# Beauty is in the eye of the beholder?



## bsd3355 (Nov 30, 2005)

I love how people think "beauty is in the eye of the beholder". No it's not. Physically attractive people are attractive and ugly people are not. Why should we argue with that? To save our dignity? Screw that.

How can physical beauty be subjective? There is ugly and there is beauty. Are we that weak that we can't admit that physical attraction works that way? Or am I the blind one here?


----------



## leave me alone (Apr 1, 2011)

I think the above might be true for most of people, but i wouldnt present it as a fact. For example 9 out of 10 people would consider Megan Fox beautiful, but this one person will not find her attractive at all. People will just call him weird or whatever, but it is his subjective opinion. What is wrong with that?


----------



## Iamjohn (Aug 16, 2010)

My bee flew away. Now everyone is ugly.


----------



## Misanthropic79 (May 6, 2011)

Sorry bwidger, but beauty is different things to different people.

Ofcourse like Leave me alone mentioned someone like Megan Fox or Johnny Depp is usually considered universally good looking but some people won't find them attractive.

I personally don't find Angelina Jolie attractive and I know that puts me in a very small minority but she does nothing for me. Surely there's someone who's considered "hot" that you don't find particulary attractive?

Think of all the fetishes out there too. Some guys LOVE obese or hairy women, just to name a couple of abnormal interests. You'd be surprised how many people have unusual tastes.

You're not completely wrong as I doubt all but a handful of people on Earth would find someone like Lester "Beetlejuice" Green attractive but I guarantee a few girls probably would have a secret thing for him and quite frankly he's hideous.


----------



## watashi (Feb 6, 2008)

I believe it's because people find different kinds of people attractive. There are some standards, but there are plenty of situations when one person would say "no way" and another person would say "cute".


----------



## rednet (Apr 14, 2011)

Beauty is subjective, though it's often hard to see because anyone with a minority view on attraction tends to be blocked out by the rest of society.
For example, the stereotype is that guys like large breasts. But there are a lot of guys (maybe around 10%? not sure of the numbers), who think the smaller ones are much cuter. 
Again, some girls like heavily built guys, others like more slender ones, others still slightly obese ones. It's all a matter of preference.

This logic extends to all traits - whatever it is will be on a bell curve, and it's simply a matter of finding someone who likes them.


----------



## heroin (Dec 10, 2010)

There is a difference between beauty and attractiveness. I find many women beautiful. I am attracted to less than a handful of them.

And because people tend to think beautiful = attractive, there is confusion about that. There may be a vague standard of beauty, but that is no guarantee of attraction.


----------



## pita (Jan 17, 2004)

It's definitely in the eye of the beholder. Unfortunately, most beholders don't rate me too highly.


----------



## Kennnie (Oct 21, 2010)

leave me alone said:


> I think the above might be true for most of people, but i wouldnt present it as a fact. For example 9 out of 10 people would consider Megan Fox beautiful, but this one person will not find her attractive at all. People will just call him weird or whatever, but it is his subjective opinion. What is wrong with that?


 im that 1 person who finds megan fox blahh


----------



## RyanJ (Mar 31, 2009)

Kennnie said:


> im that 1 person who finds megan fox blahh


Why do you discriminate against Plastic-Americans?


----------



## Kennnie (Oct 21, 2010)

RyanJ said:


> Why do you discriminate against Plastic-Americans?


 i did not know she did plastic surgery


----------



## heroin (Dec 10, 2010)

Megan fox is all kinds of hot, visually speaking. If you want an example of fugly considered beautiful, see Jessica Alba.


----------



## Your Crazy (Feb 17, 2009)

Kennnie said:


> im that 1 person who finds megan fox blahh


Make that 2.

And no, I totally disagree with the OP.


----------



## rdrr (Dec 31, 2008)

Beauty is in the eye of the beer holder.


----------



## Charizard (Feb 16, 2011)

heroin said:


> Megan fox is all kinds of hot, visually speaking. If you want an example of fugly considered beautiful, see Jessica Alba.


Haha, I feel exactly opposite.


----------



## Revenwyn (Apr 11, 2011)

pita said:


> It's definitely in the eye of the beholder. Unfortunately, most beholders don't rate me too highly.


I'm totally with ya.


----------



## Ivan AG (Sep 29, 2010)

rdrr said:


> Beauty is in the eye of the beer holder.


Or wine sipper.


----------



## IsThereAComputerOption (Apr 15, 2011)

It's not a rigid definition of beauty or ugly, normally beautiful people are beautiful in the eyes of most, but sometimes there are small deviations. I would prefer a cute girl to a hot one any day, some consider that weird.


----------



## bsd3355 (Nov 30, 2005)

I'm actually surprised with the responses so far. All think I'm wrong, which means maybe I am lol. If physical beauty was in the eyes of beholder then why can I guess which guys are attractive to women and guess which girls other guys are going to find attractive? I agree, however, that not everyone is going to find someone attractive compared to another, but overall these people have a pretty good "attraction" ratio.

As far as fetishes and stuff, those are sexual acts. Does it really describe physical attraction? Physical attraction is more along the lines of what I'm talking about, although you've proved a good point I suppose.

You know, it is kind of hard for me to say these things especially since so many people disagree as it seems, then why do more people prefer one type over another? There is definite reason for me to think what is attractive to most people and what is not in my opinion.

So your telling me a 400lbs man is more attractive than a 180-200lbs man? Or a 400lbs woman is more attractive than as skinner one? Maybe perhaps women are more varied on it (i.e. hairy men, etc) than men are with women (big, skinny, etc). Don't you think there are universal things that most women and men look for with physical beauty? I would say a universal thing would be weight. Things that could vary would be height, hair, etc.


----------



## CeilingStarer (Dec 29, 2009)

I think there's a certain "cut" of people considered "above average" by everyone. Within this group, people have their favourites, and those who barely make it.

I've never had any attraction to Angelina Jolie either (like someone else said), but I guess I accept that she'd be in "the cut."


----------



## bsd3355 (Nov 30, 2005)

CeilingStarer said:


> I think there's a certain "cut" of people considered "above average" by everyone. Within this group, people have their favourites, and those who barely make it.
> 
> I've never had any attraction to Angelina Jolie either (like someone else said), but I guess I accept that she'd be in "the cut."


Well, "the cut" is what I'm talking about. That "cut" seems universal. Above that, then varieties come more into play, but before the "cut" then I don't see beauty is in the eye of one beholder when it seems universal typically.


----------



## Misanthropic79 (May 6, 2011)

Bwidger, don't worry about most people's disagreement with your views on attractiveness. In the end this is all opinion and nobody could flame or dislike you or think you're an idiot for your opinion on beauty in and of itself.

Besides you're not completely wrong. You're right in saying some people have a higher ratio of attraction than others. It's just that nobody is perfect looking and could have anybody they choose. Nor so unattractive that absolutely nobody would date them.

That and beauty is also on the inside. If you aren't a hottie or a stud some people will "fall" for the inside and look past the superficial outside. That still counts as attractiveness aswell, ya know?


----------



## Misanthropic79 (May 6, 2011)

heroin said:


> Megan fox is all kinds of hot, visually speaking. If you want an example of fugly considered beautiful, see Jessica Alba.


Jessica was pretty hot before she lost her baby fat, now she's a stick insect.

I have to say though, I've seen interviews of Megan and Jessica and they both come across as airheads.


----------



## Monroee (Aug 26, 2009)

heroin said:


> There is a difference between beauty and attractiveness.


Definitely. I think some people are confusing the two. As a Bisexual, I find many women beautiful. Megan Fox is "beautiful", but I am in no way "attracted" to her. I wouldn't be able to be in a relationship with her because I just don't feel that spark about her. But I can admit that she is a beautiful girl.

I fell in love with this one woman who wasn't the generally "attractive" type. She was too stick thin. She had a boyish face. But she was so incredibly attractive to me that I can't stop thinking about her to this day after almost a year of never seeing her again. Only meeting her for a week. Some people have intense impacts on others. It's all about the "aura" of these people that spark attraction.

Just my opinion, however. Everyone has different opinions on this question.


----------



## estse (Nov 18, 2003)

I behold her resting upon the wrong shoulder how I wish I could already hold her.


----------



## Johnny_Genome (Nov 11, 2003)

Saying someone is attractive, and being attracted to them is two different things that I think people confuse when discussing this. I think most people may agree a certain person is attractive, but that doesn't mean they are personally attracted to them.


----------



## bsd3355 (Nov 30, 2005)

joinmartin said:


> Human beings have a nature to look for patterns to the point that, even if no pattern exists, they will see trends and linking factors. You can guess which guys are attractive to women and which girls other guys are going to find attractive? Really? Which guys? Which girls? How do you know this? Attractive to who?


Isn't there a reason for the trends and factors and why people see them? I would think it is because it really is a trend or factor. To your point, I have seen the opposite of what I'd expect with two people, but it seems rare. The rarity or occurrence of it seems to be there for more universal reason.

Yes, I can point out which girl is attractive and more likely than not the men will agree. To be fair, not everyone probably but most. I do realize that the media or w/e factors have put an image of what is attractive and what isn't in our minds because that is the image that sells. Why does the image sell? More than likely because it is what is attractive? Is it a fad? Maybe. I know that at one point in Japan (I think) that heavier women were more valuable within their society and I believe they were also more "attractive" physically, which is interesting if that is true. I personally believe people are attracted to things for survivalist purposes, but that is kind of beyond the reason of what we are discussing exactly.

I mean, why is it when you see a "hot" girl in the room all or most guys acknowledge it? If attraction wasn't a factor, then what is in that scenario? The only thing I can think of that supports your claim is that it may be that guys are brainwashed by the media and stuff to know what is attractive or not, and that just doesn't quite add up (I realize you didn't say this, but I'm just throwing it in there).



