love-thinking
Well-known member
Atm, I am studying archetypes and I've noticed a significant shift in what is considered beautiful in both hollywood and bollywood. However, despite what is considered beautiful, some women seem to gain popularity despite whether they are objectively beautiful or meet the beauty standards of society or not. I am going to be guessing it has to do with neptune, and perhaps venus on the ascendent or the mc, maybe even lilith.
Right now hollywood and bollywood's idea of beauty is more "lilith," raw, attention-grabbing, and natural. It's more tall, slender and toned, with a beautiful, attention grabbing face, more like victoria secret models. It's more Deepika padukone in bollywood, and Adriana Lima.
Yet you have the likes of Scarlett Johansson, Natalie portman and Salma Hayek that defied these standards. They are short(again I don't mean to offend anybody, I am short myself), two have curves and Natalie is simply slender. All three are attractive, yet they are not attention grabbing. They also have a natural look and I can argue they look like averagely pretty white and latina women. Yet they are known as one of the hottest women in hollywood today and even the world. If they weren't famous, and you were to put anyone of them next to Adriana Lima, I'm sorry but neither would get any attention.
My question is what in their natal charts make them be perceived as one of the hottest women in not only hollywood but also the entire world?
In bollywood, women that defy their norms were Bipasha Basu(she's dark-skinned) and even rani mukherjee and kajol (both short and dusky). They are all three very beautiful. But they exceeded the beauty norms in their time which more or less wanted women of average height or tall, and fair skinned(priety, madhuri dixit, and of course aishwarya rai).
So what makes these women that defy the norms of beauty so special that they are lusted and admired and women that look like them may not have the same sort of luck?
My next question, hollywood and bollywood's perception of beauty changed dreastically over the years. Some of the old stars wouldn't be considered that beautiful in today's time. Back then the beauty standards were both thin with nice curves, but a soft look, shorter, translucent, glamourous, lot's of eyeliner and lipstick. Now it's tall, slender, raw, natural, dark, powerful looking, seductive and sexy. Tan and exotic is beautiful. The ideal would be more of an adriana lima look, tall, tan, exotic looking with colored eyes, and slender.
People like Elizabeth taylor, vivien leigh would look nothing more than a cute teenager when next to adriana lima, the it girl. But yeah, what made society turn towards the sexy goddess from the damsel in distress look? Next to Aishwarya Rai, and even Katrina Kaif, Madhubala would fall short in today's bollywood.
Those old starlets were considered the most beautiful in the world, but if we're going to be honest with ourselves, today they wouldn't.
I know I'm going to create controversy with this forum. Beauty is subjective, I understand but how much of it is actually subjective, and how much of it is it personality, great marketing, evolution, and of course how much is it actually astrology?
Right now hollywood and bollywood's idea of beauty is more "lilith," raw, attention-grabbing, and natural. It's more tall, slender and toned, with a beautiful, attention grabbing face, more like victoria secret models. It's more Deepika padukone in bollywood, and Adriana Lima.
Yet you have the likes of Scarlett Johansson, Natalie portman and Salma Hayek that defied these standards. They are short(again I don't mean to offend anybody, I am short myself), two have curves and Natalie is simply slender. All three are attractive, yet they are not attention grabbing. They also have a natural look and I can argue they look like averagely pretty white and latina women. Yet they are known as one of the hottest women in hollywood today and even the world. If they weren't famous, and you were to put anyone of them next to Adriana Lima, I'm sorry but neither would get any attention.
My question is what in their natal charts make them be perceived as one of the hottest women in not only hollywood but also the entire world?
In bollywood, women that defy their norms were Bipasha Basu(she's dark-skinned) and even rani mukherjee and kajol (both short and dusky). They are all three very beautiful. But they exceeded the beauty norms in their time which more or less wanted women of average height or tall, and fair skinned(priety, madhuri dixit, and of course aishwarya rai).
So what makes these women that defy the norms of beauty so special that they are lusted and admired and women that look like them may not have the same sort of luck?
My next question, hollywood and bollywood's perception of beauty changed dreastically over the years. Some of the old stars wouldn't be considered that beautiful in today's time. Back then the beauty standards were both thin with nice curves, but a soft look, shorter, translucent, glamourous, lot's of eyeliner and lipstick. Now it's tall, slender, raw, natural, dark, powerful looking, seductive and sexy. Tan and exotic is beautiful. The ideal would be more of an adriana lima look, tall, tan, exotic looking with colored eyes, and slender.
People like Elizabeth taylor, vivien leigh would look nothing more than a cute teenager when next to adriana lima, the it girl. But yeah, what made society turn towards the sexy goddess from the damsel in distress look? Next to Aishwarya Rai, and even Katrina Kaif, Madhubala would fall short in today's bollywood.
Those old starlets were considered the most beautiful in the world, but if we're going to be honest with ourselves, today they wouldn't.
I know I'm going to create controversy with this forum. Beauty is subjective, I understand but how much of it is actually subjective, and how much of it is it personality, great marketing, evolution, and of course how much is it actually astrology?
