# I honestly don't understand how looks are subjective



## bsd3355 (Nov 30, 2005)

Age is subjective for dating preference. Personality is subjective. Whether or not you have money is somewhat subjective. But looks? Idk... why is it when a "hot" girl walks into a room every guy acknowledges it? Or why is it the same for when a "hot" guy walks into the room every girl acknowledges it?

I don't get it. Someone prove me wrong. I don't think looks are that subjective after all.


----------



## GunnyHighway (Sep 28, 2010)

There's things like symmetry and stuff that are naturally attractive to most. We're hard wired towards certain things. It just seems that the majority of people like what the media tells us looks good. 

I can't really prove anything to you, but I am a guy who finds many people attractive, who may not be seen as so by the majority of people. I know for a fact that it happens, because it's my personal experience. I also highly doubt I'm the only one in the world.


----------



## CopadoMexicano (Aug 21, 2004)

Looks are a physical characteristic while apperance is how you dress; imo


----------



## tutliputli (Feb 22, 2009)

I find most people attractive unless they're jerks :stu I tend to notice the good in others and find myself being drawn to many different people. Sure, some people stand out for being blatantly physically attractive but if they don't have a nice personality as well, they don't seem attractive (to me) overall.


----------



## Ape in space (May 31, 2010)

It's not completely subjective and it's not completely objective. There are certain people who have the looks that will attract a large proportion of people because of definite factors like biological desirability, societal/media influence, etc. So it's really not as subjective as some people claim because there are all these factors that make certain people more attractive to society as a whole than others. On the other hand, on an individual level, there is always variability in what a person finds attractive, so there are always SOME people who will find any given person attractive, even if they are very few in number.


----------



## bsd3355 (Nov 30, 2005)

It doesn't seem right to say that while the minority may find someone attractive while the majority doesn't agree, how that is enough to say physical attraction is subjective? Subjectivity seems more along the lines of 50/50 and not 80/100 or 90/100.


----------



## bsd3355 (Nov 30, 2005)

You also have to factor in how attractive someone else is and whether or not that is a deciding factor on whom they find attractive. I honestly think the less physically attractive you are the more your open for other less attractive people and the more physically attractive you are the less your open to date less attractive people.


----------



## dkriot (Dec 12, 2011)

I think it is just people being political correct. There is a general consensus of what is considered attractive and while there are slight variances from person to person, if you are considered hot by one person chances are you are appealing to many people.


----------



## tutliputli (Feb 22, 2009)

I think a lot of it is to do with how open-minded and how judgmental a person is (in determining how attractive they find other people). This is why I don't think it's possible to say that attractiveness is definitively objective.


----------



## Chris16 (Nov 1, 2010)

I think semantics is the reason this topic is so confusing. People use words like attractive, average, and beautiful to mean different things. My opinion has stayed pretty constant.

(exchange "girls" for "guys" if you want, but I'm just speaking from my perspective and I don't want to step out of that)

You can think a woman is pretty but not be attracted to her. You can think a woman is pretty but not attractive, but then get to know her and suddenly be attracted. You can think a woman is not pretty and not attractive, but then get to know her and think she is attractive. Once you think someone is attractive, by default you will (probably?) think they are pretty also. It's like a switch that automatically activates the other switch when it's turned on.

In my experience "pretty" seems to be more objective than attraction, and it is the variety in what people find attractive which creates all of the arguments stating that everyone likes different things, and that no one should feel bad about their looks because certainly someone will like you, etc. But that is attraction. To me it's an unfortunate but obvious truth that some people are just more "conventionally beautiful" (again, that's different from_ attraction_) than other people.


----------



## GunnyHighway (Sep 28, 2010)

bwidger85 said:


> You also have to factor in how attractive someone else is and whether or not that is a deciding factor on whom they find attractive. I honestly think the less physically attractive you are the more your open for other less attractive people and the more physically attractive you are the less your open to date less attractive people.


You're probaly right in thinking that, I'm pretty ugly to most people yet I fnid a lot of people attractive.


----------



## Lisa (Jul 8, 2006)

What is attractive can be very subjective though. I got to know a guy last night who I thought did not have a handsome face at all. I talked to him for an hour and when he mentioned that he had a child I found myself feeling disappointed.

I agree that some people have a pleasing look and everyone responds to them. But at a second glance they might seem less attractive and other might look good suddenly.


----------



## bsd3355 (Nov 30, 2005)

So yeah, basically some people are more "physically appealing" than others and that is not subjective.

Finding someone who your attracted to is subjective based on a variety of things.


OK, this seems about right. I would agree on the semantics part. When people say physical beauty is subjective I just can't find a reason to think they are right.


This is a really confusing topic and I think I just got a better grip of the concept of it from you guys/girls responding...

The problem with subjective attraction NOT based on looks is that looks play a large part in the first impression. Often people reject people based on first impression of looks. And I would even say that if you aren't what someone finds physically appealing, not even personality or any other quality beyond looks will really matter, and they still will be rejected. Am I not right?


----------



## Chris16 (Nov 1, 2010)

bwidger85 said:


> The problem with subjective attraction NOT based on looks is that looks play a large part in the first impression. Often people reject people based on first impression of looks. And I would even say that if you aren't what someone finds physically appealing, not even personality or any other quality beyond looks will really matter, and they still will be rejected. Am I not right?


I've always felt this way. As I said before, I think the only exception is cases when you develop a taste for someone's appearance once you understand their personality. But that's not always going to happen.

As I understand it, when you really like someone's personality but do not think they are attractive, you have a _friend_.


----------



## bsd3355 (Nov 30, 2005)

I really hate to sound pessimistic but I'm kind outta luck then because I think I can get most girls even though I'm rejected constantly.

It's like I can't accept the reality that I'm not as hansom or as "good" as I think. I just keep trying out my league no matter what and it causes problems. It sounds like I'm full of myself but I really don't know why I think this way about myself all the time when it probably isn't even true to begin with...


----------



## bsd3355 (Nov 30, 2005)

Chris16 said:


> I've always felt this way. As I said before, I think the only exception is cases when you develop a taste for someone's appearance once you understand their personality. But that's not always going to happen.
> 
> As I understand it, when you really like someone's personality but do not think they are attractive, you have a _friend_.


Exactly. I'm tired of hearing all this wishful thinking BS.

Believe it or not, I can accept being not that attractive. It's when I don't KNOW is what kills me.


----------



## komorikun (Jan 11, 2009)

bwidger85 said:


> The problem with subjective attraction NOT based on looks is that looks play a large part in the first impression. Often people reject people based on first impression of looks. And I would even say that if you aren't what someone finds physically appealing, not even personality or any other quality beyond looks will really matter, and they still will be rejected. Am I not right?


Some guys I'm totally not attracted to and even if they had a great personality and tons in common with me I still wouldn't be interested. But sometimes the guy's looks are iffy (after a beer or two I might be able to kiss him). If it's iffy, then personality, job, stuff in common, and how generous he is could sway me to be interested.


----------



## bsd3355 (Nov 30, 2005)

komorikun said:


> Some guys I'm totally not attracted to and even if they had a great personality and tons in common with me I still wouldn't be interested. But sometimes the guy's looks are iffy (after a beer or two I might be able to kiss him). If it's iffy, then personality, job, stuff in common, and how generous he is could sway me to be interested.


I feel the exact same way.


----------



## why not (Jan 18, 2012)

Bwidger, it may not be your looks that are affecting the way that girls see you. It is entirely possible that the way that you approach women is what turns them off. I've met a lot of good looking guys that come off in a way that turns me off just by the way they do it. It could be something that you're doing subconsciously. For many women, looks are not as important as guys think.


----------



## Lisa (Jul 8, 2006)

bwidger85 said:


> So yeah, basically some people are more "physically appealing" than others and that is not subjective.
> 
> Finding someone who your attracted to is subjective based on a variety of things.
> 
> ...


I agree to a certain degree. Sticking with the example of that guy I met last night: I would have rejected him after the first glance. That was solely based on his face. When I spoke to him though he turned out to be very likable and that in turn made me take a second look. I noticed a great body. I would never have paid attention to that before we spoke. After I had noticed the body I had another close look at the face and although it was still not beautiful it seemed more attractive than before.

At the same time.... I met another man a few weeks ago. He was not particularly handsome either at first glance. We spoke and he was nice. I took a second look at him but found nothing that really appealed to me. He never became attractive to me.

I would say that if someone isn't the stereotypical beauty they will have to try and get the attention in other ways. Once a woman begins to warm to you though she will almost certainly take a second look.


----------



## bsd3355 (Nov 30, 2005)

why not said:


> Bwidger, it may not be your looks that are affecting the way that girls see you. It is entirely possible that the way that you approach women is what turns them off. I've met a lot of good looking guys that come off in a way that turns me off just by the way they do it. It could be something that you're doing subconsciously. For many women, looks are not as important as guys think.


I can confidently say it's not my approach. I'm not needy. I'm a good conversationalist. I am polite, etc. It is not my approach.

The only problem I have approaching is sometimes I don't because I'm not confident enough in real life.


----------



## shynesshellasucks (May 10, 2008)

Looks are more objective than subjective. If a physically unattractive person wants to hook up with a physically attractive person then they are going to have to compensate for their looks, improve their looks, or both. Saying that looks are subjective is a lie and believing this will only serve as fake hopeful thinking.


----------



## Barette (Jan 17, 2012)

I think that handsomeness and beauty are kind of universal, but acttractiveness isn't. For instance, Patton Oswalt does not have good-looking features, but I find him attractive.


----------



## meatwad (Jul 13, 2006)

What you need is more real relationships. You change, and things start to become more clear to you. What you want, what you need.