> Are there guys who, in your opinion, wouldn't be attracted to women? Same with women? Who is the authority on this?


The real authority is the individual, but, yes, there are guys who wouldn't be attracted to a woman, and I more than likely could guess their type. I see it in the workplace and I see it in my personal life. Some things are just universally attractive. And why shouldn't it be universal? I mean, you see the same thing in nature. Why are humans any different? I'm not trying to be negative. I'm just trying to be realistic.



> Physical attraction in its varied forms does bleed into sexual attraction.


I agree with this actually. I guess I don't get it fully though. Like blood fetishes and stuff, wth? I mean, how is blood physically attractive? Even more so, how the heck is it sexually stimulating? Idk... i could probably think of reasons just guessing though...



> How do you know more people perfer one type over another? Where is that notion coming from? What supports it? Even the so called "beautiful people" get trashed in the press if they wear a dress or outfit the press doesn't like. Same body, same face. Different dress and suddenly they've gone from "gorgeous" to "on the worst dress list".
> 
> All this talk of "most people"? You've got to spend a good few years getting the data from most people on this planet and by then it's most likely changed or altered so where does the "most people" thing come from?


Apparel and physical beauty are two different things in my opinion, so maybe a different example would be more affective in the first paragraph. With or without clothes, you should be able to know what your attracted to.

The thing with "most people", I guess it'd be interesting to get some surveys done on the subject. I'm sure there are a few unbiased ones out there amongst the internet. To your point though, I do think that it can vary depending on the individual, but isn't there a way most people would prefer to look? I know people may love their bodies regardless, just saying though. Maybe I need to look into this more.



> More attractive to who? There's no scale on this and there's not "cut" either. It's not a consensus. One of the world's fattest men has a skinny girlfriend and she's soon to become his wife. Welcome to the varied world we live in.
> 
> There are "ideas" we are sold by the media and fashion indutry and other agendas but those are just ideas.


You don't think there is a physical factor that most people find attractive? Just because most people find something attractive, that still doesn't mean there are instances of which you've described above. I said most and not all. Really, it'd be nice to agree with you on this, but perhaps I need a more convincing example. I do see certain physical traits preferred over another. You usually don't hear people saying that would prefer someone 400lbs over 180lbs-200lbs. That is what I consider "most".



> If this were true, you would see only men who looked a certain way dating women. You don't see that. You see men of all shapes, sizes and even ages dating women. Same with women.
> 
> People, especially on here, get caught up in the whole "majority" and "numbers" stuff and it just depresses people. Life is a varied patchwork where a lot of good stuff happens.


No, not all men who look a certain way are dating, I agree. But I do think people tend to match up with their "level" of attraction, and you should know this because psychology states that, or that is what they tried teaching me in a pysch class in college. Even if they didn't teach that, I'd still think that people like to match up with how they find themselves physically or better. Once again, I realize that isn't "all" people but most people.


----------



## sarafinanickelbocker (May 16, 2010)

Uhm, there is a higher percentage of people who will lean towards a certain look. For example: there have been studies that show most women prefer men with feminine traits in their physical appearance and that men prefer women with feminine traits in their physical appearance. It's not a 100% thing though.


----------



## RyanJ (Mar 31, 2009)

sarafinanickelbocker said:


> Uhm, there is a higher percentage of people who will lean towards a certain look. For example: there have been studies that show most *women prefer men with feminine traits* in their physical appearance and that *men prefer women with feminine traits* in their physical appearance. It's not a 100% thing though.


So I guess the message here is that women are better looking. ^_^


----------



## Atticus (Nov 10, 2003)

Joinmartin,

If your life depended on a man getting a date with 5 women in a room of 20 women, would you send a man who looks just like Jake Gyllenhaal or one who looks just like Jack Black?

Straight up choose one. Live or die


----------



## bsd3355 (Nov 30, 2005)

Atticus said:


> Joinmartin,
> 
> If your life depended on a man getting a date with 5 women in a room of 20 women, would you send a man who looks just like Jake Gyllenhaal or one who looks just like Jack Black?
> 
> Straight up choose one. Live or die


Exactly.

There is a reason why this man is ugly:
here

And this man isn't:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-DPTcpa3IFSY/TazjJSH2JRI/AAAAAAAAAfY/wog3WyFqdAE/s1600/ugly-men-5.jpghere

There is a difference of physical beauty verse physical ugliness. Once again, why would we deny that?

There would be an outstanding difference if you were to put these two men in a room together and have women choose.

The same goes with how men view women. Attraction isn't supposed to be fair. It is raw, but it is true.


----------



## shynesshellasucks (May 10, 2008)

I agree with the OP. There really are physically attractive and unattractive people. It's frustrating how some guys have it easier than me, considering some guys get approached based on their looks by girls and I don't. Whoever disagrees is just delusional.


----------



## Haydsmom2007 (Oct 16, 2009)

there are people that attractive to most, and there are people who are ugly to most. but beauty is still subjective. we all like different things. some men like big boobs and some don't, for example.


----------



## stranger25 (Apr 29, 2010)




----------



## sarafinanickelbocker (May 16, 2010)

RyanJ said:


> So I guess the message here is that women are better looking. ^_^


haha Perhaps. :b


----------



## Alexa (Jun 10, 2010)

bwidger85 said:


> The only thing I can think of that supports your claim is that it may be that guys are brainwashed by the media and stuff to know what is attractive or not, and that just doesn't quite add up (I realize you didn't say this, but I'm just throwing it in there).


I wouldn't discount media influence; I think culture plays a huge role in determining attractiveness. What natural reason is there for men to prefer women without any body hair? Or for people to fawn over lip plates, bound feet, or purposely deformed skulls? If beauty is objective, it doesn't make sense that unibrows are beautiful in some cultures but hideous in ours.

Within Western culture, the ideal face and body has changed a lot over time. If you look at art from the 18th century, most of the figures haven't aged well. They look lumpy, overfed, and hook-nosed. Women were supposed to be plump, then they were supposed to have boyish figures, then they were supposed to have wrist size waists and giant pointy boobs. Now people seem to prefer thin, athletic bodies for both men and women.


----------



## coeur_brise (Oct 7, 2004)

I believe beauty is in the eye of the beholder, we're all attracted to different things but the common denominator isn't only physical beauty. Statistically let's say that if I were in a room full of eligible bachelors and Brad Pitt were in the room, I would not automatically seek out Brad Pitt even though some would say he is about a 9 or 10. So in a room full of guys who are 5, 6, 7s and 8s, they're still eligible because Brad Pitt (the 10) isn't the one I'd be going after first (or any "10" for that matter). Now, let's say there is a 10 in a room full of 1s or 2s, then of course, I'm going for the 10 because I guess the 1s are ugly. But you see what I'm saying? It's in the beholder because different things make people attractive, not just the most attractive one is attractive to me. :/


----------



## kev (Jan 28, 2005)

Alexa said:


> I wouldn't discount media influence; I think culture plays a huge role in determining attractiveness. What natural reason is there for men to prefer women without any body hair? Or for people to fawn over lip plates, bound feet, or purposely deformed skulls? If beauty is objective, it doesn't make sense that unibrows are beautiful in some cultures but hideous in ours.
> 
> Within Western culture, the ideal face and body has changed a lot over time. If you look at art from the 18th century, most of the figures haven't aged well. They look lumpy, overfed, and hook-nosed. Women were supposed to be plump, then they were supposed to have boyish figures, then they were supposed to have wrist size waists and giant pointy boobs. Now people seem to prefer thin, athletic bodies for both men and women.


I agree with this. Media has a huge influence on what we find attractive and what we don't.

And a lot of attractive people are just downright ugly human beings.

I totally see what you are saying though, bwidger. It's easy for attractive people to spout out poetic cliche stuff about "beauty being in the eye of the beholder" but anyone who is ugly by society's standards and can't find a date because of it is going to find this of little comfort.

Do you think you're ugly? From my experience, a lot of people who say this really aren't ugly at all.

I've gained a little weight in the past few years and I notice people just don't treat me quite as well. They're not horrible to me or anything but just not as friendly, if that makes sense. It sucks.


----------



## bsd3355 (Nov 30, 2005)

Alexa said:


> I wouldn't discount media influence; I think culture plays a huge role in determining attractiveness. What natural reason is there for men to prefer women without any body hair? Or for people to fawn over lip plates, bound feet, or purposely deformed skulls? If beauty is objective, it doesn't make sense that unibrows are beautiful in some cultures but hideous in ours.
> 
> Within Western culture, the ideal face and body has changed a lot over time. If you look at art from the 18th century, most of the figures haven't aged well. They look lumpy, overfed, and hook-nosed. Women were supposed to be plump, then they were supposed to have boyish figures, then they were supposed to have wrist size waists and giant pointy boobs. Now people seem to prefer thin, athletic bodies for both men and women.


This is very interesting. Maybe media has a bigger influence than we think, but if that is the case it seems to be very effective. It is still kind of hard to believe though. I mean, people make their minds up all the time over what they believe and disbelieve. Physical attraction seems more innate, but those examples are good examples still, and probably do play a major part, or maybe it's the way our society is? For example, I suppose the "plump" girls were wanted in the past because plump was seem as more healthy being more people were famished? In America's culture today, people aren't exactly famished and therefore our desires have changed probably because "plump" means little in a country of plenty. Does that make sense?


----------



## bsd3355 (Nov 30, 2005)

kev said:


> I agree with this. Media has a huge influence on what we find attractive and what we don't.
> 
> And a lot of attractive people are just downright ugly human beings.
> 
> ...


