Join John Adams, world renowned Intl Matchmaker, Monday nights 8:30 EST for Live Webcasts!
And check out Five Reasons why you should attend a FREE AFA Seminar! See locations and dates here.
View Active Topics View Your Posts Latest 100 Topics FAQ Topics Mobile Friendly Theme
Discuss and talk about any general topic.
This article tells about a composite photo of the world's most beautiful man and woman, supposedly.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1150257 ... world.html
I can't tell if men are good looking. I wouldnt' have know the man was supposed to be good looking if I hadn't read it. The woman is good looking, but wouldn't you say that you've seen women who are better looking? They could have done something a bit different with her nose, and where the nose meets the lips. She could possibly have benefited from more prominent high cheek bones.
You've said the same thing, regarding your inability to know if a man is good-looking or not, a dozen times here at HA, plus you always jump at any mention of homosexuality to point out that you personally find it disgusting, and you are always nit-picking about women most normal heterosexual men would find attractive without qualification. What does that suggest?
I have been thinking the same thing for a while now. For a married man, MrMan sure likes to show us pictures of women asking us if we think the woman is good looking or not. I wonder what his wife would think of that.
He also has mentioned a few times that he does not know whether or not a man is good looking.
"When I think about the idea of getting involved with an American woman, I don't know if I should laugh .............. or vomit!"
"Trying to meet women in America is like trying to decipher Egyptian hieroglyphics."
The article is just click bait as everyone has different preferences in regards to what is considered good looking or not. this also applies to different societies and cultures. What is kinda bizarre is them making the woman look more like a middle easterner, rather than the typical British woman of the past before this massive wave of Islamic rapeugees/migrants starting taking over the country, plus she is depicted with makeup which is stupid as you can't have a non-biased opinion of what a face looks like with makeup on, duh. The article is stupid and uninformative. Of course the two faces are above average in looks in comparison to the mugs people normally come across everyday, but to say they are the most beautiful in the world? Ridiculous. The guy is probably better looking than the girl and I'm no homo and can tell that easily enough.
"The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." Marcus Aurelius, Roman Emperor and stoic philosopher, 121-180 A.D.
Why is this a question that needs to be asked? There is an old saying, and IMO, it is true: Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. There is no image software that can compile hot women's faces together to come to an ideal or typical hot chick look. It just doesn't work that way. It is individual. (Besides that, who is to say that the women they used to compile the averages are actually hot?)
Actually I think the true eye is in the soul, and it helps you to find your soul mate. Attraction is in the soul, not in the eyes. Does your soul want this woman? That is the real question, and it is an individual question. Therefore a computer can't come up with it.
First the Greek statues, now this.
It's an interesting academic question to me, a bit outside of my field of study, only mildly related, but an interesting question nonetheless. I thought it might fit well in this forum.
It seems like there are certain patterns for what individuals find attraction along with individual variation, and cultural norms.
Btw, you guys can be quite judgy about this sort of thing.
No need to skewer MrMan for this, but yeah I think we can see some dude is good looking without feeling attraction or being gay. Unless you start going overboard with those 'guapo' things like Tapioca. Lol regarding this, i took this pic the other day when looking for shirts haha, needless to say that shirt was on the clearance bin
1)Too much of one thing defeats the purpose.
2)Everybody is full of it. What's your hypocrisy?
There seems to be some variation between cultures, but a lot of commonality, too. Typically, I consider leading ladies in the Chinese movies I have seen to be attractive. They usually have attractive Kung Fu women, for example. In Indonesia, I would consider most leading ladies on TV to be much more attractive than most people on the street, just like in the US. There are people almost everyone considers to be good-looking, and then there are people that certain individuals consider to be good-looking and others do not. Then there seems to be cultural variation.
I was a bit curious about Venus de Milo, if the statue was really supposed to represent the Greek concept of beauty. If it weren't Venus, maybe it isn't supposed to. The face seems average looking to me. If others agreed with me about the statue, that might be evidence against the idea that there is a universal concept of attractiveness that stretches across cultures.
How 'chunky' one can be and still be attractive probably changes more than some of the other variables.
I don't think she looks middle eastern, except for the dark hair.
