Beauty is highly subjective and the irony of this is lost on looksmax - attractiveness is an average not a measurement

FailedNormieManlet

FailedNormieManlet

NTmaxxed pajeet
Joined
Oct 10, 2021
Posts
22,156
Reputation
39,683
I have pmed my face to quite a few people, and despite our efforts in trying to be objective with ratings, what was observed from anecdotal experience was that the ways users had rated me was almost akin to a bell curve.

I had a few users rating me quite low, many rating me very avg looking and a few rating me quite highly.

Thus I came to the conclusion that I am quite avg looking.

Now at looksmax we try to objectify attractiveness, we try to see it as a measurement like height. If someone were to be 165cm vs 180cm. It is an objective fact the 180cm person is taller, there is no debate. Whereas when we are rating faces, there is debate. There is no objective fact, different people find different things attractive and our own biases even appear on this site - a site where we are literally are trying to minimise bias. Now imagine what people irl think, how subjective looks are. How one man can be a very good looking person to one girl, but very ugly to another -> much like how to some users I am above avg looking, but to other users I look awful.

Thus in order to give any meaningful answer as to "what is my rating", we must understand that ones rating is an average, and thus objective beauty does not exist (if it did, everyone would have the same opinion).

Now there is another explanation for this (one which makes a fair amount of sense to me) as men we are actually more varied in our taste/rating. And so thus AUTOMATICALLY our ratings are going to be more spread out and we most likely rate differently to how women would actually rate.

I'd like to hear your opinions on this
 
  • +1
  • Ugh..
Reactions: gymcel:(, FrameMogger, Hikicel69 and 17 others
Shit thread👍
 
  • +1
  • JFL
Reactions: CristianT, fjor2096, Kami and 4 others
  • +1
  • JFL
  • Ugh..
Reactions: Deprived, Korea, Deleted member 8165 and 3 others
  • +1
Reactions: Korea
I understand the point you're making, if we were to compare for example an indian janitor and fucking chico, we would all come to the same conclusion.

But the point I am making is that beauty is not a measurement but an average and thus because it is an avg, there isn't any real objectiviteness outside a few cases
I disagree, beauty is 99.99% Objective.

Subjectivity only comes into play 6 PSL +. AKA if a girl likes Tyler Maher vs Brad Pitt

Every single looksmaxx people do, it a stride to gaining an objectively better trait.

Shit Jaw = Chew & Mewing Copr because everyone knows prominent jaws are attractive.
Shit Eyelashes and Brows = People will put Castor Oil to grow them out, because prominent eyelashes and full brows are attractive.
Shit Nose = Rhino, ugly noses are just ugly.

I could make this list for every single facial feature, but you get the point.
 
  • +1
Reactions: Deleted member 9779, ThatBoneStructure, Deleted member 17829 and 8 others
I disagree, beauty is 99.99% Objective.

Subjectivity only comes into play 6 PSL +. AKA if a girl likes Tyler Maher vs Brad Pitt

Every single looksmaxx people do, it a stride to gaining an objectively better trait.

Shit Jaw = Chew & Mewing Copr because everyone knows prominent jaws are attractive.
Shit Eyelashes and Brows = People will put Castor Oil to grow them out, because prominent eyelashes and full brows are attractive.
Shit Nose = Rhino, ugly noses are just ugly.

I could make this list for every single facial feature, but you get the point.
I get your point, perhaps I worded my post badly - I do not disagree with your response.

But the issue is, the way we are wording stuff it gives the impression that looks/attractiveness is a static number.

When you chew and mew, your AVERAGE goes up if you were to be objectively more attractive than EVERY woman would find you sexier, but that's not true clearly. Women have varied tastes too and aren't a monolith.

Lets say for example

80% of women find a strong jaw attractive
90% of women find tall men attractive
95% of women find a lean body attractive.

Thus having a strong jaw, being tall and lean makes you more attractive to the MAJORITY of women. But there will remain a minority of women who might find you more unattractive due to you being leaner - this however will not alter your average that much.

Thus I say looks are an average, the "objectively attractive features" you state are features which the majority of women just find attractive - does not make it objective.
 