No, that makes sense. I do think less attractive people get treated differently, sure. I also think that those who are less attractive have to act a certain way because of it at times. Whereas, if you see an attractive person you will often notice a different attitude about them. This may just be me looking too deep into it, but I've noticed it.

Do I think I'm attractive? I think I'm average and getting worse. Girls have approached me in the past though, and because of that I think I'm average. I don't say above average because I've been rejected at least 100times in a 3-4 year period. This counts for online and offline combined. It's hard to gauge really. I've noticed average to attractive people are much more likely to use avatars of themselves or post pictures of themselves in picture sections of this forum. It is interesting because it seems like some don't leave the pictures section as I never even seen them before in other ares of the forum. Given that, physical attraction means a lot to people, whether it is based on insecurity or not, which I think can go beyond insecurity to innateness.


----------



## bsd3355 (Nov 30, 2005)

sanria22 said:


> I believe beauty is in the eye of the beholder, we're all attracted to different things but the common denominator isn't only physical beauty. Statistically let's say that if I were in a room full of eligible bachelors and Brad Pitt were in the room, I would not automatically seek out Brad Pitt even though some would say he is about a 9 or 10. So in a room full of guys who are 5, 6, 7s and 8s, they're still eligible because Brad Pitt (the 10) isn't the one I'd be going after first (or any "10" for that matter). Now, let's say there is a 10 in a room full of 1s or 2s, then of course, I'm going for the 10 because I guess the 1s are ugly. But you see what I'm saying? It's in the beholder because different things make people attractive, not just the most attractive one is attractive to me. :/


I may of worded the title of this thread wrong because I agree that a 7 or 8 still have a chance against a 10, for example. Because I believe that, yeah, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I guess what I'm really trying to point out is what typically seems to be favored over the other, and by that I mean of a certain weight, height, hygiene, etc. Those do seem favorable. So if someone doesn't have those qualities over someone who does, more than likely I believe that the one who does is favored. I still need to read over some other point sin this thread though because there may be something I'm over reading.

EDIT: But even saying that, if a room full of guys who all had the same personality were in a room and you had to choose, wouldn't you still choose the most attractive one? This is basically what I'm trying to point out here. I would probably pick the most attractive one, and I think most would, or am I wrong? Be honest.


----------



## RyanJ (Mar 31, 2009)

Has anyone actually studied what women (and men) find attractive (does it conform to a normal model, etc...)? It might be more helpful to see that than to do the internet-warrior-giant-multi-post thing.


----------



## Amocholes (Nov 5, 2003)

Beauty is fluid.


----------



## bsd3355 (Nov 30, 2005)

RyanJ said:


> Has anyone actually studied what women (and men) find attractive (does it conform to a normal model, etc...)? It might be more helpful to see that than to do the internet-warrior-giant-multi-post thing.


LOL. Agreed. I'm going off personal experience to be honest. I realize that isn't always accurate, but I have also read from other girls here and elsewhere. Joinmartin, I hope your right. I'm not totally sold on the idea though. I can argue with some things you said, but I have stated what I thought. It is a lovely claim to think there isn't a common physical attraction factor, but there is just so much that I've seen and read to say otherwise, and that doesn't exclude seeing the opposite of what I claim (it seems rare however).

I think I will do some personal study into the matter. I'm sure I have before but not for a while. I was thinking about making a poll on it but maybe now isn't a best time. It'd also be cool to see some other polls aside from SA forums. I'll look into that.


----------



## benyamin (May 11, 2010)

actualy i agree with the op that there are people who are more attractive and less attractive, and yeah i can also see guy's that i assume would get women's attention and they do, and there are guy's that you can clearly see that they wont get much attention unless they are confident funny serious mature and manly and even then they need to be atlist average,also in my life i saw some men who were ok fine looking and women found them handsome and people said they looked handsome and were cool but i never saw them as hansome but ok looking so i guess it is a bit of in the eye of the beholder but still i mean just look
who would attract more girls (if i would to make a poll and ask who's more attractive who do you think would get picked more)








or him


----------



## stranger25 (Apr 29, 2010)

It's all about LOOKS.


----------



## Tristeza (Aug 22, 2010)

I really believe beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Most of the girls I liked (and thought she was attractive), someone told me she is ****ing ugly :blush


----------



## WholeinSoul91 (Oct 15, 2010)

People have different preferences of what they find beautiful in someone else. There really is a huge amount of subjectivity in how looks are rated, and although benchmarks and majority opinion do exist, it will be very hard to find 100% of people in the world to say someone is beautiful to them.


----------



## MojoCrunch (Mar 25, 2011)

bwidger85 said:


> No, that makes sense. I do think less attractive people get treated differently, sure. I also think that those who are less attractive have to act a certain way because of it at times. Whereas, if you see an attractive person you will often notice a different attitude about them. This may just be me looking too deep into it, but I've noticed it.


I'd have to agree with this statement. When I was younger I used to work at a gas station. Most of the people I worked with were really old and I was kind of the young cute one so by comparison I suddenly became very appealing to a lot of guys that came in. Which to me was weird as hell. I left my job to finish up school that year and ended up coming back to work the summer. Replace a lot of those older coworkers with one young very attractive girl the same age. The treatment I got was a complete 180! For the most part I got along with my coworker, she was a cool chick. But guys would always go in her lane and I had like...no work to do. Some guys were super mean to me especially when I worked with her as well. It was was interesting to experience drastic change in treatment after this particular girl came in.

As for the 'attitude' you are referring to: Most 'hot' people generally know they are hot and play it down to relate to everyone else that is 'normal' from what I've seen. Take a chick like Megan Fox who obviously knows she's hot. But at the same time she probably knows that that is all she is. That if she didn't look the way she did nobody would give a rats @$$ about her and that men don't look at her as anything more than a piece of meat. For most 'hot' girls this pisses them off about being hot.

Bottom line, people's perceptions of beauty change. You might say a girl, Megan Fox for instance, is the hottest girl ever. I'm using her as an example because she seems to be the 'it' girl currently. She is now what Brittney Spears and Lindsay Lohan were a few years ago. Get a new more interesting and more beautiful girl than her (whoever and whatever that means) and it will be like Megan Fox doesn't exist anymore. Even the most beautiful flower withers and dies eventually.

I've noticed that these rather...well negative perceptions of beauty - that's only reserved for certain people - seem to arise due to media and society shaping what you're SUPPOSED TO like (example: 'if you don't think Megan Fox (or some other chick that looks like her) is hot than you're gay!' :troll). Most people I know resent being told what they are supposed to like or find appealing. Most of the perceptions of what you are supposed to find beautiful come from comparisons too just like a few of the posts above. Let's face it, we live in a world where people look very different and comes in all colors, shapes, and sizes. Generally if no comparison exists then what does it do your perception of what is beautiful. I guarantee it will change it. But we live in a world where there is a lot of competition. So unfortunately that's no always the case.


----------



## Johnny_Genome (Nov 11, 2003)

I think people often try to totally negate statements by finding one or two examples to the contrary. Obviously things like aesthetics and beauty are subjective to some degree, this is not a scientific theory nor do I think the OP intended it to be.

I think most people don't like to discuss it -- simply because no one likes to see themselves as judging people based on their looks. That's why people say 'looks don't matter' when they mean, 'looks don't matter, as long as you're within my range of what I consider attractive'.


----------



## AK32 (Sep 2, 2010)

It's true we may think that we don't care what a person looks like, but lets face it it's the first thing that you notice about someone.


----------



## dave twothree (Sep 26, 2010)

I don't really find the "hollywood model" of beauty to be all that attractive. And people have different preferences on what they like in the opposite sex. Appearance is what you see at first, but you learn much more about a person from interacting and learning about them and that's what causes me to develop attraction to a girl.


----------



## kev (Jan 28, 2005)

joinmartin said:


> Unless calibration of the women in that room had taken place, I'd be operating from a frame where it would be likely that- given that some studies suggest that what women find attractive varies a lot more than what men find attractive- both men would have similar success.
> 
> They put Jack Black on big massive screens and I'm yet to be in a cinema with women watching one of his films and hear them shout out: "god, what an ugly man!!".


True about Jack Black. Although he's funny, rich, and has a great personality. And he's really not all that unattractive IMO (I'm a guy so I wouldn't really know)

It's almost like it's fine to be ugly in modern society, but only if you are happy go lucky/funny/personable/etc.


----------



## bsd3355 (Nov 30, 2005)

I saw a real cute girl with an ugly dude today lol. They had a baby with them. Right now, don't know what to believe...


----------



## Ivan AG (Sep 29, 2010)

bwidger85 said:


> I saw a real cute girl with an ugly dude today lol. They had a baby with them. Right now, don't know what to believe...


I see this every day when I'm walking around Kingston.

They must be rich.....


----------



## ImWeird (Apr 26, 2010)

IsThereAComputerOption said:


> It's not a rigid definition of beauty or ugly, normally beautiful people are beautiful in the eyes of most, but sometimes there are small deviations. I would prefer a cute girl to a hot one any day, some consider that weird.


I'm with you 100%



leave me alone said:


> I think the above might be true for most of people, but i wouldnt present it as a fact. For example 9 out of 10 people would consider Megan Fox beautiful, but this one person will not find her attractive at all. People will just call him weird or whatever, but it is his subjective opinion. What is wrong with that?


Megan Fox kind of scares me.


----------



## Jessie203 (Feb 20, 2008)

O.P. I agree with you.

It's biological. Certain looks promote youth and fertility, or strength and security. Others do not. We can't help it.
TO AN EXTENT.

