Honest talk about the cost of being ugly

[southernhybrid]

Women like a muscular build, but not to the extreme of a body builder.

Sure. And men like athletic women, but not too athletic.
/ sarcasm
I don’t believe the palliative tropes like “there’s someone out there for everyone”, but there is no ugliness, grotesqueness (grotesquity?) or repellency that doesn’t attract at least some few people.
“People” like some weird shit.

I know some folks who want to have a fat lard of a spouse, the fatter the better, on all sides of whatever classes you care to name that are not "the identity of the desire itself": skinny people with dicks who want fat lards with a vagina, fat lards with dicks wanted by skinny ladies with vaginas, and then fat lards for fat lards, and skinny folks for skinny folks.

I agree about the love of fat people. A creepy patient who I briefly visited when I was a home health nurse, once told me "You don't have to worry because I like my women much bigger than you" He was much younger than our typical patient, but his remark was creepy. I guess he realized I thought he was creepy.

Different people like different types of bodies or don't care much about the body. My current husband said he never cared about boobs, but he likes a nice curvy butt. He claims it was love at first sight when we met. I still tell him that's nuts. I once had an obese friend with benefits, that helped me get through my divorce rom my horrible ex. Obese men can be great lovers because they often put more effort into pleasing a woman. I never planned to have my friend as my temporary lover, but he hit on me to the point where I gave in and he was a great lover and friend, just not someone I wanted as a long time partner. Both my former and current husbands were skinny when we met. It wasn't their looks that attracted me and I was only 19 when I met the first one so I didn't realize what an asshole he was until after we married. My next door neighbor is a short, skinny man with a pretty wife and they seem to adore each other. They are one of many mixed race couples I know.

And, not to brag but I'm in my mid 70s and still get hit on by men or told I'm beautiful. I guess I've aged well compared to most women my age. As long as they aren't creepy, I don't mind the compliments, but I also don't need them to maintain my self esteem. Still, it's weird that men think it's okay to tell a woman they don't know that she's beautiful or has gorgeous hair etc. At least they never tell me they love my shape. That would be creepy. One of my closest black female friends used to have a creepy white guy sit next to her and start rubbing her arm when we were engaged in conversation at the senior center. She wasn't assertive enough to tell him off, so I made sure she sat on the end seat when we were talking. She was about 70 at the time. I guess a woman is never too old to have to put up with this crap.

In fact, when I worked in my last job prior to retiring, there were many little romances going on in the ALF and the women usually told me the details. At least one of the residents hit on me and I was in my 60s at the time. Again....I guess a woman is never too old to have men find her attractive, but that is probably another topic. And yeah. None of these older women weren't what would be described as pretty. They were just available.

I was going to post this last night but thought it might be TMI, but then decided who the fuck cares? Nobody has to read or reply to my posts and I don't have to reply to anyone's ether.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Of course, "looks matter". What the response generally is, is that "looks aren't all that matters". Charisma, attitude, empathy are going to come into play, much like apathy, narcissism, and vanity can as well.

You admit that looks matter, but then act as if they don't.

What? I said they mattered, and that other things also matter. More than one thing can matter.

In the long run, they mostly don't--but to get to the long run you have to start, and looks very much matter at the start.
Suppose we have an intelligence test...

Oh fuck... not another Loren analogy!

...but if you want to take the test you have to roll under your looks on 2d20. Do you really think that won't skew the results?

JFCoaS!

The issue are bodybuilders. The claim is that bodybuilders don't get the women because of looks. The issue isn't "looks".

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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.

Lincoln famously said, “The good lord must have loved the common-LOOKING people, since he made so many of them.” The “looking” part is commonly omitted from the “common” quote.

During one of his 1858 debates with Steven Douglas, Lincoln, whom Douglas had accused of being two-faced, responded with his customary wit: “If I had another face, do you think I’d be wearing this one?”

I think what you and Southern Hybrid are confused about is stuff you are projecting onto what he's saying.