  • +1
Reactions: Deprived, Deleted member 9779, Danish_Retard and 2 others
yeah I think you're wrong bhai, it is not subjective. There may be some scenarios where subjectivity plays out, but this is prob due to low IQ social conditioning, for example a noodlewhore would probably pick a 2/10 nerdic trucel over Roshan over Beckford.

there will be other niche things at the top and bottom end, for example one foid might prefer cavill over Hemsworth, another may go the other way. there are also niches, for example the Rock is attractive no doubt, but he is too niche for many girls.

these outliers and biased scenarios aside, it's very objective, because there is zero doubt as to what features are attractive in men, and hasnt changed much since caveman days.

women's beauty can be more subjective because there is more than one way to be feminine, there are many boneless celebrity females in China who are very feminine and attractive, yet (and maybe they are not at THAT level) Giselle, Lima, Planck, are all also feminine.

then throw in the fact there are more than one way for a females.physique to.be feminine, it can be a high E physique, or it can be a low hormonal development physique, and be attractive, or at least be feminine.
 
  • +1
Reactions: Deleted member 9779
yeah I think you're wrong bhai, it is not subjective. There may be some scenarios where subjectivity plays out, but this is prob due to low IQ social conditioning, for example a noodlewhore would probably pick a 2/10 nerdic trucel over Roshan over Beckford.

there will be other niche things at the top and bottom end, for example one foid might prefer cavill over Hemsworth, another may go the other way. there are also niches, for example the Rock is attractive no doubt, but he is too niche for many girls.

these outliers and biased scenarios aside, it's very objective, because there is zero doubt as to what features are attractive in men, and hasnt changed much since caveman days.

women's beauty can be more subjective because there is more than one way to be feminine, there are many boneless celebrity females in China who are very feminine and attractive, yet (and maybe they are not at THAT level) Giselle, Lima, Planck, are all also feminine.

then throw in the fact there are more than one way for a females.physique to.be feminine, it can be a high E physique, or it can be a low hormonal development physique, and be attractive, or at least be feminine.
See my previous response.

I perhaps worded stuff poorly, but I think thinking of looks as a static number is silly. Looks are an average, when you looksmax you are doing shit to increase your average.
 
  • +1
Reactions: FreakkForLife, Danish_Retard and Chinacurry
I get your point, perhaps I worded my post badly - I do not disagree with your response.

But the issue is, the way we are wording stuff it gives the impression that looks/attractiveness is a static number.

When you chew and mew, your AVERAGE goes up if you were to be objectively more attractive than EVERY woman would find you sexier, but that's not true clearly. Women have varied tastes too and aren't a monolith.

Lets say for example

80% of women find a strong jaw attractive
90% of women find tall men attractive
95% of women find a lean body attractive.

Thus having a strong jaw, being tall and lean makes you more attractive to the MAJORITY of women. But there will remain a minority of women who might find you more unattractive due to you being leaner - this however will not alter your average that much.

Thus I say looks are an average, the "objectively attractive features" you state are features which the majority of women just find attractive - does not make it objective.
1.) If you get a sharper jawline or as you put it "Improving your average". I can guarentee 100% of women will find you more attractive. The amount of studies I could pull out of my ass backing me up is insane. No women likes a soft jaw compaired to a sharp one. Never.

2.) Height. This is were of course being to end of the extreme will be bad. Generally speaking, if 2 men are 6 PSL one is 5'9" the other is 6'2", the taller one will still be more attractive to women due to height.

3.) This is another statement you put that has nothing backing it up. A LEAN BODY is not to be confused with a BODY BUILDER pyhsique. A lean body is every womens dream, period.

There are no averages. Every woman has an ideal man, and they posses all objectively attractive features.
 
  • +1
Reactions: exeight, Danish_Retard and FailedNormieManlet
1.) If you get a sharper jawline or as you put it "Improving your average". I can guarentee 100% of women will find you more attractive. The amount of studies I could pull out of my ass backing me up is insane. No women likes a soft jaw compaired to a sharp one. Never.

2.) Height. This is were of course being to end of the extreme will be bad. Generally speaking, if 2 men are 6 PSL one is 5'9" the other is 6'2", the taller one will still be more attractive to women due to height.

3.) This is another statement you put that has nothing backing it up. A LEAN BODY is not to be confused with a BODY BUILDER pyhsique. A lean body is every womens dream, period.

There are no averages. Every woman has an ideal man, and they posses all objectively attractive features.
I am not disagreeing with the idea that women will prefer a taller man with a sharper jaw, as you correctly stated it increases your average.

