shadowplay Posted November 26, 2009 Posted November 26, 2009 Location has no bearing, unless its a developing country. so... you've seen multiple ken's and barbie's (they literally exist but are rare) walking around?? I find that very hard to believe. Location does have some bearing. Some ethnic groups have more attractive people than others, whether it's cultural or genetic. Cosmopolitan areas also tend ot have more attractive people than more rural areas. I consider 9s or 10s people who are attractive enough to be models signed with decent agencies, and, yes, I've seen more than a handful of people who fall into that category. Nobody is flawless or perfect, so the concept of a 10 is a little silly. Even the hottest models have some flaws; it's just where you draw the line.
carhill Posted November 26, 2009 Posted November 26, 2009 Who know what women look like in Australia. Comparatively, Sydney and Melbourne ladies struck me much like women I've met in Chicago and NYC. I'm talking about the younger set, the daughters of our friends there. Out west (Perth), things were a bit more feral. I got a chance to meet a lot of young ladies since my stbx was following Nicole Kidman's husband's concert tour and he is popular with young ladies. Overall, based on the half-dozen times I've visited, including stops at many of the beaches from Sydney to Brisbane, I'd say Aussie ladies have a 'natural' quality to them, perhaps not as affected as their stateside counterparts. The range IMO was still evident, with a small percentage of universally attractive young women. IDK how that compares with a native's perspective, but is one man's opinion
BobSacamento Posted November 26, 2009 Posted November 26, 2009 I agree, 9 and 10's are rare. It's weird though. That rarity almost lowers your standards a bit. Perhaps you think you are seeing more 9s and 10s and then a true 10 comes along and all you can think is.......holy ****.
shadowplay Posted November 26, 2009 Posted November 26, 2009 (edited) I agree, 9 and 10's are rare. It's weird though. That rarity almost lowers your standards a bit. Perhaps you think you are seeing more 9s and 10s and then a true 10 comes along and all you can think is.......holy ****. Or maybe it's that as a woman judging other women I don't have a particular type, so I recognize that a broader range of women fall into the 9/10 category. It's like with models. They're mostly all gorgeous but they run the gamut of types. When you (as a guy) have a holy **** reaction to a woman it's probably somebody who's not only a 9/10 but also your particular type (dark hair, blue eyes, whatever). I have no type. I just notice faces that are what is considered by our society to be conventionally beautiful. I've seen many models in real life (walking around NY during fashion week) so I know what they look like, and there are a handful of girls at my school on that level, except they're not all tall enough to be runway models. For somebody to blow me away they would have to compete with the most beautiful actresses I've ever seen, like Gene Tierney, Sharon Tate, (young) Isabelle Adjani, Hedy Lamarr or maybe this model, and I'm not sure I've ever seen anybody in real life of that caliber. Men miss the point with the whole 10 idea, because it's not about being perfect. Perfection often leads to blandness. For a face to be amazingly, strikingly beautiful, like only one in a million are, it needs a careful balance of regularity and flair. It's such a male thing to try to quantify something as unquantifiable as beauty. I hate to say it but a lot of men have terrible taste in female beauty. Women seem to notice details more, and they're not influenced by hormones. They look at beauty more artistically. I once wanted to be a model scout or casting agent since I have a good eye for faces, but I decided it was way too superficial to devote my life to. I'm curious to know what your idea of a perfect 10 is. I'm sure it would be different from mine. I have a feeling it would be blander, probably somebody who would be successful on the pages of Maxim that I'd lump together with the rest of the 9s I see around campus. Edited November 26, 2009 by shadowplay
Sam Spade Posted November 26, 2009 Posted November 26, 2009 (edited) ^^ THumbs up to all of the above. One problem with an incredible beauty is that it is 1) almost surreal and 2) actually does not have to do much with attraction. Plato has said (and proved) that beauty cannot be "consumed", and this concept is very relevant when thinking about attraction. Attraction is so much more than "picture perfect"-ness. In fact, extreme beauty could be at odds with attraction. An average girl with a crooked smile that slobers all over your penis is obviously much hotter than an almost 'divine' angel-like face that you feel like you can't do anyhting with but admire :laugh:. I admire the girls in the magazine covers, but in reality they don't do much for me. Now, the high-school girl working at macdonalds with stained uniform - oh, mama!!! (or more precisely - aye mami!) Edited November 26, 2009 by Sam Spade