But if it's about a flaw like having a sixth toe, some zits, eyes that are far apart.. like you know, get over it. That can be subjective and you can call them beautiful anyway DESPITE it. Obviously there is nobody who would LOVE for someone to have bad skin, a unibrow and a chunky waistline.. but you can cope, and cope easily. It really shouldn't ****ing matter that much and if it does bother you then you're a superficial piece of ****.
("You" is a generalization).

Anyway, just my opinion.
This is cool to read.
Nice thread playa!


----------



## bsd3355 (Nov 30, 2005)

Haydsmom2007 said:


> there are people that attractive to most, and there are people who are ugly to most. but beauty is still subjective. we all like different things. some men like big boobs and some don't, for example.


this is probably the most politically correct answer i've read yet!:b still, it does make a heck of a lot of sense! kudos


----------



## percyblueraincoat (Jun 2, 2009)

Ivan AG said:


> I see this every day when I'm walking around Kingston.
> 
> They must be rich.....


I hope that's a joke about them being rich. Lol.

Beautiful people are beautiful to most? No they r not. What us it with this place and assumption making on massive scales? The Hollywood model of beauty is, actually, pretty varied.

The following report is not scientific. I've just spent a few hours chatting to people who've done research on how voice impacts not only on the vocal element of attraction and beauty but also on the physical element. But anyway, i digress. I sat down last week with five male friends and asked them which actress they found the most attractive out of a list I'd made up of leading actresses. Pics included just so everyone knew who everyone was. Five answers. Five different answers.

Now, that's not scientific and I can't guarantee a repeat pattern in similar experiments but if u look at the detail u see people expressing varied opinions on this subject all the time. Debates and opinions. We have room for a debate because the picture is varied. We r not all encoded with one response to the notion of what is and or what is not attractive in whatever sense.

Oh, and Kathy, nobody who wud love someone for having a chunky waistline? There r entire websites and magazines designed for the sexual gratification of men and women whose type is exactly that, larger than what dome may call average. One persons flaw is anthers masturbation fodder.


----------



## bsd3355 (Nov 30, 2005)

joinmartin said:


> The following report is not scientific. I've just spent a few hours chatting to people who've done research on how voice impacts not only on the vocal element of attraction and beauty but also on the physical element. But anyway, i digress. I sat down last week with five male friends and asked them which actress they found the most attractive out of a list I'd made up of leading actresses. Pics included just so everyone knew who everyone was. Five answers. Five different answers.


I'd like to see a poll done on 2 pictures of physically unattractive females/males and 2 pictures of physically attractive females (attractive to you at least), and then compare the outcome. It'd prove to some extent that beauty, or the "cut", is truly subjective. Also, it'd be nice to know what the rater thought of his/her own level of physical attraction so we could know if their perceptions of themselves have any influence on their decision. Of course, it'd be best to do it with a larger consensus. I may start a poll in the poll section on this. It'd be interesting to see the results.

EDIT: Actually, I don't think the poll is fair to some extent. I started to make it and then felt kind of bad for picking the most ugliest person I could find and rating them verses the most attractive I could find. I guess I'd rather people don't put so much emphasis on the looks department if they themselves feel inadequate. I think for this reason I won't post a poll. Looks are important for some but they are definitely not everything.


----------



## equiiaddict (Jun 27, 2006)

Kennnie said:


> im that 1 person who finds megan fox blahh


Haha funny thing is, my boyfriend doesn't like her either. He's been telling me for the longest time that while he may be the only guy to think so, he finds her to be absolutely hideous. Same with Angelina Jolie and various others. (He's not into celebs, he prefers "real" girls and even then, he's a "only has eyes for one" kind of guy.)
I disagree with the OP, I definitely think that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Not everyone is going to find the same person attractive and it is unrealistic to think so. Everyone has different opinions of what they consider to be attractive, there is no universal definition.


----------



## au Lait (Sep 8, 2010)

I believe that beauty most definitely is in the eye of the beholder.

There are many people in this world, with many different preferences and ideas of what is and isn't attractive.

I can't think of one person who is universally considered attractive. I once talked to a guy who thought Angelina Jolie was ugly, and said he thought her lips were creepy. I doubt he's the only person who feels that way. 
There are many hollywood leading men that I don't find attractive. George Clooney is one of them, and he has been named Sexiest Man Alive by People magazine at least once, if not more.

Let's face it, we've all seen couples where we thought one of them was good looking and the other not so much. The knee jerk reaction is to assume that the "attractive" one is settling, but really that is an extremely arrogant assumption to make. It's just as likely, if not more so, that the person finds their partner attractive in a way that we may not, simply b/c they have different preferences than we do.

I used to be a member of an America's Next Top Model forum, and I can't tell you how many times members would fight over the contestants. One side would claim a girl was hideous and didn't deserve to be there, while the other side claimed she was the best looking model out of the bunch and deserved to win.

How do we account for these differing opinions if beauty isn't truly subjective?


----------



## josh23 (Nov 26, 2010)

My ex-girlfriend, to everyone else, is average in terms of attractiveness. To me she was, and still is, the most beautiful girl I have ever seen.


----------



## bsd3355 (Nov 30, 2005)

When I say beauty I don't mean little attributes an already attractive person has. You can look at two beautiful people and nit-pick which qualities make them more cuter than the other, which is subjective, and you can do that with less attractive people, but to say there isn't a difference between Roseanne and megan fox is ridiculous, and I am very surprised so many people disagree. I seriously doubt that if someone had to choose who was physical more attractive they would say roseanne was more attractive over megan fox. Does any guy here really think Roseanne is prettier than megan fox? Come on, I get enough people to say roseanne is more physically appealing that megan fox and only then will i admit physical beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I find it maddening some of you don't see this.... I must be another creature or something...there are physical beauty standards...there has to be.

Read this closely: I'm not saying every person is going to think one person is attractive, but, yes, the MAJORITY will think megan fox is prettier than roseanne, and the majority means a very large percentage of the human population...at least over 70-80% of the world population, no doubt. And that is because there are standards for beauty amongst the human race.


----------



## Revenwyn (Apr 11, 2011)

bwidger85 said:


> I'd like to see a poll done on 2 pictures of physically unattractive females/males and 2 pictures of physically attractive females (attractive to you at least), and then compare the outcome. It'd prove to some extent that beauty, or the "cut", is truly subjective. Also, it'd be nice to know what the rater thought of his/her own level of physical attraction so we could know if their perceptions of themselves have any influence on their decision. Of course, it'd be best to do it with a larger consensus. I may start a poll in the poll section on this. It'd be interesting to see the results.
> 
> EDIT: Actually, I don't think the poll is fair to some extent. I started to make it and then felt kind of bad for picking the most ugliest person I could find and rating them verses the most attractive I could find. I guess I'd rather people don't put so much emphasis on the looks department if they themselves feel inadequate. I think for this reason I won't post a poll. Looks are important for some but they are definitely not everything.


You could use me as an example of unattractive.


----------



## Tony99 (Jul 27, 2008)

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder?

Yes. It is.


----------



## millenniumman75 (Feb 4, 2005)

bwidger85 said:


> So your telling me a 400lbs man is more attractive than a 180-200lbs man? Or a 400lbs woman is more attractive than as skinner one? Maybe perhaps women are more varied on it (i.e. hairy men, etc) than men are with women (big, skinny, etc). Don't you think there are universal things that most women and men look for with physical beauty? I would say a universal thing would be weight. Things that could vary would be height, hair, etc.


 Love handles......something I can hold onto. :lol


----------



## mindsanitizer (Dec 4, 2010)

> I love how people think "beauty is in the eye of the beholder". No it's not. Physically attractive people are attractive and ugly people are not. Why should we argue with that? To save our dignity? Screw that.


 I believe that you are 100% correct in that mind set. And beautiful females know this and use it for their advantage (benefit) and ugly females know this as well and try to look beautiful themselves to try to gain advantage in life (benefits).

But relationships have been figured out really. So beauty does not matter when it comes to relationships, well, yes it does but not 100%.

oh by the way, this mentality does not get you beautiful females , just start learning how to play the game and put the truth in the closet. IMO. Knowing the truths makes you one step aahead of the rest though  IMO.

for example, take a play boy bunny or a gold digger. She does not care if you have a six pack abdomen just as long as you can pay her bills. So you can be ugly as hell but as long as you have the money, she is your trophy.  which is really a fair trade in my eyes.

Now take notice in a funny-ugly guy. Humor is almost the same as money or may even be worth more than money to some people. So any ugly guy can get a "beautiful" female just by being "that funny guy."

The same goes with a "sensitive" guy, or the guy who was at the right place at the right time. Or by default. (e.g. she was on the rebound)



> How can physical beauty be subjective? There is ugly and there is beauty. Are we that weak that we can't admit that physical attraction works that way? Or am I the blind one here?


You are correct. The difference is that being correct is not universal. So just care about what female you find beautiful and disregard the true definition of beauty. You have to lie sometimes  all females want to hear that they are beautiful... well, unless you are manipulative. That is another story. Ugly and beauty fall for manipulation 100% of the time. From what I can tell.

just learn how to play the game.

i don't know how to play it though, so don't ask for advise.


----------



## percyblueraincoat (Jun 2, 2009)

> I'd like to see a poll done on 2 pictures of physically unattractive females/males and 2 pictures of physically attractive females (attractive to you at least), and then compare the outcome. It'd prove to some extent that beauty, or the "cut", is truly subjective.


With respect, this is meaningless. 2 pictures of physically unattractive females and males? And who defines that one? Physically unattractive to whom? All I'd be able to do is express either my opinion on the women or the opinions others have of the women/males in question. And "the cut" is an invention.



> Also, it'd be nice to know what the rater thought of his/her own level of physical attraction so we could know if their perceptions of themselves have any influence on their decision.