Look for example in my case.

Some users have said I look utterly subhuman whereas other users have said I was fairly good looking, if objective beauty were to exist, then all users were to come the same conclusion. However this wasn't the case, different people have different niches and ths different ratings.

If I were to ask you "is taste/food preference objective" what would you answer?
 
  • +1
Reactions: Danish_Retard and Korea
I am not disagreeing with the idea that women will prefer a taller man with a sharper jaw, as you correctly stated it increases your average.

Look for example in my case.

Some users have said I look utterly subhuman whereas other users have said I was fairly good looking, if objective beauty were to exist, then all users were to come the same conclusion. However this wasn't the case, different people have different niches and ths different ratings.
All humans do not have the same intelligence unfortunately. Anyone who called you subhuman is just a plain dumbass.
If I were to ask you "is taste/food preference objective" what would you answer?
You cannot compare this argument to something like food.

Of course it's VERY subjective because enviroment plays a role in what you consume.
 
  • +1
Reactions: FailedNormieManlet
All humans do not have the same intelligence unfortunately. Anyone who called you subhuman is just a plain dumbass.

You cannot compare this argument to something like food.

Of course it's VERY subjective because enviroment plays a role in what you consume.
Point I am making with taste and looks is this.

If we were to have a bowl of shit and a bowl of ice cream, most people would choose the ice cream over the shit? Does this mean taste is objective?

What if we were able to breakdown what makes a food taste good? We know that smell plays a role, we know humans like sweet things, we know texture plays a role etc. All these various factors we know make a food taste good, but we are still unable to say that taste/food preference is objective.

Now lets apply this to looks.

If we were to have a 5'4 indian balding janitor and a chico, most would choose chico? Does this mean looks are objective?

We are able to breakdown what makes a person look good, we know a strong jaw plays a role, height, muscularity etc. We know what makes a person attractive.

So why is it that we can therefore say attractiveness is objective, but taste in food is not?

Hence my point is that our best attempts in quantifying attractiveness has to be taken as an average rather than one static value
 
  • +1
Reactions: Danish_Retard and Korea
There's some subjectivity, but 90 percent of people tend to agree on who's ugly attractive or average
 
  • +1
Reactions: Korea and FailedNormieManlet
Point I am making with taste and looks is this.

If we were to have a bowl of shit and a bowl of ice cream, most people would choose the ice cream over the shit? Does this mean taste is objective?
Well actually yes. This would quantify a bowl of shit to be objectively disgusting to eat.
What if we were able to breakdown what makes a food taste good? We know that smell plays a role, we know humans like sweet things, we know texture plays a role etc. All these various factors we know make a food taste good, but we are still unable to say that taste/food preference is objective.
It's kind of fuuny, because taste has already been proven to be largely objective in mammals.

Humans are dumb as fuck, and eat sweet things because it makes us feel better emotionally.
Humans are the only retards to like spicy foods, because it literally causes pain.

If you take things into a Black & White perspective. If you ask 100 people from the same state what their favorite foods are, I bet at minimum 95/100 will say the same foods.
Now lets apply this to looks.

If we were to have a 5'4 indian balding janitor and a chico, most would choose chico? Does this mean looks are objective?
Yes, this is the exact definition of objectivity.
We are able to breakdown what makes a person look good, we know a strong jaw plays a role, height, muscularity etc. We know what makes a person attractive.

So why is it that we can therefore say attractiveness is objective, but taste in food is not?
Taste in food can and has been objectified.
 
  • +1
Reactions: FailedNormieManlet
It's about ranges and it's about averages (mean median and mode). The average will be high for people who are attractive but of course there will be voters (if there was an experiment or pool) that would give them low scores.

So I can see what you're saying
 
  • +1
Reactions: Danish_Retard and FailedNormieManlet
yeah I think you're wrong bhai, it is not subjective. There may be some scenarios where subjectivity plays out, but this is prob due to low IQ social conditioning, for example a noodlewhore would probably pick a 2/10 nerdic trucel over Roshan over Beckford.

there will be other niche things at the top and bottom end, for example one foid might prefer cavill over Hemsworth, another may go the other way. there are also niches, for example the Rock is attractive no doubt, but he is too niche for many girls.

these outliers and biased scenarios aside, it's very objective, because there is zero doubt as to what features are attractive in men, and hasnt changed much since caveman days.

women's beauty can be more subjective because there is more than one way to be feminine, there are many boneless celebrity females in China who are very feminine and attractive, yet (and maybe they are not at THAT level) Giselle, Lima, Planck, are all also feminine.

then throw in the fact there are more than one way for a females.physique to.be feminine, it can be a high E physique, or it can be a low hormonal development physique, and be attractive, or at least be feminine.
Whats a low hormonal development physique example on a woman?
 
