The Toronto Star has an article in the Idea section on "What's your idea of hot?"
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Co...le&cid=1108207451814&call_pageid=970599119419
The four panelists attempt to distinguish between "hot", "sexy" and "beautiful". It's all very subjective, but there is an argument that "beauty" can be defined more objectively than "hot" or "sexy". The basic thesis is that there are certain commonly accepted physical characteristics and traits that define "beauty".
I tend to agree that "beauty" can be measured as a generally accepted set of physical physical characteristics and traits, but "hot" and "sexy" are purely the perception of the individual observer.
The fundamental problem is that most people don't establish a distinction between what they consider "hot", "sexy" or "beautiful" when they talk about someone.
I would define a "goddess" as a woman who is simultaneously considered to be "beautiful", "sexy" and "hot" by 95% of the people who gaze upon her.
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Co...le&cid=1108207451814&call_pageid=970599119419
The four panelists attempt to distinguish between "hot", "sexy" and "beautiful". It's all very subjective, but there is an argument that "beauty" can be defined more objectively than "hot" or "sexy". The basic thesis is that there are certain commonly accepted physical characteristics and traits that define "beauty".
I tend to agree that "beauty" can be measured as a generally accepted set of physical physical characteristics and traits, but "hot" and "sexy" are purely the perception of the individual observer.
The fundamental problem is that most people don't establish a distinction between what they consider "hot", "sexy" or "beautiful" when they talk about someone.
I would define a "goddess" as a woman who is simultaneously considered to be "beautiful", "sexy" and "hot" by 95% of the people who gaze upon her.