A crisp, clear sunny day in Vermont in the fall will yield many a view that few would not find beautiful. Many would be tempted to call such scenes objectively beautiful. What that accomplishes, I have no idea.
I’ve seen many on this board make this mistake.
Unanimous agreement does not make for objectivity, it makes for what I call “universal subjectivism”. I’m sure a baboon wouldn’t find Miranda Kerr attractive. We find people attractive because that entices us to attempt to mate with them. A baboon attempting to mate with Miranda Kerr would only end in disaster (unless Kerr has some kind of freaky disturbing fetish), and so the baboon’s brain is not wired to find her attractive.
Objectivity does not mean universal, it means independent of opinion or subjective experience. It means it is what it is regardless of what you think or feel. Subjectivity, on the other hand, means that a thing is what it is, like Miranda Kerr being beautiful, because it feels that way to you. And it’s certainly possible for everyone to feel the same way about something without that something being the way they feel it to be independently of their feeling.
Orly? So if I find dogs to be beautiful that means I want to mate with them?
I don’t think that’s quite what we mean by beauty in this thread.
Actually, it is. Beauty comes in many forms, Gibby-goo. The erotic is but one aspect. Another thing that substantiates Magnus’ point: I can acknowledge that another man is handsome ( male beauty ), while not wanting to fuck him. Sexual desire isn’t concomitant of every aspect of beauty.
Edit: watch Smears come out of the woodwork to make some asinine response to this post of mine.
Good point.
Also, I’d like to say that the girl in the op is hot…but would look better if she lost 10 lbs or so.
She, actually, doesn’t need to lose any weight. She looks just fine as she is. Anything more, and she will turn into a walking popsicle stick.
A couple more beautiful pictures of her. Reminds me of a goddess:
For thee, I would hew the bones of ten thousand men in sunder.
There are objective conditions which make possible the experience of beauty, but if the word subjective means anything, then it must describe the experience itself. For me, the experience of beauty is a form of reverence. That it is subjective does not mean it is freely chosen or that it cannot be common across a species.
A lot of things can be beautiful, but which types of experiences are worth refining?
What is worth artistic consideration?
What is worth honoring?
This is subjectivity at work as a force of nature–a source of both refinement and degradation for living organisms.
People are composed of components obviously, these components/dominant genes/pool that compose a being are objective. The components/traits in a being that we determine the best or most beautiful, however is subjective. Beauty is subjective opinion/taste, but that person having what can be called beautiful subjectively, is objective.
A being has traits, obviously, objective. But the traits determined as beautiful or best is someone’s opinion, subjective.
A being may have black hair, this is objective. A being claiming that their black hair is beautiful, this is subjective.
I thought that was Ms Lima, Erik… what happened? 
oh how minds can change so quickly.
Why do you always depict females with their tits out? I, personally, think it detracts from their beauty - do you think that’s part of their beauty/what makes the attractive whole?
I never stated that I thought she was better looking than Lima; I just said " she reminds me of a goddess".
Lol Why do I always depict women with their tits out? Because I have a subconscious Freudian Mother/Breast-milk psycho-sexual complex 
No - just being facetious, or am I being facetious about being facetious? You guys can decide.
When you are looking at something why does thought have to come in and frame it within its knowledge? The senses are operating at the speed of light and all the time moving while thought is much slower as it wants the intellect to linger and take root in some affecting aspect.
I think she is more naturally prettier compared to Lima… perhaps you will model with her one day 
…or maybe you’re a breast man, which means you have a subconscious Freudian Mother/Breast-milk psycho-sexual complex 
I don’t need to decide anything, but thanks for the suggestion.
She, actually, is more pretty than Lima, you are right. Lima is still beautiful, but to be honest, Miranda is superior.
Never said you * needed * to decide; I said you * can * decide. Technicalities - I know, I know…
So, I’m done wrestling and have come to the position that beauty is, indeed, objective.
The contrary position, that it’s subjective/relative is just another manifestation of the nihilistic spirit of modernity, which seeks to level humanity, to turn all into an amorphous paste of oneness/equality/non-discrimination/etc. Some people are too cowardly to acknowledge the hierarchical nature of reality, so they come up with these pathetic relativisms, like claiming that a can of feces is equivalent to the art in the Sistine chapel, or that a gluttonous monstrosity of a woman is equivalent to Miranda Kerr in beauty - that it’s " In the eye of the beholder ".
Weak, pathetic, deluded fools…
That kind of reminds me of the question: If a tree falls in the forest and there’s no one there to hear it, does it make a noise? lol
It may actually fall but can there be a noise without the human ear. I think not.
How could beauty possibly have an existence of its own without the conscious mind interpreting it as beauty, without the conscious mind perceiving it in the first place. As the saying goes - beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. Without a beholder there can be no beauty nor ugliness.
There can be this and there can be that - reality. But it can’t be perceived until there is a perceiver.
First of all, I’d concede that there is a general agreement (a sum of subjective opinions) on what kind of people and what traits are beautiful and what aren’t.
I’ll take an example from my discussion in another thread, scatophilia (fondness of feces). It’s a practice abhorred by ALMOST everybody, I estimate 99% of human population.
Now, here’s the issue. 2+2=4. It’s objective. Some people may suck at math and get the wrong result. They may firmly believe 2+2 equals something else, but they’d be wrong and delusional because we can OBJECTIVELY prove that 2+2=4.
But HOW do you intend to prove to a scatophiliac that finding shit beautiful is OBJECTIVELY a lower form of art, that eating shit is OBJECTIVELY disgusting.
You could claim that you know better than they do how they feel. But that would be ignoring all empirical evidence to the contrary: most people would exhibit involuntary reflexes towards shit and wouldn’t be able to put it even close to their mouths without getting sick and vomiting. Scatophiliacs actually EAT IT without any problems like they would chocolate, so that indicates that they aren’t lying.
I think that you’d agree that what the majority says doesn’t determine objectively how good something is.
So what argument do you have left?
Animal ears. Nothing revolves around humanity. It still makes a noise, regardless of us being there to hear it with any sort of senses. It’s like saying the world was flat until we discovered it was round.
You do realize they have lighting, make up, etc. Right? You’re the one deluded, by not acknowledging that everyone has unique mind sets, a unique mind set leads to different opinions and tastes. What does this lead to? I’ll let you try to figure it out on your own since your mind is so superior. Beauty isn’t objective, them having the traits of which are subjectively determined beautiful are.
It figures that you would hang out at the zoos. 