How often have you heard that female beauty is not objective and that all women are equally beautiful in their own way? How often have you been told off for placing undue importance on a particular woman's beauty by people who remind you over and over how important it is for us to find all women beautiful?
Obviously female beauty is just as important to these people as it is to you. What they find objectionable is the fact that some women are more beautiful than others, and that you know it.
But how do you prove it?
Today we will learn that our perception of female beauty is nothing less than our brains' automatic measurement of a very real and important part of reality reflected in women - objective values. Plainly speaking, the woman who represents the most objective values wins. She is the most beautiful. Female beauty is an objective phenomenon, a very real part of reality, one which can not only be perceived by all people, but measured as well.
Today we will learn how to measure it.
I warn you that this page is not for everyone. It is not for those who believe that a quest for 'objective beauty', or any kind of objective reality for that matter, is foolhardy. Those who think that nothing can ever be known for sure should leave this page and never come back. They will find no company for their thoughts here. And I should remind them that if nothing can be known for sure, then they can't be certain that beauty is not objective.
Less suspicious people, who do not doubt the objective nature of female beauty, yet who fail to see the value in measuring it, will be given all the reasons why objectifying beauty is important, later. You'll be surprised, I promise.
But first, if you are someone who marvels at the power of science to unlock vast hidden realms and to improve man's life on earth immeasurably, if you look forward to what wonders and works science will uncover and create next, if you know there's nothing the human mind can't penetrate, know, define and measure, from the atom to the universe itself and everything in between, including female beauty and human values - then stick around. I promise you that this is not going to be just another beauty contest, personal opinion page or public poll. It will be a bona fide scientific measurement, arrived at by observation, and proven by objective reason. The judges will not be swayed by degrees of nudity, race, or other talents. The result will be the discovery of nothing other than the most beautiful woman in the world.
But before we can find the most beauitul woman in the world, we have to know what female beauty is. So, let's start at the beginning, with a definition of female beauty.
Female beauty is the representation of our values, in a woman. When we see a lady who embodies or appears to embody our values we find her beautiful. For example, if a woman appears to be happy, healthy, and intelligent, and if we value these things, we will find her more beautiful than a woman who doesn't. Think Farrah Fawcett in Charlie's Angels versus Farrah Fawcett today.
On the other hand, those people who are interested in only the dark, dismal and deathly things in life will be more attracted to the women who appear miserable, unhealthy, or stupid. Their attraction, however, will be less intense, and less romantic, than those who value the positive things in life. We'll see why this is true later. In the meantime, think of those women who claim Mother Theresa was the most beautiful woman in the world, and those men who claim to prefer dumb blondes.
But whoever we are and whatever our values, we will find a woman who represents our values more appealing than one who does not, and we will find the woman who embodies our highest values most beautiful of all. She is who we are looking for today.
Measuring female beauty requires us to count the number of our values a woman's appearance represents. Measuring it objectively, however, requires that we count the number of objective values a woman embodies or appears to.
This is where the majority of objections to measuring female beauty arise. The standard complaint goes something like this: "Even if beauty is the representation of values, you can't objectify beauty because something as subjective as human values can't be objectified. Everyone, and every culture is different." Philosphers, intellectuals, religious leaders and newspaper columnists have been telling us this stuff for years. "We all value different things. You can't prove that one set of values is better than another," they say.
Actually, I can. But first, notice how the people who complain there's no such thing as objective beauty are the very same ones who claim there's no objective values either. They unwittingly demonstrate the very real connection between beauty and values. Holding only non-objective values, they see only non-objective beauty.
And notice further that those who claim there is no objective beauty or values, also claim that there is no such thing as objective reality. "How do you even know you exist?" they chortle with a con-man's smirk. Yet there is only one thing that can bring about a situation where there is no reality, no values, and no beauty. That thing is death. Unwittingly, the lemmings of the non-objective demonstrate that their standard, their most dearly desired state of existence, the ultimate inspiration of their views and goal of their value choices, is death.
