Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes, good looking can be broken down to mathematical components, and really good looking people are essentially universally found appealing.
But a picture is one small part of who a person is, and other factors come into play. Thus, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
My GF and I were single at the same time, similar in looks, weight, and income. We still dated completely different guys, and couldn't see what the other person saw in who they were dating.
__________________ ____________________________________________
My posts as a Mod will always be in red.
Be sure to review Terms of Service: TOS
And check this out: FAQ
Moderator: Relationships Forum / Hawaii Forum / Dogs / Pets / Current Events
Yes, good looking can be broken down to mathematical components, and really good looking people are essentially universally found appealing.
But a picture is one small part of who a person is, and other factors come into play. Thus, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
My GF and I were single at the same time, similar in looks, weight, and income. We still dated completely different guys, and couldn't see what the other person saw in who they were dating.
Yup...my sister and I, same parents, same shared genetics, same upbringing, have totally different taste in men, both physically and their personalities. We would look at one another's boyfriend and silently go, "huh?"
I saw an interesting lecture/film last night it was on the science of attraction but one part was a test where they used 100 4x5 randomly generated cards with women of all shapes, sizes, facial feature, races, etc etc in bikini's and males in speedo's for the female sample group. The people in the group would arrange the photos across a square table left to right working down top left being most attractive, 50 people would get the same random 100 cards to arrange, after the test another 100 cards were generated without any of the previous 100 in the new 100 cards. they did this with several sample groups, and with every iteration of the test for both males and females an average of 10(some more some less) would end up in the top 20 of the majority of the group. admittedly a slightly higher majority for the male test groups, but women still showed a pattern. (what I found interesting is the ones that were viewed as attractive by the widest range for both male and female tended to have a racially ambiguous look I'm surprised that was not mentioned).
But anyway beauty has pretty much been mapped down to a mathematical equation, proportion of features, body parts etc etc.. but people still say " beauty is in the eye of the beholder " even though there are certain physical traits that more people are going to be hard wired to be attracted to.
And yes no matter who you are there is someone who thinks your hot, but if its such a small % of the population it does you no good(unless you get lucky).
Because I still don't understand why people think Angelina Jolie is good looking.
Yes, good looking can be broken down to mathematical components, and really good looking people are essentially universally found appealing.
But a picture is one small part of who a person is, and other factors come into play. Thus, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
My GF and I were single at the same time, similar in looks, weight, and income. We still dated completely different guys, and couldn't see what the other person saw in who they were dating.
I must say I like your response, most here are speaking of 2 different types of attraction.
It's obvious from my artwork that I tend to prefer the tattooed, dark dressing, wild hair colored type of woman the clean cut preppy/soccer mom/stepford wife look (the other extreme) not so much as a result someone who is my type would only have to be "somewhat" attractive or barely on the mathematical scale you mentioned, but given enough "mathematical components" a woman who rocks a style I typically don't find attractive I will still be attracted and if she showed interest I would most likely look much deeper to find if we have things in common(been known to happen).
And I know many guys who are not into the tatted up type, they think it's trashy but most of them have dated at least one you ask them "but what about (insert name of tatted chic you know he dated)?" and their answer is " yah but she was hott".
Or a lady I used to work with who did not like rednecks(she was into metrosexual types lol), she ended up dating one and he was a stereotypical redneck but also looked like an underwear model, or a redneck on a "CW" show) (other women who worked there were calling him "trailerpark ken" as in Ken and barbie.)
That is the advantage of being on the high end of those "mathematical components" people is that they are given a chance by a wider range of people.
I must say I like your response, most here are speaking of 2 different types of attraction.
It's obvious from my artwork that I tend to prefer the tattooed, dark dressing, wild hair colored type of woman the clean cut preppy/soccer mom/stepford wife look (the other extreme) not so much as a result someone who is my type would only have to be "somewhat" attractive or barely on the mathematical scale you mentioned, but given enough "mathematical components" a woman who rocks a style I typically don't find attractive I will still be attracted and if she showed interest I would most likely look much deeper to find if we have things in common(been known to happen).
And I know many guys who are not into the tatted up type, they think it's trashy but most of them have dated at least one you ask them "but what about (insert name of tatted chic you know he dated)?" and their answer is " yah but she was hott".
Or a lady I used to work with who did not like rednecks(she was into metrosexual types lol), she ended up dating one and he was a stereotypical redneck but also looked like an underwear model, or a redneck on a "CW" show) (other women who worked there were calling him "trailerpark ken" as in Ken and barbie.)
That is the advantage of being on the high end of those "mathematical components" people is that they are given a chance by a wider range of people.
You're talking about clothes and hair.
I am talking about completely different looks. For instance, I am crazy for short guys. Not my sister's preference. She likes a certain rugged kind of look, hard to describe...you know, the chiseled face thing...really strong jaw and so on. I like softer features...more artistic. She always liked very dark eyes, me, not so much. She likes a build-build, I don't like a lot of muscles.
You are still trying to prove "it's still the same person," just without Manic Panic and tattoos.
Nope.