----------



## bsd3355 (Nov 30, 2005)

meatwad said:


> What you need is more real relationships. You change, and things start to become more clear to you. What you want, what you need.


Things change and perspectives change, your right. But to say that I need a relationship when it's incredibly hard for me to get one that I want is like me saying to you to buy a Ferrari and then tell me if it runs better than your geo.


----------



## meatwad (Jul 13, 2006)

bwidger85 said:


> Things change and perspectives change, your right. But to say that I need a relationship when it's incredibly hard for me to get one that I want is like me saying to you to buy a Ferrari and then tell me if it runs better than your geo.


I just say this because you wrote about how you try to date into different leagues but keep getting rejected. You should perhaps set aside some of your expectations and 'league' notions, and date someone even if they are in a 'lower league'.

Nothing is permanent, you can always go back to your previous system if you find out it was right for you. But you'll learn stuff and break the stagnation... which is important.


----------



## bsd3355 (Nov 30, 2005)

meatwad said:


> I just say this because you wrote about how you try to date into different leagues but keep getting rejected. You should perhaps set aside some of your expectations and 'league' notions, and date someone even if they are in a 'lower league'.
> 
> Nothing is permanent, you can always go back to your previous system if you find out it was right for you. But you'll learn stuff and break the stagnation... which is important.


I have tried to date different standards. If it's not what I want I typically lose interest.


----------



## bsd3355 (Nov 30, 2005)

^Not so sure confidence has that big of an influence. I can be confident all day and have a good presence and still get rejected based on looks alone.


----------



## au Lait (Sep 8, 2010)

Have you never been walking down the street and noticed a person you thought was attractive and a person you thought was not so attractive holding hands? Or had a friend rave about how hot a person in their history class is, only to see the person and think "meh...they're ok I guess.."? Or what about celebrities. Any celebrities that are considered to be attractive by others that you find so-so?

Looks are subjective b/c if they weren't, only people who fall into one specific category appearance-wise would ever get laid/date/marry/etc. And they don't. 

It's the same with art, music, etc. Different people are drawn to different things. Not everyone will look at the same painting and call it a masterpiece.


----------



## DeeperUnderstanding (May 19, 2007)

I don't find every beautiful woman attractive. 

And average girls can become models, if I find their personality attractive.


----------



## calichick (Jul 30, 2010)

oh bwidger...what will it take to get you to realize looks aren't everything...


----------



## coldsorehighlighter (Jun 2, 2010)

bwidger85 said:


> It doesn't seem right to say that while the minority may find someone attractive while the majority doesn't agree, how that is enough to say physical attraction is subjective? Subjectivity seems more along the lines of 50/50 and not 80/100 or 90/100.


sub·jec·tive (s b-j k t v). adj. 1. a. Proceeding from or taking place in a person's mind rather than the external world.

It's my subjective opinion that Rhianna is not hot. (For example.)


----------



## Spineshark (Mar 1, 2011)

^ Agreed, She's so overrated


----------



## Doctorius (Sep 12, 2011)

Looks is something in between, neither entirely subjective nor entirely objective. They are some people that are genetically more handsome/beautiful than the rest of us based on the "critiria" our modern society has built. Most people will acknowledge them as attractive. But your face or your height isnt everything. There is the body and the way you dress. You can workout to improve your body and you can dress like a boss, then maybe you will be able to compete with the genetically superior looks-wise guys. Then as a guy above said, its all about presence, body language and how you act. Some people have it easy, its natural, and the way the move around and talk is like a hideously powerful charm.

Yesterday there was this girl I was talking to, she is probably 7/10 based on face and 6-6.5/10 based on body, but she is like 11/10 sexually attractive. She acts in a way that can get a man burning, she knows how to dress, she knows how to introduce herself, she knows when and where to get touchy and all those stuff. Its the little things that matter. She is neither smart nor the kindest person and you can't make meaningful conversations with her, but she is sooooo sexually attractive. She's got that "style", that style that attracts men. All her ex'es were WAY MORE up in the ladder of physical looks than her.

Another example:

1. There is a hot fit handsome guy that walks into a bar. He knows everyone inside, he knows the barman, the waitress... it's "his" place, he feels comfortable, he has confidence. He walks with confidence. He talks to everyone, he jokes around, he knows that it's his lair. Every girl will notice him. Guaranteed. 

2. There is another hot fit handsome guy that is shy and just enters a random bar. He just enters, sits and drinks a beer. Some girls will notice him sure, but it's not that big deal.

So the obvious choice based on attraction is the first guy. It's not always the guy that determines his attraction meter but his environment. 

Then of course, comes the personality thing and many more. Some people shine in those and some people fail in those. Every human being is different and unique, thats why you dont see 500 brad pitts when you walk down the street. And as a friend of mine told me; "Some people have looks, some people have brains. If I had to choose, brains would be it." Imagine the opportunities that come with the first and the opportunities that come with the second life-wise.


----------



## bsd3355 (Nov 30, 2005)

calichick said:


> oh bwidger...what will it take to get you to realize looks aren't everything...


I never said they were everything. I'm saying that physical appeal isn't as subjective as some would like to believe. If you got reasons to deny this then list them or else your not really saying much.


----------



## bsd3355 (Nov 30, 2005)

Sphere said:


> bwidger85 can you list in order of importance 5-10 things you feel make a person attractive starting with the most important to least important, I'm just curious how you see things yourself


OK, I will later in the day when I have the available time so watch for it...


----------



## calichick (Jul 30, 2010)

bwidger85 said:


> I never said they were everything. I'm saying that physical appeal isn't as subjective as some would like to believe. If you got reasons to deny this then list them or else your not really saying much.


Physical attractiveness (not taking into account personality/aura) of a person is based on

1) Subjective preferences (race/build/stature/hair/eye/skin color), and 
2) Objective features (symmetry/proportion of facial features/general health which is indicative of overall well being).

It is a combination of both subjective and objective perceptions..

Remind me why this matters again?


----------



## shynesshellasucks (May 10, 2008)

Sphere said:


> Your own argument supports subjectivity by saying a person has to compensate. If a beautiful person has a really average personality and an average person has a really beautiful personality which of two is going to be more attractive? Both traits are subjective and it's impossible to answer until you meet each person and decide for yourself and that's just two of the many traits a person has.
> 
> Physically hot people are hot clearly but that never has much effect on how you feel about them. In my entire life, school , work , social circles i've never developed a crush or feelings for what was considered the "hottest" girl and i'm sure everyone on this board has similar experiences.
> 
> The only time looks are objective is when people are searching for f**k buddies , one night stands and aren't looking for any kind of mental or emotional connection with the other person.


Well tell me this. How come there are guys that ask a whole bunch of women out and have little to no success, while other guys have a lot of success? It is obviously because of objective factors. If things like personality, looks and attraction in general were subjective, success/failure ratios would be about the same for every person, but it's not.


----------



## shynesshellasucks (May 10, 2008)

joinmartin said:


> Why would "success/failure ratios" be about the same for every person? People are variables not constants. One guy might ask out five women and have amazing success with all of them. Then go and ask out five more women and get turned down flat. Assumption based general trend thinking that ignores the fact that people are not constants does not prove that attraction is fundamentally objective.


I think an average guy can have success one day while fail the next. But then there are those guys that are below average or way below average that always seem to fail, while the above average guys have much more success than failure.


----------



## shynesshellasucks (May 10, 2008)

Sphere said:


> In my experiences that rarely has anything to do with how they look, It's more to do with there attitude and how they approach. Below average guys tend to slouch alot and approach with a mindset that there going to get turned down before they even speak.


If their confidence was the only thing they needed to improve on then they are not really below average in reality.



> Girls can spot that across a room and will make up there decision before they even open there mouths. Average and below average guys i know that approach confidently with a playful and fun attitude have a very good success rate and get positive responses all the time. One of my friends is butt ugly but can entertain a group of girls all evening on his own, He has the charisma and presence of several men combined


Maybe the butt ugly guy has really good social skills or has other things going for him compared to the others. I personally haven't seen much guys, if at all, that are ugly and date good looking girls. Most people that I see date someone on their same level of physical attractiveness.


----------



## bsd3355 (Nov 30, 2005)

au Lait said:


> Have you never been walking down the street and noticed a person you thought was attractive and a person you thought was not so attractive holding hands? Or had a friend rave about how hot a person in their history class is, only to see the person and think "meh...they're ok I guess.."? Or what about celebrities. Any celebrities that are considered to be attractive by others that you find so-so?
> 
> Looks are subjective b/c if they weren't, only people who fall into one specific category appearance-wise would ever get laid/date/marry/etc. And they don't.
> 
> It's the same with art, music, etc. Different people are drawn to different things. Not everyone will look at the same painting and call it a masterpiece.


You have good points.

I remember in my Human Relations class last year the textbook decribed couples tend to couple with those on a relative physical scale of attraction; it was a case proven so. I tend to believe this; however, I HAVE seen very unmatched couples but it seems rare. Maybe your right, but I wonder how much of the majority thinks this way or whether it's in the minority? I have also seen others studies that say physical attraction is not so subjective afterall, but you have good points to consider.


----------



## bsd3355 (Nov 30, 2005)

calichick said:


> Physical attractiveness (not taking into account personality/aura) of a person is based on
> 
> 1) Subjective preferences (race/build/stature/hair/eye/skin color), and
> 2) Objective features (symmetry/proportion of facial features/general health which is indicative of overall well being).
> ...


I see your point and I can't really argue with it. In this case, do you think weight is subjective?


----------



## bsd3355 (Nov 30, 2005)

joinmartin said:


> That is a point to be fair. Expectation has huge power. If you go into an interaction thinking you're somehow below average and will get a bad reaction from someone then you'll communicate that to the person you're approaching. Maybe unconsciously rather than consciously but the communication still travels. Which is why dating is tough when a less than helpful mindset has control of the way a person thinks and feels about themselves.