However, those of us who want a long, successful and happy life see plain as day that health is more valuable than illness, that happiness is better than depression, that success is preferable to failure, etc. These are our values. Our values lead to life. Theirs lead to death. Any man who needs proof of which code of values is better, should have to test it with his own life, which, in reality, we all do.
The long and the short of it is: If you believe in right and wrong then you believe in objective values, and if you believe in objective values then you believe in objective beauty. It's as simple as that. Just as one action or value can be better than another, so one woman can be more beautiful than another. Rationality is better than irrationality, so we find rational women more attractive than irrational ones. Purpose is better than aimlessness, so we find purposeful women more beautiful than slatternly ones. In the same way, self-esteem is better than self-loathing, happiness is better than misery, health is better than disease, prettiness is better than ugliness, perfection is better than flaws, intelligence is better than stupidity, optimism is better than pessimism, confidence is better than cowardice, self-improvement is better than self-destruction and so on.
These are the qualities we'll be looking to see represented in the women whose beauty we'll be measuring today. They are objective values.
I said represented here because a woman doesn't actually have to possess or embody the values we see in her in order to be beautiful. A woman doesn't have to be intelligent, happy, or confident, she merely has to appear that way. Beauty is the representation of values, not the actual presence of them, which means even a woman in a painting can be beautiful. Love - not beauty - is our response to someone who actually possesses the qualities we value. Personally, I use the word 'lovely' to describe a woman who actually possesses the values she appears to, because it is love, not just beauty, that makes her attractive to us. But we're talking about beauty here, not love. If 'loveliness' entered into it my wife would be at the top of the list for sure.
When we perceive objective values reflected in a woman, whether through her appearance, posture or opinions, the result in our minds is beauty. To measure this beauty I've devised the Bell Scale. At the high end of my scale are the women who represent all conceivable objective values. At the low end are the women who represent none. I affectionately call this scale The Amazon and the Little Boy.
I find the concepts of
Of course, there are a huge number of beautiful women who are neither Amazon nor Little Boy who fit somewhere in between these extremes. They necessitate the addition on our "beauty ruler" of inch markers, or their equivalent. This is the reason for the Model, Babe, and Little Girl on our scale. They allow us to measure beauty more accurately than if Amazon and Little Boy were our only choices.
Here then is where some of the most famous beautiful women in the world rank:
Here's how the beauty scale works:
Notice that we find Princess Diana close to one end of the beauty scale and Mother Theresa on the other. The reasons for this is that Princess Diana represents rationality over Mother Theresa's mysticism. Diana represents the pursuit of values, while Mother Theresa represents their sacrifice. Diana is pretty. Mother Theresa is ugly. Diana represents the value of life on earth. Mother Theresa represents the idea that the earth is a pesthole. Diana represents happiness. Mother Theresa represents suffering. Diana represents an independent earth-grounded spirit and generous benevolence towards others. Mother Theresa represents servitude to others under the weight of an incomprehensible supernatural authority. Princess Diana is tall. Mother Teresa is short.
I could go on but it is not necessary. Measuring beauty at this level does not require us to check every human value in existence, any more than measuring the height of our children requires us to use microns as a unit of measure instead of inches, although we could conceivably do so. It is clear without measuring further that Princess Diana represents many more objective values than Mother Theresa, just as it is clear without measuring in microns that 6 inches is greater than 1. We can now state with objective scientific certainty that Princess Diana is more beautiful than Mother Theresa - at least 4 times more beautiful, according to our scale.
But not all comparisons are so obvious. In fact, some of you may think a few of the women on the scale are in the wrong place. If they are, it is not a question of objectivity but of accuracy - you may know more about a woman than we do, or else we may know more than you, that's all.
Omniscience is not necessary for today's purpose. Our scale is sufficient to demonstrate that female beauty can be measured objectively. The proof is that while you may not feel a certain beauty belongs in the category in which she was placed, you will still feel she belongs in one of them, or at least somewhere between Amazon and Little Boy, which is itself an objective measurement.
