Honest talk about the cost of being ugly

[DrZoidberg]

the existence of Playboy makes it clear that there is a general agreement about desirability.

Really? I sincerely doubt that the existence of one particular source of pornographic imagery tells us anything about "general agreement".

A better test would be to look at as many sources as possible, which, thanks to the wonders of the Electric Internet, we can now do in the peace and comfort of our own homes.

Let me know if there is ANY body type or shape; ANY facial feature or arrangement thereof; or ANY race, colour, or creed, that is found in society at large (and 8 billion people is a very large society indeed), but that you cannot find porn of.*

The sheer overwhelming variety of pornstar appearances and niches tells me that your "general agreement" hypothesis is bunk.









* No, seriously, let me know, so I can make a fortune producing porn for a hitherto unexploited market...

It's an odd statement to make now when we all have access to AI research tools. You're obviously wrong, and there's loads of studies we can all easily access, to back it up. I searched just to be sure. I had Chat GPT generate a research style document on 30 pages with every important cited study on it. I told it to sum it up in bullet points. But I couldn't be bothered to post it because you're so obviously wrong, and you must surely be aware of it?

Men's tastes in what they're physically attracted to is boringly predictable and pretty standardised. There's a reason all the top porn stars look, pretty much, the same. Yes, there exists all kinds of shapes and sizes among porn producers. Because there's an absolutely huge market for porn. And even when a man has a special kink or tastes in something non-standard in what he's attracted to, the chances he prefers a woman who looks like a top porn star is, pretty much, guaranteed. Can a man enjoy sex with a woman who doesn't look like a top porn star? Yes, of course. Obviously that is true. Is physical attraction the most important factor for a man for enjoying sex? Obviously not. Just like we can all have a great life and feel fulfilled while living in a small inner city flat even though we'd all prefer living in a castle with an army of butlers at our beck and call.

We can accept the fact that we'll never get to ever sleep with the world's hottest woman, and still be happy with a woman who is not. And will most likely prefer that woman (who we have in our life). A female partner who can't accept and is unable to make peace with that her partner is more physically attracted to porn stars has mental problems IMHO.

We're doing none of our partners any favours by participating in a conspiracy of lies where we pretend to not be attracted to women we obviously are.

 

[pood]

the existence of Playboy makes it clear that there is a general agreement about desirability.

Really? I sincerely doubt that the existence of one particular source of pornographic imagery tells us anything about "general agreement".

A better test would be to look at as many sources as possible, which, thanks to the wonders of the Electric Internet, we can now do in the peace and comfort of our own homes.

Let me know if there is ANY body type or shape; ANY facial feature or arrangement thereof; or ANY race, colour, or creed, that is found in society at large (and 8 billion people is a very large society indeed), but that you cannot find porn of.*

The sheer overwhelming variety of pornstar appearances and niches tells me that your "general agreement" hypothesis is bunk.









* No, seriously, let me know, so I can make a fortune producing porn for a hitherto unexploited market...

It's an odd statement to make now when we all have access to AI research tools.

I would not trust AI for anything. But this conversation has actually become pretty interesting.

You're obviously wrong,

Obviously? Really?

and there's loads of studies we can all easily access, to back it up. I searched just to be sure. I had Chat GPT

Oh, there’s that AI thing again.

generate a research style document on 30 pages with every important cited study on it. I told it to sum it up in bullet points. But I couldn't be bothered to post it because you're so obviously wrong, and you must surely be aware of it?

There is that “obviously” thing again.

Men's tastes in what they're physically attracted to is boringly predictable and pretty standardised.

Really?

There's a reason all the top porn stars look, pretty much, the same.

Right, because they are being marketed to a certain segment of men. Not because all or even most men are attracted to porn stars.

Yes, there exists all kinds of shapes and sizes among porn producers. Because there's an absolutely huge market for porn. And even when a man has a special kink or tastes in something non-standard in what he's attracted to, the chances he prefers a woman who looks like a top porn star is, pretty much, guaranteed.

Cite?

Can a man enjoy sex with a woman who doesn't look like a top porn star? Yes, of course. Obviously that is true. Is physical attraction the most important factor for a man for enjoying sex? Obviously not.

You seem to be contradicting yourself.

Just like we can all have a great life and feel fulfilled while living in a small inner city flat even though we'd all prefer living in a castle with an army of butlers at our beck and call.

See, there’s the rub. I, personally, have never been attracted to porn stars. Really!

Moreover, I have literally NEVER desired to live in a castle with an army of butlers at my beck and call, and in fact find people who do have such desires to be repulsive. I have literally never desired to “grab them by the pussy,” to quote our illustrious U.S. leader, or to live in a monument to garishness like Mar a Lago.

We can accept the fact that we'll never get to ever sleep with the world's hottest woman, and still be happy with a woman who is not.

And yet who is supposed to be “the world’s hottest woman,” and who decides that?

And will most likely prefer that woman (who we have in our life). A female partner who can't accept and is unable to make peace with that her partner is more physically attracted to porn stars has mental problems IMHO.