So your saying if a good looking guy who is negatively self-concious approaches a girl he will do worse than a not-so-good-looking guy who approaches the same girl confidently?


----------



## bsd3355 (Nov 30, 2005)

I would also have to argue that overall "health" physically is what is deemed as most attractive. This makes sense to me.


----------



## calichick (Jul 30, 2010)

bwidger85 said:


> I see your point and I can't really argue with it. In this case, do you think weight is subjective?


of course it is



bwidger85 said:


> So your saying if a good looking guy who is negatively self-concious approaches a girl he will do worse than a not-so-good-looking guy who approaches the same girl confidently?


Depends how not so good looking that guy is. That paired with confidence is often times seen as cocky and a turn off...He is that type of guy that girls call *CREEPER*.

Oh and by the way, who said women are not attracted to good looking guys who are self conscious about themselves? Is that basically hot but doesn't know it? lool


----------



## jonny neurotic (Jan 20, 2011)

Sphere said:


> This guy married Christina Aguilera and had a kid with her.


I believe the appropriate phrase is "Like a boss"...

On the OP. Although different people are into different things there is a constant in human beauty. The 1:1.618 ratio. Any significant deviation from this would be regarded as odd looking or even ugly.

Here is the Golden Ration in action.










It applies to the rest of the body too. The waist to the ground should be 1.618 times the hight of the waist to the top of the head. The waist to the bottom of the neck, 1.618 times the distance from the bottom of the neck to the top of the head and so on. Other wise you would say the person has short legs or some such. As it happens I have some what of a large head. Well, can't win 'em all...


----------



## bsd3355 (Nov 30, 2005)

calichick said:


> Oh and by the way, who said women are not attracted to good looking guys who are self conscious about themselves? Is that basically hot but doesn't know it? lool


I agree with this. I think if you get the ball rolling you've done most the work you need to do as the "aggressor". The rest is just kinda steering it the right way from there on out. Confidence helps to get the job done but confidence isn't always the culprit in someone else's decision.

I always link rejection mainly to my looks. Maybe I'll start cutting that down a little now; it'll be difficult at first. I'll try to keep in mind other factors.


----------



## calichick (Jul 30, 2010)

joinmartin said:


> No, that would be "hot but you don't him because he hides in the corner" guy. It's not that he's self conscious. It's that he just doesn't show up on your radar.


Lol it's not like he's transparent. Good looks are recognizable even if someone is timid or does not have a commanding presence.

If anything, an attractive fellow hurts his chances by not being as socially available as possible and missing opportunities at maximizing his potential. Such as, he is admired from afar but beyond that it gets more difficult.



> I always link rejection mainly to my looks. Maybe I'll start cutting that down a little now; it'll be difficult at first. I'll try to keep in mind other factors.


As I always say, looks draw you in, personality keeps you there.


----------



## bsd3355 (Nov 30, 2005)

joinmartin said:


> Obsessing over looks leads to some real darkness. Trust me on that one. Indeed, if you want to cut out the whole "looks thinking" thing, go and look at PUA Hate. That lot are angry women haters who are obsessed with looks, seeing life as some sort of competition, letting their self hatred rip their lives apart etc.
> 
> Now, obviously, you're nothing like those nut jobs. But obsessing over looks leads down the path to where those nut jobs live. It's not a nice path to walk. Concentrate on being in the moment with a girl.


I have a feeling this is going to help me tremendously, and not because it changes the perception for the girl but mainly because it keep my perception positive. As you've witnessed, if my perception is at odds or confused about something I'll _really_ try to look for solutions because it bothers me. Most likely, I will ponder this question again to myself soon. I'll really try to think a little differently. I find it to be a very complex subject because of so many variables involved; sometimes I don't think people can find answers but this will help me regardless I think.

I'm not into PUA stuff (although some is pretty interesting), but are you saying these PUA Hate guys are _cutting _out looks as a variable, or are you saying they obsess about it too much? I kinda didn't get what you wrote there...


----------



## bsd3355 (Nov 30, 2005)

calichick said:


> As I always say, looks draw you in, personality keeps you there.


I think the only problem I have with this common saying is that it doesn't really tell you how important looks versus personality is, but I would guess starting out it's mainly looks that is SUBJECTIVE to the individual and then after the looks it's more personality that is also subjective. What's your take on this?


----------



## bsd3355 (Nov 30, 2005)

joinmartin said:


> In a metaphorical sense that's pretty much what it can be like sometimes.
> 
> If he or she has so little presence that they blend into the background then their good looks are not recognisable because you can't see them. You haven't noticed the person so you can't see their looks. In order for you to see or judge the looks they have or do not have they have to make their presence felt.
> 
> ...


I kind of disagree with this because when I had SA I tried everything not to be noticed and girls would approach me. Now that I've gotten ugly (jk [kinda]) it doesn't matter whether I stand out or not because looks do matter in that sense.

Also, think about attractive girls. I'll notice an attractive girl whether she is shy or illusive or not. People have to be extremely illusive to not be seen entirely.


----------



## calichick (Jul 30, 2010)

joinmartin said:


> If he or she has so little presence that they blend into the background then their good looks are not recognisable because you can't see them. You haven't noticed the person so you can't see their looks. In order for you to see or judge the looks they have or do not have they have to make their presence felt.
> 
> It's not that they have to look like they own the place. It's that they actually have to be in the moment with the other person enough so that the other person actually notices them.


Huh? lol That's simply not true. Example, 100 person lecture class. No interaction whatsoever, just mindless note taking. From the first week, I'll have immediately spotted the guy I'm most attracted to, I won't even know what his voice sounds like or what his name is or who he is...but by his looks he is captivating. In the past, that guy has been timid, he doesn't have a strong presence. He doesn't participate, he just goes along. But that is my type of guy and I have my eyes set on him.



> Again, if he doesn't have much presence then he's not even being admired from a far. You don't notice everything that is out there in a room or situation. The human brain cannot cope with that much information. We delete, distort and generalise. If the guy doesn't make his presence felt at all then you simply don't notice him.


I feel that introverts/SA sufferers have a heightened sense of intuitiveness and general observational capacity...We are very much aware of our surroundings, moreso than the average person...Does anyone else feel this way?


----------



## bsd3355 (Nov 30, 2005)

calichick said:


> I feel that introverts/SA sufferers have a heightened sense of intuitiveness and general observational capacity...We are very much aware of our surroundings, moreso than the average person...Does anyone else feel this way?


I don't think we have any more of an aware consciousness ability than others but I do think we are more consciously aware of it due to our own insecurities; we focus on it more. (_shouldn't say "we"--I don't really have it anymore, but I'm still consciously aware of stuff around me just not as heightened because I don't care as much depending on the circumstance_)
*
*EDIT (rephrased):*
Actually, I may still be just as consciously aware of my surrounding now without SA but the main difference is my perception of myself and those surroundings, as in it's not so much a negative perception anymore. My proof of this is when I was younger before I developed SA -- I was at the height of positive self-esteem but I was VERY conscious of my surroundings and myself, but it actually helped me socialize because I was very empathetic and people would appreciate that (as the saying goes, "Treat others how you'd want to be treated"). I think SA'ers are consciously aware but it's just more negative than most people.


----------



## bsd3355 (Nov 30, 2005)

So I guess in the grand scheme: looks matter subjectively (to a degree).

"Yes"

_(pats self on head)_


----------



## calichick (Jul 30, 2010)

bwidger85 said:


> I think the only problem I have with this common saying is that it doesn't really tell you how important looks versus personality is, but I would guess starting out it's mainly looks that is SUBJECTIVE to the individual and then after the looks it's more personality that is also subjective. What's your take on this?


Yes, looks are subjective to the individual, which has a very strong influence on making that personality seem attractive as well...

Would that same personality be attractive on someone else? No.


----------



## calichick (Jul 30, 2010)

joinmartin said:


> Let's look at this. If you're scanning the room looking for people you like the look of then you're not really taking in everyone that is there. Not in equal detail anyway. The guy you notice stands out because he has some sort of presence. He is actually there enough for you to notice him in order to make some sort of judgement on his looks.* You have your eyes set on him because you can see him. And you can see him because he has some sort of presence.*


I think that is overanalyzing the situation and making it seem less superficial than it is.

His presence *IS* his looks. It's illogical to say otherwise because there is no reason why anybody in particular would stand out in this type of class. It is like a lecture hall, every individual is on display in a dimly lit room, where no one talks other than the teacher.


----------



## bsd3355 (Nov 30, 2005)

calichick said:


> Yes, looks are subjective to the individual, which has a very strong influence on making that personality seem attractive as well...
> 
> Would that same personality be attractive on someone else? No.


awesome! I think I finally got it! :boogie

ya'll schooled me on this one right huurrr

also, if anyone still disagrees, i'd try to challenge it if i were you (just sayin)...


----------



## calichick (Jul 30, 2010)

bwidger85 said:


> awesome! I think I finally got it! :boogie
> 
> ya'll schooled me on this one right huurrr


I don't really understand how this thread was helpful and could positively affect your situation LOL


----------



## komorikun (Jan 11, 2009)

I noticed in relationships where I was less physically attracted to the guy, I felt much less jealousy. Didn't really worry about where they were or who they were with.


----------



## bsd3355 (Nov 30, 2005)

joinmartin said:


> You'd notice her because she has some sort of presence in your world.
> 
> They've done experiments that pretty much prove how bad our observation skills are and how vulnerable our observational skills are. We don't automatically see what is actually out there. I've just been to a gig. It was packed in there. I looked around the room several times throughout the night. Did I notice every single person in that room? No I did not. Certain people had a certain type of presence that drew me to them. I noticed them because they had some sort of presence in my world view. But I didn't really notice the other people who were at the gig.
> 
> ...


wow... that's deep... but i think i am beginning to see your point.


