Muse933277 wrote:
DanielW wrote:
None of your arguments are very strong, and attractiveness is subjective.
Attractiveness is mostly objective, not subjective.
Everyone agrees that Danny Devito is less attractive then Henry Cavill.
Attractiveness is subjective, but only to a certain extent. For example, some people might consider Scarlett Johansson to be an 9, while others might think she's only a 7, but almost everyone would agree that she is considered conventionally attractive. Nobody in their right mind would consider her ugly.
If attractiveness is mostly subjective, then why are most male models 6 ft tall, fit, and broad-shouldered? If attractiveness were subjective, then we would see short overweight neckbeards as male models, but we don't.
There have been a lot of actors who were on the shorter side and considered sex symbols. Tom Cruise is 5'7. Taylor Lautner isn't as popular these days, but he was very popular ten years ago or so and he's 5'8. Not that short but definitely not tall. Both were sex symbols in their time.
There are also a lot of cultural variants. At points in history, heavier bodies were considered attractive because they were a sign of wealth. As for "neckbeards", most of the examples I've seen look rather unkempt. This is off-putting, because it indicates poor health and self-care.
It is true, however, that you will be less attractive if you don't take good care of yourself. This can be harder if you're neurodivergent and don't necessarily pay attention to such things. I have ADHD, which I think made it trickier for me to shave since I kept missing patches. This made me look unkempt. My girlfriend pointed this out to me, and I now do a better job of it (I also shave more regularly, which makes it easier).
Interestingly enough, I've seen photos of Danny DeVito as a young man and he was rather handsome. He does have Fairbank's Disease, a bone disorder, which is why he's short. Being shorter does make it harder for men, though DeVito is a rather extreme example.
The objective metrics of attractiveness are facial symmetry and health. Everything else is subjective, though culture wields considerable influence on what we perceive as attractive.
Well put. I think autistics, if well groomed and taking care of their health will look identical to NT's but I noticed they struggle a lot more with looking after their appearance and health. The life expectancy of a higher functioning autistic is dreadful which alone implies many must look a bit rough for their age.