Is really "attractive looking" an individualistic opinion?

Post Reply New Topic

Yes, she does, and I'd judge them about the same in attractivity, but Lillian Gish still radiates a lot more of a kind of shy confidence, so if I would rate them for a potential partner, I'd still go with Lillian Gish.

Lillian Gish would be seen conventionally attractive today.

And there those who wrote against the claim that beauty change over centuries; the most common misinterpretation was some obese women paints from Medieval age by some specific few painters, even thought even at that time most women in paints are slender with fine facial traits, and in most ancient times, beauty goddesses are presented as slender as well.
Even "manly" gods and heroes were sculpted as muscular and conventionally handsome to modern standards.

Beauty standards didn't really change much.

But that's kinda off-topic.

Last edited by The_Face_of_Boo on 11 May 2015, 3:59 am, edited 1 time in total.

On the experiment, I think everyone could know the outcome in advance just based on the photos. It's pretty clear the unshaven dude in the blue shirt with the "I got this" look is massively more attractive than the other guys, even men can feel a little bromance when looking at him. Same with the women, it was pretty clear those two were going to get the most matches. I think most people could have predicted that.

Yes, it's pretty predictable that the girl in black&white photo, the girl in black and the unshaved guy will be on top.
and the 2 overweight persons will be on the bottom.

And that's exactly how it turned out.

The whole thing is also true when it comes to men's height, women aren't really individual when it comes to tall men and short men.

Last edited by The_Face_of_Boo on 11 May 2015, 4:05 am, edited 1 time in total.

The thin ideal of girls might be cultural, but then I don't think super-thin girls are very attractive (and if they are, it's not because they are super-thin). OTOH, being fat is not attractive at all, and never has been I suspect. So the super-thin ideal is more of a social beauty-standard than anything else, and has little to do with how we judge beauty naturally.

YOU HEAR ME MEN AND WOMEN?? YOU ARE ALL CLONES IN YOUR COMMUNITY! YOUR PREFERENCES IN THE OPPOSITE SEX = 99% OF THE OTHERS' IN YOUR TRIBE.

I thought that being a bit heavier but not fat was more attractive in the past since it implied that you had money but it changed to beeing fit, because beeing fit means that you have the time and money to excersice. Same thing with getting tanned, beeing pale was the thing, becuase being tanned ment that you were working outside alot, but in the 1920's it changed since people with money started to go on vacation and had the free time to spend outdoors.

Yeah, but then attractivity plays no role in how I select potential partners. That process requires putting down some effort, and then I don't mean effort in make-up or looks.

Yes for initial contact but looks are not enough and looks fade

Sure, but that is the social dimension, and as a neurodiverse, I really don't care about any of that. I prefer girls with a "normal" weight (not too thin, neither fat), and without a tan (as tanning implies they are health or social freaks).

Those are all slight variations, extra little weight, extra less weight, tanned or not tanned, muscularity variations, big boobs or well sized boobs...all are slight variations.

But for example flat chest in women was never represented as attractive in all human history, and so the shortness in men.

If you look at the big picture, there are no significant variations; but those slight variations may have significant impacts like depicted in the tinder experiment.

That is true, but for interwebs dating all people have to go on is what people write in their profile (which was all the same in this case, and self-descriptions are largely BS) and the picture. If the only difference was in appearance, it's pretty clear what people choose.

Self descriptions are like horoscopes, there is the (???)-effect that makes them applicable to everyone.

My life experience really killed my faith that women are individualistic, I can 99% predict what a girl taller than me would tell me if I ask her -and yes, a lot of girls are taller than me, about half of them if not more (I am 162 cm).

Even personality-wise, they all describe the same personality traits, such as social and confident and bold.

And that experiment confirms further how non-individualistic they are in many aspects.

WOMEN, YOU ARE NOT INDIVIDUALS, YOU ARE CLONES!

Last edited by The_Face_of_Boo on 11 May 2015, 4:35 am, edited 1 time in total.

So people choose a possible partner on a dating site and then go on a date, before getting to know them (chatting or so) ?

Let me asks you this and answers honestly; does the typical male on dating site who only receives like one reply out of every 100 - really "chooses" the possible partner on the dating site?


Only those with many choices and messages can choose.

I don't fit that description at all...