He's not talking about human worth. He's not saying that we should care about looks. He's acknowleging that its a thing and that it affects us. Pretending that it doesn't isn't helping. Its like denying racism exists because we don't like racism. It doesn't help.

FYI, women are rarely attracted to bodybuilders.

Indeed, one thing women hate are muscles. That is why women only try to pick guys up at ComicCons.

I think the question to ask, assuming "women are rarely attracted to bodybuilders" is accurate, is why they are not. It most likely isn't looks that are the issue, which is apparently what you are thinking it is about.

Of course, "looks matter". What the response generally is, is that "looks aren't all that matters". Charisma, attitude, empathy are going to come into play, much like apathy, narcissism, and vanity can as well.

That's not why they do it. They are vain. But its not about attracting the opposite gender for sex or love. It has the opposite effect.

You almost appear to grasp it in the thread. It wouldn't be looks that are the problem, but the vanity.

Women like a muscular build, but not to the extreme of a body builder. The reason I've heard is that the big muscles implies the guy is excessively vain and self absorbed.

Like I said... not about looks. The video sounds like it is a "why it is them and not me" self gratification.

 

[Playball40]

My experience is that particular looks do equate in some regards to trustworthiness.

Bilaterally symmetrical facial features are highly valued …

A lot of guys value big symmetrical boobs. They are 'beautiful'. Works of art.

And most boob sets are NOT symmetrical.

 

[DrZoidberg]

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.

Lincoln famously said, “The good lord must have loved the common-LOOKING people, since he made so many of them.” The “looking” part is commonly omitted from the “common” quote.

During one of his 1858 debates with Steven Douglas, Lincoln, whom Douglas had accused of being two-faced, responded with his customary wit: “If I had another face, do you think I’d be wearing this one?”

I think what you and Southern Hybrid are confused about is stuff you are projecting onto what he's saying.

He's not talking about human worth. He's not saying that we should care about looks. He's acknowleging that its a thing and that it affects us. Pretending that it doesn't isn't helping. Its like denying racism exists because we don't like racism. It doesn't help.

FYI, women are rarely attracted to bodybuilders.

Indeed, one thing women hate are muscles. That is why women only try to pick guys up at ComicCons.

I think the question to ask, assuming "women are rarely attracted to bodybuilders" is accurate, is why they are not. It most likely isn't looks that are the issue, which is apparently what you are thinking it is about.

Of course, "looks matter". What the response generally is, is that "looks aren't all that matters". Charisma, attitude, empathy are going to come into play, much like apathy, narcissism, and vanity can as well.

That's not why they do it. They are vain. But its not about attracting the opposite gender for sex or love. It has the opposite effect.

You almost appear to grasp it in the thread. It wouldn't be looks that are the problem, but the vanity.

Women like a muscular build, but not to the extreme of a body builder. The reason I've heard is that the big muscles implies the guy is excessively vain and self absorbed. Women don't want a guy who is more vain than they are.

Don't you think it's just down to genetic programming? We're genetically programmed to looks for signs of health and fitness (in the Darwinian sense). Since bodybuilder sized muscles did not appear in the stone age women just aren't programmed to track it as a sign of health.

While we don't seem to have the same metric for just being impressed. I think everyone is impressed by big muscles. But not everyone will get sexually excited.

Sexual attraction doesn't have to make logical sense. Or at least, don't need to follow a logic that we can decipher.

Reminds me of that story of an Australian beetle that was going extinct because the males prefered trying to mate with a specific kind of beer bottle, that mimicked something found in beetle females, and was the most optimised version of it. So they ditched the girls and headed for the bottles.

 

[thebeave]

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.

Lincoln famously said, “The good lord must have loved the common-LOOKING people, since he made so many of them.” The “looking” part is commonly omitted from the “common” quote.

During one of his 1858 debates with Steven Douglas, Lincoln, whom Douglas had accused of being two-faced, responded with his customary wit: “If I had another face, do you think I’d be wearing this one?”

I think what you and Southern Hybrid are confused about is stuff you are projecting onto what he's saying.