----------



## bsd3355 (Nov 30, 2005)

calichick said:


> I don't really understand how this thread was helpful and could positively affect your situation LOL


because it'll give me the confidence to keep trying more in real life; it'll keep my views consistent, and it will help me take rejection less personally. most my rejections come from dating sites anyway which throws out a lot of attributing attraction factors based on first impression... also, competition is extremely fierce online for males in my opinion...

i think these are good reasons


----------



## calichick (Jul 30, 2010)

joinmartin said:


> Next thing you know, your mind is just looking for your keys. It's not noticing the ceiling or the sky outside. It's not noticing half the the things in the room you're in. It's just looking for your keys.


Hahahaha omg, this analogy just confirms that presence is dependent on what you are looking for which is dependent on looks.

You are not noticing the other things, because you are not looking for a sky or a ceiling. *You know that they are there*, but you are looking for something in _particular_...


----------



## bsd3355 (Nov 30, 2005)

calichick said:


> Hahahaha omg, this analogy just confirms that presence is dependent on what you are looking for which is dependent on looks.
> 
> You are not noticing the other things, because you are not looking for a sky or a ceiling. *You know that they are there*, but you are looking for something in _particular_...


I think he thought you were talking physical appeal with concern to objectivity when in fact you were talking about subjectivity


----------



## bsd3355 (Nov 30, 2005)

komorikun said:


> I noticed in relationships where I was less physically attracted to the guy, I felt much less jealousy. Didn't really worry about where they were or who they were with.


Same for me with girls. They are less valuable to you I would expect, which makes sense as to why you'd act that way.


----------



## calichick (Jul 30, 2010)

bwidger85 said:


> I think he thought you were talking physical appeal with concern to objectivity when in fact you were talking about subjectivity


No he is saying that people have a certain presence which attracts someone before the looks even factor into the equation.

And I'm saying presence is dependent on looks in the first place.



bwidger85 said:


> it'll keep my views consistent, and it will help me take rejection less personally. most my rejections come from dating sites anyway which throws out a lot of attributing attraction factors based on first impression... also, competition is extremely fierce online for males in my opinion...


Dating sites have a more objective based attraction component compared to the real world


----------



## bsd3355 (Nov 30, 2005)

calichick said:


> No he is saying that people have a certain presence which attracts someone before the looks even factor into the equation.
> 
> And I'm saying presence is dependent on looks in the first place.


ah, yeah, then i'm with you on that one. if someone has a good presence (energy) but they aren't what i'm looking for physically then it's hard for me to feel romantically attracted to them -- emotionally maybe; romantically, not so much.


----------



## bsd3355 (Nov 30, 2005)

calichick said:


> Dating sites have a more objective based attraction component compared to the real world


I agree, but I also think competition is more fierce as well for males, which makes online dating a much harder prospect. I've seen -- what I think -- physically attractive guys send out dozens of messages and not get any but maybe 1 or 2 messages in return, and some don't get any back out of a dozen. I've kind of accepted that's just how it is online for most guys, and so it isn't too personal for me when I get rejected online. In real life, I do take it more personally than I'd like because my perception is somewhat skewed negatively.


----------



## Ape in space (May 31, 2010)

If you take person A and ask a large number of people to each assign the person a score from 0 to 10 to indicate how attractive they think the person is, and then you plot the number of votes for each score, you will get a distribution peaked at a certain score. Then if you do the same for person B, you will get a distribution peaked at another score. Let's say person B's distribution is peaked at a noticeably higher number than person A's. This indicates that there is some objective factor that makes person B's distribution be shifted toward a higher score than person A's - i.e. a factor that tends to coordinate the responses of many people, be it societal/media influence or an innate biological preference.

But alongside these objective factors, there is a subjective element, as evidenced by the fact that there is a _distribution_ of scores rather than everyone just voting for the same score. So even if someone's distribution is peaked at a low score, there will be a small number of people who voted for a very high score because the distribution spreads out that far.

So that's what it means to say that physical attraction is both objective and subjective.


----------



## calichick (Jul 30, 2010)

bwidger85 said:


> ah, yeah, then i'm with you on that one. if someone has a good presence (energy) but they aren't what i'm looking for physically then it's hard for me to feel romantically attracted to them -- emotionally maybe; romantically, not so much.


But I think that some of his logic can be applied to certain people in this world....i.e. Drew Peterson and his young wives.

I've just never experienced that lol. Looks are important for me haha



> I've seen -- what I think -- physically attractive guys send out dozens of messages and not get any but maybe 1 or 2 messages in return, and some don't get any back out of a dozen.


What do you mean you've seen it?


----------



## bsd3355 (Nov 30, 2005)

Ape in space said:


> If you take person A and ask a large number of people to assign the person a number to indicate how attractive they think the person is, and then you plot the number of people who voted for each number, you will get a distribution peaked at a certain value. Then if you do the same for person B, you will get a distribution peaked at another value. Let's say person B's distribution is peaked at a noticeably higher number than person A's. This indicates that there is some objective factor that makes person B's distribution higher than person A's - i.e. a factor that tends to coordinate the responses of many people, be it societal/media influence or an innate biological preference.
> 
> But alongside these objective factors, there is a subjective element, as evidenced by the fact that there is a _distribution_ of values rather than everyone just voting for the same number. So even if someone's distribution is peaked at a low number, there will be a small number of people who voted for a very high number because the distribution spreads out that far.
> 
> So that's what it means to say that physical attraction is both objective and subjective.


God dang, this is what I'm talking about here -- there is like so many variables to consider no wonder I haven't fully grasped this whole thing yet!

All I know is that my brain is beginning to fry so I need to stop thinking about this for a while... but I do agree with what you've said.

In a short sentence, would you say that physical appeal is more objective to a large population than it is subjectively to individuals? In other words, objective physical attraction is more present in groups compared to subjective attraction per individual _(i really don't know how else to word this)_?


----------



## Ape in space (May 31, 2010)

bwidger85 said:


> God dang, this is what I'm talking about here -- there is like so many variables to consider no wonder I haven't fully grasped this whole thing yet!
> 
> All I know is that my brain is beginning to fry so I need to stop thinking about this for a while... but I do agree with what you've said.
> 
> In a short sentence, would you say that physical appeal is more objective to a large population than it is subjectively to individuals? In other words, objective physical attraction is more present in groups compared to subjective attraction per individual _(i really don't know how else to word this)_?


I think I vaguely understand what you're saying: How important is what a large number of people think of a person's attractiveness (i.e. objective factors) in predicting whether an individual considers them attractive?

That depends on what the distribution looks like. If the width of the distribution (characterized e.g. by the standard deviation) is large, then subjectivity is a more important factor because there will be a relatively large number of people whose votes differ significantly from the mean value (i.e. the peak). If the width is small, it means that most people's votes will be clustered fairly close to the mean value, in which case we can say that objective factors are more important. So which one do I think is the case? I'm not exactly sure. It's probably somewhere in between those extremes. Also different people's distributions will have different widths, so the relative importance of objective factors to subjective factors will be slightly different for each person.

But anyway, the main point is that objectivity / subjectivity in attraction can be understood more simply by seeing them in terms of a definite measure like means / standard deviations of distributions.


----------



## Visionary (Apr 13, 2010)

I don't look at all the "hot" guys that walk into the room because I don't find all those "hot" guys hot. Even if there was an attractive looking guy, I would take a glance and continue what I was doing, probably reading or playing videogames. I find conversation and what a person has to offer (what they know, personality, etc.) more interesting. 

This is just one view point, it does vary.


----------



## shynesshellasucks (May 10, 2008)

Ape in space said:


> If you take person A and ask a large number of people to assign the person a number to indicate how attractive they think the person is, and then you plot the number of people who voted for each number, you will get a distribution peaked at a certain value. Then if you do the same for person B, you will get a distribution peaked at another value. Let's say person B's distribution is peaked at a noticeably higher number than person A's. This indicates that there is some objective factor that makes person B's distribution higher than person A's - i.e. a factor that tends to coordinate the responses of many people, be it societal/media influence or an innate biological preference.
> 
> But alongside these objective factors, there is a subjective element, as evidenced by the fact that there is a _distribution_ of values rather than everyone just voting for the same number. So even if someone's distribution is peaked at a low number, there will be a small number of people who voted for a very high number because the distribution spreads out that far.
> 
> So that's what it means to say that physical attraction is both objective and subjective.


[/thread]


----------



## bsd3355 (Nov 30, 2005)

joinmartin said:


> On my way home today I probably walked past a lot of people. But I didn't notice them so I can't judge them. I can't judge whether I'm attracted to them or not because I didn't notice them. They had no presence in my world view or my field of vision. They were quite possibly there (unless my home town has become a ghost town) but I did not notice them. They had no presence in my world view.


Basically, what your saying is that someone may be physically attractive to you but that doesn't always mean you'll acknowledge they are there because you don't see them.

I really don't know why this is important to what we are discussing. Isn't this an obvious phenomenon?


----------



## bsd3355 (Nov 30, 2005)

Ape in space said:


> That depends on what the distribution looks like. If the width of the distribution (characterized e.g. by the standard deviation) is large, then subjectivity is a more important factor because there will be a relatively large number of people whose votes differ significantly from the mean value (i.e. the peak). If the width is small, it means that most people's votes will be clustered fairly close to the mean value, in which case we can say that objective factors are more important. So which one do I think is the case? I'm not exactly sure. It's probably somewhere in between those extremes. Also different people's distributions will have different widths, so the relative importance of objective factors to subjective factors will be slightly different for each person.


Define "distribution" in your examples.


