. . .Does having a finer scale to measure beauty make an individual prone to want to trade up?
I have only the three classifications listed in the title. Most people are average. Sure there are different levels of beauty within each category, but not so much to warrant a new category. Maybe there aren’t so much different levels in each category as there is a continuum of beauty. Really in my sex/dating/relationship model of the world there are only two categories: doable and not doable. I recognize though, that the dividing line for me is between troll* and average.
ISTM that people who are on the lucky side of the beauty continuum are more likely to have a finer gradient for measuring beauty. People with a finer scale seem more likely to be concerned with whether they are dating an acceptably attractive person. Let’s say person A has 5 levels and considers themselves a 4. Let’s also suppose A meets B who is likeable but is barely classified as a 3. Person A is more likely to be concerned that he/she should be looking for a solid 3 or even a 5 than a person like me who only has 3 levels.
So am I right? Does more categories lead to always looking to trade up? Is my paradigm wrong all together?
Include, if you like, a self-evaluation.
Me: Average (on the good side of average). Gay. 42 (that’s Life, The Universe, and Everything-- right?) Have dated model to very low-end average. Partnered for 12 years.
*Troll seems harsh. Very few people are Elephant Man unattractive. Most that fit in the troll category are clustered at the high-end and maybe a better term would be unattractive not troll.
*This thread inspired by posts made in the *Ladies, let’s be honestthread.
Well I’m open to the concept of a different model. When you are asked to describe someone, how do you choose your qualifiers?
When asked, “What does he look like?” (you know the proverbial “he”) How do you choose “He’s OK”; or “He’s hot!”; or “He’s really good looking”; or “He’s plain”; or “He’s ugly”? I find it hard for those qualifiers NOT to imply categories. But I’m interested in your notion of beauty nonetheless.
Hmmmm, interesting. I’m not a fan of the 10 point scale because it’s very subjective - your 9 is my 6, and so on, and the need for people to ask what people think they are out of ten is kind of pointless. I think the categories I would tend to use to describe someone are (in ascending order of hotness):
Fugly
No thanks!
Not my type/doesn’t do it for me
OK (average, no real opinion)
Nice/attractive
Fit (Hell yes!)
Extremely fit (way out of my league)
I do make some concessions though for people who are probably fine in objective terms but don’t really do it for me based on my preferences, so someone could be “not my type” but I add a mental footnote that lots of other people would class them higher.
“Doability” for me, like for most women, is about a whole gestalt of factors, with “objective” handsomeness/attractiveness only one, and not necessarily the most important one.
It’s a gestalt, and not a formula (Looks + intelligence x sense of humor?). Good lord, how incredibly tedious and superficial to have to assign ratings on each of these – plus, of course, “good in bed” and “puts down the toilet seat” – and then do the math.
Yet another reason I’m glad I’m not a guy. (And I won’t rub your nose in the whole “multiple orgasms” thing.)
C’mon, now, twicks; he’s asking about a scale for physical attractiveness exclusively. There’s no need to bring out the “men are only concerned about looks” canard. If somebody asked “Do you prefer to measure in inches or centimeters?”, would you answer with “Well, obviously things have other dimensions too; what about kilograms? I’ll never understand this whole lengthist mindset.” I’m thinking the comments about doability are largely facetious; if it helps, pretend they all have the phrase “all other things being equal” appended.
Personally, I do have different categories of looks, but they don’t necessarily rank on a hierarchal scale. The three qualities that form the basis for me are cuteness, hotness, and beauty; they are different things and very few possess all three. Moreover, an excess of one isn’t necessarily desireable…a woman who’s too cute may have a childishness or immaturity to her; too hot and she looks like a sexpot (that does it for some guys, but I’m not one of them); too beautiful and she looks like a porcelain doll that ought to be in a museum somewhere, and you’d feel wrong somehow about thinking of her sexually. Ideally, I look for a good mix of two out of the three, and categorize based on that.
Unattractive is a vague catch-all category for me. Attractive has a lot more subdivisions. There’s nerdy or geeky cute, model handsome or beautiful, cute face, not-so-attractive body, cute with a couple of adjustments, and so on. I like making lists and categorizing, so this is something I do almost unconsciously.
Those Maybes can turn into Hell Yeses pretty quickly though if they turn out to be fantastic people.
Female, Maybe, age 25. Been with both Maybes and Hell Yeses. Of course what I find attractive is not necessarily what’s going to be mainstream attractiveness.