Makeup (virtual makeup) could mess up the results if they were using this in a real psychological study. It would add another variable that could threaten the validity of the experiment. How could they determine if images they compared it to were made up equally to this one?
I wonder why I have no gague to determine this. If I had to guess, I would think the man was kind of average looking, maybe slightly feminine looking. I wouldn't know that girls would find him attractive. I didn't bring that up to accuse men of being 'homo.' I just wonder why I have almost no sense of whether a man is good-looking. I can't tell if I'm good-looking if I look in the mirror. Women all seem to have a sense of who the pretty women are. I wonder if there are any other men like me who can't tell about men.
If a man can identify another man as good-looking, I don't think that means he has homosexual tendencies. That would be a childish way to set up other posters for a middle school locker room insult, and that wasn't my intention.
It is weird to me that a topic like this would provoke others to accuse me of wrong-doing. There is a thread about the ideal woman with scantily dressed women on it, and I refer to a computer image and a psychology theory, and I get such a negative reaction. If no one on the forum likes the topic, okay, I'll naturally stop posting. I don't get the negative reaction to the topic of the thread, though.
You'd think the topic of what makes people attractive to others might be of interest on a board dominated on a board where many men complain about not being able to date women (at least in their own country). If you could comb your hair a certain way and make your head shaped more like the golden ratio, that would be helpful. (I'm using 'you' in the sense of not referring to anyone in particular). If you can figure out what some trigger in your mind that causes you to be attracted to certain women, breaking that down and examining whether you should pursue some biologicla instince might help keep you from making a poor decision.
Also, if having facial features that approach the mean in a normal distribution on certain variables is deemed attractive, there may be other variables that could be considered desirable as they approach the mean of a normal distribution.
I heard a psychology presention of some research... I'm thinking it may have been from an MIT researcher... who found that women rated men's faces as more attracted when presented next to a less attractive man who resembled him. For example, a man might go up a point on a one to 10 scale if his face were compared to a less attractive man who resembled him. I believe the experiment was that he would actually distort the face to make less good-looking versions of a man. His advice to his young college student audience was if they went out to a club, go with someone who looks like you, but isn't as good looking.
She looks more like a divorce rapist than a 10/10.
Anyway, haven't scientists got better things to do than to research inane stuff like this?
Like Adama said, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
P.S IMO she's an 8.
If MrMan can't tell the difference between one of those images from googling "mugshots" and the guy in that article, then either he's an idiot or he has subconscious fear of being called homo if he admits to seeing the difference. God only knows why he would have such a fear. Maybe he's a closet homo, maybe just another HA nutcase.
As for Zambales, something wrong with him too. By any reasonable standard, the woman is top 10% as far as facial beauty. Personally, I think the HB scale is silly, a way for men to cope with feelings of their own inadequacy by putting down women. A three score system of low, average, high would be sufficient for most people's purposes, though are the end of the day what should really matter is the arousal test: if someone gets you sexually aroused, that's the person you want to have sex, even if they are as ugly as a toad.
Regarding MrMan's point that what constitutes beauty in the eye of women is very relevant to this forum, I am in complete agreement. Well-conducted experiments have consistently shown that men's height, muscularity/fatness and smell are all more important than men's face to women. (Wish I had the links, maybe someone here can find them.) Muscularity/fatness we have complete control over. Smell is partly under our control (get rid of nervous perspiration smell, get rid of smell from not bathing or rotten teeth, add smell of testosterone by eating and exercising properly, residual smell is immune-system based and we can't control and shouldn't try to conceal). Can't change height but can move to someplace where the competition is also short if you are short yourself. Experiments have also shown that certain haircuts are universally despised by women: in particular, the combover on balding men (not sure if these experiments included a Trump style "f**k what anyone thinks" comb-forward haircut as an option). As for the face, not much you can do about it other than plastic surgery, so seems a waste of time worrying whether you are handsome or not.
To some people everyone is either homosexual or closeted. That must be convenient. The people who approve of homosexuality the most think everyone is homosexual. And if you don't openly approve of homosexuals and their lifestyle, that means you're closeted. It's as if they can't consider that there actually are heterosexuals in the world who find unnatural activity revolting.