He's not talking about human worth. He's not saying that we should care about looks. He's acknowleging that its a thing and that it affects us. Pretending that it doesn't isn't helping. Its like denying racism exists because we don't like racism. It doesn't help.

FYI, women are rarely attracted to bodybuilders.

Indeed, one thing women hate are muscles. That is why women only try to pick guys up at ComicCons.

I think the question to ask, assuming "women are rarely attracted to bodybuilders" is accurate, is why they are not. It most likely isn't looks that are the issue, which is apparently what you are thinking it is about.

Of course, "looks matter". What the response generally is, is that "looks aren't all that matters". Charisma, attitude, empathy are going to come into play, much like apathy, narcissism, and vanity can as well.

That's not why they do it. They are vain. But its not about attracting the opposite gender for sex or love. It has the opposite effect.

You almost appear to grasp it in the thread. It wouldn't be looks that are the problem, but the vanity.

Women like a muscular build, but not to the extreme of a body builder. The reason I've heard is that the big muscles implies the guy is excessively vain and self absorbed. Women don't want a guy who is more vain than they are.

Don't you think it's just down to genetic programming? We're genetically programmed to looks for signs of health and fitness (in the Darwinian sense). Since bodybuilder sized muscles did not appear in the stone age women just aren't programmed to track it as a sign of health.

While we don't seem to have the same metric for just being impressed. I think everyone is impressed by big muscles. But not everyone will get sexually excited.

Sexual attraction doesn't have to make logical sense. Or at least, don't need to follow a logic that we can decipher.

Reminds me of that story of an Australian beetle that was going extinct because the males prefered trying to mate with a specific kind of beer bottle, that mimicked something found in beetle females, and was the most optimised version of it. So they ditched the girls and headed for the bottles.

Yes, I do think its genetic programming and I do agree with your stone age reference. But when women are asked why they're not attracted to bodybuilders they don't reply, "because its not in our genetic programming". They have own personal, non-scientific reasons, and the most frequent explanation I recall hearing from them is what the physique represents..,.the excessive vanity and devotion to getting that way is the turn-off. Time such men devote to themselves is time lost not giving them attention. I think the contempt women have for hardcore male video game players is also like that.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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.

Lincoln famously said, “The good lord must have loved the common-LOOKING people, since he made so many of them.” The “looking” part is commonly omitted from the “common” quote.

During one of his 1858 debates with Steven Douglas, Lincoln, whom Douglas had accused of being two-faced, responded with his customary wit: “If I had another face, do you think I’d be wearing this one?”

I think what you and Southern Hybrid are confused about is stuff you are projecting onto what he's saying.

He's not talking about human worth. He's not saying that we should care about looks. He's acknowleging that its a thing and that it affects us. Pretending that it doesn't isn't helping. Its like denying racism exists because we don't like racism. It doesn't help.

FYI, women are rarely attracted to bodybuilders.

Indeed, one thing women hate are muscles. That is why women only try to pick guys up at ComicCons.

I think the question to ask, assuming "women are rarely attracted to bodybuilders" is accurate, is why they are not. It most likely isn't looks that are the issue, which is apparently what you are thinking it is about.

Of course, "looks matter". What the response generally is, is that "looks aren't all that matters". Charisma, attitude, empathy are going to come into play, much like apathy, narcissism, and vanity can as well.

That's not why they do it. They are vain. But its not about attracting the opposite gender for sex or love. It has the opposite effect.

You almost appear to grasp it in the thread. It wouldn't be looks that are the problem, but the vanity.

Women like a muscular build, but not to the extreme of a body builder. The reason I've heard is that the big muscles implies the guy is excessively vain and self absorbed. Women don't want a guy who is more vain than they are.

Don't you think it's just down to genetic programming? We're genetically programmed to looks for signs of health and fitness (in the Darwinian sense). Since bodybuilder sized muscles did not appear in the stone age women just aren't programmed to track it as a sign of health.

