when it’s a tiny bit greasy. Cool definition happens. And also, I find myself caring less about how it looks.
P.S. Bear thinks I’m crazy when I try to explain Plato’s Golden Ratio to him. He’s pretty sure no one has a space the size of an entire eye between their eyes.
Kate on November 14th 2010 in Uncategorized
Kerry responded on 14 Nov 2010 at 6:50 pm #
I’m glad you added that PS, because I was sitting here poking myself in the eyes trying to measure and becoming quite disappointed. I agree with Bear.
San D responded on 14 Nov 2010 at 7:13 pm #
hmmm, don’t know if we read the same article. My interpretation of the article is that men look at faces for clues for youthfulness and fertility, and the body for short term sexual experiences. Didn’t see in the article anything to do with the “perfect face” ratio. I am aware of the perfect proportions of a face, because when I taught art, I had students look at each other, and yup, believe it or not, there is the “invisible” eye between your two eyes, and yes, your nose is as wide as your eye, and oh my, your lips are directly under your nose equidistant between your nose and chin—generally. But that said, animation and life when added to those generalities change everything when looking at a real live human face. I doubt very much that men are doing instant calibrations when they are looking at women’s faces. Basically I think their calculations run similar to women’s calculations when looking at men. A) Is this person interesting? and B) Is this person sending me signals that they are interested?
Kate responded on 14 Nov 2010 at 7:21 pm #
@San D
Yup. “Clues for youthfulness and fertility,” when analyzed, turn out to be the stuff I mentioned. The article didn’t talk about the ratio, but I felt that it was implied 🙂
Suzanne responded on 14 Nov 2010 at 7:45 pm #
This is a great article. I plan on visiting your friend’s blog. Also, here’s my unroast: I like how lately I am taking space for myself and not pushing pushing pushing myself to do do do every moment of the day. I feel a lot calmer and that is Awesome! 🙂
Christin@purplebirdblog responded on 14 Nov 2010 at 11:24 pm #
Oh my, that baby is incredibly adorable. I want her sweater in an adult XL, please. 🙂
Wei-Wei responded on 15 Nov 2010 at 12:50 am #
They did tests disproving that facial symmetry thing; they took already-gorgeous celebrities and altered photos of them according to the “golden ratios”. Then they took those two pictures (original and altered) and had a lot of people compare them; needless to say, I think the originals were rated more attractive overall.
So. Screw math and science. We’re human. Hellooo.
poet responded on 15 Nov 2010 at 3:54 am #
Oh these annoying pseudo-studies. I may be repeating myself (I recall writing a comment about this earlier but I don’t know if it was on this site), but… my dad is a theoretical physics professor, and one of his standard talks he gives when he’s asked to show the outside world what a theoretical physicist does is actually about beauty from the viewpoint of physics (starting out from patterns, and structures like snowflakes). And what physics generally found out about beauty – including human beauty – is that yes, symmetry matters, but also, complexity matters, and most importantly, little irregularities matter – a perfectly flawless and symmetrical face goes straight into uncanny valley for most observers. Ha!
Cheers,
poet
PS: I also get scared when I think that people my age or a few years older are having babies because I’m in no way ready for it!
Frances responded on 15 Nov 2010 at 4:09 am #
In art class they do teach you about an invisible third eye between your two eyes, that eyes should be level with the top of your ears and that the human body is six (or five?) heads high. Obviously I did not pay enough attention. Hate measuring.
Thank-you for your un-roast idea. I try and find “something I liked about myself” and “something good that happened every day”. Yesterday’s was: I liked that I went to the butcher’s in pink pyjamas and a leopard print coat, without caring if I looked ridiculous. (Though disappointed that no-one batted an eyelid.)
I do like your writing, please carry on!
f
Anna responded on 15 Nov 2010 at 8:10 am #
I’m pretty sure that (former) model Gemma Ward is the only person I’ve ever seen with an eye’s width space between her eyes. And it looks like her eyes are going to fall off the sides of her face. Freaky. Google image it.
I kind of like my hair when it’s a little bit greasy too. IT gives it some character, because my boring Brady Bunch stick-straight hair has zero character otherwise.