----------



## bsd3355 (Nov 30, 2005)

calichick said:


> What do you mean you've seen it?


I've seen it on youtube mainly. I've also tried one time using a profile online with what I deemed an attractive man's image and the results were maybe 1 or 2 emails more than my own with the same amount of sent messages. I have also personally known guys that I wouldn't deem unattractive have the same experience on POF -- maybe not ALL dating sites, but on POF nonetheless.

Obviously, you can say youtube isn't always accurate because the guys could be lying, etc, but they seemed pretty sincere in what they were saying. You could probably also say that my vision of what I think an physically attractive male looks like is subjective so it's hard to say whether my view on attractive men also having little response rate on POF is an objective measurement.


----------



## komorikun (Jan 11, 2009)

I think I am attracted to what would typically be considered an attractive male. But I also have (subjective) preferences that are not the norm. For example, I am not attracted to guys that have blonde/brown hair or look like they could be in my family. I've almost exclusively dated Japanese men and Latinos. Many women are real into tall men that are over 6 feet. I prefer a bit shorter; about 5'10" is my ideal and any bigger than that is slightly negative in my book.

If you take a look at some of the "what women want" threads, you'll see that there is quite a bit of variation. I would guess there is more variation in regards to non-physical traits. I saw that many women in that thread want to date a Christian, that does no drugs, and doesn't want much sex!!

http://www.socialanxietysupport.com/forum/f24/ok-sas-girls-157826/


----------



## Ape in space (May 31, 2010)

joinmartin said:


> And besides, majority opinion is not automatically objective. Fifteen thousand people can tell me that hens lay golf balls. Does not make it accurate. It just makes it fifteen thousand people giving me their subjective opinion that hens lay golf balls.


But then you get the question of _why_ 15,000 people are saying that hens lay golf balls. If that many people are saying it, there must be some factor that's making them say that - an objective factor. Objective doesn't necessarily mean correct (at least not in the sense I'm using it) - it is referring to factors that can be traced to externally verifiable phenomena like media influence or whatever. So it's likely that some influential person went around convincing people that hens lay golf balls and that's why people believe it. Or something like that.

(Of course, you could then ask if there's anything that is truly subjective, considering the possibility that any behaviour or opinion could be traced to objective factors like neural impulses. But that's not a thread I want to pull at because we would have to get into free will vs. determinism. But for practical purposes we can say that 'objective' refers to relatively simple factors that influence people to think one way or another, while 'subjective' refers to a more complex interplay of thoughts inside a person's head which causes them to come to a difficult-to-predict and highly variable opinion. Don't know if any of that makes sense.)


----------



## bsd3355 (Nov 30, 2005)

joinmartin said:


> People are variables and so are their opinions on who they find attractive.
> 
> One result would not indicate the presence of an objective factor. If you ran the same experiment again using the same people you could get different results.
> 
> And besides, majority opinion is not automatically objective. Fifteen thousand people can tell me that hens lay golf balls. Does not make it accurate. It just makes it fifteen thousand people giving me their subjective opinion that hens lay golf balls.


Wow, I admire your depth of understanding. I agree.

Then that would mean it's nearly impossible for objectivity with relation to physical appeal?

Also, I guess this means that beauty truly is in the eye of the beholder?

makes sense to me


----------



## bsd3355 (Nov 30, 2005)

Ape in space said:


> But then you get the question of _why_ 15,000 people are saying that hens lay golf balls. If that many people are saying it, there must be some factor that's making them say that - an objective factor. Objective doesn't necessarily mean correct (at least not in the sense I'm using it) - it is referring to factors that can be traced to externally verifiable phenomena like media influence or whatever. So it's likely that some influential person went around convincing people that hens lay golf balls and that's why people believe it. Or something like that.
> 
> (Of course, you could then ask if there's anything that is truly subjective, considering the possibility that any behaviour or opinion could be traced to objective factors like neural impulses. But that's not a thread I want to pull at because we would have to get into free will vs. determinism. But for practical purposes we can say that 'objective' refers to relatively simple factors that influence people to think one way or another, while 'subjective' refers to a more complex interplay of thoughts inside a person's head which causes them to come to a difficult-to-predict and highly variable opinion. Don't know if any of that makes sense.)


yes, i was about to say objectivity doesn't necessary mean absolutely true but more of a majority vote.

*Definition for objectivity:*

Web definitions:judgment _based on observable phenomena_ and uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices.

So I can still say that looks can be objective as well as subjective.

Given this, is objectivity more appealing than subjectivity regarding physical attraction? In other words, is physical appeal objectively more convincing than subjectively?

Personally, I would think objective physical appeal is more important overall for people.


----------



## Ape in space (May 31, 2010)

bwidger85 said:


> yes, i was about to say objectivity doesn't necessary mean absolutely true but more of a majority vote. Correct?


Yeah, something like that. Some external factor that influences a large number of people in a particular direction.


----------



## calichick (Jul 30, 2010)

bwidger85 said:


> I've seen it on youtube mainly. I've also tried one time using a profile online with what I deemed an attractive man's image and the results were maybe 1 or 2 emails more than my own with the same amount of sent messages. I have also personally known guys that I wouldn't deem unattractive have the same experience on POF -- maybe not ALL dating sites, but on POF nonetheless.
> 
> Obviously, you can say youtube isn't always accurate because the guys could be lying, etc, but they seemed pretty sincere in what they were saying. *You could probably also say that my vision of what I think an physically attractive male looks like is subjective* so it's hard to say whether my view on attractive men also having little response rate on POF is an objective measurement.


What did he look like? :lol


----------



## bsd3355 (Nov 30, 2005)

So far, my understanding of physical appeal is this (in order of importance to people):

Objective ---> subjective

Physical appeal is both objective and subjective; although, objectivity (majority vote) comes first then it's subjectivity (personal preference).

Once again, I think objective physical appeal relates to overall _health_ of the individual which also means that we seek partners that can pass on healthy genes. Subjectivity of physical appeal is anything beyond the objective healthy standard. If higher subjective appeal is present with someone then that means that they first had to pass the objective appeal standard and later weighed subjective appeal more valuable overall, which means most people pass through a objective physical screening before given the chance to be subjectively favored.


----------



## bsd3355 (Nov 30, 2005)

calichick said:


> What did he look like? :lol


haha w/e.... just take my word on it, I tried to pick a guy that seemed like the objective physically attractive type.

I thought he was much more hansom than me by a long shot. let's just say that.


----------



## bsd3355 (Nov 30, 2005)

calichick said:


> What did he look like? :lol


actually, he looked like this:










What can I say? I have good taste.


----------



## Ape in space (May 31, 2010)

bwidger85 said:


> Define "distribution" in your examples.


Sorry, I just realized my original response was confusing as hell because I used the word 'number' to refer to two completely different things at the same time. I corrected the response below and included a diagram of the types of distributions I'm talking about. A distribution is, for example, a bell curve like in the diagram which indicates how many people voted for each score.












Ape in space said:


> If you take person A and ask a large group of people to each assign the person a score from 0 to 10 to indicate how attractive they think the person is, and then you plot the number of votes that each score received, you will get a distribution peaked at a certain score (5 in the above diagram). Then if you do the same for person B, you will get a distribution peaked at another score (7 in the above diagram). Let's say person B's distribution is peaked at a noticeably higher score than person A's. This indicates that there is some objective factor that makes person B's distribution be shifted toward a higher score than person A's - i.e. a factor that tends to coordinate the responses of many people, be it societal/media influence or an innate biological preference.
> 
> But alongside these objective factors, there is a subjective element, as evidenced by the fact that there is a _distribution_ of values for any given person rather than everyone just voting for the same number. So even if someone's distribution is peaked at a low score, there will be a small number of people who voted for a very high score because the distribution spreads out that far.
> 
> So that's what it means to say that physical attraction is both objective and subjective.


----------



## calichick (Jul 30, 2010)

joinmartin said:


> You can't make a judgement on looks until you've noticed someone is actually there.* Presence makes someone more visible. *
> 
> It goes like this:
> 
> ...


You and your presence!! Damnit!! :lol LOL

Noticing a person has absolutely nothing to do with them having a higher level of presence than others.

The last story you gave was not about presence at all but about you not being not being physically cognizant of your surroundings. Just because you're not in tune to the environment around you doesn't mean anything about them having presence or not.

"If he or she has so little presence that they blend into the background then their good looks are not recognisable because you can't see them. You haven't noticed the person so you can't see their looks. In order for you to see or judge the looks they have or do not have they have to make their presence felt."

Of course a loud person is going to cause more noise than others, but that has nothing to do with not noticing everyone else....If anything those with louder/rambunctious presence are just annoying and do it so they can compensate for their lack of other positive features..

My point is= someone not being mentally present or unaware doesn't mean that I or the observer will notice them less........

People are noticed based upon their appeal to the observer................An unattractive person with grand presence isn't necessarily going to garner extra attention.


----------



## bsd3355 (Nov 30, 2005)

Ape in space said:


> Sorry, I just realized my original response was confusing as hell because I used the word 'number' to refer to two completely different things at the same time. I corrected the response below and included a diagram of the types of distributions I'm talking about. A distribution is, for example, a bell curve like in the diagram which indicates how many people voted for each score.


so do you think this is an accurate representation of what objective physical attraction is? or do you think they are probably relatively the same and that Person A could be higher on a different day given subjectivity for that specific day?


----------



## calichick (Jul 30, 2010)

bwidger85 said:


> So far, my understanding of physical appeal is this (in order of importance to people):
> 
> Objective ---> subjective


There is no "order" of importance. They are equally important in terms of priorities.

It's more like objective + subjective appeal = attractive

WHY DOES THIS MAKE A DIFFERENCE? AGHH :afr

Are you trying to understand the process of rejection?


