Gargantuan
Mod
Staff
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2020
- Posts
- 13,493
- Reputation
- 41,655
For as long as I've been here, I've pretty much always had the idea that looks theory was all about judging beauty from an objective point of view, whatever has happened to this concept? So why is it no longer applied here, by a lot of people?
Before I start to point out some of the misguided views some people seem to have here, I will concede that beauty isn't always 100% objective, though it usually is.
However, for a small part, and only under certain circumstances, can it be viewed as subjective and I will elaborate on those type of situations in a bit.
So where does this sudden shift come from? From what I've noticed, the problem is rooted in the fact that guys here cling to their personal preferences way too much.
The degree of attractiveness, when you see someone, is one thing, but actual beauty/aesthetics (which, as I said before, is almost always objective) is an entirely different thing.
Whenever these guys are shown a girl that isn't their 'type' or ideal woman, they will automatically assume that the girl in question is unattractive, simply because she isn't their type.
There's nothing wrong with having a type/ideal woman. In fact, it's completely normal and indeed subjective.
Beauty, on the other hand, is not subjective, in nearly all instances.
Some copes that I've encountered, along the way:
'Muh she looks like an alien, I wouldn't fuck her even though I'm an incel'
Sure thing, buddy. What you were really trying to say, is that she isn't your type/ideal woman and therefore, you automatically try to assume that she isn't attractive, even though she quite clearly is very good-looking and top-tier, in terms of beauty and aesthetics.
(credit goes to @looksmaxxer234 for the last pic)
'Muh she looks like a tranny, so overrated, I know girls who fog her by 2 entire PSL points and I wouldn't fuck her, hurr durr'
Once again, she may not be your type either, and that's perfectly fine. However, lay down the copium and put your bias aside for a bit, because it's clouding your judgement.
Do you honestly think that one of the most successful runway models of all time, who has walked 18 Victoria Secret fashion shows, is not objectively attractive? Please quit this community right now if you think that's the case and sign up to Reddit instead.
Alternatively, you could also try to fix your 250ng/dL testosterone levels.
Can subjectivity be the decisive factor when determining beauty? Yes, it can, but only under certain and specific circumstances:
Meghan Roche and Birgit Kos are both top-tier fashion/runway models, they are both 99th percentile in beauty for women, objectively speaking: Top-tier phenos, lips, ratios, eye areas, lower thirds etc. they tick all of the boxes in what constitutes an objectively beautiful/aesthetic female, one of the core principles that PSL/looks theory was founded on.
Personally, I prefer Birgit over Meghan but I have no issue with people preferring Meghan because they are both on the same level of beauty/aesthetics, it's a preference at this point.
Unironically though, I've seen people claim that both of these legit gigastacys supposedly 'look like shit'.
Maybe I'd say the same thing if my T levels were lower than that of the average woman, causing me to be shook of females who look more dimorphic than I do because only these type of 'males' can cope to this extent.
Another example:
Taylor Hill vs Grace Elizabeth
Again, we're talking about the 99th percentile in terms of female beauty, here.
I prefer Grace over Taylor but many of you might give the edge to Taylor because of personal preferences.
If you do a fog battle between Taylor, Grace, Meghan and/or Birgit, the determining factor at play is subjectivity because all 4 of them qualify as 99th percentile beauty and aesthetics for females.
You may not find all of them to be ideal/your type of woman, but that doesn't mean they're unattractive, their level of beauty (objective) remains unchanged.
Here are some more examples of people's preferences in attractiveness clouding their judgement on overall beauty and aesthetics:
'Tik Tok females are ideal and neotenous queens, bro!'
Okay, great. More power to you, if that's your preference/type.
However, the moment that you start to suggest that they mog actual female models, you've officially lost the plot, big time.
I would like to reiterate once again that you may PREFER them over models, which is perfectly normal, but to suggest that they FOG models, is nonsensical and ridiculous.
They simply do not compare to this level of beauty:
To give you an analogy (people who watch soccer/football will know what I'm talking about):
Girls on TikTok, pop stars, musicians etc. are Europa-league tier, whereas female models are Champions League-tier.
This is a nonsensical comparison:
I can respect the fact that some people will prefer Eva over Candice, and that's probably how most people will interpret fog battles, they go for the female of their preference.
However, Candice fogs Eva quite comfortably, if you look at it objectively. They are not on the same level, this is a fact and not a preference.
This is a comparison that actually makes sense:
looksmax.org
I know the context is a little bit different here (as is evident in the title of the thread), but the 2 girls in question here are actually pretty much on the same level of beauty/aesthetics and therefore, make a good comparison with one another.
As does this one:
(I know that I commented that Grace Elizabeth fogs the pair of them, in this thread, so I might come across as a hypocrite here, but I was merely pointing out that I prefer Grace over both Taylor and Palvin) > After all, preference is LEGIT, as a determining factor of beauty, when the girls in question are on the same level of beauty/aesthetics (which they all were, here)
Think about it: Every model could potentially be a star on TikTok, but no TikTok girl could ever be an actual runway model.
TLDR: The bottom line is: I'm not criticizing people for having a different taste in females, in comparison to my taste in females, that would be a silly thing to do as it's totally subjective for each and every individual.