Again, meaningless. What does it matter what the rather thinks of his or her own "level of attractiveness" (itself an invention)? And even if their opinion of themselves has an influence on things, so what? The opinion is still valid.



> Of course, it'd be best to do it with a larger consensus. I may start a poll in the poll section on this. It'd be interesting to see the results.


I know a lot of people on this forum think "majority rule" somehow creates all of reality. I'm waiting for the vote that says we're all chickens and just haven't realised it yet.



> EDIT: Actually, I don't think the poll is fair to some extent. I started to make it and then felt kind of bad for picking the most ugliest person I could find and rating them verses the most attractive I could find. I guess I'd rather people don't put so much emphasis on the looks department if they themselves feel inadequate. I think for this reason I won't post a poll. Looks are important for some but they are definitely not everything.


Which kinda proves what I've been saying all along.


----------



## percyblueraincoat (Jun 2, 2009)

> When I say beauty I don't mean little attributes an already attractive person has. You can look at two beautiful people and nit-pick which qualities make them more cuter than the other, which is subjective, and you can do that with less attractive people, but to say there isn't a difference between Roseanne and megan fox is ridiculous, and I am very surprised so many people disagree.


An already attractive person has? And this person has been deemed automatically attractive by the great non existent court of all reality? Of course there's a difference between Roseanne and Megan Fox. For one thing, they are different women and of different ages but your blanket assumption that one is more attractive than the other is your own business and opinion and, whilst valid, is not the judgement of some kind of court of reality. It's just what you think.



> I seriously doubt that if someone had to choose who was physical more attractive they would say roseanne was more attractive over megan fox.


And because you seriously doubt it it can't possible be true?



> Does any guy here really think Roseanne is prettier than megan fox? Come on, I get enough people to say roseanne is more physically appealing that megan fox and only then will i admit physical beauty is in the eye of the beholder.


Well, to be honest, Megan Fox does nothing for me. But then again, Roseanne doesn't really do much for me either. But if I had to choose, well, Roseanne has the comedy thing going so Megan can take a hike. But that's just me. Physically appealing to whom? You seem to hold the belief that "physically appealing" is defined by some external means and or authority?



> I find it maddening some of you don't see this.... I must be another creature or something...there are physical beauty standards...there has to be.


Why? Who says? Who sets such standards? One of the worst crimes in this world is that some people have tried to set up such standards and make people who don't "conform to them" feel bad about themselves and get eating disorders.



> Read this closely: I'm not saying every person is going to think one person is attractive, but, yes, the MAJORITY will think megan fox is prettier than roseanne, and the majority means a very large percentage of the human population...at least over 70-80% of the world population, no doubt. And that is because there are standards for beauty amongst the human race.


With respect, get real. You've conducted a straw poll of 70-80% of the human race? That was quick. You're guessing based on your own opinions about beauty. Standards for beauty amongst the human race? Well, that one fails the "go outside and see test" where people of all different shapes, sizes, weights, hair colours etc are in and are getting into relationships, admired, envied etc.

If you genuinely did try to get a summary of the 80% of the human population then you'd run into more than one culture with opposing ideas about beauty written into its very fabric so you'd be hard pressed to get majority agreement on such a matter even if you sought such a thing.


----------



## coeur_brise (Oct 7, 2004)

bwidger85 said:


> When I say beauty I don't mean little attributes an already attractive person has. You can look at two beautiful people and nit-pick which qualities make them more cuter than the other, which is subjective, and you can do that with less attractive people, but to say there isn't a difference between Roseanne and megan fox is ridiculous, and I am very surprised so many people disagree. I seriously doubt that if someone had to choose who was physical more attractive they would say roseanne was more attractive over megan fox. Does any guy here really think Roseanne is prettier than megan fox? Come on, I get enough people to say roseanne is more physically appealing that megan fox and only then will i admit physical beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I find it maddening some of you don't see this.... I must be another creature or something...there are physical beauty standards...there has to be.


Perhaps, I assume, what you're getting at is the fact that physically attractive people are more desirable and are more appealing, which is true but only to an extent. That said, the most beautiful person isn't necessarily going to be the most desirable and wanted by everyone. It's not that people like Megan Fox aren't physically attractive because some poeple don't like her, it's just that she's not desired by everyone, therefore, beauty is more about what's appealing to you rather than just appearances alone. Or maybe physical beauty and attraction exist in some kind of bell curve with most people agreeing with certain traits and others disagreeing at extreme ends. Again, the keyword is desireability, which can be achieved by many means other than physical beauty.


----------



## percyblueraincoat (Jun 2, 2009)

> I believe that you are 100% correct in that mind set. And beautiful females know this and use it for their advantage (benefit) and ugly females know this as well and try to look beautiful themselves to try to gain advantage in life (benefits).


It's all a conspiracy....beautiful females? Ugly females? Assumptions about people based on judgements? Half the time, a woman who is admired by lots of people doesn't realise it so how on earth you think that "beautiful women" know they are beautiful and automatically indulge in some daft conspiracy where they use such "knowledge" to their advantage is interesting.



> But relationships have been figured out really. So beauty does not matter when it comes to relationships, well, yes it does but not 100%.


Figured out by who?



> oh by the way, this mentality does not get you beautiful females , just start learning how to play the game and put the truth in the closet. IMO. Knowing the truths makes you one step aahead of the rest though  IMO.


What truth? Your opinions and views and beliefs on something are somehow truths of the universe?



> for example, take a play boy bunny or a gold digger. She does not care if you have a six pack abdomen just as long as you can pay her bills. So you can be ugly as hell but as long as you have the money, she is your trophy.  which is really a fair trade in my eyes.


Glad to see you've done so much research into playboy bunnies and gold digging people. By definition, a "gold digger" wants your money. She doesn't really want you to pay her bills forever. She wants to take the money for herself. And a gold digger and a playboy bunny don't really present themselves as anyone's trophies.



> Now take notice in a funny-ugly guy. Humor is almost the same as money or may even be worth more than money to some people. So any ugly guy can get a "beautiful" female just by being "that funny guy."


Oh, I see what you're doing. I think. Attempting to justify a theory of standards of beauty and ugliness by assuming that if someone you decide is ugly gets into a relationship then it must because another quality the person has was the reason he is liked. Because the idea that the person was liked for who they were just does not compute.



> The same goes with a "sensitive" guy, or the guy who was at the right place at the right time. Or by default. (e.g. she was on the rebound)


Drivel assumption making.



> You are correct. The difference is that being correct is not universal. So just care about what female you find beautiful and disregard the true definition of beauty. You have to lie sometimes  all females want to hear that they are beautiful... well, unless you are manipulative. That is another story. Ugly and beauty fall for manipulation 100% of the time. From what I can tell.
> 
> just learn how to play the game.
> 
> i don't know how to play it though, so don't ask for advise


With respect, you appear to have no idea what "the game" actually is never mind how to play it. Some people you decide are ugly or beautiful fall for what you call manipulation 100% of the time and you know some made up truth about life?

True definition of beauty? Who says?


----------



## Milco (Dec 12, 2009)

ImWeird said:


> I'm with you 100%
> 
> Megan Fox kind of scares me.


Completely agree on both counts 

Many girls that my friends have found attractive, I haven't really seen what the fuzz was about and vice versa.
We focus on different things and have different things that attracts us.
We all want to be fancied of course, and when you like somebody, you do start to fancy their looks as well - that's just how it works!
I think this Mitchell and Webb sketch says it best :lol


----------



## mindsanitizer (Dec 4, 2010)

> It's all a conspiracy....beautiful females? Ugly females? Assumptions about people based on judgements? Half the time, a woman who is admired by lots of people doesn't realise it so how on earth you think that "beautiful women" know they are beautiful and automatically indulge in some daft conspiracy where they use such "knowledge" to their advantage is interesting.


 first let me say that I am speaking about physical beauty here.

Moving along, well nobody likes ugly. So we must know what is beautiful. And we know what is behind of why we define beauty as beautiful. This is elementary stuff to understand.

Now, there is a difference between knowing the truth and living in a blissful life. I unfortunately did not choose to pick the way I think, I was just "born this way" because I did not choose to understand things. So to get back on point, what I speak of is what people in control want to hear but what you speak of is what everyone else wants to hear.

A physically attractive females knows she is attractive due by others telling her that she is attractive. Others who unconsciously are programed in their DNA to acknowledged physical beauty. When a female who knows she is beautiful with needs, like money, she will use her found knowledge to use it for her advantage. This are gold diggers.

What I believe you are trying to imply is females who believe to be ugly. Which that is not right to believe in. by the same token, no lion out there believes he is a looser.

I am not trying to motivate because I suck at motivating.

What I am really trying to say is that, physical beauty can be measured but that does not define true beauty. Where true beauty is what matters to us all universally. But that is not easy to understand by 99.9% of the population.

like I said, nobody likes ugly.



> Figured out by who?


 You, me, your neighbor, by everyone. If you gather everyone's relationships misfortunes, we can actually predict the future. But who is up for that, there is no beneficial gain.... monetary not emotionally. You only try to explain that to close friends and family members because it takes energy and effort.

But yeah, things are figured out because we can learn from our experiences and even way better, from others mistakes.



> What truth? Your opinions and views and beliefs on something are somehow truths of the universe?


 The truth about physical beauty and the truth about how one who chooses to have physical beauty can attain by various ways. And the truth that all start by caring about the phisical beauty first and latter just lessen that "caring" for beauty.

My opinions are facts because I belief what I belief from experience and observations.



