What's Attractive?

Post Reply New Topic

So its come to my attention that many people define what is 'attractive' by what everyone else supposedly thinks is attractive. Is anyone an authority on what's attractive and what's not. Is there a scale somewhere to measure peoples hotness/attractiveness that is the standard of attractiveness.

I'd say what is 'attractive' varies, different people find different things attractive.......also I don't get this talk of 'lesser' females or 'lesser males.' What people think if they personally are not attracted to someone they have some authority to judge them as a 'lesser' person. With that attitude you won't get these 'lesser' people either.

sense of humor/sarcasm, at least a little bit fit, good self-care/fashion, nice smile, tall (I'm 6'2, so 5'10 to 6'2 is nice). Besides that, talkative. I am a man of few words.

Attraction is definitely not universal. But some elements of what everyone considers attractive likely are (out of my list: self-care and smile are probably universal while "sarcasm," "talkative," and "tall" are very non-universal). So when people talk about universal attractiveness, they are likely at least trying to talk about these universal or near traits (nobody wants to date anyone who doesn't shower, for example; extremely obese is rarely attractive to anyone, etc; a nice smile almost always is, etc)

<--- Likes to shower in the nude!

i dunno, this stuff confuses me. if you take all of the features of the top billed stars that people say are attractive, they are all different from each other. so when people say there are some universal characteristics of hotness, i just don't see it reflected in movies or television.

since there isn't any universally accepted criteria for attractiveness, then... treating other people like they are "lesser" instead of "not their taste" is sort of self-centred, like this one person's idea of attractiveness is the absolute standard.

even something like "symmetry", well.. recent studies show that it is sometimes asymmetrical humans that we find attractive, if we see them in action instead of staring at faces on a page. or something like body shape... it seems like people are willing to date a wider range of body types than the ones they pick off a page as some kind of "ideal silhouette".

on another note, i think it's one thing to consider that a person is not to one's taste, but it is another thing to consider that a person is fundamentally less worthy. i don't think it is random chance that many of the people who sort others into "choice" and "lesser" piles often seem to find themselves unlucky in love. it reminds me of people who make it clear that most employers are beneath them and wonder why they never make it through an interview. employers (and dates) can sense when they are being judged, and nobody wants to feel like they are being considered the bottom of the barrel.

<--- Would date an asymmetrical person. Like David Merrick? Uh, can we talk about it first?

To me, attraction can be a number of things depending on intelligence, creativity, character, values, principles, it's a mix of many factors.

Faces are the most important physical feature, imo. Everything else I can effectively ignore (except for really extreme cases of like, obesity for instance). Otherwise, actually liking the person is a plus for me. ;B

That's pretty shallow...

I'm an authority on what I myself find attractive in another person, at this moment. I'm less authoritative for anyone else, anywhere else, anytime else.

Feels like some sort of weird oneupmanship thing. The least folks who insist on judging others like this could do is keep quiet about their opinions. To be honest it's one of the things I pay attention to when meeting someone new: can this person avoid vocally judging this-or-that entertainer or this-or-that football game for 120 seconds or so?

that isn't any more shallow than any other preference on a partner. If anything yuugiri made one of the least shallow posts stating ones preference

We're hardwired, genetically programmed to be attracted som some with "good genes".
People who are "pretty" usually have a better immunesystem, they are more intelligent (contrary to what people may believe).
It's like we try to surpress our natural instincts and apologize for who we are. Sure, personality is important, but never once have I been attracted to a person with bad looks and great personality. Though I've been attracted to girls with an appealing exterior only to find out that they have a "bad personality". If that's shallow then theres nothing wrong with being shallow. Everyone are whether they like it or not.
I don't think we should apply moral codes to -or over intellectualize human attraction.

To answer the question. I cant go out and say specifically what you are attracted and tick off every box correctly. But I can however go through millions of people with the same basic model (pun, haha) and get that while it won't match perfectly to everyone it will be attractive to a majority. This is on the side of men though. On the side of women there's a bit more leeway in choices, it won't be so dialed in

I don't think it's shallow at all.

I dunno about Yuugiri.. but I'd not date anyone who had more than say 30lbs on me. It's simply that I don't find overweight people attractive. So it wouldn't matter how nice of a person they are, I would never be able to see them as more than just a friend... that's not being shallow that's just being honest.

Depends, if yuugirl has the face of a model, she has every right to say she wants a male model but if she's just the average run of the mill girl, she should at least be more open. Most on this forum seems to want a fitness model or fashion model as a girlfriend and anything less than that is not good enough.

We are supposed to be programmed to prefer symmetrical faces, but I often find myself warming towards a wonky-faced man!

And many of the men I have liked have been on the chubby side, and it wouldn't be their weight that put me off but their lifestyle. If they were fat because they lay around the house eating all day that would be a problem, and if their weight affected their ability to live a normal life that would put me off too. As I'd like to be with someone able to walk round town all day with me and have a decent level of fitness.

Apart from that, it's definitely personality that turns me on or off to a far larger extent than looks do.

But how do you define 'pretty' I am sure there are many, many different opinions about what's pretty and what's not. I mean what specific features indicate 'bad' genes or good 'genes.' Attractiveness is subjected, maybe some of those bad looking people with a great personallity where just bad looking to you and the attractive ones might be bad looking to others. So not so sure I buy this good genes/bad genes stuff.

Also, I don't see how I am applying any moral codes or over-intellectualizing human attraction my point was simply that good and bad looks are subjective and peoples veiws on that vary from person to person. As well as there is really no reason to take not being attracted to someone to an extreme and consider them a lesser person....not saying you do that just that such an attitude from anyone bothers me.