How do you determine if you are physically attractive?

Post Reply New Topic

I'm on the fence with this point. My own hard experiences agree with it, but the clash against what I see with other people puts a bit of disagreement in me. Personally, I'd wish for the former.

but those that ride the waves of charisma arent ones that didnt have anything else to begin with.

Huh?

I think he means they lack substance, or brains.

I have half the mind to put this into my collection of good quotes. Would you be ok with this? And if I did, what name (or alias) would I give credit to?

not at all. what i mean is that they do have something else which can attract people, charisma just perpetuates that other quality. Charisma by itself is worthless. Like clearcoat of paint, it wont make something a new color, but it makes a color shinier

Yeah, generally the most attractive male faces have some slight femininity or feminine features. And recent research has shown that also on men medium-full lips are prefered compared to thinner lips.

There's the common idea of attractiveness, and a whole lot of other characteristics that some find attractive and others don't. There are only very few (maybe no) people on the world who no one would consider attractive.

If you look at yourself in the mirror, you mostly focus on the characteristics about yourself you don't like, you look at yourself different than other people. The attractiveness of an individual might also increase if other people see characteristics in you that they don't have, but wish to have. So it really depends who looks at you.

I never considered myself attractive, I've got plenty of things in my face and on my body I'd like to change. Though most people who see me call me incredibly cute. Of course I've had the reverse experience with people too.

If you start getting people who no one seems to consider attractive, you begin to believe that it's universal. And it pretty much is, up to the very last point. Someone who is found to be attractive will be found attractive by just about everyone. And the people who DON'T find these people attractive (very few of them) are told that they're wrong.

If you get someone who looks like the Elephant Man, nobody in the world will find them attractive, even if they have a good personality, are witty, charismatic, etc. So how can beauty be subjective?

Actually, attractiveness can be extremely intimidating.

I joined a dating site recently. When I see the really attractive women, I move on. I have a sense of what my "league" is and I try not to date outside of that.

Because Argumentum ad Populums are fallacious?

The relative shortage of people who for whatever reason didn't take to their culture's societal beauty indoctrinations hardly means those capitalism-driven ideals are "objective".



I have an active distaste for the ideals pushed on men and women as "attractive".

What about the importance of distinctive appearance to attractiveness? Setting a list of desirable features makes it sound as if we could program an ideal man or woman and everyone would be more attractive if they looked like that. In reality, a lot of people who are considered the most beautiful didn't fit this "scientific" ideal; instead they had features that deviated from the norm, but in a pleasing and striking way. Take Audrey Hepburn for example: more boyish figure, often wore short hair, and had a thicker brow shape, yet considered by many to be an icon of beauty. IMO it's another case where people's abstract ideas don't hold up in individual applications-- people don't know what they want until they see it

Mechanisms like that are supposedly why blonde (and for that matter, red) hair survived, as mutations-
those with them enjoyed higher reproductive success simply by virtue of being noticed a lot more.

And, actually, Audrey Hepburn's figure, along with Marilyn Monroe's and a few others (regardless of size) supposedly fit this "golden ratio" which is supposed to be considered indicative of fertility, IE, highly-attractive to men.

But I agree- plain white women are boring compared to tanned, "exotics", while African American women are considered more attractive if they're "caramel" or lighter-colored. "Beauty" is seemingly-synonymous with chasing novelty, and ironically in doing that people wind up all looking the same.

yeah, it has been found that surveys where men and women rate faces (with no personality attached) don't reflect the actual reality of which people are considered attractive in legitimate social interactions. real life is different from rating photographs.

one of the most interesting bodies of information i've come across is the fact that people actually prefer slightly ASYMMETRICAL faces, especially if they are seeing each other in action as opposed to looking at static images. this runs counter to early studies that said we like SYMMETRICAL faces. the difference lies is the fact that we encounter other humans in dynamic social situations, and we experience each other's faces asymmetrically.

^ Heard that too. Cindy Crawford's mole was given as an example of (attractive) asymmetry in a documentary I saw, which discussed that premise among other things.

I've always found that golden ratio so obscure. There are so many arguments that counter the golden ratio theory, so many. Especially since certain ethnic groups don't fit the golden ratio as much as others, and certain desirable traits (bigger eyes) don't fit in the line of this theory.