And out of the other side of their mouth, they desperately want to use homosexuality as an insult against any religious person, to imply that they are closeted. They use false accusation to label religious people as homosexuals, probably as some form of shame, and because everyone must be homosexual in their eyes anyway.
False accusations, slander, foaming out shame, taking God's name in vain, maliciousness, malignity, bragging, insults and reviling. Approval of fornication with strange flesh.
Scientists? Do you count psychologists and others in the social sciences to be 'scientists'? Go hang around a university campus and ask the professors and grad students to explain what they are researching. There does not have to be much of a connection between the research and helping people in real life for academics to research it and for universities governments, and foundations to fund it.
This research actually has a lot of practical applications. Imagine if some company could invent a device to put make-up on a woman's face. If there were a formula for what most people considered beautiful, the machine could highlight features in such a way as to make the face appear to conform more to that ideal. A make-up artist could do the same thing if she could do something similar with a computer program that reads the features on the face. Plastic surgeons could use computer programs to help guide their decisions. They may already. There are also industries like cartoons and CGI film technology. Maybe one day, we'll go to the movies, watch a real looking movie, but really it's just a CGI cartoon. Cartoonists could make characters good looking by clicking on a button or make them less appealing.
Some of these things may be good for business but may be of little benefit from a purely utilitarian perspective, unless makeup and plastic surgery helps people get married, encourages reproduction, etc.
I'd say an 8 or up, but certainly not the most beautiful woman in the world, not from this angle. And there probalby is no other angle, since she isn't real.
To be taken with a grain of salt. The 'academic' is Solomon, a jew. Skewing the sense of beauty to something more jewish could be on the agenda. Natalie portman is also a kike's kikess, promoting Israel and the hollowhoax
http://www.virtualjerusalem.com/culture ... emid=12414
No wonder a jew would rate her at the top.
Scarlett Johansson is also half jewess. So already the jewish agenda is showing.
The pic of the female is skewed towards the pic of that Portman woman, which i don't find that attractive. Just looks like an oven dodger. The ideal face doesn't float my boat either. To me the male looks metro. I certainly would never want to look like that.
why write the article? To impose the jewish agenda in your brain of course, without mentioning jews. But The Solomon is a dead give away.
I had an IQ test when I was a kid and did well enough to get into the school's gifted program. I have advanced degrees as well. I had solid SAT and GRE scores. But I can't really tell if a man is good-looking. I can guess, mainly if a man in a movie is in a role where he should be good-looking, like the leading man, or if a man resembles some other guy who is supposed to be good looking. With the artificial guy in this picture, I would have guessed wrong. That doesn't make me crazy or a nutcase. It certainly isn't any kind of evidence for accusing me of being homosexual.
I could psychoanalyze you, too. In the past, the people I've witnessed accusing others of being repressed homosexuals for not liking homosexuality were homosexuals themselves. I could also say that I wonder if my stating the fact that I can't really tell if men are good looking is threatening to you because you can tell, and it makes you wonder about your own feelings and inclinations. But I'm not going to play that game. If you can tell if a man is good-looking, that doesn't make you a homosexual. If I can't, that doesn't make me a homosexual.
I recall a conversation about the 1 to 10 scale, and some posters don't count an 8 as 80th percentile. A woman might have to be in the 90th percentile to be an 8. Percentile makes more sense. Beauty is also subjective, so there may be some feature he doesn't care for that would cause him to rank her lower than you would, or there may be some feature you like that would cause you to rank this imaginary woman higher.
@MrMan: if you were unable to distinguish ugly from beautiful women, as well as being unable to judge men, and you had all sorts of social problems, I'd cut you some slack as an autistic. But that's not the case here. The fact that you can argue in this subtle way who's hiding what proves you're far from being autistic.
What your problem is, I'm not sure. Most likely, as with Adama, you're just very sexually repressed, so terrified of possibly being a closet homo that you can't think or talk straight about male beauty, rather than actually being a closet homo.
As for an 8 not being 80th percentile, yes, I'm familiar with that all-too-common stupidity. Those who want an 8 to mean something other than 80th percentile should define their mathematical formula. Of course, they don't have a formula and wouldn't understand such a formula if someone else presented one. Pure stupidity.