If most couples are “ looksmatched “then doesn’t that mean beauty is objective ?

Goodthingstartssmall · 2021-06-19T23:21:23+00:00

Both. When i see a guy with a girl who is not my type but i see the guy as objectively attractive then on first glance i can say that the guy is hotter. But even though i don't think the girl is hot which is my subjective view i'm capable of identifying behaviour and other traits where i can easily fathom why the guy is attracted for her. E.g. "That girl is not my type and overall pretty average but i can see why that guy, who is arguebly hotter, is into her because she has such a nice ass and curly hair".

Psychological_Wear_7 · 2021-06-19T22:51:36+00:00

Anyone who tells you beauty is subjective is lying to you.

Attractive people are attractive not matter where they are, unless ofc you're a racist or something lol

malin_w13 · 2021-06-20T00:38:04+00:00

Aren’t most people looksmatched because most people are just average looking to most people?

I think there’s a certain aspect of beauty that is generally considered standard (like symmetric face, etc.); but I think attraction and beauty aren’t necessarily the same thing. Most people are average looking, so then you get differences in what different people find more/less attractive.

SherbertBacon · 2021-06-20T03:29:25+00:00

It's objective within reason. Like music. We don't all agree that jazz is the best, but I can point you to a "bad" jazz song (or worse, not even a "song" at all) and a "popular/well-liked" jazz song easily. Similarly, I can point you to an unattractive person, or an incredibly hot person. Within this spectrum comes personal taste, in the same way I prefer jazz over pop but you may not.

Kamaloso · 2021-06-19T23:02:10+00:00

It's both though. It's about what percentage of people are likely to perceive a given person to be attractive or not. I think there's greater agreement among the population about what's ugly than what's beautiful maybe. In my case though, I'm not attracted to the vast majority of women with "model" looks, you know, the kind guys say are 9/10. But there are plenty of women who'd probably get a rating of 6 or 7 who fit my niche and I'm like OH YES PLEASE!! But I'm also never going to be attracted to the kind of woman who'd get a rating of 3/10. So yeah it's weird.

Timmy721123 · 2021-06-19T23:31:55+00:00

How can couples be looks matched if hypergamy is a thing?

cvslengthbucketlist · 2021-06-20T00:36:21+00:00

Probably not, because the idea of couples we see in our day-to-day lives "looksmatching" doesn't account for the fact that women tend to wear makeup in public.

brilliant22 · 2021-06-19T22:47:55+00:00

"most couples are lookmatched" means that most couples are perceived by the general population to be equally attractive in looks. This means that people tend to date those who they perceive to be just as attractive as themselves.

Until there is a standardized system of measuring attractiveness (the same way there's a standardized system of measuring height, temperature, number of molecules etc), beauty is not objective

The fact that there's a tendency for people to have the same opinion of A does not mean that A having xyz quality is objective. "The Godfather" is widely perceived to be the best film of the 20th century. That does not mean the movie is objectively the best film of the 20th century - because there's no standardized method of determining film quality. It just means that most people perceive this movie to be the best.

nemporisso · 2021-06-20T00:39:55+00:00

You're explaining by yourself why you're incorrect. Sub/objectivity is a spectrum. Randomized couples, as you put it, are common enough to point to the significant subjectivity of beauty. Matched couples are common enough to indicate it's largely objective too.

Blueberry-syrup · 2021-06-20T00:43:33+00:00

I hate when people bring this subject up. There's studies out there that say people tend to choose people that look similar to themselves as a mate. You could also argue they choose someone that looks like them because it subconsciously reminds them of their parents, too. Since people look like their parents, especially when it comes it choosing someone similar to the opposite sex parent. You choose what is familiar. People tend to stay in their lane when it comes to their personal level of attractiveness.

Rating people on a scale serves no purpose. Society has a "beauty standard" which constantly changes and evolves. What humans found attractive 500 years ago might be different today.

M3taBuster · 2021-06-20T07:41:10+00:00

There is an objective range of attractive features, and people have varying individual preferences for different features within that range.

For instance, I may like slightly thicker girls, and another guy might like slightly thinner girls, but almost nobody likes anorexic girls or morbidly obese girls.

timissick · 2021-06-20T12:16:24+00:00

Thank you for recognizing couples are looksmatched. Now quit crying and find your match. Admit you are a 5 and go get your 5.

milkyymochii · 2021-06-20T00:00:58+00:00

It’s both. Certain attributes & characteristics are always objectively good for the vast majority of people: good skin, fit body, healthy hair, symmetry, short philtrum, good midface, forward maxilla, positive canthal tilt, etc etc etc

Barneysparky · 2021-06-19T23:49:57+00:00

Exactly, when you see couples in shops or on the street 99 times out of a hundred the person of your designated sex choice isn't attractive to you.

Incels, MGTOW, and random pill guys don't count the females as women when they wouldn't want to have sex with them, and when they would want to have sex with them they decide the men are beta cucks, or if also attractive Chads who will abuse the women who would be better off then you. I can't tell you the number of times I've had guys here say that they don't know any happy with each other couples, or that women are either "settling" or with an asshole.

