Beauty Is Rare And Not Relative

[drealm]

Beauty is not in the eye of the beholder. Proportions, skin tones, height, ect are all critical factors in beauty. Much of this genetically determined, little can be changed after the fact. A beautiful looking woman comes down to exact measurements regardless of personality. See Feminine Beauty (Feminine Vs Masculine): http://www.femininebeauty.info/feminine-vs-masculine. If you accept this stance then you realize beauty is very rare. This ultimately means you'll be terminally unhappy if you have very high standards.

I see America as a harsh beauty contest for men. Women can afford to be picky and therefore reject men vary harshly. However I bring this up because I see venturing abroad a role reversal. In other words the American man get's to be picky. He can settle for only the top 10% of women and reject the other 90%. With the aid of the internet this is compounded further because on dating websites a man can reject women much easier. By making rejection easier this encourages more selectivity.

For example I'll show some photos of women whom are interested in me from a website. I'll rate them on a scale of 1-10.

2


3


5


7


9


If I don't know any of them and I can't judge any of their personalities, why would I ever settle for anything but the highest number I can find? If you don't speak their language and they can't win you over with any other traits since it's a virtual medium then beauty will be the dominating factor every time. Normally when you date, you at least have to reject a woman in person. But on foreign dating websites, it's as easy as not responding to them. The insidious thing about foreign dating websites is that it encourages you to constantly upgrade your standards. In other words lets say a woman contacts you who's a "5" and you start chatting with her. But the next week a "7" contacts you.. Since it's all shallow communication without rejection consequences - there's an incentive to constantly reject people and move up the ladder.

For the record I consider myself a 5-6.

I guess I'm just uncomfortable with this role of being picky and rejecting people. It seems mean. And it's very easy to be develop ridiculous standards that can't be satisfied. On the other hand though traveling to any foreign land is a lot of effort. The reason to date abroad in a nutshell is to find something better than is available domestically. So the question becomes why bother dating someone whom you can date at home?

Where do you guys draw the lines on standards?

[Truthville]

Beauty is not in the eye of the beholder.

I respectfully disagree!

Why?

Because I have found through-out my life THAT women other men find attractive, I don't! And vice-versa of course!

An example from your own post!

Pictures 1-5 would be ranked by me in the following order!

Picture 1 = 6

Picture 2 = 1

Picture 3 = 5

Picture 4 = 4

Picture 5 = 7


IMHO, the Media creates a "standard" of beauty usually based on the opinion of a few, then flood the culture with aforementioned "standards," THEN sit back and watch people BUY and BUY and BUY useless products in order to achieve this "standard," creating wealth for the few and insecurity, poverty, and stupidity for the rest!

And it's very easy to be develop ridiculous standards that can't be satisfied.

That is the danger of constantly "upgrading" people like they are the latest gadget! I also believe it leads to complete and utter unhappiness. Never satisfied, never fulfilled, always looking for the "better" thing instead of appreciating what you have now! Just another charming aspect of our "consumer" culture! People as "things" existing solely for our pleasure and validation. "Upgraded" at will, discarded at leisure!

[drealm]

Picture 5 = 7

Your post indirectly confirms my point. We both agreed photo 5 is the hottest. You can't argue with geometry. Your standards are actually tougher than mine it seems.

If you read the website link I attached you'll actually see that the author of the article is against mainstream models. Most mainstream models lack feminine features.

I don't see anyone as being immune to being a harsh critic when you're in a position to judge easily.

[Truthville]

True BUT my point being that while there are "standards" of beauty, aforementioned "standards" absent "cultural conditioning" vary.

Harsh? Nah! Just different! Your 2 is a 6 to me! Your 7 is a 4 to me!

[davewe]

Picture 5 = 7

Your post indirectly confirms my point. We both agreed photo 5 is the hottest. You can't argue with geometry. Your standards are actually tougher than mine it seems.

If you read the website link I attached you'll actually see that the author of the article is against mainstream models. Most mainstream models lack feminine features.

I don't see anyone as being immune to being a harsh critic when you're in a position to judge easily.