> Glad to see you've done so much research into playboy bunnies and gold digging people. By definition, a "gold digger" wants your money. She doesn't really want you to pay her bills forever. She wants to take the money for herself. And a gold digger and a playboy bunny don't really present themselves as anyone's trophies.


 glad to see you have not done any research in playboy bunnies and gold diggers 



> Oh, I see what you're doing. I think. Attempting to justify a theory of standards of beauty and ugliness by assuming that if someone you decide is ugly gets into a relationship then it must because another quality the person has was the reason he is liked. Because the idea that the person was liked for who they were just does not compute.


 people live in their own little worlds. Or should I say, in their own little tribes. Your family and your friends and cousins, etc. are your tribe. We also live in sub-tribes. Females (wives/girlfriends/gold diggers etc.) need their female time with their female tribe members. They don't want to be with the guy 24/7 (well come confused females do) as goes the same with guys.

At any rate, to get back on point, any body in the tribe can go for the physically attractive beautiful female. It just takes more work because she has guys drooling over her. Now, by nature, we seek first physical attraction, then we seek other attributes. In the end, physical beauty is only part of what is true beauty. Because a physical beautiful female can be ugly as hell too.



> Drivel assumption making.


 hmmm... so how come I know (technically, have known cus i'm a looser now) ugly guys who used the sensitive role to get hot females to sleep with them? Like I said, I speak from experience and observation, these are not theories.

I have a cousin who is an a-hole but gets beautiful females by playing the sensitive role. But then later on when she is in love with him, he stops playing that role and becomes his true a-hole self. But by then it is too late for the majority of the females since they are sensitive humans.



> With respect, you appear to have no idea what "the game" actually is never mind how to play it. Some people you decide are ugly or beautiful fall for what you call manipulation 100% of the time and you know some made up truth about life?


 the game speaks for itself. If you cannot get more than one female, you have no game. If you can get more than 3, you do. In my case, I don't have one I just know how the game is played . oh yeah, I played it once myself in the past. Starting when I was about 11 years old.


----------



## Revenwyn (Apr 11, 2011)

mindsanitizer said:


> I have a cousin who is an a-hole but gets beautiful females by playing the sensitive role. But then later on when she is in love with him, he stops playing that role and becomes his true a-hole self. But by then it is too late for the majority of the females since they are sensitive humans.
> 
> the game speaks for itself. If you cannot get more than one female, you have no game. If you can get more than 3, you do. In my case, I don't have one I just know how the game is played . oh yeah, I played it once myself in the past. Starting when I was about 11 years old.


Are you sure it's your cousin that is the a-hole?


----------



## ImWeird (Apr 26, 2010)

Milco said:


> Completely agree on both counts
> 
> Many girls that my friends have found attractive, I haven't really seen what the fuzz was about and vice versa.
> We focus on different things and have different things that attracts us.
> ...


That video is golden.


----------



## mindsanitizer (Dec 4, 2010)

> Are you sure it's your cousin that is the a-hole?


Yes I am sure 100% he is an a-hole to females. No female out there likes to be lied to and pretending to be someone else is a form of lying. And that is a big lie not compared to just lying about being to years younger (ahem, females).

He writes poems and tells them that they are the world to him. He gives them pet names and calls them beautiful a lot. The sensitive females fall for that like a mouse on a mouse trap with a big peace of cheese on it. Then when the female is lured in and "trapped" (has fallen in love) is when the cousin starts to show his true colors. IOW, he stops pretending to be a "sensitive guy."

Now if you want to get technical about things, everyone is an a-hole in one form or another. I was an a-hole to females back when I was young though, like when I was about 11 years or so. Now as an adult, I definitely do not lie to females about anything, specially being this or that, I just show my true colors. So in that regard, I am not an a-hole. Hell, I've had opportunities where females offered me sex and I denied it because I felt she was being vulnerable at that time. Now I know that is not being an a-hole there. Plus I am a puss_ when it comes to females now.

Sorry to disappoint your opportunity to relief your baggage, but I am not like the guy who bullied you in high school.

So yes I am sure. bye.


----------



## MojoCrunch (Mar 25, 2011)

"Certainty is missing the point entirely" - Anne Lamott


----------



## bsd3355 (Nov 30, 2005)

sanria22 said:


> Perhaps, I assume, what you're getting at is the fact that physically attractive people are more desirable and are more appealing, which is true but only to an extent. That said, the most beautiful person isn't necessarily going to be the most desirable and wanted by everyone. It's not that people like Megan Fox aren't physically attractive because some poeple don't like her, it's just that she's not desired by everyone, therefore, beauty is more about what's appealing to you rather than just appearances alone. Or maybe physical beauty and attraction exist in some kind of bell curve with most people agreeing with certain traits and others disagreeing at extreme ends. Again, the keyword is desireability, which can be achieved by many means other than physical beauty.


Once again, which you may of not read, I suppose I made a bad title. I am strictly talking about physical beauty and NOT any other form of beauty. Me, personally, I'd rather date a girl I was emotionally in agreement with over a more physically attractive woman of whom I disagreed with. Still, this does not delude my mind from saying the one I disagree with is less physically attractive. In time, I may find her personality to take away from her overall beauty, sure, but initially there is a physical "beauty" that seems standard with most people. In other words, whether I agree with her or not, she is still more physically attractive.


----------



## bsd3355 (Nov 30, 2005)

tony0306 said:


> Physically speaking, there are some pretty ugly people out there.
> 
> But, I've found that no one can be physically attractive for more than three sentences if they're dumb, and conversely, a person that society might otherwise find physically unattractive by today's standards (non-SI Swimsuit Model) becomes pretty really fast if she's smart.
> 
> ...


You find someone less appealing if they are unintelligent. OK, fair enough, but that still doesn't mean that initially the majority of people would agree over who is more physically or less physically appealing from a picture, for example. Your speaking from a variety of things. My point is strictly on the physical, but I'm repeating myself now and realize it so I'll just shut up now.


----------



## Nae (Nov 10, 2003)

joinmartin said:


> Unless calibration of the women in that room had taken place, I'd be operating from a frame where it would be likely that- given that some studies suggest that what women find attractive varies a lot more than what men find attractive- both men would have similar success.


How do you fall asleep at night without knowing that the laws of physics we all depend upon won't zap out of existence while you sleep? I mean, you never know, absolutely..


----------



## bsd3355 (Nov 30, 2005)

*Look, I have to bring this topic back up because I find it absurd that people think looks are subjective...

*Please, anyone who wants to continue to share their views whether stated already or not, do so.

*Physical beauty* is NOT subjective. Physical beauty is favored by humans and different species related to their own nature of what is beautiful.


----------



## BKrakow (Jul 8, 2010)

I suppose there are some people who are objectively more beautiful than others. there is one scientific way to gauge beauty and that, of course, is symmetry. we're drawn to symmetrical things and naturally find them more aesthetically pleasing, so people with the most symmetrical faces tend to be the ones that many people would label beautiful or attractive.

that said, though, there are soooo many factors that contribute to what people find attractive, I'm not sure it's even possible for there to be a perfectly objective measure of beauty. societal influence is one big factor, for example. chubbier women used to be considered more beautiful because they appeared well-fed and aristocratic, but clearly the societal norm has shifted and people's opinions with it. porcelain white skin also used to be considered the beauty ideal for similar reasons, and now nicely tanned skin is usually considered to be more appealing.

every culture, and of course every individual, holds different standards of beauty, so how could anyone ever be really objectively beautiful? it's true that someone who is supremely beautiful in the eyes of one person could be hideous in another person's eyes.


----------



## Later (May 5, 2011)

Yes I can definitely see where you're coming from, looks is important in today's society. It's been [subconsciously] with us for centuries, Ok - since caveman times. general attractiveness include bright-shiny eyes, pink-red lips, physically-fit, and shiny hair neutral colors/looks, hygenical and groomed; features that show a healthy human being. A human wants their partner to be with them forever right?

Many young girls nowadays have an eating disorder and want plastic surgery to look like Barbie, this, really supports your argument. Guys too... with G.I. Joes maybe (LoL). No doubt looks' significant but, there are exceptions, and that is why people are saying looks are subjective. Because then comes the details - a ton of factors coming in; from your views, from your culture, from your country, from your region, and etc. time period. Physical beauty is always changing too whether it's a big change or little one.

And now here's my explanation to your thread:
Definition of subjective: Adj: Based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.
Your quotes: "physical "beauty" that seems standard with *most* people"
"I am strictly talking about physical beauty and NOT any other form of beauty. *Me, personally*, I'd rather date a girl..." This, unfortunately cannot match your own verdict, it is hypocritical. Maybe if you changed your argument again to a more broader term? Did you mean, The Most Common Universal Physical Attractiveness Features, maybe then you can say it isn't subjective but still. I am not trying to disprove you, because I know what you saying 

You have strong opinions and that's a good thing!, I bet you were on the top of your school's debate team, and I like that.


----------



## Monroee (Aug 26, 2009)

I'm unsure if I already responded to this thread. Oh well, I'll post again.

What is objectively beauty in society is fluid & constantly changing. Like bkitty said - 200 years ago there was a difference in preference. People liked pale, delicate skin. In Africa there is a difference in beauty - some cultures like the lip rings that stretch out women's lips to an insane amount. Western culture would deem it hideous, but in their culture, its considered beautiful.

Now - onto my personal experience - I can admit that a person is beautiful but it doesn't mean I'm _attracted_ to them. To me, those are different words. Megan Fox is beautiful, sure, but I'm not attracted to her in the least. But, this one woman I met in the hospital... She had boyish features, was sickly thin & dark circles around her eyes. But she was the most beautiful creature I'd ever seen. I'd doubt others would see it but I did: "The Beholder".


----------



## bsd3355 (Nov 30, 2005)

So bkitty, do you think physical beauty is a societal/cultural thing rather than a universal human thing? I'm not so sure. Hm, but I would say that the standard for physical beauty could change depending on the nature of human survival. Like for instance, if there was a worldwide famine, I'm sure heavier people would be more revered, but would they be any more physical appealing is the question? 