----------



## bsd3355 (Nov 30, 2005)

calichick said:


> There is no "order" of importance. They are equally important in terms of priorities.
> 
> It's more like objective + subjective appeal = attractive
> 
> ...


hell yeah i am


----------



## calichick (Jul 30, 2010)

bwidger85 said:


> hell yeah i am


Maybe you are not universally appealing to many women.


----------



## bsd3355 (Nov 30, 2005)

calichick said:


> Maybe you are not universally appealing to many women.


maybe. that's one reason i ask questions. by my responses to this thread im pretty sure you would of guessed i thought of that by now


----------



## calichick (Jul 30, 2010)

bwidger85 said:


> maybe. that's one reason i ask questions. by my responses to this thread im pretty sure you would of guessed i thought of that by now


Yea but you're asking the wrong questions then, the question should be "What type of women are subjectively attracted to me?" If you already realize you're not objectively attractive, then you can eliminate all the options which come with that scenario ..Under the subjective umbrella comes the personality influences and all that fun stuff..

by the way, PoF is such a fun site for girls lol....I can easily get 60+ messages in one day...it's very unbalanced the female/male ratio there. =/


----------



## Blue Bird (Jun 28, 2004)

Well there are people that the majority find attractive, there's uncommon beauty.... Some people like certain things, have certain types. My sister's taste is completely different than mine. That how I understand looks to be subjective. Not everyone find the same thing beautiful even if all heads turn they'll be chances where someone will be like, man 'she's ugly'. Also some people only like certain ethnicities or features. No matter how how one woman of a particular race may be, they be the the person that doesn't like black girls, white girls, Asians, etc... I guess attractiveness is subjective. People like what they like.


----------



## Blue Bird (Jun 28, 2004)

calichick said:


> Maybe you are not universally appealing to many women.


I have super curly hair, like an afro and I don't plan on ever straightening. A lot of guys like the long, silky, hair no matter what race they are. She for some people this decreases my attractiveness. I know that the guys that do in up approaching me don't mind my big hair. The same with how I dress. A guy who likes really feminine dressing women or those that wear skimpy clothes are probably not going to think I'm hot or like my style. Just thought I'd mention that.


----------



## mysterioussoul (Jul 17, 2010)

MavenMI6Agent009 said:


> Looks are a physical characteristic while apperance is how you dress; imo


 
agreed. sometimes when i find a person attractive it is based on their whole appearance.

some people are universally physically attractive that a majority of people would find attractive but a majority of people are average looking and therefore the idiom that beauty is in the eye of the beholder is relevant.

people are attracted to a lot of different factors and it's beautiful and for someone like me it gives me hope.


----------



## bsd3355 (Nov 30, 2005)

calichick said:


> Yea but you're asking the wrong questions then, the question should be "What type of women are subjectively attracted to me?" If you already realize you're not objectively attractive, then you can eliminate all the options which come with that scenario ..Under the subjective umbrella comes the personality influences and all that fun stuff..
> 
> by the way, PoF is such a fun site for girls lol....I can easily get 60+ messages in one day...it's very unbalanced the female/male ratio there. =/


Holy ****. I might as well drop POF then. 60 messages in a day? Even worse than I thought...

How am I supposed to know my odds or even what I'm capable of I deal with that kind of competition? And you wonder why guys ask these questions...

Why do you use POF? I wouldn't mind seeing a picture of you because obviously if your getting that much mail a day then your objectively good looking. A lot of the time someone's demeanor also indicates their level of attraction and I also thought that from you.

btw, i'm glad a girl was honest and said her email influx because it only proves my point how one-sided it is, but i guess it's kinda like that in life in general when the guy usually is the aggressor -- not always, but mostly. also, this depends on the girl too. so in a biological way, i guess i shouldn't complain as a man if that's just the way it is. I should probably accept it like the girls who do nothing and get attention.


----------



## bsd3355 (Nov 30, 2005)

For those of you who believe in some sort of objective physical attraction, what physical things are objective with relation to attraction in your view?


----------



## calichick (Jul 30, 2010)

bwidger85 said:


> For those of you who believe in some sort of objective physical attraction, what physical things are objective with relation to attraction in your view?


height
weight
build
defined facial structure

The rest (skin tone, eyes, hair) can be mixed and matched with the above combination


----------



## bsd3355 (Nov 30, 2005)

calichick said:


> height
> weight
> build
> defined facial structure
> ...


This is what I would think as well. Although, some would argue for a certain height -- weight seems pretty consistent I would think. Facial structure makes sense because having a mismatched face would be considered unattractive I would think.

I would say in order of importance with physical objectivity:

1. Facial structure
2. weight
3. build

I would say height is indicative of subjectivity for males but not so much for women.

I think you mentioned this, but health is an objective physical appeal relative to all these things.


----------



## calichick (Jul 30, 2010)

bwidger85 said:


> Holy ****. I might as well drop POF then. 60 messages in a day? Even worse than I thought...
> 
> How am I supposed to know my odds or even what I'm capable of I deal with that kind of competition? And you wonder why guys ask these questions...
> 
> ...


I use PoF because I'm anti social.

I don't think your odds matter, you'll never be able to figure that out. Just don't take rejection personally and you'll be fine. Out of those 60 messages, I usually narrow it down to 5 people. That's like 92% rejection rate ? lol


----------



## bsd3355 (Nov 30, 2005)

calichick said:


> I use PoF because I'm anti social.
> 
> I don't think your odds matter, you'll never be able to figure that out. Just don't take rejection personally and you'll be fine. Out of those 60 messages, I usually narrow it down to 5 people. That's like 92% rejection rate ? lol


I think odds do matter to a degree. If someone is getting 60+ messages a day it matters; if someone is getting 10 emails a day, not so much.

But yeah, somethings are out of my control. I just like to understand the overall picture mostly. Not taking rejection personally is something I really want to work on or else I wouldn't care in general about it.


----------



## calichick (Jul 30, 2010)

bwidger85 said:


> This is what I would think as well. Although, some would argue for a certain height -- weight seems pretty consistent I would think. Facial structure makes sense because having a mismatched face would be considered unattractive I would think.
> 
> I would say in order of importance with physical objectivity:
> 
> ...


Yea I've seen attractive guys whose bodies kind of detracted from their faces (really too skinny).

An attractive body in my opinion, compensates for an odd facial feature lol


----------



## bsd3355 (Nov 30, 2005)

calichick said:


> An attractive body in my opinion, compensates for an odd facial feature lol


To a degree, at least for me. I've seen really good looking bodies on girls and their face was jacked up and it threw me off. No one is perfect and I respect that but I'm just saying how it is. It may or not be a shortcoming of mine but no need to lie about it.


----------



## shynesshellasucks (May 10, 2008)

calichick said:


> An attractive body in my opinion, compensates for an odd facial feature lol


Mostly just for casual sex IMO.


----------



## calichick (Jul 30, 2010)

bwidger85 said:


> To a degree, at least for me. I've seen really good looking bodies on girls and their face was jacked up and it threw me off. No one is perfect and I respect that but I'm just saying how it is. It may or not be a shortcoming of mine but no need to lie about it.


well obviously, no one wants a butterface. I was talking about an odd nose or something lol

For me it goes

1) Facial Structure/Race
2) Height
3) Build

If the face is there, height doesn't matter SO much, if the height is there, body doesn't matter THAT much.


----------



## calichick (Jul 30, 2010)

bwidger85 said:


> I think odds do matter to a degree. If someone is getting 60+ messages a day it matters; if someone is getting 10 emails a day, not so much.
> 
> But yeah, somethings are out of my control. I just like to understand the overall picture mostly. Not taking rejection personally is something I really want to work on or else I wouldn't care in general about it.


My pictures are good, just trust me. No boobs or butt hanging out :lol

If you're talking in terms of what women want to see, the face, maybe certain clothing to reveal what kind of build he has, Im definitely not against body shots, but not a conceited mirror one! :blush


----------



## shynesshellasucks (May 10, 2008)

calichick said:


> well obviously, no one wants a butterface. I was talking about an odd nose or something lol
> 
> For me it goes
> 
> ...


What about if the guy was a minority and short say about 5'7 but he had a good personality is a cool guy(not a loser), has some social status and makes at least 100k a year. Would that make him more attractive? I'm curious.


----------



## bsd3355 (Nov 30, 2005)

calichick said:


> My pictures are good, just trust me. No boobs or butt hanging out :lol
> 
> If you're talking in terms of what women want to see, the face, maybe certain clothing to reveal what kind of build he has, Im certainly not against body shots, but not a conceited mirror one! :blush


When I said "picture" I meant perspective but it's cool :b

I really don't need to see what you look like. The reason I would is because I'm curious what seems to be so alluring about you, but it doesn't really matter. I respect that.


----------



## bsd3355 (Nov 30, 2005)

shynesshellasucks said:


> What about if the guy was a minority and short say about 5'7 but he had a good personality is a cool guy(not a loser), has some social status and makes at least 100k a year. Would that make him more attractive? I'm curious.


Money and personality isn't a physical thing, and I would also say it's more subjective than objective. But if your curious, w/e....


----------



## calichick (Jul 30, 2010)

shynesshellasucks said:


> What about if the guy was a minority and short say about 5'7 but he had a good personality is a cool guy(not a loser), has some social status and makes at least 100k a year. Would that make him more attractive? I'm curious.


Why is that you? LOL

What kind of minority? Depends how the face is like honestly..


----------



## calichick (Jul 30, 2010)

bwidger85 said:


> I'm curious what seems to be so alluring about you


That's a good question, genetics.