shadowplay Posted November 26, 2009 Posted November 26, 2009 ^^ THumbs up to all of the above. One problem with an incredible beauty is that it is 1) almost surreal and 2) actually does not have to do much with attraction. Plato has said (and proved) that beauty cannot be "consumed", and this concept is very relevant when thinking about attraction. Attraction is so much more than "picture perfect"-ness. In fact, extreme beauty could be at odds with attraction. An average girl with a crooked smile that slobers all over your penis is obviously much hotter than an almost 'divine' angel-like face that you feel like you can't do anyhting with but admire :laugh:. Yeah, the faces I find most beautiful tend to have an almost otherworldly kind of look that runs counter to raw sexuality. THere are a few women who manage both, though. Like young Ava Gardner and possibly Catherine Zeta Jones.
shadowplay Posted November 26, 2009 Posted November 26, 2009 I will say there was one Eurasian girl at the school from which I transferred that I'll never forget. She was so arrestingly beautiful that I couldn't stop staring at her. Her face looked like it was made out of porcelain. I found out later she was a runway model in Hong Kong.
gypsy_nicky Posted November 26, 2009 Posted November 26, 2009 (edited) For somebody to blow me away they would have to compete with the most beautiful actresses I've ever seen, like Gene Tierney, Sharon Tate, (young) Isabelle Adjani, Hedy Lamarr or maybe this model, and I'm not sure I've ever seen anybody in real life of that caliber. Men miss the point with the whole 10 idea, because it's not about being perfect. Perfection often leads to blandness. For a face to be amazingly, strikingly beautiful, like only one in a million are, it needs a careful balance of regularity and flair. It's such a male thing to try to quantify something as unquantifiable as beauty. I hate to say it but a lot of men have terrible taste in female beauty. Women seem to notice details more, and they're not influenced by hormones. They look at beauty more artistically. I once wanted to be a model scout or casting agent since I have a good eye for faces, but I decided it was way too superficial to devote my life to. I'm curious to know what your idea of a perfect 10 is. I'm sure it would be different from mine. I have a feeling it would be blander, probably somebody who would be successful on the pages of Maxim that I'd lump together with the rest of the 9s I see around campus. were far more accurate than the females on the concept of beauty. It seems you take beauty in context from a particular timeline. Although those women are beautiful its the romanticized era your also looking at. You failed to mention modern beautiful faces (Kate Moss). We tend to rate faces more accurately, are more critical of how a face comes together and whether or not a certain iffy bodypart stands out. Women often times will point out she's attractive so and so because she/he has a particular 'charisma', 'aura', crooked smile, etc etc which is part of a persons personality not the physical. Of course were influenced by hormones, there's a biological (evolutionary) component to beauty (mating ahem ahem). The artistic part of beauty is linked to the persons whole physical image-meaning its the sum of all parts that put him/her on the attractiveness ladder. Nope, not blander and not Maxim. Maxim models are posed intentionally to sexually arouse males. A 10 is someone (both must be present body +face) > body who's BMI is naturally low, but still maintains the low waist-hip ratio (for women) and broad shouldered muscular and lean (men), well proportioned limbs, clear supple skin. Face (most important)-combination of youth (baby face features-large eyes etc) and maturity (high cheekbones etc). Combination of averageness (not average looking but like a sum of all faces) and exaggeration (think prominent cheekbones). Edited November 26, 2009 by gypsy_nicky
gypsy_nicky Posted November 26, 2009 Posted November 26, 2009 ^^ THumbs up to all of the above. One problem with an incredible beauty is that it is 1) almost surreal and 2) actually does not have to do much with attraction. Plato has said (and proved) that beauty cannot be "consumed", and this concept is very relevant when thinking about attraction. Attraction is so much more than "picture perfect"-ness. In fact, extreme beauty could be at odds with attraction. An average girl with a crooked smile that slobers all over your penis is obviously much hotter than an almost 'divine' angel-like face that you feel like you can't do anyhting with but admire :laugh:. I admire the girls in the magazine covers, but in reality they don't do much for me. Now, the high-school girl working at macdonalds with stained uniform - oh, mama!!! (or more precisely - aye mami!) that's nice man, it seems you have no concept of what human beauty is and are basing things more on a sexual disposition.