So basically, if I get you right, you claim that physical beauty depends on cultural/societal influences and also varies on the nature of good health depending on the situation? Confusing question, I know lol.. so let's just start here and chop it up...


----------



## bsd3355 (Nov 30, 2005)

Later said:


> And now here's my explanation to your thread:
> Definition of subjective: Adj: Based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.
> Your quotes: "physical "beauty" that seems standard with *most* people"
> "I am strictly talking about physical beauty and NOT any other form of beauty. *Me, personally*, I'd rather date a girl..." This, unfortunately cannot match your own verdict, it is hypocritical. Maybe if you changed your argument again to a more broader term? Did you mean, The Most Common Universal Physical Attractiveness Features, maybe then you can say it isn't subjective but still. I am not trying to disprove you, because I know what you saying
> ...


Haha, no I didn't have a debate team lol, but I am sincerely at odds with some beliefs and they kind of knack at me because they are big and important questions I think...

I see you quoted some of my words, but I do not see how I am hypocritical with what I said. If you read the paragraph longer from which you quoted me you would see, although I would date a less physically appealing woman with a better attitude, that STILL doesn't mean I wouldn't find her less physically appealing than the one I disagree with (read it over again). Also, you need to consider the fact that I may find them both physically appealing in some way but one more physically appealing than the other. I believe, at least in American society, that there is a standard for physical beauty. I wish I could talk of other countries, and if I was to make a bolder assumption I would probably assume for them as well, which means it isn't cultural.

You see, I guess I'm confused because I believe that anything that is beneficial to survival is attractive. Beauty is attractive because look at what benefits it offers those who are (just think about it), but this is only one example of what is "attractive" considering human survival. Once again, what is attractive is attractive because it serves a beneficial role for survival. Really, when you think of how the universe works, everything is like this; always searching for what is more beneficial for survival and beauty is no exception. So I'm am at odds with the belief that cultural beauty exists and not a more universal PHYSICAL beauty regardless of society and culture, but I can also see why it can be so it is hard to make a decision.

And yes, I am saying "The Most Common Universal *Physical* Attractiveness Features" are what are typically favored.

But then I think about real life experience, and I've seen occasions where assumingly ugly people match up with pretty people, but I do find this rare. To add to real life experience and many, many, MANY accounts from the views of people, at least, in America, they do favor a STANDARD physical body type and symmetry. But theeeeeen, I get shocked out of left field by guys I know personally of which I wouldn't think they are anything above average having pretty girlfriends. Really, this would point to the idea that beauty truly is subjective............holy crap man..... but maybe I just suck at attracting the opposite sex and therefor I assume it isn't subjective, or maybe I only view what the media portrays as physically beautiful.... I am really at odds with this. Because EVEN THEEENN I would bet to say certain people are more attractive than others and be proven right by a majority vote (i.e., rosanne is less physically appealing than megan fox), so wtf am I supposed to believe? I mean, are we talking difference between subtle attraction or larger attributes? The confusion...


----------



## bsd3355 (Nov 30, 2005)

Monroee said:


> I'm unsure if I already responded to this thread. Oh well, I'll post again.
> 
> What is objectively beauty in society is fluid & constantly changing. Like bkitty said - 200 years ago there was a difference in preference. People liked pale, delicate skin. In Africa there is a difference in beauty - some cultures like the lip rings that stretch out women's lips to an insane amount. Western culture would deem it hideous, but in their culture, its considered beautiful.
> 
> Now - onto my personal experience - I can admit that a person is beautiful but it doesn't mean I'm _attracted_ to them. To me, those are different words. Megan Fox is beautiful, sure, but I'm not attracted to her in the least. But, this one woman I met in the hospital... She had boyish features, was sickly thin & dark circles around her eyes. But she was the most beautiful creature I'd ever seen. I'd doubt others would see it but I did: "The Beholder".


This is probably the best evidence I have personally understood of why it is subjective. I will really think about this because you have good points.


----------



## lanzman (Jun 14, 2004)

all this does not matter to a blind man.


----------



## BKrakow (Jul 8, 2010)

bwidger85 said:


> Hm, but I would say that the standard for physical beauty could change depending on the nature of human survival. Like for instance, if there was a worldwide famine, I'm sure heavier people would be more revered, but would they be any more physical appealing is the question?
> 
> So basically, if I get you right, you claim that physical beauty depends on cultural/societal influences and also varies on the nature of good health depending on the situation? Confusing question, I know lol.. so let's just start here and chop it up...


yeah, I think that's exactly right. like I mentioned in my previous post, heavier women used to be considered more attractive because being overweight signified that you were actually wealthy enough to eat more food than you needed lol. being skinny was associated with poverty and poor health. so I guess that particular example is part classism and part biological imperative. and it's still true that a lot of what we perceive as beautiful has to do with biology and subconsciously wanting to choose a healthy mate capable of nurturing lots of offspring. so that explains why a large percentage of men are attracted to features like full lips, larger breasts and curvy hips, and rosy, healthy skin. but even so, that doesn't mean men wouldn't find a woman with thin lips or smaller breasts attractive. many men think angelina jolie's lips are amazing and enticing, and many men also find them freakish. there are exceptions to everything...I honestly don't think you could identify one truly objective measure of beauty that holds true to everyone.


----------



## bsd3355 (Nov 30, 2005)

lanzman said:


> all this does not matter to a blind man.


I'm referring to seeing people lol...but ok, technically I guess your right :roll :b


----------



## lanzman (Jun 14, 2004)

bwidger85 said:


> I'm referring to seeing people lol...but ok, technically I guess your right :roll :b


maybe we should all date with our eyes closed. beauty is then perceived in thought and not distracted by our eyeballs.


----------



## bsd3355 (Nov 30, 2005)

bkitty1 said:


> yeah, I think that's exactly right. like I mentioned in my previous post, heavier women used to be considered more attractive because being overweight signified that you were actually wealthy enough to eat more food than you needed lol. being skinny was associated with poverty and poor health. so I guess that particular example is part classism and part biological imperative. and it's still true that a lot of what we perceive as beautiful has to do with biology and subconsciously wanting to choose a healthy mate capable of nurturing lots of offspring. so that explains why a large percentage of men are attracted to features like full lips, larger breasts and curvy hips, and rosy, healthy skin. but even so, that doesn't mean men wouldn't find a woman with thin lips or smaller breasts attractive. many men think angelina jolie's lips are amazing and enticing, and many men also find them freakish. there are exceptions to everything...I honestly don't think you could identify one truly objective measure of beauty that holds true to everyone.


So basically, there are standards of physical beauty depending on the nature of biological means, but there is a SUBCLASS of what is subjective WITHIN that standard of physical beauty.

In other words, there is a standard of what is physically appealing but only the subclass of that standard is subjective. So basically, there is no "subjection" to non-standard physical attraction?

Do you get what I'm saying?


----------



## bsd3355 (Nov 30, 2005)

lanzman said:


> maybe we should all date with our eyes closed. beauty is then perceived in thought and not distracted by our eyeballs.


This is actually an interesting topic you bring up because it all depends on perception and not a biological need. Think about that for a second...

But then, if the blind person knew the world was famished and found out that his/her mate was skinny they'd probably be less attracted? Lol....wth..idk...


----------



## Godless1 (Aug 1, 2008)

I don't believe beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but I do believe that love is blind.


----------



## bsd3355 (Nov 30, 2005)

heroin said:


> There is a difference between beauty and attractiveness. I find many women beautiful. I am attracted to less than a handful of them.
> 
> And because people tend to think beautiful = attractive, there is confusion about that. There may be a vague standard of beauty, but that is no guarantee of attraction.


Wow man, I found another good point... must of been in whirlwind of thought at the time...

Still, when you think about it, it would still mean that physical beauty has a standard whether or not your attracted to them or not.

Honestly, I don't even have a basis of where to put a claim at this point...I think this thread may of been too vague in some instances so it is all over the place...


----------



## Atticus (Nov 10, 2003)

While the point that tastes change over time and even from culture to culture at a particular time is true, it's mostly negated because we all live now, and most of us spend our lives under the influence of a particular culture and its norms. 

The norms aren't everything, but all else being equal, a person who more closely fits the norm will be more confident that people will find him or her attractive, and that confidence becomes an X factor and helps create a self fulfilling prophecy. The opposite can be true for someone who does not match the norms.

But....

I see couples occasionally who I can't imagine either partner fell madly for the physical beauty of the other (I'm talking extreme cases). Yet they appear to be madly in love. I suspect they have the wisdom to value connection more than what it's wrapped in, and their reward for that wisdom, and something which gives me the faintest thought that there could be a god, is that the wrapping seems to start to look almost beautiful to them. 

Most of us aren't traffic stopping beautiful, or inspiringly------non beautiful---- like the couple I alluded to. By definition, most of us are somewhere near the mean, with attractive traits and not so attractive traits. Some of us, myself for one, spend a lifetime wishing we could stop traffic. Afraid that we're ordinary. 

Colossal fvcking waste of time.


----------



## Lateralus (Oct 28, 2007)

heroin said:


> Megan fox is all kinds of hot, visually speaking. If you want an example of fugly considered beautiful, see Jessica Alba.


*gasp* I can't believe you said that about Jessica Alba!!!! She is perfection!

Haha well it just goes to show that beauty _is_ subjective.


----------



## mysterioussoul (Jul 17, 2010)

yes, it is. sure there are stereotypically attractive people in which a majority of people can concur with but people are attracted to a lot of different things.