People tell me that I could stand to gain 10 or 15 pounds though =/


----------



## bsd3355 (Nov 30, 2005)

calichick said:


> That's a good question, genetics.
> 
> People tell me that I could stand to gain 10 or 15 pounds though =/


Duh. I meant specifics  but w/e.... moving on... haha


----------



## shynesshellasucks (May 10, 2008)

calichick said:


> Why is that you? LOL
> 
> What kind of minority? Depends how the face is like honestly..


The only thing I have in common with that guy is the height and being a minority. I was thinking Hispanic or Asian.


----------



## shynesshellasucks (May 10, 2008)

bwidger85 said:


> Money and personality isn't a physical thing, and I would also say it's more subjective than objective. But if your curious, w/e....


I was just curious if such things could compensate for not having such good looks. Also I think personality is less subjective than you think. Some people have boring personalities while others are more fun and interesting, or are just more charismatic in general.


----------



## calichick (Jul 30, 2010)

shynesshellasucks said:


> The only thing I have in common with that guy is the height and being a minority. I was thinking Hispanic or Asian.


the height is a deal breaker for me just because that would be an awkward situation. I'd like a shorter guy if he was really cute..

But for other women, I'm sure the money would help. Considerably. Girls be loving money these days :lol


----------



## au Lait (Sep 8, 2010)

Ape in space said:


> Sorry, I just realized my original response was confusing as hell because I used the word 'number' to refer to two completely different things at the same time. I corrected the response below and included a diagram of the types of distributions I'm talking about. A distribution is, for example, a bell curve like in the diagram which indicates how many people voted for each score.


Actually, a diagram like this just proves that beauty is subjective. If it was objective, then everyone would have voted the same. And there is variation even within this sample size.

Also, there are tons of other variables to consider. For an example, different cultures have different ideals when it comes to beauty. This diagram represents one group. If you did the same thing with a different group, the graph would not look the same.

I don't really see how people can argue that looks are objective tbh. I mean, so many different people have differing opinions on what they find attractive. I don't find Tom Cruise attractive, for an example. My aunt, on the other hand, would sell her first born just to touch his hand. It's the same with art, music, and pretty much anything that can be categorized as beautiful. Everyone is attracted to different things. There may be standards that are set by society, but that doesn't mean that everyone follows those standards. And standards change over time. Nothing is written in stone.


----------



## Phoenix Rising (Jul 7, 2011)

It's all about that culture's standards of beauty and what the media and the people around them find attractive. Hence why some places they like tan skin and others they like pale, etc.


----------



## bsd3355 (Nov 30, 2005)

au Lait said:


> Actually, a diagram like this just proves that beauty is subjective. If it was objective, then everyone would have voted the same. And there is variation even within this sample size.
> 
> Also, there are tons of other variables to consider. For an example, different cultures have different ideals when it comes to beauty. This diagram represents one group. If you did the same thing with a different group, the graph would not look the same.
> 
> I don't really see how people can argue that looks are objective tbh. I mean, so many different people have differing opinions on what they find attractive. I don't find Tom Cruise attractive, for an example. My aunt, on the other hand, would sell her first born just to touch his hand. It's the same with art, music, and pretty much anything that can be categorized as beautiful. Everyone is attracted to different things. There may be standards that are set by society, but that doesn't mean that everyone follows those standards. And standards change over time. Nothing is written in stone.


I have always struggled with this question myself, and a part of me still doesn't understand because someone like you comes along and makes a point validated by real world evidence.

I'm pretty much exhausted of this topic for now. I'll just let it run out. Perhaps the objectivity I speak of is of societal influence and I guess people can argue whether or not that's an objective thing or not; I do see how it's also subjective.

It just appears everywhere I look and everywhere I've been MOST of the time I see what seems to be objective -- there are differences though as I have also witnessed to a degree. And now that I think about it, can something be both objective and subjective at the same time? Ugh, w/e... I'll just kind of go along the lines that society has an objective stance on things but people are influenced further by their own subjectivity. That's all I got, and I'm done:b


----------



## shynesshellasucks (May 10, 2008)

au Lait said:


> Actually, a diagram like this just proves that beauty is subjective. If it was objective, then everyone would have voted the same. And there is variation even within this sample size.
> 
> Also, there are tons of other variables to consider. For an example, different cultures have different ideals when it comes to beauty. This diagram represents one group. If you did the same thing with a different group, the graph would not look the same.
> 
> I don't really see how people can argue that looks are objective tbh. I mean, so many different people have differing opinions on what they find attractive. I don't find Tom Cruise attractive, for an example. My aunt, on the other hand, would sell her first born just to touch his hand. It's the same with art, music, and pretty much anything that can be categorized as beautiful. Everyone is attracted to different things. There may be standards that are set by society, but that doesn't mean that everyone follows those standards. And standards change over time. Nothing is written in stone.


It's both subjective and objective. I bet if you made a poll asking any girl in the world, probably even you too, who they find more attractive Danny Devito or Tom Cruise I bet more than 90% would say Tom Cruise. That small difference, if any, is there because looks are slightly subjective.


----------



## The Silent 1 (Aug 21, 2011)

In a sense looks are subjective, but because humans are generally similar it only makes sense that there will be similar definitions on what a good looking person is. Certain features will be considered attractive by a large margin for evolutionary reasons and others due to social conditioning. I usually find that even if I'm not attracted to someone everyone else likes, I can still see why they find her attractive. Its rare that people are attracted to someone and I'm just completely confused as to why they find her attractive.

Really, its no different than movies, games, and music. If the enjoyment of these things was truly subjective than making a good film would be nearly impossible. But film creators understand the different things people look for in a film and build it around that. The enjoyment of a film is subjective in a sense, but theres still a general idea of what a good film has. There are films that I recognize as being bad, but I still enjoy for whatever reason. In the same way there are people we recognize as being conventionally bad looking, but who we are still attracted to.


----------



## Ape in space (May 31, 2010)

au Lait said:


> Actually, a diagram like this just proves that beauty is subjective. If it was objective, then everyone would have voted the same. And there is variation even within this sample size.
> 
> Also, there are tons of other variables to consider. For an example, different cultures have different ideals when it comes to beauty. This diagram represents one group. If you did the same thing with a different group, the graph would not look the same.
> 
> I don't really see how people can argue that looks are objective tbh. I mean, so many different people have differing opinions on what they find attractive. I don't find Tom Cruise attractive, for an example. My aunt, on the other hand, would sell her first born just to touch his hand. It's the same with art, music, and pretty much anything that can be categorized as beautiful. Everyone is attracted to different things. There may be standards that are set by society, but that doesn't mean that everyone follows those standards. And standards change over time. Nothing is written in stone.


The spread in the distributions indicates the presence of subjective factors, but the difference in the centre of the distribution from person A to person B indicates the presence of objective factors - objective factors being factors that tend to coordinate the responses of multiple people. Cultural ideals, for example, are objective factors. So in this way, attraction is both subjective and objective. If attraction were completely objective, the distributions would be sharply peaked - i.e. everyone would vote for the same score. If it were completely subjective, the distribution would be totally flat - i.e. every score would get an approximately equal number of votes. Both of these extremes are highly unlikely. The real situation is probably closer to the diagrams I made, where attraction is both subjective and objective. Knowing the width of the distribution in an actual experiment would be necessary to determine precisely the relative importance of subjective vs. objective factors, but they are almost certainly both important.


----------



## bsd3355 (Nov 30, 2005)

Ape in space said:


> The spread in the distributions indicates the presence of subjective factors, but the difference in the centre of the distribution from person A to person B indicates the presence of objective factors - objective factors being factors that tend to coordinate the responses of multiple people. Cultural ideals, for example, are objective factors. So in this way, attraction is both subjective and objective. If attraction were completely objective, the distributions would be sharply peaked - i.e. everyone would vote for the same score. If it were completely subjective, the distribution would be totally flat - i.e. every score would get an approximately equal number of votes. Both of these extremes are highly unlikely. The real situation is probably closer to the diagrams I made, where attraction is both subjective and objective. Knowing the width of the distribution in an actual experiment would be necessary to determine precisely the relative importance of subjective vs. objective factors, but they are almost certainly both important.


I know I said I'll shut up but I have to come in on this note...

This makes perfect sense. Silent 1 also made a few good analogies as well that made it pretty clear.

Ape in Space, would you agree that physical attraction objectivity is the most pursued and that subjectivity is a close second? This is kind of why I said "objectivity -----> subjectivity" in order of importance with regard to physical appeal.


----------



## Ape in space (May 31, 2010)

bwidger85 said:


> Ape in Space, would you agree that physical attraction objectivity is the most pursued and that subjectivity is a close second? This is kind of why I said "objectivity -----> subjectivity" in order of importance with regard to physical appeal.


It probably depends on the context. If we're talking about what someone finds attractive based on looks alone and knowing nothing else about the person, objective standards of attraction (as determined by culture, etc.) would play a more important role than it would otherwise, although the subjective aspect is always there as well. Subjectivity would have greater importance in a situation where you have some familiarity with a person. I still can't say whether objective standards are more important than subjectivity or vice versa; all I can say is that objective standards play a bigger role in the first situation than they would in the second. The relative importance of objective to subjective in a given scenario would have to be determined by doing an experiment.


----------



## bsd3355 (Nov 30, 2005)

Ape in space said:


> It probably depends on the context. If we're talking about what someone finds attractive based on looks alone and knowing nothing else about the person, objective standards of attraction (as determined by culture, etc.) would play a more important role than it would otherwise, although the subjective aspect is always there as well. Subjectivity would have greater importance in a situation where you have some familiarity with a person. I still can't say whether objective standards are more important than subjectivity or vice versa; all I can say is that objective standards play a bigger role in the first situation than they would in the second. The relative importance of objective to subjective in a given scenario would have to be determined by doing an experiment.


i agree :yes


----------



## au Lait (Sep 8, 2010)

Something either has to be subjective or objective. It can't be both. What it all comes down to is individual preference. No one person is going to be universally considered attractive, and in that sense beauty can never be classified as objective. Just as you won't like every single famous painting you see in a gallery, nor will you love every movie that's ever won the Oscar for Best Picture. There are lots of things that people consider to be great (books, movies, etc) that I just don't get. You can't tell me Avatar is objectively a great film b/c there are people who hate it and think it's trash. When something is objective, it's indisputable. But people can argue over what is and isn't beautiful. That's what makes beauty so interesting and complex.