gypsy_nicky Posted November 26, 2009 Posted November 26, 2009 I agree, 9 and 10's are rare. It's weird though. That rarity almost lowers your standards a bit. Perhaps you think you are seeing more 9s and 10s and then a true 10 comes along and all you can think is.......holy ****. this is it.
gypsy_nicky Posted November 26, 2009 Posted November 26, 2009 Comparatively, Sydney and Melbourne ladies struck me much like women I've met in Chicago and NYC. I'm talking about the younger set, the daughters of our friends there. Out west (Perth), things were a bit more feral. I got a chance to meet a lot of young ladies since my stbx was following Nicole Kidman's husband's concert tour and he is popular with young ladies. Overall, based on the half-dozen times I've visited, including stops at many of the beaches from Sydney to Brisbane, I'd say Aussie ladies have a 'natural' quality to them, perhaps not as affected as their stateside counterparts. The range IMO was still evident, with a small percentage of universally attractive young women. IDK how that compares with a native's perspective, but is one man's opinion very much subjective so nil. Oh and Nicole Kidman's BF is not something 'cultured' sydneysider teens follow. More of teens coming from a rural area.
D-Jam Posted November 26, 2009 Posted November 26, 2009 Just did a cursory search of men and men in my area on Match.com, and the results leave me unsurprised about the female harshness discussed above. For whatever reason, there seem to be far more attractive women than men posting on the site. The men don't seem to be an accurate sample of the population. I wouldn't rank most of the men as unattractive, but 70% probably do fall into the average category. I still think it's because many attractive males either have been taken off the market, or don't use dating sites. Seems like all my male friends who are average to ugly use the dating sites while the better looking guys think those sites are for losers and would rather pick up women at bars and such...although most of those guys also like to remain single and free to sleep around. That also plays a factor. I personally think most women who sign up on a dating site are looking for a boyfriend or husband, thus if the men they desire physically are out looking for just sex and they're stuck with the "averages" or "uglies" as their choices for boyfriend/husband, then it's no wonder they remain single and/or complain about the lack of "decent men" out there. My conclusions are mostly drawn by the experiences of female friends. I'll see them literally dismiss most men out there as "not good looking", but yet complain to death about how every guy they find cute/datable just wants to keep it at "fun/sex" and not commit to anything. I'm not trying to draw right or wrong in this, but I personally think that most people who have a lot of trouble in dating (and aren't creepy, strange, have a messed up life, or is a social outcast) are there because they set the bar way too high for what results they'll get.
AD1980 Posted November 26, 2009 Posted November 26, 2009 I still think it's because many attractive males either have been taken off the market, or don't use dating sites. Seems like all my male friends who are average to ugly use the dating sites while the better looking guys think those sites are for losers and would rather pick up women at bars and such...although most of those guys also like to remain single and free to sleep around. That also plays a factor. I personally think most women who sign up on a dating site are looking for a boyfriend or husband, thus if the men they desire physically are out looking for just sex and they're stuck with the "averages" or "uglies" as their choices for boyfriend/husband, then it's no wonder they remain single and/or complain about the lack of "decent men" out there. My conclusions are mostly drawn by the experiences of female friends. I'll see them literally dismiss most men out there as "not good looking", but yet complain to death about how every guy they find cute/datable just wants to keep it at "fun/sex" and not commit to anything. I'm not trying to draw right or wrong in this, but I personally think that most people who have a lot of trouble in dating (and aren't creepy, strange, have a messed up life, or is a social outcast) are there because they set the bar way too high for what results they'll get. Exactly when a women says theyres no good men out there she doesnt mena it literlaly she measn theyres no extremely handsome men interested in me or interested in settling down at least.. I dotn want to hear people like that complain..If u want love that badly then lower your standards a little if not all your interested in is lust not love..
