Standards and concepts of beauty/attractiveness

Mundane & Pointless Stuff I Must Share: The Off Topic Forum

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
PoliteNewb
Duke
Posts: 1053
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 1:23 am
Location: Alaska
Contact:

Standards and concepts of beauty/attractiveness

Post by PoliteNewb »

From the thread on obesity and social ramifications:
I'm assuming the standard on male hotness he's (note: he means Kaelik) using is divorced from how much he wants to make hot man love to them.
Kaelik then confirmed that this assumption is wrong...he was totally judging their attractiveness by how much he would like to bone them. And that's cool. And he makes the perfectly valid (IMO) point that...what other standard would you use?

In my experience, I cannot get feminine consensus on what constitutes a hot/good-looking/attractive man. Like, at all. And while men are more likely to achieve consensus...the general standard being used in all cases is "would I like to do sexy naked things with this person?".

So: what other standard is there to judge attractiveness other than the sexual component? Does this change if you use the word "beauty" instead of "attractiveness"? Why do people have hangups about admitting that when they say "that's a good looking guy/girl", what they're basically saying is, "all other factors aside, I would like to exchange bodily fluids with that person". What does it mean when someone says, "they're good looking, but they're not my type"?
I am judging the philosophies and decisions you have presented in this thread. The ones I have seen look bad, and also appear to be the fruit of a poisonous tree that has produced only madness and will continue to produce only madness.

--AngelFromAnotherPin

believe in one hand and shit in the other and see which ones fills up quicker. it will be the one you are full of, shit.

--Shadzar
User avatar
Stahlseele
King
Posts: 5930
Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2010 4:51 pm
Location: Hamburg, Germany

Post by Stahlseele »

"they're good looking, but they're not my type"?
I can understand certain people wanting to do angelina jolie for example, but i do not want to, because my type of woman is different than that one.
Lucy Liu on the other hand would do it for me for example, because i like eastern asian women.
Last edited by Stahlseele on Thu May 19, 2011 5:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Welcome, to IronHell.
Shrapnel wrote:
TFwiki wrote:Soon is the name of the region in the time-domain (familiar to all marketing departments, and to the moderators and staff of Fun Publications) which sees release of all BotCon news, club exclusives, and other fan desirables. Soon is when then will become now.

Peculiar properties of spacetime ensure that the perception of the magnitude of Soon is fluid and dependent, not on an individual's time-reference, but on spatial and cultural location. A marketer generally perceives Soon as a finite, known, yet unspeakable time-interval; to a fan, the interval appears greater, and may in fact approach the infinite, becoming Never. Once the interval has passed, however, a certain time-lensing effect seems to occur, and the time-interval becomes vanishingly small. We therefore see the strange result that the same fragment of spacetime may be observed, in quick succession, as Soon, Never, and All Too Quickly.
DSMatticus
King
Posts: 5271
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 5:32 am

Post by DSMatticus »

What I'm about to state is far from universal truth for all men and women, but I think it's a fair generalization that'll hold in many cases, but men and women approach attractiveness slightly differently. Or very differently. It is also becoming increasingly less true as modern society changes, and men and women (mostly women) change along with it.

Before I get into it, it's probably worth mentioning some physiology: men don't get pregnant. Weird, I know. Unfair, I know. But totally true. And this is important, because when caveman Bob sees cavewoman Jill, caveman Bob can do his caveman mating dance, woo her, take her to his cave and knock her up, and then kick her out in the morning. And from the standpoint of Bob passing on his genes, this is a major success - it's a 'fire and forget' strategy. If it will let you screw it, you should probably screw it and then back away, because even if you aren't there to raise the kids, there's a chance they'll survive and then you've passed on your genes, and in the game of evolution that is a win and only winners get to play in the next round. (Meanwhile, caveman Bob is likely in a monogamous relationship or seeking one, just not with cavewoman Jill, because she is too easy and accessible to be trusted as faithful, and therefore Bob would never be sure his children with Jill are actually his. This adds the second prong to the strategy - pick the best single female mate you can, and help her raise the kids, raising their survival rates and ensuring the better chance of passing on your genes. Let it be said that men are bastards.)

Women cannot engage in this two-pronged strategy, because there is no fire-and-forget equivalent. It's fire-wait-nine-months-raise-for-years-get-eaten-by-tiger. Child-rearing and birthing is a massive investment, so women, from an evolutionary perspective, have to have breeding strategies that focus on getting it right every single time, because every attempt is a massive investment of their breeding potential.

And before you can understand why male and female views of attraction are different, you have to understand that frame of reference. 'Hot and easy' is usually enough to get a guy's attention, because guys have been capable of one night stands since the dawn of time. But in women's evolutionary past, they were NOT capable of one night stands, and generations of evolution have trained them that their optimum mating strategy is to sleep with the best partner, not the most physically attractive partner. So 'hot' is a start, but women are much more likely to pay attention to non-physical indicators of attractiveness in their analysis.