----------



## shynesshellasucks (May 10, 2008)

joinmartin said:


> Robbie Williams was one of the richest singers on the face of the planet and girls lusted after him and adored him. Still got so depressed he wanted to end it.


No one really knows much about Robbie Williams' personal life or other celebrities IRL. What could be causing Robbie Williams insecurity or low self-esteem could be that there are a lot of people that think he's gay. Maybe he is gay and doesn't want to come out of the closet or something, who knows? Maybe he has another external insecurity that has nothing to do with this, who knows?

What I know is that celebrities like Michael Jackson, and Britney Spears got crushed emotionally from people making fun of them or from people thinking they are freaks and weirdos.(these are external factors) Heck even think about Rebecca Black who took her music video down from youtube because she was insecure of the fact that millions of people made fun of her. (again an external factor)


----------



## rickthegreat (Dec 22, 2008)

joinmartin said:


> I point you once again to the porn example. Why is all porn not the same? Why the variety? Why isn't it fully of people with ruler measured symmetrical faces?...


It's not exactly their faces that I'm looking at. :b



joinmartin said:


> Because the idea that confidence comes from the approval of others is drivel. Not only that, it's a dangerous pursuit too. Looking for the confidence in the external where you can't find it.


I dunno. Secure/insecure attachment? What is rejection and disapproval in a social sense? Have we adapted or at any rate are we equipped to pick up on disapproval? What for? Ever spoken out of turn? Made a social blunder? Broken a rule?

As a social animal we might pick up on it as I dunno, a discomfort, an unease of some kind? At that time of incongruity, that instance of sticking out like sore thumb, I don't think that the unease that follows was born out of a need to inspire confidence in this social animal. That's not what would "hit the spot" right then. And while there's many levels of approval, if it isn't the water and sun that confidence needs to grow, then maybe it's the soil that let's it germinate and take root.



joinmartin said:


> Then we have the scientific study that points to what happens to women during ovulation where they switch from liking feminine faces on men to liking masculine looking faces and then back again. Now, wait a minute...I thought there was some sort of fixed standard of beauty? But there's biology again showing us the fluid, subjective motion of how we see beauty.


Good point. But it's like a Venn diagram, where feminine and masculine faces both fit into a bigger standard maybe? Do they ever like unshapely feminine faces or unshapely masculine faces?


----------



## bsd3355 (Nov 30, 2005)

Joinmartin, you have very good points, and being your explanations are in multiple paragraphs so I also have to segment what I say as well:

First of all, I'm not really talking about confidence at all which seems to be at 70-80% of your last post. I'm purely talking about physical beauty, and whether you examined confidence as an attraction factor or not, I don't believe it to be the same as physical beauty, and that is obviously because while you can be physically attractive you can also lack confidence, so I see them as separate.

You make a decent point about how the mind perceives things differently for people. This is true. And you also make a good point about the porn industry and it's lust for overweight people (I do wonder about that percentage however). And, once again, you also bring up a valid argument that states how much the media influences our perceptions and ideals of physical beauty. So I see you have three valid arguments.

1) But if this skewed media perception exists and is as effective as you claim, then wouldn't that still mean there is a standard? If it's impact is on a very large scale, then wouldn't that mean that there truly is a standard of physical beauty anyway? 

2) Or does this mean there is only a standard of physical beauty for those who follow this media influence? If that is the case, then this is your explanation of why there is no standard (because when media influences are taken away it become more subjective overall)?

3) Also, how much of an impact do you think the media influence has on most people or as a society at large? Perhaps an estimated percentage would be more effective?


I could most likely come up with more questions but I'll stick to these for now if you'd like to answer them and whatever else I wrote about as well.


----------



## G girl (Apr 6, 2011)

Your Crazy said:


> Make that 2.
> 
> And no, I totally disagree with the OP.


Make that 3 and I stay stand by "beauty is in the eyes of the beholder.


----------



## G girl (Apr 6, 2011)

joinmartin said:


> I point you once again to the porn example. Why is all porn not the same? Why the variety? Why isn't it fully of people with ruler measured symmetrical faces?
> 
> Chubby women/people are still found attractive today by a significant percentage of the population and it even varies depending upon which society you happen to be in. There's whole websites, magazines, forums and they are not just supplying some bloke called Gus who likes the larger ladies.
> 
> ...


WOW this is too good.


----------



## OpiodArmor (Jun 15, 2011)

Yes their is always a small percentage of people that this does not apply to, there ALWAYS is. 

However people generally (GENERALLY) do not want to admit that they are ugly / people can be ugly. We have been programmed by society to try and not judge others based on physical characteristics but at the same time we are constantly reminded about how we need this product or to do that to become attractive. It's a money making contradiction. 

Their are ugly people, this is a fact. People don't want to admit it but it is true. Yes if you took these ugly people some of them would be found attractive by others but by the SOCIETIES TERMS it does not change the FACT that they are ugly. Each society has their own set of standards for attractiveness and you either meet them or you do not. It IS that simple. 

If you can't handle that then your weak, however don't worry because their are many many many weak people that will argue to their last breath on any matter that promotes "equality" amounst people. GOD FORBID someone is beneath someone else! The world will end!

edit- God some of you people are really out there; you cant prove it so its not true? God talk about grasping at straws. Last I checked gravity was a theory, I guess you'd argue against that?


----------



## FairleighCalm (May 20, 2007)

You are the blind one here.


----------



## IcemanKilmer (Feb 20, 2011)

Bwidger, I agree with you. Beauty is mostly on the outside.

I think a lot of SA people have ugly personalities like me, though, so we may be an exception.


----------



## bsd3355 (Nov 30, 2005)

I appreciate everyone's comments so far. I suppose _attraction_ is more powerful than physical beauty, but I still think the physical aspects plays a part, whether that is small or not. This is something I'm a little more aware of after this thread. Thanks for your responses.


----------



## bsd3355 (Nov 30, 2005)

IcemanKilmer said:


> Bwidger, I agree with you. Beauty is mostly on the outside.
> 
> I think a lot of SA people have ugly personalities like me, though, so we may be an exception.


This isn't my argument, that beauty is only on the outside. My argument was that physical beauty isn't subjective, but I'm not debating that now. There has been many good responses to think about.

As far as SA being "ugly", I also don't think that is the case. I see SA as something normal people have who have personal difficulties they try coping with.


----------



## coeur_brise (Oct 7, 2004)

bwidger85 said:


> This isn't my argument, that beauty is only on the outside. *My argument was that physical beauty isn't subjective, *but I'm not debating that now. There has been many good responses to think about.


With respect to that, I think most people agree that there is an objective standard of beauty found in nature, often beauty meaning an indicator of health and good genetics. Having said that, I'd just say that there are many different _kinds_ of beauty out there, in fact so many kinds that people will pick and choose between what's beautiful and what's not. It'd be hard to define what's good looking if everyone looked like Megan Fox, meaning only one standard of beauty.


----------



## saso (Dec 15, 2009)

bwidger85 said:


> I love how people think "beauty is in the eye of the beholder". No it's not. Physically attractive people are attractive and ugly people are not. Why should we argue with that? To save our dignity? Screw that.
> 
> How can physical beauty be subjective? There is ugly and there is beauty. Are we that weak that we can't admit that physical attraction works that way? Or am I the blind one here?


 you're the blind one. :b
what you have is a case of black or white thinking. so you don't believe in perspective? we all have the same eye site? i don't get what you're saying. I have found myself attracted to what some woud consider ugly. so I disagree. ugly can be attractive.


----------



## bsd3355 (Nov 30, 2005)

saso said:


> you're the blind one. :b
> what you have is a case of black or white thinking. so you don't believe in perspective? we all have the same eye site? i don't get what you're saying. I have found myself attracted to what some woud consider ugly. so I disagree. ugly can be attractive.


Did you find that person _physically_ attractive? And why if you don't mind?

EDIT: I ask this because you can be attracted to them in other ways, but if you only had to go off their looks alone would you find that person physically attractive?


----------



## CopadoMexicano (Aug 21, 2004)

bwidger85 said:


> I love how people think "beauty is in the eye of the beholder". No it's not. Physically attractive people are attractive and ugly people are not. Why should we argue with that? To save our dignity? Screw that.
> 
> How can physical beauty be subjective? There is ugly and there is beauty. Are we that weak that we can't admit that physical attraction works that way? Or am I the blind one here?


Beauty is only skin deep. No one has power its only your *perception* of their power. We live in a objective world and suvjective world. Its complex to come to agreement with everyones personal opinion. Kind of like understanding self esteem and having a reality oriented view.


----------



## saso (Dec 15, 2009)

bwidger85 said:


> Did you find that person _physically_ attractive? And why if you don't mind?
> 
> EDIT: I ask this because you can be attracted to them in other ways, but if you only had to go off their looks alone would you find that person physically attractive?


 right, i see what you're saying. i think upon the initial meeting, no i wasn't attracted to him physically. it was his confidence, quirkiness, sense of humor that made him physically attractive. if that makes sense. the more i got to know him, the more chemistry grew. you know what i mean?


----------



## tropic (May 28, 2011)

saso said:


> you're the blind one. :b
> what you have is a case of black or white thinking. so you don't believe in perspective? we all have the same eye site? i don't get what you're saying. I have found myself attracted to what some woud consider ugly. so I disagree. ugly can be attractive.


 I totally agree with you. Of course there are those standards of what most consider beautiful, but that doesn't mean people without that 'conventional beauty' can't be attractive and beautiful to someone. The world is so big, there are so many people on it and we are all different. I've come across many people that most would consider weird/ugly looking but that I thought were attractive in some way.

So, @bwidger85, we have to be subjective about beauty, like saso said, we can't be thinking in black and white.  At least, that's my opinion on the matter.


----------