Your unsupported generalizations about the human condition, and about men specifically, are quite tedious.

We're doing none of our partners any favours by participating in a conspiracy of lies where we pretend to not be attracted to women we obviously are.

There is that “obviously” thing again. Nothing you say is obvious, is actually obvious.

 

[steve_bank]

Hefner was a marketing genius.

He created an linage of an upscale female sexual image, upscale porn. The Playboy Clubs with women wearing bunny ears and tails. An exclusive club. He gt rich and buit an empire on it.

As kids we'd sneak off with a parent's copy of Playboy and ogle.

He was also the world's leading hedonist. Surrounded himself with yong fern ales in his mansion available for sex 24/7.

Beauty is whatever somebody gets you to believe is beauty. Same with art. l listened to an interview with an artist form 50s or 60? He sold typewriters as art. People paid a lot for term. The difference between the 'art;' and one you could buy in a sore was the artist's signature.

Fashion deserters set standards of beauty.

In the news cosmetics companies are targeting young girls. Pre teens.

 

[pood]

And, as Richard Rorty said, truth is what you can get people to believe is true.

 

[pood]

Dr. Zoid’s totalist, incredibly superficial view of human nature and desire is of course extremely off-putting to intelligent people, but then again should come as no surprise given that he is someone who slanderously confuses opposition to Netanyahu’s policies in Gaza with anti-Semitism.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Fun annecdote. I have a friend who is a software developer and works at a top gaming studio. She doesn't do anything important. She's just a grunt on the floor working on an A-list game. She's just one among many many thousands of developers, across the globe. But she is spectacularly beautiful.

Now when they're doing a promotional tour speaking at conferences, conventions and such, guess which developer they have "randomly" selected to represent the developers of the project on stage?

/Because looks don't matter

If only the other developers just had been a bit more charming and put their best foot forward... it could have been them. I guess it just was bad luck. Statistically it should have been a man... since almost all developers on the project are men... rotten luck.

BTW... nobody on the project is bitter about it. Why? Becuase everybody knows this is how it works, and if you want attention for your product you push the hot babes into the spotlight. So they all want the hot chick up there, speaking on their behalf. It's very common that gaming companies use the only girl for promos.

And just to have it said. She's not a bad developer. She's not even good for a girl. She's fine. She's an absolutely decent developer pulling her weight. Which is cool. And she does graphics. Which is hard core programming. She absolutely deserves to be on the stage. But so would a lot of other people, who aren't on stage talking now.

 

[pood]

Yeah, anecdotes aren’t evidence for anything.

Your superficiality is indeed impressive, but not in a good way.

 

[southernhybrid]

I'm about to leave to join my aerobics group, so I'll make it short, but do you have any idea how sexist your post sounds to me as a woman? You refer to an accomplished woman as a "girl", while referring to the males as men. I don't mind when other women refer to me as a girl, as in one of the girls or join the girls, but if a man uses the term girl to describe a woman, then he should refer to the men as boys.

Secondly, you assume she was chosen due to her looks. Perhaps she was chosen because women don't get much respect or attention in male dominated professions as they are rarities. So, just maybe she was chosen to show that a woman in a male dominated profession can be very competent. My son is a highly respected developer and there is not a single woman in his entire department, so you have made assumptions because you find this woman physically attractive and are not even considering her other accomplishments. Gotta run, so I'll leave it at that.

 

[steve_bank]

Way back I first thought DrZ was reasoned and informed.

Now I see him as shallow, opinionated, and biased.

 

[bilby]

Fun annecdote. I have a friend who is a software developer and works at a top gaming studio. She doesn't do anything important. She's just a grunt on the floor working on an A-list game. She's just one among many many thousands of developers, across the globe. But she is spectacularly beautiful.

Now when they're doing a promotional tour speaking at conferences, conventions and such, guess which developer they have "randomly" selected to represent the developers of the project on stage?

/Because looks don't matter

If only the other developers just had been a bit more charming and put their best foot forward... it could have been them. I guess it just was bad luck. Statistically it should have been a man... since almost all developers on the project are men... rotten luck.

BTW... nobody on the project is bitter about it. Why? Becuase everybody knows this is how it works, and if you want attention for your product you push the hot babes into the spotlight. So they all want the hot chick up there, speaking on their behalf. It's very common that gaming companies use the only girl for promos.

And just to have it said. She's not a bad developer. She's not even good for a girl. She's fine. She's an absolutely decent developer pulling her weight. Which is cool. And she does graphics. Which is hard core programming. She absolutely deserves to be on the stage. But so would a lot of other people, who aren't on stage talking now.

And if Mae West or Marylin Monroe worked there, and wanted that gig, they would be told to go away and not come back until they'd lost a few kilos.

The fact that standards of beauty change over time - indeed, over less than a century - shows that they are fashion, not some innate human quality shared by all (or even all men, or even most men).