I too don't agree with your statement though you might find some level of consensus. This very forum disproves your point. There are guys here who love the looks of Asian girls and others who would not set foot in Asia for any girl. Guys who love tall; or small. Pale skinned or dark. Petite or voluptuous.

As to the notion of genetic attraction, people have been trying to codify what is genetic perfection for a long while to no affect. And even if we could agree on what it was, if only genetically perfect people procreated the gene pool would quickly get pretty screwed up.

Like is often not attracted to like and that too benefits the gene pool. And attraction is not just based on looks. A less than stellar looking white guy can go to certain parts of the world and have beautiful girls fall over him. Thank God for that!

[newlife]

I think a guy with a fetish would see all of them as attractive. :barf:

[ethan_sg]

People are very fond of using the fact that there are at least a handful of exceptions to every rule to as evidence to disprove the rule itself.

The reality is that the fact that they are exceptions only prove that it is a rule. Although there are few 100% absolutes in this world, in a world of 7 billion people, something needs only to be true most of the time to most people to have an extremely significant impact on our lives

People, especially less good looking people, like to put forth the idea that looks are entirely 100% subjective so as to make the world seem more egalitarian and less unfair, and to also feel better about themselves. Sayings like 'beauty is in the eye of the beholder' are testament to this mentality. The reality is however very different.

There was for instance a study done a few years ago which showed that newborn infants from various cultural and ethnic backgrounds all over the world stare longer at the same set of conventionally more attractive faces as opposed to the unattractive faces, suggesting that although preferences for certain physical traits may vary across cultures, there is a general rule that humans innately consider more symmetrical faces to be more beautiful, regardless of background and ethnicity.

If looks were really too subjective for there to be a hierarchical ranking, then you would expect that every person in this world, if given a chance to be looked at and ranked by the rest of the world, would come up with an equal ranking as everybody else. The reality is, for example if you look at www.hotornot.com, there is a whole spectrum of different rankings of different individuals from the scale of 1 to 10s.

If you asked every guy in this world whether they consider for instance Jennifer Garner or Oprah Winfrey more attractive, you may get about 98-99% who say Jennifer Garner is more attractive, and 1--2% going for Oprah, so yes there are exceptions to every rule because few things are 100% absolute, but this doesn't mean we can't then categorically say that Jennifer Garner is considered by men to be more attractive than Oprah Winfrey.

So yes you might get some differences in opinions on the looks rating of certain individuals, but 95% or more of ratings for that individuals are probably gonna fall within a standard deviation of 0-2 points from the overall mean (average) rating given to that person. The 5% that fall outside that standard deviation are simply exceptions of a small minority, and do not disprove the rule.

The results of this experiment, for example, also show that there is a fairly consistent objective hierarchy in terms of looks and the effects it has on one's dating market value.

http://heartiste.wordpress.com/2012/06/ ... xperiment/

With regards to this experiment, of course outside the anglosphere and hyper-developed countries like Japan, I anticipate that the results would be slightly more favorable towards men than the results shown in this study, but the results would still show that looks make a big difference in terms of female interest towards you and that different people will fair differently according to their looks.

Now if looks were completely subjective and impossible to rank objectively then it would mean again that everyone should come out at about the same ranking and receive equal treatment from the opposite sex in terms of the number of messages from the opposite sex, but this experiment unsurprisingly shows that this not the case.

If looks were truly merely relative, then everyone in this world including grossly obese people could qualify to be beauty fashion models, but that is just ridiculous fantasy.

[davewe]

People are very fond of using the fact that there are at least a handful of exceptions to every rule to as evidence to disprove the rule itself.

The reality is that the fact that they are exceptions only prove that it is a rule. Although there are few 100% absolutes in this world, in a world of 7 billion people, something needs only to be true most of the time to most people to have an extremely significant impact on our lives

The very fact that there are 7 billion people sort of demonstrates that all sort of people screw all sorts of other people. It doesn't take long in my city to walk around a mall or the streets and see plenty of decent looking guys hanging out with hideous land whales. You might even see a few decent looking women hanging out with ugly douche bags. It happens. If the guys love their land whales and find them beautiful who am I to argue (though I do shudder).

