Join Date: Jun 2004
I think it's pretty meaningless to discuss what truly defines sexiness. It's like the blind men and the elephant: you're all poking and feeling certain aspects of the great beast, but you're going nowhere with the totality of its definition.
If one were to use the equation as such (since it's useless to state that any one of those traits would synecdochically be "sexy"):
sexiness = attractiveness + intelligence + compatibility
Then here one must believe that, if both attractiveness and intelligence are subjective qualities to the observer, then so must sexiness. There can be no true objectivity to sexiness, since, as the cliche goes, it's in the eye of the beholder.
(For the sake of further argument, I'll remove compatibility. Many incredibly sexy women can never be compatible with me - due to financial concerns, spatial constraints, personality clashes, etc. And, indeed, after so many years of marriage, if one can still think of their companion as "sexy", then more power to them. As C.S. Lewis considered, marriage becomes less about attraction and more about companionship. Does the knowledge that somebody in the world is absolutely compatible with you, make that person much sexier - or rather, more attractive? The distinction is in the manner, in which those words are used. Compatibility, in a sense, could be emotional attractiveness.)
How could one objectively describe attractiveness, though? I attempted, but my so-called theory of beauty (in terms of physical nature alone) was ignored for the sake of inward beauty, which could mean intelligence, compatibility, attitude, personality. And yet, what is intelligence? What makes it sexy? Why does a good sense of humor impress someone? What about it makes it "sexy"?
One could say that intelligence - in this case specifically, a sense of humor - is attractive. It's not physical attraction, but mental attraction. In essence, one could then drop the entire idea of intelligence. If intelligence is mental attractiveness, and compatibility emotional attractiveness, then the equation is reduced to
sexiness = attractiveness (physical, mental, emotional)
But, someone would say that not all sexiness is physical. But neither is it completely mental or emotional. Indeed, what should define sexiness is some mixture of all three (or any other variables of attraction not included). Since it's subjective, that heterogeneous mixture will be different for all people. So what is truly sexy cannot be necessarily true; it can be contingently true for the individual, however.
Then again, isn't the above equation circular in its reasoning? What defines sexy? Being attractive. What defines being attractive? Having physical, mental, and emotional qualities that, when combined, equal somebody's being sexy. I think it's just begging the question, is all.
So, what is truly sexy? It's a stupid question, now that the discussion been reduced to ad hominem and pointing the merits (or lack thereof) of Mensa membership. Oh, and by the way, I still think Kurt Russell married Goldie Hawn for more than just brains. (And Kate Hudson? She's a product of damn good genes, rather than high IQ.)
Sexy is as sexy does, no?
"I like refried beans. That's why I want to try fried beans, because maybe they're just as good, and we're just wasting time." - Mitch Hedberg (1968-2005)
"Football is about if you want to run and fight for each other, if you really want to play that killer ball." - Robin van Persie, Arsenal FC