shadowplay Posted November 26, 2009 Posted November 26, 2009 (edited) were far more accurate than the females on the concept of beauty. It seems you take beauty in context from a particular timeline. Although those women are beautiful its the romanticized era your also looking at. You failed to mention modern beautiful faces (Kate Moss). We tend to rate faces more accurately, are more critical of how a face comes together and whether or not a certain iffy bodypart stands out. Women often times will point out she's attractive so and so because she/he has a particular 'charisma', 'aura', crooked smile, etc etc which is part of a persons personality not the physical. Of course were influenced by hormones, there's a biological (evolutionary) component to beauty (mating ahem ahem). The artistic part of beauty is linked to the persons whole physical image-meaning its the sum of all parts that put him/her on the attractiveness ladder. All of this is drivel... Those faces aren't from any particular era. In fact they span many decades. Hedy Lamarr = 30s and 40s, Gene Tierney = 40s and 50s, Sharon Tate = 60s, Isabelle Adjani = 80s, Heather Stewart Whyte = 90s. If there's an over-representation of classic beauty, it's because faces from old Hollywood tended to be more flawless than modern equivalents are. Kate Moss is very beautiful, but I don't think she's quite on the level of those women because her eyes are too far apart. If anything my taste is probably more ruthless and conservative than yours. If you want some modern day women I consider exceptionally beautiful here are a few: French actress Nora Arnezeder: http://z.about.com/d/worldfilm/1/0/m/G/1/82956390.jpg Model Valentina Zeliaeva: http://img90.imageshack.us/img90/2678/20mr1.jpg http://images.askmen.com/women/models/valentina-zelyaeva/large_image-1.jpg http://i.models.com/rankings/money/i/valmg.jpg Catherine Zeta Jones: http://www.hollywoodmeddler.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/catherine-zeta-jones.jpg I'll throw in a few more other era beauties: 60s: Olivia Hussey (can't find any good pictures of her but she's gorgeous on screen): http://static.episode39.it/artist/3101.jpg http://buytrendy.com/pn/images/gallery/galleryphoto_1_lg.jpg Catherine Deneuve: http://lesirreguliers.unblog.fr/files/2008/01/4577.jpg (young) Faye Dunaway: http://www.sixtiescity.com/Popmovies/Images/happening.jpg http://images.teamsugar.com/files/users/2/20652/29_2007/fayeyay.jpg and 90s: Paulina Porizkova: http://www.fanlistings.org/paulina_porizkova/images/wallpapers/paulina_porizkova_knowing.jpg http://www.fanlistings.org/paulina_porizkova/images/wallpapers/paulina_porizkova_womaninvelvet.jpg If you look at the type of beauty that stands out to the average guy it tends to be blander. Jessica Biel, Jessica Alba, Megan Fox are good examples. Not to say most men wouldn't find the women I linked to beautiful, but I think a lot of them would probably lump them together with blander faces. If the fashion industry were run by straight men it would look very different. Maybe some women respond to aura. I'm not one of them. I'm very critical and discriminating. I'd say in general women tend to be more detail-oriented and ruthless than men are. But it really depends on the woman. You're talking to the most perfectionistic person you'll probably ever meet. Again, why don't you list the names of some women you consider to be exceptionally beautiful and we'll see where we disagree. Anyway, this thread has gone way off topic on a tangent I find interesting, but probably some others won't. Edited November 26, 2009 by shadowplay
threebyfate Posted November 26, 2009 Posted November 26, 2009 (edited) I've avoided reading most of this thread, since it's laziness that prompts me not to. As far as the OKcupid article, it makes sense to me, although the guys that were rated average, two of them I would personally rate as above-average. It's possible that all of them are above-average, reliant on other traits like confidence, intelligence, etc. This is a pet peeve of mine about online dating sites. It's cold, like catalogue shopping. Having said that, after reading so much about online dating sites, for interest sakes and yes, my fiance at the time, knew I did this back a number of months ago, I opened up a fake profile on a free site, with no pictures and kept the verbiage down to a minimum. In no time flat, I received over 40 messages from assorted men, of all different types. So this kind of invalidates most of what the OKcupid article stresses, that it's all about looks. And yes, without replying to anyone, the profile was deleted right after the test. Edited November 26, 2009 by threebyfate