Here, then, is the answer you've all been waiting for: The Amazon is the most beautiful woman in the world. She includes such glorious specimens of feminine beauty as Elle Macpherson, Anna Nicole Smith, Raquel Welch, Claudia Schiffer, and Ann-Margret. Of course there are a great many more such women, but perhaps fewer than you might think.
Many of you were probably expecting a single woman to be named the most beautiful. While this is possible it was not the task we set ourselves. We wanted simply to demonstrate how female beauty could be objectified, and more importantly than that, why it should be. We'll get to that in a moment. First, we wouldn't dream of leaving you without the means of discovering the most beautiful woman for yourself. Here's how you do it:
Like any other measuring system, if greater accuracy is desired, we can 'zoom' in on our beauty ruler to take a reading. Let's say we wanted to discover who was the most beautiful of Elle Macpherson, Anna Nicole Smith, and Carmen Electra. To do this we would measure them with a 'zoomed' in portion of our scale showing only Amazon, Babe, and Little Boy markers. If they were the only women in the world, and you had to place one of them in each of the 3 categories, who would go where? It should be easy. Elle Macpherson would be the Amazon, since she represents the most objective values - intelligence, success, stature, etc.; Anna Nicole is the Babe, since she also represents many objective values - innocence, benevolence, femininity, etc. - but has been hurt by other people's negativity in ways that Elle was not; and Carmen Electra is the Little Boy, not because she in any way looks like a boy, but simply because she is not as physically big or as clearly value-driven as the others.
If you 'zoom' in far enough, this kind of measurement becomes easy, and it becomes clear that Elle Macpherson is the most beautiful of the 3, then Anna Nicole, and then Carmen. They are all still all Amazons when we zoom out, but now we can see that Elle is the most beautiful one.
Let's try another example. Let's say you wanted to determine on which side of the line bewteen Little Girl and Little Boy Kate Moss actually falls. Again, we have to zoom in to take a more accurate reading. When we do, our beauty scale consists of Little Girl on the left and Little Boy on the right. If you had to place her on one or the other, which would it be? Little Girl, of course, if for no other reason than she has long hair. Now when you zoom out you can see we've placed her correctly.
These little measuring tricks should be all you need to determine for yourselves who is the most beautiful woman of all. You probably never needed anyone to tell you that in the past, but now your measurements can be objective. Just remember, that a tie is always possible in any race, and in any measurement.
And now for those who wonder why we should wish to measure beauty objectively in the first place.
It comes down to values. As we've seen, objective values are not only possible, they are necessary for human life. The problem is, they are easy to forget. Because our highest values like rationality, justice and purpose are abstract concepts, it's hard to treat them with the same immediacy and importance as the more physical necessities of life. Yet they are just as important, if not more so.
Thus nature has provided Man with built in safe-guards against forgetting all of the necessities of his life, both physical and spiritual. It has given him hunger to remind him when to eat; it has given him beauty to help him remember his objective values.
This is why those who value deathly qualities in women cannot experience the same intensity of beauty as those with objective values. Life requires beauty to remind men only of objective values. Thus, the more non-objective values a man allows into his code of values, the less beauty he is capable of perceiving.
This is also the key to those who attack the concept of objective beauty and objectivity in general. As we've seen, such people choose their values on the premise of death, whether they know it or not, and it is nothing less than all human life they are out to destroy. Beauty wants us to live. They want us to lose our ability to perceive beauty, to stop pursuing values, and die.
This is why it is so alarming today to hear so many voices insisting that beauty is not objective, that there are many equally valid views of beauty, that all women are beautiful, that beauty doesn't exist at all, etc. It is objective values - or rather, our knowledge and faith in them - that they are out to destroy.
But make no mistake: objective values exist. This is why objectifying female beauty is so crucially important: the continued existence of the human race may depend on it.
The Amazon is the spokesmodel for mankind. She is a larger-than-life symbol crusading for life and for all objective human values. That is her purpose. That is the value she represents. And that is her unique beauty.
Click here for our video illustrating the concept of the Amazon.