Murmarize
Iron
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2024
- Posts
- 66
- Reputation
- 40
It's time to acknowledge the fact that in a rating (facial assessment), ethnicity has no weight. Ethnicity may be an important natural parameter in communication and/or attracting female attention and/or in other similar areas of activity, but when it comes to an objective rating (facial assessment) of appearance, the radically primary actor of our rating is the facial bones, regardless of your ethnicity, whether you're an Indian, a Hindu or an Asian, whether you're phenotypically Caucasoid or even a Gypsy, but if your bones are developed and have mass, no white man 5/10 surpasses a 7/10 Gypsy/Hindu under any circumstances of our world's reality, except perhaps in attracting the opposite sex, but as I've already said, this has no role in objective assessment.
Yes, it's logical for questions to arise like "lol, Asians, Indians, etc. are born ugly," "why is an attractive appearance needed if it doesn't attract the opposite sex," "but they are preferable...".
> Speaking of the first and third points - it doesn't matter how they are born, how many are born or have bad natural parameters - what matters is what sum of characteristics (the person we are visually assessing) has right now at this point in time, in other words, we should abstract from such things when rating, because when we assess a person, we assess their face, and not many of their associates and relative to someone.
> Speaking of the third point - it doesn't matter and is a topic for other controversial positions, but no one will deny that only the bones and their degree of development play a role.
Yes, it's logical for questions to arise like "lol, Asians, Indians, etc. are born ugly," "why is an attractive appearance needed if it doesn't attract the opposite sex," "but they are preferable...".
> Speaking of the first and third points - it doesn't matter how they are born, how many are born or have bad natural parameters - what matters is what sum of characteristics (the person we are visually assessing) has right now at this point in time, in other words, we should abstract from such things when rating, because when we assess a person, we assess their face, and not many of their associates and relative to someone.
> Speaking of the third point - it doesn't matter and is a topic for other controversial positions, but no one will deny that only the bones and their degree of development play a role.