The stone age is a "tad bit" late for the evolutionary tale. Humans are pretty much set in archetypes and evolutionary programming at that point.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

And he's a body builder. So obviously he's talking from being in the shallow end of humanity. ...

That's a pretty insulting generalization to make about posters here who train, myself included, by the way. Assuming someone lacks depth just because they have the discipline to push weights consistently is, ironically, a shallow statement.

Wow... you are sensitive about this. I think it's cute how you place yourself in the category of bodybuilder, just becuse you train. Do you have a pro bodybuilder card? Or even trying to get one? I'm going to guess... not?

Also... why is it shameful to be shallow? That doesn't mean he's only shallow. But people who care about how they look, need to be shallow to some extent. I'm certainly guilty of that. Why is that sensitive for you? I find your reaction baffling.

It also misses the bigger picture of how attraction works. Interestingly, the way people behave directly impacts how beautiful others think they are. This is called the halo effect.

I'd say that's what the video is about. That people who didn't win the genetic lottery need to make it up with other means. He's acknowleding the extra work the less attractive need to put in, to be in the social game.

Now, it isn't like there is absolutely nothing to the video, but the way our minds work ought to also modify conclusions somewhat.

I'll reiterate, the attacks on the video in this thread have been exclusively shallow. If you have any depth in there, how about proving it by engaging with what the video is actually about? Instead of knee-jerk shallow responses.

I have no interest in trading personal jabs or debating the semantics of who qualifies for a bodybuilding card. My point was simply that dismissing anyone dedicated to fitness as inherently at the shallow end of humanity relies on a lazy stereotype, as building strength requires discipline and consistency that run deeper than surface aesthetics. Personally, most of the reason I do bodybuilding is for health and some of it is for aesthetics because I was very unhealthy at one point and now I want to remove the leftover traces of unfitness. Besides this, if we are going to engage with the actual substance of the video and human behavior, we need to ground the discussion in accurate psychology rather than assumptions about people. After all, this is a social science thread, not submitted to a hasty generalizations and pop culture forum.

Now regarding that kind of level of scientific substance, you are fundamentally misunderstanding what I had written. The concept isn't an additive formula where someone who didn't "win the genetic lottery" compensates by making it up in other areas to stay in the social game. The concept is a studied cognitive bias where non-physical traits literally alter the perceptual evaluation of a person's physical appearance.

Let's take a moment to let that sink in and conceptualize the distinction between you/the video and the effect. You are thinking in terms of a compensatory model of mate value (e.g., "He is a 2 out of 10 physically, but his kindness and money add 5 points, making him a 7 overall to the ladies"). These psychological effects dictate that one positive trait literally alters the observer's perception of other unrelated traits: (He is a 2 physically and he is very kind and he makes me feel secure ==> "He looks like a 5 physically").

Studies show that when someone displays positive behavioral traits, observers genuinely rate their physical baseline higher—they don't think merely "ugly but nice," their visual perception actually shifts. The video treats beauty as an immutable anchor requiring behavioral compensation, whereas actual psychology demonstrates that character dynamically changes perception of the physical anchor itself.

Here is a study on this topic:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1090513804000066

 

[Elixir]

My experience is that particular looks do equate in some regards to trustworthiness.

Bilaterally symmetrical facial features are highly valued …

A lot of guys value big symmetrical boobs. They are 'beautiful'. Works of art.

And most boob sets are NOT symmetrical.

I’ll be the judge of that!
Verdict:
Close enough.

 

[DrZoidberg]

And he's a body builder. So obviously he's talking from being in the shallow end of humanity. ...

That's a pretty insulting generalization to make about posters here who train, myself included, by the way. Assuming someone lacks depth just because they have the discipline to push weights consistently is, ironically, a shallow statement.

Wow... you are sensitive about this. I think it's cute how you place yourself in the category of bodybuilder, just becuse you train. Do you have a pro bodybuilder card? Or even trying to get one? I'm going to guess... not?