Men and women evaluate eachother in different ways because they have a fundamental physiological difference (pregnancy) that requires them to have different optimum mating strategies for passing on their genes.
Nebuchadnezzar
Knight-Baron
Posts: 723
Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2010 4:23 am

Post by Nebuchadnezzar »

Human beauty and attractiveness are frequently far from mutually inclusive. I tend to look at the former as something approximating an objective evaluation on solely visual grounds, whereas the latter requires being in the other's presence to ascertain. I blame this on a sensitivity to copulins and major histocompatibility complex dissimilarity. Put simply, she's gotta smell good enough to fuck.
Last edited by Nebuchadnezzar on Thu May 19, 2011 5:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Count Arioch the 28th
King
Posts: 6172
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Count Arioch the 28th »

I find lots of women beautiful that I don't find "attractive", if that makes sense. I am more interested in weeding out crazy than anything else
In this moment, I am Ur-phoric. Not because of any phony god’s blessing. But because, I am enlightened by my int score.
User avatar
Blasted
Knight-Baron
Posts: 722
Joined: Wed May 26, 2010 5:41 am

Post by Blasted »

OK Cupid has an interesting blog post on beauty and racism.
User avatar
Maj
Prince
Posts: 4705
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Location: Shelton, Washington, USA

Post by Maj »

CA wrote:I find lots of women beautiful that I don't find "attractive", if that makes sense. I am more interested in weeding out crazy than anything else
Yeah, my post in the other thread said pretty much the same thing only way longer and in relation to men.

:tongue:
My son makes me laugh. Maybe he'll make you laugh, too.
...You Lost Me
Duke
Posts: 1854
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2011 5:21 am

Post by ...You Lost Me »

Count Arioch the 28th wrote:I find lots of women beautiful that I don't find "attractive", if that makes sense. I am more interested in weeding out crazy than anything else
Don't you live in California or something?

In other news, I find that I distinguish "hot" and "beautiful" (both are extremes, and therefore titles of their respective categories) with T&A/waist/legs and face/hair/voice/humor/intellect/smile/interests... though face and hair switch between categories based on my level of hormones.
DSMatticus wrote:Again, look at this fucking map you moron. Take your finger and trace each country's coast, then trace its claim line. Even you - and I say that as someone who could not think less of your intelligence - should be able to tell that one of these things is not like the other.
Kaelik wrote:I invented saying mean things about Tussock.
User avatar
Count Arioch the 28th
King
Posts: 6172
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Count Arioch the 28th »

...You Lost Me wrote:
Count Arioch the 28th wrote:I find lots of women beautiful that I don't find "attractive", if that makes sense. I am more interested in weeding out crazy than anything else
Don't you live in California or something?
No. I live in the Shenandoah Valley region of Virginia. Where the women tend to be loud, abrasive, hairier than I am, and morbidly obese. (I refer to that type as the "Virginia Ham-troll"). Generally when I find a woman attractive, she's usually not from where I live...
In this moment, I am Ur-phoric. Not because of any phony god’s blessing. But because, I am enlightened by my int score.
User avatar
Psychic Robot
Prince
Posts: 4607
Joined: Sat May 03, 2008 10:47 pm

Post by Psychic Robot »

Gentlemen. There comes a time in every man's life when he must make a list of qualities that a woman must possess in order to satisfy his needs. Since I am not a neckbeard, I have not created such a list. However, I have discovered someone who has.
This is the ultimate work in progress. I'm not even going to try to complete it in one shot; I'm just going to jot down ideas as they come to me.

- She must be thin. Not a BBW fan at all; there needs to be a maximum of one large person in a bed and I've got that covered.

- It'd help if she was rather flexible to further assist in getting around my poor physical shape.

- She should not be too lazy, or else neither of us will get anything done, but she also should not be so energetic that I get tired just looking at her. A broad range of activity-level preferences is best.

- She should be as low-maintenance as possible; I have enough problems of my own.

- She should not be insecure, especially not about my devotion to her. I am not going to stop looking at porn because she's neurotic about me comparing her to professional seductresses; she should accept that being in the room makes her more than sufficiently valuable to me, and tolerate if not share in my love for all the worldly and otherworldly permutations of feminine beauty.

- She should be accepting, if not embracing, of polyamory. I never want to have to turn down a good sexual experience with some attractive stranger or occasional acquaintance because my main squeeze has been raised on bullshit notions of fidelity and possessiveness. People don't belong to each other, they appreciate each other's company, and I won't appreciate yours if you try to stop me from appreciating that of others. She has a right to expect that she should be at or near the top of my interest list, not to limit that list to a single entry.

- She must be very open to sex - I'd prefer an unabashed "ethical slut", but failing that, at least she should be fairly affectionate, at home in her own skin, and not oversensitive about accidental line-crossing. I'm not prone to taking liberties unless encouraged, so I need someone who'll encourage me, and someone who can be gentle in calling a halt to it if I start to go too far.