----------



## LDR (Jan 25, 2012)

I can prove it to you like this:
My best friends are snow bunny lovers (White women). They love the bunnies.
Me myself, I prefer mutts (Mixed ethnicity/race). 

because of this, we often find ourselves arguing over which women are more attractive (Jessica Alba VS Scarlett Johansson; Halle Berry VS Mila Kunis; etc etc) 

So as you can see, in this respect looks can be very much subjective. 

Still need more proof? Alright I'll provide some more.

I have other friends who are very much breast men. They like a woman with nice breasts. I am an *** man myself (cue billy gun theme). Because of this, i often find myself poo-pooing girls that some of my friends find attractive, and vice versa.

There you go, I just provided proof.


----------



## ainsleigh (Dec 6, 2011)

What's considered "beautiful" has never been static, it is shaped by many factors:

- What is socially accepted as beautiful - this has changed from what it used to be to what it is today. Lifestyle factors of the population change over time and influence perceptions of whats beautiful. 
- It depends where you live - in Asia it's beautiful to have fair skin, in some Western countries it's all about the tan. In some places beauty is about conforming and perfection, in other places it's about standing out and being different. 
- Images labelled as "beautiful" - commercials, advertisements that we are bombarded with. 
- Personal factors influence what you see - your own body image, childhood experiences along with societal and cultural exposure. 
- It changes as society integrates and globalises - fair used to be beautiful on the west. Now what's beautiful is a little more diverse (not as much as it should be). We are now more exposed to different ethnic groups and this may have changed what we define as beautiful. 
- Beauty also depends on context - what's beautiful on the runway may not seem so beautiful on the streets. What's beautiful on the camera, may not be beautiful on the runway. And all these things don't have anything to do with true beauty. That can help but often it's about lighting, make up, styling etc. This may just be the appearance or manufacturing of beauty. 

I think true beauty hasn't got so much to do with appearance. I think it depends on how you carry yourself, your personality, your energy, your smile, your eyes...

I don't think my eyes are objective, they are influenced by how I feel inside.


----------



## shynesshellasucks (May 10, 2008)

au Lait said:


> Something either has to be subjective or objective. It can't be both. What it all comes down to is individual preference. No one person is going to be universally considered attractive, and in that sense beauty can never be classified as objective. Just as you won't like every single famous painting you see in a gallery, nor will you love every movie that's ever won the Oscar for Best Picture. There are lots of things that people consider to be great (books, movies, etc) that I just don't get. You can't tell me Avatar is objectively a great film b/c there are people who hate it and think it's trash. When something is objective, it's indisputable. But people can argue over what is and isn't beautiful. That's what makes beauty so interesting and complex.


But there are people and things that are liked by more people than others. That's the whole point.


----------



## offbyone (May 5, 2010)

Have you never experienced your sense of someone else's beauty change as you've gotten to know them? Beauty isn't even objective within a single mind.


----------



## bsd3355 (Nov 30, 2005)

offbyone said:


> Have you never experienced your sense of someone else's beauty change as you've gotten to know them? Beauty isn't even objective within a single mind.


This thread is mainly talking about physical appeal with regard to objectivity.

Today, I was really giving this whole discussion thought from time to time. I had random thoughts about it pop up in my head I didn't think of before that were pretty inspiring but of course I lost track of them in class and didn't write them down...


----------



## offbyone (May 5, 2010)

bwidger85 said:


> This thread is mainly talking about physical appeal with regard to objectivity.
> 
> Today, I was really giving this whole discussion thought from time to time. I had random thoughts about it pop up in my head I didn't think of before that were pretty inspiring but of course I lost track of them in class and didn't write them down...


I've had my perception of someone's physical attributes change as I got to know them.


----------



## bsd3355 (Nov 30, 2005)

offbyone said:


> I've had my perception of someone's physical attributes change as I got to know them.


I think someone mentioned an obvious thing I forgot ot dwell on which was that without having anything to go off but looks you almost are going off objective factors BUUUUUT, in fact, your also may be using objectivity of an appearance and link it to bad or negative views ..... so maybe objective nor subjective factors are dominate based on looks alone? If that's the case then all I can say is that looks are objective and subjective even solely based on pictures or images alone! But then to go even further one can be so subjectively influenced that any type of cultural or societal objectivity standard is ignored. I think some objectivity is normal though simply because that is kind of how mating nature is for all species... even the measure on viewing things objectively versus subjectively depends on the person, so basically it can be degree of either objective or subjective influence depending on the person's personal view.

So in a nutshell, it *CAN* be either more objective or more subjective with relation to physical appeal for any person. There really isn't any way to know unless you ask I guess. I just find it rare, at least at my age, that others are more subjective than objective on physical looks. Or maybe I'm assuming again?

*EDIT
I realize what I just typed isn't structured well. This is kind of how I view it though. Just asking whether or not I can use objectivity and subjectivity together to express physical appeal is iffy.... I can definitely say now that it is AT LEAST ALSO subjective though, and that subjective factors can be even more greatly influenced than an objective factor whether it's solely based on looks or even if it's someone you know well.


----------



## au Lait (Sep 8, 2010)

shynesshellasucks said:


> But there are people and things that are liked by more people than others. That's the whole point.


No, the point is whether it's objective or subjective.

I don't mean to sound condescending or rude, but I kind of get the impression that maybe some people are not entirely clear on what the word "objective" means.

When something is objective, that means it's a fact. It can't be argued or disputed. It's free from the scrutinization of personal preference altogether.

Popular opinion does not equal an objective fact. Years ago many people believed that smoking was good for your health. Obviously we've learned that the opposite is true. Just b/c something is considered true by popular consensus doesn't mean that it is.

Are there certain ideals of beauty that are considered to be more desirable by popular opinion? Of course. But that still doesn't make it objective. Public opinion is still based on the whim of the media's influence, popular fads, etc.

During the Renaissance, women were depicted in paintings as being very voluptuous. That was considered the standard of beauty back then. Nowadays, women depicted in popular magazines and media are typically very thin. If beauty was objective, then it wouldn't change through time.

Another more recent example: Look at what was considered attractive during the 70s. It's most certainly different than what is considered attractive now.

You can objectively say someone has brown hair. However, you cannot say that brown hair is the most attractive hair color, because that is entirely subjective. You can make graphs to show what trends are more popular, but you still can't say it's objective because being popular doesn't make something better or mean that it's a fact.


----------



## bsd3355 (Nov 30, 2005)

If objective means that it can't be disputed then attraction based on physical appeal is all subjective. There still may be societal influence then.


----------



## shynesshellasucks (May 10, 2008)

au Lait: 

You putting it that way, it makes sense that looks are subjective. Maybe I should change my view of "looks are both subjective and objective" to "looks are subjective, but in some cases barely".


----------



## Blue Bird (Jun 28, 2004)

bwidger85 said:


> For those of you who believe in some sort of objective physical attraction, what physical things are objective with relation to attraction in your view?


Almost everything seems subjective to me...it all depends on the person.


----------



## Blue Bird (Jun 28, 2004)

shynesshellasucks said:


> What about if the guy was a minority and short say about 5'7 but he had a good personality is a cool guy(not a loser), has some social status and makes at least 100k a year. Would that make him more attractive? I'm curious.


Well I like short guys and I don't care about race. I'd be glad he had A job (that legal). But someone else, who cares a lot about income and is really turned off my short guys or whatever race he might be, may settle because they want someone that is well off. So it could make him more "attractive", but if all he needs is money the person that dates him may not find him _physically_ attractive at all.


----------



## John316C (May 1, 2011)

There is a objective measure of good looks. Then there is your subjective measure on what is good looks. Objective things exist whatever you believe. You don't have to believe in objective things. You can believe in purple unicorns for whatever purpose. Everything that you sense is subjective to your senses. You cannot be 100% objective and be alive at least not in the 3rd dimension as far as far as Ive heard. Maybe if you existed in the 4th dimension you could see 100% of a third dimensional object all at once. But that would mean you aren't in a human body anymore. Objective beauty exists only on the outside world. Subjective only in the inside world.


----------



## RenegadeReloaded (Mar 12, 2011)

The subjective views on ppl I think applies mainly on *average* looking people.

The subjectivity tends to fade as looks rise/decrease from average on a scale of attractiveness. I mean u can't talk subjectively about a model that everyone agrees he has a 10+ for looks. Same for the other situation where almost everyone agrees that a really bad looking person just doesn't have the looks cause he/she is just plain repulsive.

I can make a graph if u like ;P


----------



## bsd3355 (Nov 30, 2005)

Also, to say something is subjective based on what the media portrays is assuming the media is wrong. What if what the media portrays is true? What if you pull someone from another culture in and they have the same objective measure to looks? What if a certain body figure, face, etc, has always been objective but because of our society we made it subjective (i.e., a starving country favoring thicker people). This would still mean it's objective.


----------



## komorikun (Jan 11, 2009)

Subjective:
hair color, skin color, eye color, body weight, breast/butt size, clothing/fashion, makeup, hair style, body hair

Objective:
Women- waist to hip ratio, childish face(big eyes, smallish nose, small chin), youth, good complexion

Men- waist to chest ratio, symmetrical masculine face, tall


----------