Also... why is it shameful to be shallow? That doesn't mean he's only shallow. But people who care about how they look, need to be shallow to some extent. I'm certainly guilty of that. Why is that sensitive for you? I find your reaction baffling.

It also misses the bigger picture of how attraction works. Interestingly, the way people behave directly impacts how beautiful others think they are. This is called the halo effect.

I'd say that's what the video is about. That people who didn't win the genetic lottery need to make it up with other means. He's acknowleding the extra work the less attractive need to put in, to be in the social game.

Now, it isn't like there is absolutely nothing to the video, but the way our minds work ought to also modify conclusions somewhat.

I'll reiterate, the attacks on the video in this thread have been exclusively shallow. If you have any depth in there, how about proving it by engaging with what the video is actually about? Instead of knee-jerk shallow responses.

I have no interest in trading personal jabs or debating the semantics of who qualifies for a bodybuilding card. My point was simply that dismissing anyone dedicated to fitness as inherently at the shallow end of humanity relies on a lazy stereotype,

Nobody has done that. You reading that into it and your reaction is just bizarre imho

as building strength requires discipline and consistency that run deeper than surface aesthetics. Personally, most of the reason I do bodybuilding is for health and some of it is for aesthetics because I was very unhealthy at one point and now I want to remove the leftover traces of unfitness. Besides this, if we are going to engage with the actual substance of the video and human behavior, we need to ground the discussion in accurate psychology rather than assumptions about people. After all, this is a social science thread, not submitted to a hasty generalizations and pop culture forum.

This is just babble. If you work and don't use maximum steroids you are hardly doing bodybuilding. Bodybuilding is an extreme sport where you push your body far beyond what's healthy.

Your reaction is so off base

Now regarding that kind of level of scientific substance, you are fundamentally misunderstanding what I had written. The concept isn't an additive formula where someone who didn't "win the genetic lottery" compensates by making it up in other areas to stay in the social game. The concept is a studied cognitive bias where non-physical traits literally alter the perceptual evaluation of a person's physical appearance.

Let's take a moment to let that sink in and conceptualize the distinction between you/the video and the effect. You are thinking in terms of a compensatory model of mate value (e.g., "He is a 2 out of 10 physically, but his kindness and money add 5 points, making him a 7 overall to the ladies"). These psychological effects dictate that one positive trait literally alters the observer's perception of other unrelated traits: (He is a 2 physically and he is very kind and he makes me feel secure ==> "He looks like a 5 physically").

Studies show that when someone displays positive behavioral traits, observers genuinely rate their physical baseline higher—they don't think merely "ugly but nice," their visual perception actually shifts. The video treats beauty as an immutable anchor requiring behavioral compensation, whereas actual psychology demonstrates that character dynamically changes perception of the physical anchor itself.

Here is a study on this topic:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1090513804000066

I still don't understand the relevance to the video. Whatever it is that makes you beautiful is what counts. Halo effect or not. Having a shitty halo makes you ugly, therefore ugly, and you need to deal with that

 

[bilby]

Reminds me of that story of an Australian beetle that was going extinct because the males prefered trying to mate with a specific kind of beer bottle, that mimicked something found in beetle females, and was the most optimised version of it. So they ditched the girls and headed for the bottles.

Yeah, nah, they were just copying the behaviour of all the rest of the Aussie males.

 

[steve_bank]

Z In our modern liberal society it is whatever floats your boat.

If for you it is watching sleazy garrulous bizarre sex that is up to you. You do not have to justify it to me.

What I said was there are moral implications as to how porn is made and who runs it in the background.

Same with illegal drugs. If you buy cocaine once in a while you may think it is no big deal, but the people at the top are brutal vicious drug cartels, who you are funding.

You can chose to be amoral and concern yourself only with your immediate gratification.

And this all leads to a thread on moral philosophy.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Reminds me of that story of an Australian beetle that was going extinct because the males prefered trying to mate with a specific kind of beer bottle, that mimicked something found in beetle females, and was the most optimised version of it. So they ditched the girls and headed for the bottles.