- She must not be looking for financial support from me; I lack financial ambition and have expensive hobbies, so the occasional moderately nice dinner is about the most you can hope for from me.

- She should not hope for too much in the way of emotional support either. Sometimes I'm a bit of a robot, other times I'm fully in the grip of my own feelings, but either way I'm too self-involved to pick up on the kinds of subtle clues a lot of women think they have a right to send, and then get pissed at their not-a-mind-reader buy for failing to interpret these coded messages.

- She must be tolerant of, and ideally helpful with, the fact that I am living with manic-depression and probably other conditions. There will be times when I'll be fairly useless for days at a time, and other times when I'll be gung-ho for five projects I'll never be able to complete; she must be able to deal with this.

- She should preferably have extremely soft, smooth skin and be amenable to my touching her frequently. Bluntly, I bore easily, and even the most beautiful woman only holds my eye until something else catches it; to keep my interest indefinitely, an experience must be more or less addictive, and I have touched women whose skin was so divinely silky and yielding that I could spend hours happily absorbed in it. A woman not so blessed will have a much more difificult time keeping me focused on her.

- She must be biologically female and should not use the word "cisgendered" with any regularity.

- She must not want to have children with me. She should be prepared for me to be suspicious of her in the early relationship, as I have heard horror stories about women intentionally getting themselves pregnant so as to trap a desireable man into either marrying them or paying them child support. Whether I'm a desirable man is debatable at best, but either way, expect to be watched for this until I'm sure I can trust you.

- She should not smoke, at all, and not have smoked for at least half a year or so, else the smell of it will still linger on her and I can't abide a woman who smells unpleasant. She must not use illegal drugs in my preference, preferably not at all, and should avoid describing any use that has occurred in my presence.

- She must not expect me to help with raising any children she currently has; I'd prefer she had none, failing that I'd prefer they be fairly grown-up and able to take care of themselves so she can spare more time to be with me, and failing even that, the most impact they should ever have on my life is "I'm sorry honey, I'm busy with the kids and can't make it tonight". I will not do even the slightest parenting favor for you, and it's probably better for your kids' mental health if they never meet me at all, considering what an attitude I have toward them.

- It'd be nice if she was bisexual, or at least open-minded on the subject. FMF threesomes would be totally awesome. However the odds of my reciprocating with an MFM are worse than those of there being a domed city on the moon by 2012. Nobody ever said I was fair-minded.

- If she is rich, she must be generous; it would probably be better if she wasn't rich though, since I have a severe bias against those I see as contributing to society's unjust plutocracy. Conversely, if she's poor, I will try to be generous to her, but I'm far from wealthy so gold diggers need not apply; about all I can manage is a nice meal now and again.

- She should be willing NOT to touch me except in ways I've pointed out are okay; a few mistakes in the early stages are not a big deal, but I have a lot of weird sore spots and I'll get annoyed if she keeps hitting them even after being warned of their presence. Might be better to err on the side of caution; I never mind being asked if she can touch me.

- For that matter, she'll get more points from me by making offers of any kind, as long as she respects my answer. I love being serviced and catered to.

- It's worth a generous number of bonus points if she's a skilled masseuse. I also love giving massages, although I have no formal training and can't promise to be entirely devoid of clumsiness.

- She must appreciate my uniqueness, enough to consider the opportunity to be with me most of the compensation she requires in exchange for all that I ask. If you don't think I'm a star whose light is worth basking in, I won't blame you, but I really don't have much else to offer other than being my weird and wonderful self.

- She should preferably be enthusiastic in displaying her desire for me; I want to be seduced, lured into doing everything I've always wanted to but never dared. So I need a lot of positive reinforcement that what I'm wanting to do really is okay with her, that in fact I would hurt her more by NOT doing it.

- Ideally, she should have no wishes or priorities other than to have the opportunity to make me happy; this does not mean she need not have a mind of her own, but rather simply that she makes no demands on behalf of her own wishes, in essence having no ego and being completely altruistic. This is due to the fact that if she demands anything of me, it is in my mental nature to become increasingly hung up on paranoid, self-doubting questions of whether I am giving her what she wants, increasingly leading me to an irrational terror that she will leave me out of dissatisfaction (I have already had one relationship play out in this fashion and it seems to have made me a trifle gun-shy). Therefore, if I am to be entirely content with me, I must be convinced that her highest aspiration is only to be personally responsible for my total contentment.
Count Arioch wrote:I'm not sure how discussions on whether PR is a terrible person or not is on-topic.
Ant wrote:
Chamomile wrote:Ant, what do we do about Psychic Robot?
You do not seem to do anything.
sabs
Duke
Posts: 2347
Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2010 8:01 pm
Location: Delaware

Post by sabs »

I am amazed this guy hasn't been snatched up :) he sounds like a keeper.
User avatar
Count Arioch the 28th
King
Posts: 6172
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Count Arioch the 28th »

lmao, that's brilliant.
In this moment, I am Ur-phoric. Not because of any phony god’s blessing. But because, I am enlightened by my int score.
Post Reply