Now certain really basic things? Like symmetry? Ratios? Probably more universal, at least at a glance, until you get to know the person and decide you are attracted to more than a glance. But you are trying to reduce it to: we all like the SAME look, period. I don't know why but you are. However, that's wrong and it should be obvious that it is wrong. People are attracted to all different features and all different personalities and I don't mean the same face but starving and glaring v. smiling, with regular-colored hair.
I am talking about completely different looks. For instance, I am crazy for short guys. Not my sister's preference. She likes a certain rugged kind of look, hard to describe...you know, the chiseled face thing...really strong jaw and so on. I like softer features...more artistic. She always liked very dark eyes, me, not so much. She likes a build-build, I don't like a lot of muscles.
You are still trying to prove "it's still the same person," just without Manic Panic and tattoos.
Nope.
Now certain really basic things? Like symmetry? Ratios? Probably more universal, at least at a glance, until you get to know the person and decide you are attracted to more than a glance. But you are trying to reduce it to: we all like the SAME look, period. I don't know why but you are. However, that's wrong and it should be obvious that it is wrong. People are attracted to all different features and all different personalities and I don't mean the same face but starving and glaring v. smiling, with regular-colored hair.
Yeah I think that’s absolutely true. I know some women who really want a big guy with a teddy bear appearance, while others may prefer more lanky guys. Some want men with a lot of muscles. That’s completely separate from what a person is wearing or how many tattoos they have. I know men are the same way... some like more tiny/petite women, while others prefer women who are a bit more voluptuous.
Then once you get to the general body type that you like, it goes to the clothing/personality which can be dressed with anything from the preppy look to the tattooed look.
That is the advantage of being on the high end of those "mathematical components" people is that they are given a chance by a wider range of people.
Yep, true dat.
Rich also have more advantages, and funny and....
Basically, good traits are popular, and bad traits are not. But we knew this, right?
So, some people have it easier, and some people have it harder, it will always be that with everything.
Some have to work harder at things to get what they want.
__________________ ____________________________________________
My posts as a Mod will always be in red.
Be sure to review Terms of Service: TOS
And check this out: FAQ
Moderator: Relationships Forum / Hawaii Forum / Dogs / Pets / Current Events
LOL, no. way too tacky for me. The girl with way too short mini skirt and the guy with the cane especially if he really does not need it, kinda like those who wear glasses when they really don't need it, WTF is up with that, LOL. I was gonna say you seem to like extreme styles and you admit it in your latest post. I prefer simple. Simplicity is beauty. Clean and simple. Nothing too extreme, it screams attention whoring, not into that, at all. But you do you. And in graphic design, extreme anything is a must. You want to grab your audience attention. In real life, extreme is just not for me.
Because I still don't understand why people think Angelina Jolie is good looking.
I love her as an example of "beauty in the eye of the beholder" because I've watched men in a bar get into a really fierce argument over whether she is hot. Like, people seem to either think she's stunning, or fugly, and there is little in between.
Personally though, I can't decide. Like at some angles, in some light, I think "God, she's gorgeous" and at other angles in other light, her lips look freaky to me.
But adopting random kids like picking up kittens from the shelter, that'd be a dealbreaker for me. Not the lifestyle I could deal with living, nope. You can keep all that circus far, far away from me.
Thing is, cyphorx, people keep telling you that reducing human beings to this computer generated template snapshot thing, that you mean to acquire and then demand it all stays precisely as it was the day you got it (the person, the relationship)...that's what's really strange for most of us. People are more fluid, dynamic, evolving, living, breathing, changing. Each of us comes with a whole world view, a reality bubble attached, with other humans we know, with a past and a story. No real woman is a doll that will happily exist only to interact with you. Which circles right back to my thinking that you might be the most ideal candidate I've ever known in my life, to find happiness with a robot. And I don't think there's anything wrong with that, I don't think it makes you some kind of a loser or anything. You're weird, but weird is alright. Like you stand where you stand. It would be if anything, more ethical than expecting to trap a living soul in the concrete box of your expectations, and getting mad when they act like a person, rather than an eternally pretty pleasure droid.
But as someone who is not all that good at accepting and understanding real human women and real human relationships, who has an unusual ideal of how all of this should work, I'd say you could quit projecting your own stuff and trying to extrapolate your thinking into something that is somehow normal. You don't really need confirmations, that other people do this or that which validates your views. Or that your dissatisfaction is because of how the rest of the world is. Embrace your differentness; there's nothing wrong with being weird.
If you start a gofundme for a sex robot, I'll chip in the first ten bucks, ok?
Because I still don't understand why people think Angelina Jolie is good looking.
Honestly between her and Aniston, I prefer Angelina. While Aniston's style match my preference, she might have tats, but not visible unlike Jolie's. Like Jolie had a goth phase, Aniston is always squeaky clean style which was my preference but I am talking about the face, Jolie, IMO, is better than Aniston's meh face. LOL.
Ok, my lesbian phase is showing coz these are faces I'm crushing on, all women, who knew? LOL. Shailene, Keira, Natalie, Emma Watson. I can look at their faces 24/7/365.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
But you do you. And in graphic design, extreme anything is a must. You want to grab your audience attention. In real life, extreme is just not for me.