Yeah, nah, they were just copying the behaviour of all the rest of the Aussie males.

Yipes... my condolences to the Aussie females. Those poor women.

 

[steve_bank]

Beauty and what constitutes good looks has certainly changed.

In the 60s-70s women opposed to the female beauty standards stopped wearing bras and dd not shave armpits and legs.

There is a goofy bra commercialrunning where a woman complains about the bra she is using makes her breasts look like a sack of potatoes.

AI Overview
Female beauty standards have fluctuated heavily throughout history, ranging from voluptuous, fertile curves to extreme, corset-cinched proportions and androgynous or ultra-thin silhouettes. Across many classic eras, the aesthetic ideal was an hourglass figure where the waist was significantly narrower than a fuller bust and hips.

1950s: The "Golden Age" HourglassThe Look:
This decade is most famous for the glamorous pin-up and screen idol aesthetic, epitomized by stars like Marilyn Monroe (whose famous 1962 measurements were roughly 35.5 inches bust and 23.5 inches waist).The Ratio: The standard for a "perfectly proportioned" 5'4" woman was approximately a 35.5" bust and a 22.5" waist. This emphasizes a dramatic, roughly 12-14 inch difference between the two.Late-19th Century: The Victorian/Gibson Girl CorsetThe Look: Beauty during the late 1800s and Edwardian periods demanded an exaggerated, "steel engraving" hourglass shape.The Ratio: To emphasize a robust bust, women used corsets to artificially compress the waist, frequently aiming for an 18" to 22" waist while tightly laced. This meant the bust-to-waist ratio could be incredibly extreme.Mid-20th Century SizingThe Look: Sewing patterns and off-the-rack fashion before the 1960s favored distinctively smaller waists and fuller busts compared to today.The Ratio: In 1955, the median adult woman possessed a 25-inch waist. In general, the ideal "vintage" figure dictated a bust 8 to 12 inches larger than the natural waist, heavily favoring Hourglass Body Type proportions.Ancient & Early BeautyThe Look: In centuries much further back—like the Italian Renaissance—larger breasts and a rounded, softer stomach were considered highly beautiful and denoted fertility.The Ratio: Exact inch numbers were unrecorded, but art from these eras favored larger breast dimensions alongside wider hips and a less cinched waist.

 

[steve_bank]

Making boos look perfect is what plastic surgery is for.

Men get implants as well.

A match made in heaven. A woman with fake boobs and a guy with fake muscles.

When comedian Joan Rivers died somebody joked her grave should be declared a toxic waste site.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

So what went wrong when the feminists conducted the studies in the early 90'ies? There's obviously a mismatch between what women say they want in studies, and what they show they want in porn consumption. The problem was how the studies were done. There's strong social pressure on women to say they don't like violent or degrading porn, even when they do.

So why does anyone like violent and degrading porn? Well... that's something for psychologists and sociologists to figure out. I don't think there's an easy answer.

Thought here: rape fantasy is extremely common. Related?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

So what went wrong when the feminists conducted the studies in the early 90'ies? There's obviously a mismatch between what women say they want in studies, and what they show they want in porn consumption. The problem was how the studies were done. There's strong social pressure on women to say they don't like violent or degrading porn, even when they do.

So why does anyone like violent and degrading porn? Well... that's something for psychologists and sociologists to figure out. I don't think there's an easy answer.

Thought here: rape fantasy is extremely common. Related?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Let's take a moment to let that sink in and conceptualize the distinction between you/the video and the effect. You are thinking in terms of a compensatory model of mate value (e.g., "He is a 2 out of 10 physically, but his kindness and money add 5 points, making him a 7 overall to the ladies"). These psychological effects dictate that one positive trait literally alters the observer's perception of other unrelated traits: (He is a 2 physically and he is very kind and he makes me feel secure ==> "He looks like a 5 physically").

Studies show that when someone displays positive behavioral traits, observers genuinely rate their physical baseline higher—they don't think merely "ugly but nice," their visual perception actually shifts. The video treats beauty as an immutable anchor requiring behavioral compensation, whereas actual psychology demonstrates that character dynamically changes perception of the physical anchor itself.