It's pure projection. It discounts others lived experiences, and it's a heck of a lot of narcissism and black and white thinking.

JimBeamAndCoke2016 · 2021-06-20T03:53:29+00:00

They're not. In most couples I know or see, the man is more attractive than the woman.

Jaylen-Gads · 2021-06-19T22:52:13+00:00

No, it is not because that is not the “reason” why modern couples are together. Beauty is not subjective there is a clear indication of how men rate women, and women rate men.

AutoModerator · 2021-06-19T22:38:45+00:00

Attention!

You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message.
For "CMV" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies.
If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment.
OP you can choose your own flair according to these guidelines., just press Flair under your post!

Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

Mrs_Drgree · 2021-06-19T22:49:41+00:00

[removed]

TheBookOfSeil · 2021-06-20T00:47:26+00:00

No. It just means that beauty has set parameters based on perception. Most people might just be seeking themselves out in a partner without really knowing it.

scottydoesknow7 · 2021-06-20T01:59:09+00:00

Beauty is objective but attraction can be subjective to a smaller degree. People like Ryan Reynolds and Brad Pitt will always be attractive cause they have the facial features (jawline, eye area, nose, forward growth, midface). Same facial features in older Hollywood actors could also be seen.

Ladyofblades · 2021-06-20T02:02:26+00:00

Some aspects of beauty are and others are subjective because people will have differing tastes.

Aspects like overall fitness, symmetry, height, health (you’ve got good skin and a thick head of hair) are probably objective. You can get a general idea of looksmatching from this.

Add some subjective traits according to preference and that’s it

FreierSteinkopf · 2021-06-20T05:51:02+00:00

Ofc they are objective measurements for beauty. There is a whole section of science that back it up. Whether most couples are lookmatched is up for debate I do think though that it's true for the most part.

neetykeeno · 2021-06-20T07:17:27+00:00

Well I have seen what is regarded as good looks change a whole lot over my lifetime. That would tend to indicate that a lot of it is culturally relative.

NoBank8496 · 2021-06-20T08:37:59+00:00

This starts off with an inherent flaw, it assumes that men and women both prioritize physical beauty to the same extent, but this is just false. Men will prioritize this to a higher degree than women. While women will prioritize social status in men (very generalized way of saying it). You should be looking at it through the lens of people being SMV-matched. It all comes down to the combined VALUE one can bring to the table.

Mondholm · 2021-06-20T08:51:49+00:00

Beauty is always subjective.

It correlates with objective assessments though.

And the subjective senses of beauty are pretty similar across humans.

Still subjective.

Pilling_it · 2021-06-20T10:26:57+00:00

There can be a variability between tastes from people to people for sure. But thing is, it's mall. If we're using numbers like you did, maybe a 8,5 can be another person's 10. Maybe a 5 can be a 6 to another.

But being classified in hot, above average, average, under average and downright ugly is pretty universal.

MrBittersweetcookie · 2021-06-20T10:45:16+00:00

Beauty is subjective because no matter how attractive you are, you can still have unattractive character.

Personally I have been with some beautiful women but they were empty uniteresting and quite frankly shallow Sheelas, not saying all of them are but seems like external beautify incentives lack of motivation to develop a strong character.

wateroclock · 2021-06-20T11:56:04+00:00

Beauty is objective, aesthetic preferences are subjective.

Mysterious-Dirt-6506 · 2021-06-20T11:58:01+00:00

"beauty is in the eye of the beholder" merely means one person prefers THAT 10 while another person prefers THIS 10

Paliant · 2021-06-20T13:59:17+00:00

Beauty is objective and subjective. The objective part being things like the “golden ratio” and your face being mathematically symmetrical, having certain size lips, ratio between nose and eyes size wise. Subjective attraction is just phenotype preferences.

flamingoinghome · 2021-06-20T20:32:39+00:00

I think most couples aren't "looksmatched" in terms of that silly 1-10 thing y'all are addicted to so much as "presentationmatched."

Most of what we call "looks" is presentation. Dress, grooming, posture, general affect--these are all closely tied to personality and make up at least as much of 'looks" as raw physical stock. In couples, the raw stock may vary, but the presentation tends to even out, because people with similar personalities tend to go for each other.

Daffan · 2021-06-21T04:14:46+00:00

Yeah it's all coded. Not everything is "muh social konditioning" like people would like to think.

pubgmisc · 2021-06-21T06:12:06+00:00

Attraction is not really a choice. Women date up, men date down

chubbybutt22 · 2021-06-21T13:57:33+00:00

I see at as kind of an objective top and bottom and a lot of subjective in between. So it’s not totally objective.

billsull_02842 · 2021-06-20T04:15:11+00:00

yeah but women dont just lust after looks they lust after money.

Title	If most couples are “ looksmatched “then doesn’t that mean beauty is objective ?
Author	rivetcitymayor
Upvotes	43
Comments	157
Date	June 19, 2021 10:38 PM UTC (3 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/o3rm8n/if_most_couples_are_looksmatched_then_doesnt_that/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/if-most-couples-are-looksmatched-then-doesnt-that.785384 https://theredarchive.com/post/785384