pteromom Posted November 13, 2012 Posted November 13, 2012 I guess the thing that really annoys me about these posts is that people are just grouped into stereotypes. All men just want a really hot woman (who is a freak in bed), and all women just want a really hot man (with money). It just doesn't work that way. There are as many different "types" as there are people to have them. One woman's 9 is another woman's 3, and vice-versa. I am in my 40s, and I have one or two friends who are still traditionally "hot". For all the rest of us, gravity and life have taken their toll, and we wouldn't win any beauty contests. And neither would our husbands. As you get older, if you want to hold on to a long-term relationship, you have to let go of LOOKS being the deciding factor whether someone is worthy of your love or not.
Author Under The Radar Posted November 13, 2012 Author Posted November 13, 2012 To be honest, I really hate all the comments about leagues and so on. Leagues are kinda individual. Like I said some people will think I'm an 8 and other people will think I am a 3. But that doesn't mean that only who match my number and level are interested and should be interested. Not true at all, I've had my share of hot and not so hot men approach me. I can understand and repect your view on this matter. Though I believe the "ACS" has relevance IRL, my primary contention, in this thread, is that it is significantly magnified in OLD. If that wasn't the case then we would date based on profiles only. People judge a "book by its cover" all of the time. I see it everyday; it is rampant in the OLD world. Do I agree with the shallowness that such scales propagate? No, I don't, but such scales definitely exist in our society. Someone already posted a link to the Discovery Channel Documentary that used scientific criteria to assess people's symmetry (and hence attractiveness). This is why, like most people, I am VERY happy to ultimately be judged on many factors beyond my physical appearance. Unfortunately, and this cannot be denied, OLD magnifies superficiality in people and many times an awesome profile is ignored. If you cannot see my points then that is ok . I guess we will "agree to disagree". I try not to get emotional about these subjects because they are, to a large extent, out of our control. However, we see on these forums alone every Tom, Dick, and Harry whining about looks, leagues, scales, etc... I think the overall idea to take away is KNOW who you are and what you want. Then, being realistic about these factors, go after whatever that is.
Eternal Sunshine Posted November 14, 2012 Posted November 14, 2012 I am not into Golden Ratio, but there are definitely objective measures of beauty. If you show pictures of different females to 100 of the same men and ask them if she is beautiful or not, I guarantee you there will emerge a clear ranking of each. Beauty is only subjective to a very small extent.
threebyfate Posted November 14, 2012 Posted November 14, 2012 As comparatives for the golden ratio, Shania Twain has the perfect ratio: http://videokeman.com/image/pics/ShaniaTwainsongPics1EzpbsUmvzgXSM.jpg Megan Fox also has the perfect ratio: http://breezyk.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/meganfox.jpg If you look at two women who have perfect ratios, one against the other, why does Shania look so bland, next to Megan? Audrey Hepburn, another with the perfect ratio: http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-s1po8i-Lu24/Ttivj3S3s7I/AAAAAAAAClw/hh2kW5cWjo4/s1600/audrey-hepburn-quotes.jpg Note how Audrey makes Shania look bland and Megan, a tad masculine?
charlietheginger Posted November 14, 2012 Posted November 14, 2012 Ive found women attractive by how they walk Turn their head , brush thier hair back behind Their ears, smile ,how they sit in a chair,how They giggle And number one how they make you feel When you look into their eyes... I cant really tell if im attracted to a women Till i interact with her.... I met a women once i thought was a 8~9 Once in conversation i after wards felt She was a 5~6 Her voice was rasp from smoking Her luagh was a snort sound Her eyes bugged out when she spoke Ive also had vice versa a average girl 6~7 Easily a 9.~10 Simply by her smile and twinkle in her eyes 1
Leigh 87 Posted November 14, 2012 Posted November 14, 2012 This scale does not apply to everyone. I have no career yet and I am 25 (yes TWENTY FIVE). I have really ****ed up in life so far. I am about average looks with a good body. Yet I have plenty of options in terms of professional men who want to date me. ......Sometimes it is all about your personality. The guys I click with really appear to like me. I am technically intelligent enough to have a good career by now if I had not taken drugs and wasted my early twenties away. Sometimes, it is your potential, and not what you have achieved thus far, that determines your options.
GirlontheLam Posted November 14, 2012 Posted November 14, 2012 Unfortunately, and this cannot be denied, OLD magnifies superficiality in people and many times an awesome profile is ignored. LOL, well I know my awesomeness isn't readily apparent in OLD so I don't bother.
pteromom Posted November 14, 2012 Posted November 14, 2012 As comparatives for the golden ratio, Shania Twain has the perfect ratio: http://videokeman.com/image/pics/ShaniaTwainsongPics1EzpbsUmvzgXSM.jpg Megan Fox also has the perfect ratio: http://breezyk.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/meganfox.jpg If you look at two women who have perfect ratios, one against the other, why does Shania look so bland, next to Megan? Audrey Hepburn, another with the perfect ratio: http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-s1po8i-Lu24/Ttivj3S3s7I/AAAAAAAAClw/hh2kW5cWjo4/s1600/audrey-hepburn-quotes.jpg Note how Audrey makes Shania look bland and Megan, a tad masculine? When I look at these three photos, I find Shania the most attractive. Audrey looks too fragile, and Megan looks slightly skanky. But then, I am not a lesbian. But we all see something different based on our own tastes and life experiences.
threebyfate Posted November 14, 2012 Posted November 14, 2012 When I look at these three photos, I find Shania the most attractive. Audrey looks too fragile, and Megan looks slightly skanky. But then, I am not a lesbian. But we all see something different based on our own tastes and life experiences.This reinforces my point about the flaws in the golden ratio, in that it fails to objectively define attractiveness. But I am curious why your need to mention lesbianism. Can't assessment be a derivative of aesthetics?
pteromom Posted November 14, 2012 Posted November 14, 2012 This reinforces my point about the flaws in the golden ratio, in that it fails to objectively define attractiveness. But I am curious why your need to mention lesbianism. Can't assessment be a derivative of aesthetics? My point is - I am not sexually attracted to any of them. Someone who is sexually attracted to women may have a different take on it than I do.
ThaWholigan Posted November 14, 2012 Posted November 14, 2012 This reinforces my point about the flaws in the golden ratio, in that it fails to objectively define attractiveness. But I am curious why your need to mention lesbianism. Can't assessment be a derivative of aesthetics? It also fails to address that every body has a type that cannot be objectively measured.
Author Under The Radar Posted November 14, 2012 Author Posted November 14, 2012 My point is - I am not sexually attracted to any of them. Someone who is sexually attracted to women may have a different take on it than I do. I am sexually attracted to woman (I think ) and my assessment mirrors yours.
Recommended Posts