jalbertson Posted November 26, 2009 Posted November 26, 2009 The results are almost meaningless without a real look at the raw data and methodology. And don't confuse sample size with population size. For example, look at where response rates are plotted against sender attractiveness. The number of 5s messaging 0s or 1s has got to be tremendously small, yet it's given the same validity on the graph as if the sample sizes were equal. You also can't compare male and female response rates. Just about every dating site has a much higher proportion of males, which would obviously contribute to males receiving fewer responses than females. Finally, the multiplier graph is useless. You will always get a tremendous amount of skew when considering outliers. It would be far more useful to graph against a baseline or medium level of attractiveness
gypsy_nicky Posted November 27, 2009 Posted November 27, 2009 Anyway, this thread has gone way off topic on a tangent I find interesting, but probably some others won't. you started it
gypsy_nicky Posted November 27, 2009 Posted November 27, 2009 All of this is drivel... Those faces aren't from any particular era. In fact they span many decades. Hedy Lamarr = 30s and 40s, Gene Tierney = 40s and 50s, Sharon Tate = 60s, Isabelle Adjani = 80s, Heather Stewart Whyte = 90s. If there's an over-representation of classic beauty, it's because faces from old Hollywood tended to be more flawless than modern equivalents are. Kate Moss is very beautiful, but I don't think she's quite on the level of those women because her eyes are too far apart. If anything my taste is probably more ruthless and conservative than yours. Again, why don't you list the names of some women you consider to be exceptionally beautiful and we'll see where we disagree. They don't span many decades. At their most beautiful they came from 'old' hollywood. Much like Brando and Newman. I won't disagree with you though, that they're beautiful. They were more 'flawless' because technology at that time was primitive oh and black and white hides a lot of imperfections. Kate Moss is very much at the level of the women you mentioned. If you want me to mention people I would include the list you mentioned (you forgot Audrey Hepburn) I would add contemporary famous people (Natalie Portman, Sienne Miller, Christy Turlington, Heidi Klum theres a lot). See I failed to mention Jessica Alba, and Megan Fox? Its because even if these women are beautiful, they look more like glamour models and they tend to appease the sexual more than the aesthetic.
shadowplay Posted November 27, 2009 Posted November 27, 2009 They don't span many decades. At their most beautiful they came from 'old' hollywood. Much like Brando and Newman. I won't disagree with you though, that they're beautiful. They were more 'flawless' because technology at that time was primitive oh and black and white hides a lot of imperfections. Kate Moss is very much at the level of the women you mentioned. If you want me to mention people I would include the list you mentioned (you forgot Audrey Hepburn) I would add contemporary famous people (Natalie Portman, Sienne Miller, Christy Turlington, Heidi Klum theres a lot). See I failed to mention Jessica Alba, and Megan Fox? Its because even if these women are beautiful, they look more like glamour models and they tend to appease the sexual more than the aesthetic. What do you mean they don't span decades? I purposely chose actresses from every decade since the 30s. I like Natalie Portman and Christy Turlington...but I wouldn't include Sienna Miller or Heidi Klum. They're both beautiful but bland.
Recommended Posts