If a guy leaves his home country often enough he will discover that tastes and sensibilities in other cultures do differ. It's one of the basic principles of this forum.

PUAs want to argue that looks are absolute and you cannot get a girl significantly better looking than you are - that is unless you buy their latest "game" training program. Young women argue the same because they are under the illusion that their beauty is infinite and will last forever. When they hit 30+ and suddenly discover they are no longer pulling the hottest guys they quickly change their tune and declare that qualities other than raw beauty and sexuality are what makes a real woman.

Looks have become the deciding commodity in the Anglosphere. It wasn't always this way. Men have been sucked into this notion by Western women and feminism. Traditionally it was the job of women to look good for men. It was the job of a man to be a man; to project confidence and masculinity. Todays Western guys feel they must spend hours in the gym, coif their hair, wear the current clothes and shoes - in order to look "pretty" enough to get girls. And even then they discover they can't do well with Western women.

But by all means if a guy on this forum decides he is not good looking enough to pull anything other than a hideous land whale, who am I to argue. Enjoy the blubber!

[drealm]

I agree with ethan.

davewe, everyone screws everyone because of lack of better options. If your option was no sex, or sex with a 5 what would you take?

I think a less attractive guy can get a more attractive woman without PUA.

My main concern is just the following: you'll break a lot of hearts along the way.

I mean I can't think of anything more shallow than saying "you're a 7.3 and I just met a girl who's a 7.9 - so I'm going to ignore you because you're the new loser". Yet this is exactly what a dating website forces people to do. By expanding the dating pool beyond prospects you meet in real life - it become very easy to be hyper selective. I'm not immune to this but I do acknowledge it.

[davewe]

I agree with ethan.

davewe, everyone screws everyone because of lack of better options. If your option was no sex, or sex with a 5 what would you take?

Sure. But this place (HA) exists to show you that you have more options than Western women (whether ugly or hot) and more options than comparing those 7.3s to 7.9s and having her rate you as well.

The subject has changed from the OP who postulated that looks were absolute and could be universally agreed upon. That's what I disagreed with. I certainly don't disagree that some guys can get more girls than others and some girls end up with better looking guys. And that looks are a factor.

For example, I am 5'6". In the US that is a factor that sometimes has limited me. Now, over the years I've still managed to have gfs and wives, but still, I always know that I have an issue to overcome.

But guess what? I travel to the PI and no girl judges me for being too short - I tower over many girls. This is my point - that different cultures view you differently. In the US, I am just an aging, short white guy, albeit charming and talented But in other cultures I have visited I have a major advantage.

But again, YMMV and if you choose to date in the West you will have to deal with Western values of beauty and handsomeness.

[ethan_sg]

Well consider first of all that you're living in a country full of obese women. If any of you are into Chinese girls, let me tell you, go to China and have a look for yourself.

Over there, you will see for yourself that beauty is indeed not so rare after all

[metroman]

This kind of ties to my post about Pantyhose being a rare sight today.

[vlkmo]

I disagree that it's so rare. There are historically different standards of beauty across different cultures (I don't consider the current "body positivity" trend to be a real beauty standard and it's more of a misleading social statement). It is more like a fairly broad spectrum with ends of tolerance.

When I was regularly in contact with other peers in high school, I would say that there were a lot more than a few per class or entire student body or female population under 30 that were physically attractive to any extent, so by my own standards I don't consider that rare.

[metroman]

Lots of Gen Xers will tell you that there were a higher proportion of physically attractive people in general in the population compared with today and going by photos of people in generations that went back even further back. Woke culture has normalised sloth and ugliness as simple as that.

[vlkmo]

Lots of Gen Xers will tell you that there were a higher proportion of physically attractive people in general in the population compared with today and going by photos of people in generations that went back even further back. Woke culture has normalised sloth and ugliness as simple as that.

I certainly do believe that. Even though further back some clothing like bikinis were not acceptable, let alone frequently worn.