This may be a Venus / Mars thing. I’m interpretting your response as “for women it’s an intuitive thing.” If that’s the case we may never be able to understand each other.
I can’t speak for all gay men let alone straight men. For me, it’s not a rigid formula thing as much as a way to quickly organize the constant barage of new information coming in from the senses. I would even call it intuitive too. The big question is doable or no. And in a relative short amount of time you have to have the supporting information to make the decision. I think of it as a process similar to card counting in blackjack. You aren’t counting every card. You’re counting the facecards. Similarly I’m not working a formula. I’m evaluating doable or no (which really has three possibilities: doable, not doable, not enough information).
Like it or not, I recognize that physical attractiveness is part of that criteria and can be a deal breaker. For me having three categories of attractiveness simplifies the process. I’m not picky. Again, it’s not a formula and it is intuitive and easy -easy in the same way that reading is easy. You don’t evaluate each letter. I don’t even consciously evaluate a person’s looks. It just happens.
Illuminatiprimus’s categories don’t make sense to you? Although I don’t subscribe to the categories, I perfectly understand them.
If it makes any difference, I’m trying to understand how the beautiful people in the “Ladies, let’s be honest” thread derive that it is insulting to be asked on a date by a troll through evaluating my own process of determing attractiveness as well as the process of anyone wishing to participate.
Too good looking according to my type. I hope nothing happens between us because I would become a moron doormat if I dated a guy like that. It would take me a year to even notice if he was boring and a jerk. God, I hate myself for being so superficial.
Perfect. Just my type but not too good-looking such as the above category.
Just okay. I’d date him if he had a good personality, and I’ll see if he grows on me.
Less than ideal, but if he had a really great personality, I’d transcend my physical preferences.
No way, no how. Even if he had the best personality ever, we’d just be friends. God, I hate myself for being so superficial.
Yep. Because I find a 2 to be twice as hot as a 1.
How about a scale of 1 to 4?
There’s not enough Viagra in the universe
I’d hit that but only at gunpoint
Yes, please!
Out of my league
There’s not a huge difference between a 1 and a 2, and there’s no such thing as a 4. So it it really comes down to “yes I would” and “no I wouldn’t.” Personality, compatibility, willingness, proximity, and beer goggles affect the rating, of course.
I’m interested in understanding this view better. Could you flesh it out for me a bit? For instance could Lolita, Slut, and Divinity sorta kinda be stand-in words for cute, hot, and beauty? – as the negative aspects of the traits? How does your concept of beauty play into it? I’m interpretting it as guaging the long-term potential of a relationship, the divine aspect. But nobody wants to be screwing Jesus or the Virgin Mary. I’m also misunderstanding the 2 out of three idea. Is it that a potential girlfriend must hit positively in 2 of the criteria, and cannot be negative in the other. Or is it that the 3rd metric doesn’t matter at all if she’s got 2 of the features?
It’s definitely the “beauty” metric that’s tripping up my understanding ( I think).
I’m thinking of those business management theories where the speaker comes in and draws a triangle on the white board. He then writes cheap, quick, and accurate at each angle. You can have 2 but not three. You want it fast, well it’s not going to be cheap if you want it accurate. Is your categorization that triange with hot, cute, and beauty at the angles?
I’m not sure that you *can *completely separate physical attractiveness from the rest of a person’s personality. For example, while a Goth girl may have a really cute face and a nice body, I probably would not be interested in someone who would choose to dress like that and identify with that culture. Or I would find a modestly and reasonably expensively dressed girl much more attractive than a girl with big breasts wearing a piece of dental floss (showing huge amounts of skin for no reason is not appealing to me; leaves nothing to the imagination, as it were).
Personality comes into play for 2-4 to varying degrees. 5 is Yes Please, 1 is Absolutely Not. Meh is more of a straddling of the fence; it is very much about the personality: “I could be suckered into that” or “Ummm…yeah, not today, thanks.”
And I don’t think it’s superficial to pay attention to someones appearance. You’re attracted to who you’re attracted to, and pretending like that doesn’t matter is silly.
Also what context are we talking about - if I’m people watching on my commute or just generally walking around and looking at people their personality doesn’t play much of a factor. If I’m looking at pics of people on an internet dating site all I’ve got are pictures and some words that don’t often tell me much. If I’m working with someone I’m more likely to like or dislike them based on their personality than I am on their looks.