However, I will say that there are different levels to actual beauty and aesthetics that should be recognized and cannot be transcended by preference.
So stop calling females, who are objectively good looking, ugly/trannies whatever, just because they aren't your type.
Beauty and aesthetics, observable reality = objective
Attractiveness and preference, having a type = subjective
@TRNA @SendMePicsToRate @HowAmIAlive123
Before I start to point out some of the misguided views some people seem to have here, I will concede that beauty isn't always 100% objective, though it usually is.
However, for a small part, and only under certain circumstances, can it be viewed as subjective and I will elaborate on those type of situations in a bit.
So where does this sudden shift come from? From what I've noticed, the problem is rooted in the fact that guys here cling to their personal preferences way too much.
The degree of attractiveness, when you see someone, is one thing, but actual beauty/aesthetics (which, as I said before, is almost always objective) is an entirely different thing.
Whenever these guys are shown a girl that isn't their 'type' or ideal woman, they will automatically assume that the girl in question is unattractive, simply because she isn't their type.
There's nothing wrong with having a type/ideal woman. In fact, it's completely normal and indeed subjective.
Beauty, on the other hand, is not subjective, in nearly all instances.
Some copes that I've encountered, along the way:
'Muh she looks like an alien, I wouldn't fuck her even though I'm an incel'
Sure thing, buddy. What you were really trying to say, is that she isn't your type/ideal woman and therefore, you automatically try to assume that she isn't attractive, even though she quite clearly is very good-looking and top-tier, in terms of beauty and aesthetics.
(credit goes to @looksmaxxer234 for the last pic)
'Muh she looks like a tranny, so overrated, I know girls who fog her by 2 entire PSL points and I wouldn't fuck her, hurr durr'
Once again, she may not be your type either, and that's perfectly fine. However, lay down the copium and put your bias aside for a bit, because it's clouding your judgement.
Do you honestly think that one of the most successful runway models of all time, who has walked 18 Victoria Secret fashion shows, is not objectively attractive? Please quit this community right now if you think that's the case and sign up to Reddit instead.
Alternatively, you could also try to fix your 250ng/dL testosterone levels.
Can subjectivity be the decisive factor when determining beauty? Yes, it can, but only under certain and specific circumstances:
Meghan Roche and Birgit Kos are both top-tier fashion/runway models, they are both 99th percentile in beauty for women, objectively speaking: Top-tier phenos, lips, ratios, eye areas, lower thirds etc. they tick all of the boxes in what constitutes an objectively beautiful/aesthetic female, one of the core principles that PSL/looks theory was founded on.
Personally, I prefer Birgit over Meghan but I have no issue with people preferring Meghan because they are both on the same level of beauty/aesthetics, it's a preference at this point.
Unironically though, I've seen people claim that both of these legit gigastacys supposedly 'look like shit'.
Maybe I'd say the same thing if my T levels were lower than that of the average woman, causing me to be shook of females who look more dimorphic than I do because only these type of 'males' can cope to this extent.
Another example:
Taylor Hill vs Grace Elizabeth
Again, we're talking about the 99th percentile in terms of female beauty, here.
I prefer Grace over Taylor but many of you might give the edge to Taylor because of personal preferences.
If you do a fog battle between Taylor, Grace, Meghan and/or Birgit, the determining factor at play is subjectivity because all 4 of them qualify as 99th percentile beauty and aesthetics for females.
You may not find all of them to be ideal/your type of woman, but that doesn't mean they're unattractive, their level of beauty (objective) remains unchanged.
Here are some more examples of people's preferences in attractiveness clouding their judgement on overall beauty and aesthetics:
'Tik Tok females are ideal and neotenous queens, bro!'
Okay, great. More power to you, if that's your preference/type.
However, the moment that you start to suggest that they mog actual female models, you've officially lost the plot, big time.
I would like to reiterate once again that you may PREFER them over models, which is perfectly normal, but to suggest that they FOG models, is nonsensical and ridiculous.
They simply do not compare to this level of beauty:
To give you an analogy (people who watch soccer/football will know what I'm talking about):
Girls on TikTok, pop stars, musicians etc. are Europa-league tier, whereas female models are Champions League-tier.
This is a nonsensical comparison:
However, Candice fogs Eva quite comfortably, if you look at it objectively. They are not on the same level, this is a fact and not a preference.
This is a comparison that actually makes sense:
which one would u fuck
looksmax.org
As does this one:
Think about it: Every model could potentially be a star on TikTok, but no TikTok girl could ever be an actual runway model.
TLDR: The bottom line is: I'm not criticizing people for having a different taste in females, in comparison to my taste in females, that would be a silly thing to do as it's totally subjective for each and every individual.
However, I will say that there are different levels to actual beauty and aesthetics that should be recognized and cannot be transcended by preference.
So stop calling females, who are objectively good looking, ugly/trannies whatever, just because they aren't your type.
Beauty and aesthetics, observable reality = objective
Attractiveness and preference, having a type = subjective
@TRNA @SendMePicsToRate @HowAmIAlive123
Last edited:
”