Right now, the fashion is for women who look more like teenaged boys (or pre-teen girls) than like the average adult woman. That look does nothing for me, but it probably says something about the proclivities of Hollywood producers.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Here’s a weird thing about people. Most of us are not 9’s or 10’s or even 1’s or 2’s — for those of us who adhere to these juvenile, nonsensical indices. Most of us are somewhere in the middle, roughly,

Yet people get together and make more people, and even love each into old age when they look wrinkled and often grotesque.

Yeah, one would expect a bell curve. But calling the indices nonsensical doesn't make it so--the existence of Playboy makes it clear that there is a general agreement about desirability.

Is there?

Or is it that Playboy appeals to a certain market?

Does Playboy market to gays? Lesbians? To people who like buxom black women? To people like Elixir who think smart women are hot? To people like me who, when younger, thought smart women were hot, but no longer think in those categories at all, who are no long really into sex? (I am still definitely into smart women and people in general, but not in a sexual sense.)

Obviously, it doesn't appeal to everyone. But don't look at one issue, look at common attributes across many issues. Those are features a large chunk of the population find attractive. If tastes were more varied the girls would be more varied.

And you aren't presenting anything that would show it's not a factor, just that it's not the only factor.

I was not arguing that sexiness is not a factor in attraction, but indeed that it is just not the ONLY factor. And yes, for a substantial number of people, Playboy standards of “attraction” are not meaningful standards at all.

What I am really pointing out is how incredibly superficial this video guy is, and to point out that he is trying to sell a book avowedly marketing vanity — an incredibly empty, vapid, and self-defeating exercise imo.

Looks fade anyway, and quickly. When we are in our teens and 20s, a hot, sexy appearance may mean a lot — but even then, not for everyone. By the time we are in our 30s and 40s, that is changing.

Yeah, I don't agree with this guy. Doesn't mean the problem isn't real.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

the existence of Playboy makes it clear that there is a general agreement about desirability.

Really? I sincerely doubt that the existence of one particular source of pornographic imagery tells us anything about "general agreement".

A better test would be to look at as many sources as possible, which, thanks to the wonders of the Electric Internet, we can now do in the peace and comfort of our own homes.

Let me know if there is ANY body type or shape; ANY facial feature or arrangement thereof; or ANY race, colour, or creed, that is found in society at large (and 8 billion people is a very large society indeed), but that you cannot find porn of.*

The sheer overwhelming variety of pornstar appearances and niches tells me that your "general agreement" hypothesis is bunk.

Lots of niche markets. But they're niche markets. I'm looking at the mass market where the intent is broad appeal.

 

[steve_bank]

This is hte term was trying to remember

"Looksmaxxing" is an online subculture focused on obsessively maximizing physical attractiveness. It involves "softmaxxing" (grooming, diet, exercise, skincare) and sometimes dangerous "hardmaxxing" (surgery, steroids, unverified procedures). The trend originated in niche internet forums and is heavily discussed on TikTok.

The OP is a serious issue. From reportng teens try to meet beauty standards on the net, get depressed, and leads some to suicide.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I hang out in the Danish queer community, and the amount of absolute idiocy my tribe often believe, and have really strong opinions on, is astounding. It's a bubble of progressive values and opinions, and the people who only stay in the bubble keep getting their beliefs reenforced. I'm going to assume that this is true for everyone and every comunity. People seem to love having strong opinions on it. And I think that available evolutionary evidence can be used to prove basically anything about our needs, urges and instincts.

Yeah, bubbles tend to be self-reinforcing.

We also don't know if the size and impractibility of peacock feathers signal fitness and therefore is what gets them laid. They do all kinds of stuff when courting peahens. It's just a theory.

But it's possible to test. Alter the peacock's tail, see what effect that has on mating success.

I believe that making a species that continually gets their retinas hammered with media triggering dopamine hits and not given much time to sit and reflect, will get a perverted sexuality.

I don't think the dopamine perverts us, but it does mess us up relationship-wise.

I think we live so far from the lives we've evolved for, that it's damn near impossible to take modern sexuality as any kind of indication for what's natural or normal for our species. Gay, bisexual or otherwise.

Agreed.

I'm on Matt Ridley's team when it comes to homosexuality. It's a mystery. It's not functional. There's no possible scenario we can model that makes homosexuality adaptive or increase fitness. No matter how we mess around with the data, the bottom line, is that fitness and survivability would go up if everyone could potentially have babies from reproduction. It also exists in all mammals at about the same proportions. So it's impossible to breed out (which we've tried to do). One theory is that the genes for homosexuality sits on the same gene or chromosome as something that does something really really important, so therefor has a too high cost for the species to breed out. So it stays. Genetic drift. But ultimately... we don't know. And does it matter? Love is love. I really don't need to know why other people fancy eachother. If it makes your dick hard and you get consent.... fuck it.

Which is why I think in some fashion it must be a necessary trait.

Which makes perfectly good sense if it's actually a filter for what we find desirable rather than an attraction to the opposite sex. And how do you even implement "opposite" in attraction? There must somehow exist a pattern for attraction to men and a pattern for attraction to women.