Here is a study on this topic:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1090513804000066

So? All you're showing is that it's not a conscious balancing.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Let's take a moment to let that sink in and conceptualize the distinction between you/the video and the effect. You are thinking in terms of a compensatory model of mate value (e.g., "He is a 2 out of 10 physically, but his kindness and money add 5 points, making him a 7 overall to the ladies"). These psychological effects dictate that one positive trait literally alters the observer's perception of other unrelated traits: (He is a 2 physically and he is very kind and he makes me feel secure ==> "He looks like a 5 physically").

Studies show that when someone displays positive behavioral traits, observers genuinely rate their physical baseline higher—they don't think merely "ugly but nice," their visual perception actually shifts. The video treats beauty as an immutable anchor requiring behavioral compensation, whereas actual psychology demonstrates that character dynamically changes perception of the physical anchor itself.

Here is a study on this topic:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1090513804000066

So? All you're showing is that it's not a conscious balancing.

No, there is unconscious "balancing," that is not the kind being discussed, such as personality, character etc. Then, some people might consciously take other factors into consideration like those being discussed: like money. A person can literally be more physically attracted to a nice person (if that is what they are into).

 

[DrZoidberg]

Beauty and what constitutes good looks has certainly changed.

In the 60s-70s women opposed to the female beauty standards stopped wearing bras and dd not shave armpits and legs.

There is a goofy bra commercialrunning where a woman complains about the bra she is using makes her breasts look like a sack of potatoes.

AI Overview
Female beauty standards have fluctuated heavily throughout history, ranging from voluptuous, fertile curves to extreme, corset-cinched proportions and androgynous or ultra-thin silhouettes. Across many classic eras, the aesthetic ideal was an hourglass figure where the waist was significantly narrower than a fuller bust and hips.

1950s: The "Golden Age" HourglassThe Look:
This decade is most famous for the glamorous pin-up and screen idol aesthetic, epitomized by stars like Marilyn Monroe (whose famous 1962 measurements were roughly 35.5 inches bust and 23.5 inches waist).The Ratio: The standard for a "perfectly proportioned" 5'4" woman was approximately a 35.5" bust and a 22.5" waist. This emphasizes a dramatic, roughly 12-14 inch difference between the two.Late-19th Century: The Victorian/Gibson Girl CorsetThe Look: Beauty during the late 1800s and Edwardian periods demanded an exaggerated, "steel engraving" hourglass shape.The Ratio: To emphasize a robust bust, women used corsets to artificially compress the waist, frequently aiming for an 18" to 22" waist while tightly laced. This meant the bust-to-waist ratio could be incredibly extreme.Mid-20th Century SizingThe Look: Sewing patterns and off-the-rack fashion before the 1960s favored distinctively smaller waists and fuller busts compared to today.The Ratio: In 1955, the median adult woman possessed a 25-inch waist. In general, the ideal "vintage" figure dictated a bust 8 to 12 inches larger than the natural waist, heavily favoring Hourglass Body Type proportions.Ancient & Early BeautyThe Look: In centuries much further back—like the Italian Renaissance—larger breasts and a rounded, softer stomach were considered highly beautiful and denoted fertility.The Ratio: Exact inch numbers were unrecorded, but art from these eras favored larger breast dimensions alongside wider hips and a less cinched waist.

The ideal for the 70'ies was to be naturally beautiful. The changing trends didn't mess with the things men are actually atttacted to. The big thing that changed was that women who were genetically unfortunate got shamed for trying to do something about it. What a surprise women got bored with that and led to the hyper fixed 80'ies, with their push up bras and big hair.

Burning your bra is nice if you have perfect tits. Not so fun if you don't.

The ideal hip to waist ratio has never changed. What has changed is what has been considered an ideal weight. But that's just media noise. No matter what the media tells us to like, the physical traits men are attracted to has stayed the same.