San D responded on 15 Nov 2010 at 8:36 am #
And….beauty is cultural and geographical, but picking a female based on “fertility” is universal and timeless as witnessed by all of the “Venus” figures unearthed over time. And thank goodness for that, otherwise the human species would have died out. My favorite painting explaining the modern woman and what man sees is this one by deKooning called Woman I: http://www.miccicohan.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/De_Kooning_MOMA_Woman_1.jpg
To him we ladies appear to be all eyes, smiles, breasts, and legs. Nothing else matters. San D
Kate responded on 15 Nov 2010 at 9:39 am #
@San D
That painting has always frightened me. But I honestly like it more after your contextualization.
Kate responded on 15 Nov 2010 at 9:43 am #
@Anna
I looked Gemma Ward up. It’s true.
@Wei-Wei
And then they did more tests that prove it. It goes around and around. But it’s certainly true that people are perfectly capable of being attracted to people who don’t meet the supposedly scientific standards of beauty. And that IS part of the beauty of being human. Go us!
SR responded on 15 Nov 2010 at 10:21 am #
If you have ever gotten into meditation/yoga and started to look for your third eye, you’ll start to see the space on your face that is the size of an eye, but you’ll look at it in a completely different way – meaning that you won’t look at it as validation of your beauty…you’ll just be awed by the mystical qualities of us humans.
Cindy responded on 15 Nov 2010 at 11:18 am #
I LOVE how you bring awareness to things like this…
i am sitting here poking my eyes with a ruler.
no luck. glad I am married and someone didn’t care about my eye’s being spaced right.
SHEW…lucky ME!!!
Happy Day Mrs. B!
rachel responded on 15 Nov 2010 at 11:31 am #
The actual article (not the NYT summary) says this about the face:
“Facial features appear to be particularly effective
cues of youth and health. Aside from obvious facial
indicators of youth, such as homogeneous skin and the
absence of wrinkles and sagginess (Fink, Grammer, &
Thornhill, 2001), preferences have also been demonstrated
for neotenous facial traits (e.g., large eyes; Cunningham,
1986). Features such as these are considered “feminine”
because they are sensitive to the rise in estrogen levels that
accompanies puberty and persists throughout a woman’s
reproductive lifespan (Thornhill & Gangestad, 2008). As
women age and approach menopause, however, androgens
increase relative to estrogen levels, causing their facial
features to take a more masculine form (e.g., thinner lips Gangestad & Scheyd, 2005), rendering specific facial
features effective proxies for assessing a woman’s age and
consequently, her reproductive value.”
It doesn’t say anything about the golden ratio, though symmetry is mentioned. The key term here seems to be age, not beauty. Also, keep in mind that this study (like all scientific ones) takes for granted the conclusions of previous researchers. The only thing actually being tested was if men were more likely to look at bodies or faces if they were told to assess short term mating vs long term. And in fact, how they assessed the desirability of the face/body (there was only one woman’s image) was not evaluated.
Noel responded on 15 Nov 2010 at 12:32 pm #
I applaud your decision not to have children yet. Earlier this year I worked part-time at a restaurant that was kid/family-centric, and it’s clear that there are many, many parents out there who like the idea of having children, but not necessarily the idea of being parents. So these couples procreate to satisfy their own needs/egos, then pawn their offspring onto grandparents, nannies, or unsuspecting waiters and waitresses.
So your “selfish” decision is actually incredibly unselfish … and the same reason I’m waiting to have kids too!
Amelia Jane responded on 15 Nov 2010 at 5:34 pm #
That baby is adorable!
I don’t know if this is the same study, it sounds like it! but The Daily Express in engerland decided to sexism it up, and I checked out the original study in there ‘ere post; http://www.siren-magazine.org/more-than-just-a-pretty-face which you might enjoy!
Anna responded on 16 Nov 2010 at 12:54 am #
I must admit that the hype over symmetry makes me feel sad. Once, I even found an article for positive body image promoting all weights, but the author made some nasty dig about asymmetrical people.
The funny thing is that people don’t notice asymmetry. For example, my face is very asymmetric- especially my chin (maybe a centimeter or two off center) and my jaw. Interestingly enough, people who have known me for a while were shocked when I pointed it out because they had never noticed.
And as for proportions, those ideas of proportions came from nature, and all people’s facial proportions also originate in nature, governed by the same principles, although maybe not applied the same way. Thus peoples’ faces are naturally proportionate, take that pseudo-science!