Well actually yes. This would quantify a bowl of shit to be objectively disgusting to eat.

It's kind of fuuny, because taste has already been proven to be largely objective in mammals.

Humans are dumb as fuck, and eat sweet things because it makes us feel better emotionally.
Humans are the only retards to like spicy foods, because it literally causes pain.

If you take things into a Black & White perspective. If you ask 100 people from the same state what their favorite foods are, I bet at minimum 95/100 will say the same foods.

Yes, this is the exact definition of objectivity.

Taste in food can and has been objectified.
I think the point you make is fair then and perhaps I'm a bit too philosophical about this rather than thinking about it in practical terms. Yes taste in food can be objectified and humans generally speaking tend to like similar foods, but point being that we are looking at trends and to really get an accurate rating of where you are, you need to calculate an avg rather than take 1 value.

But tbh, your argument is logically consistent and solid, so I cannot really disagree with you
 
  • +1
Reactions: Korea
I disagree, beauty is 99.99% Objective.

Subjectivity only comes into play 6 PSL +. AKA if a girl likes Tyler Maher vs Brad Pitt

Every single looksmaxx people do, it a stride to gaining an objectively better trait.

Shit Jaw = Chew & Mewing Copr because everyone knows prominent jaws are attractive.
Shit Eyelashes and Brows = People will put Castor Oil to grow them out, because prominent eyelashes and full brows are attractive.
Shit Nose = Rhino, ugly noses are just ugly.

I could make this list for every single facial feature, but you get the point.
Shit jaw = surgery
 
  • JFL
Reactions: Korea
Well actually yes. This would quantify a bowl of shit to be objectively disgusting to eat.

It's kind of fuuny, because taste has already been proven to be largely objective in mammals.

Humans are dumb as fuck, and eat sweet things because it makes us feel better emotionally.
Humans are the only retards to like spicy foods, because it literally causes pain.

If you take things into a Black & White perspective. If you ask 100 people from the same state what their favorite foods are, I bet at minimum 95/100 will say the same foods.

Yes, this is the exact definition of objectivity.

Taste in food can and has been objectified.
Cope sweet foods are not dumb they help you cope before you go off the edge and kill yourself
 
  • +1
Reactions: Danish_Retard
but point being that we are looking at trends and to really get an accurate rating of where you are, you need to calculate an avg rather than take 1 value.
Yea, I agree with this. One persons rating, even if it's 100% Objective shouldn't be the only rating you based yourself upon.
But tbh, your argument is logically consistent and solid, so I cannot really disagree with you
:love::love::love:
 
  • +1
Reactions: FailedNormieManlet
I have pmed my face to quite a few people, and despite our efforts in trying to be objective with ratings, what was observed from anecdotal experience was that the ways users had rated me was almost akin to a bell curve.

I had a few users rating me quite low, many rating me very avg looking and a few rating me quite highly.

Thus I came to the conclusion that I am quite avg looking.

Now at looksmax we try to objectify attractiveness, we try to see it as a measurement like height. If someone were to be 165cm vs 180cm. It is an objective fact the 180cm person is taller, there is no debate. Whereas when we are rating faces, there is debate. There is no objective fact, different people find different things attractive and our own biases even appear on this site - a site where we are literally are trying to minimise bias. Now imagine what people irl think, how subjective looks are. How one man can be a very good looking person to one girl, but very ugly to another -> much like how to some users I am above avg looking, but to other users I look awful.

Thus in order to give any meaningful answer as to "what is my rating", we must understand that ones rating is an average, and thus objective beauty does not exist (if it did, everyone would have the same opinion).

Now there is another explanation for this (one which makes a fair amount of sense to me) as men we are actually more varied in our taste/rating. And so thus AUTOMATICALLY our ratings are going to be more spread out and we most likely rate differently to how women would actually rate.

I'd like to hear your opinions on this
I completely agree. Beauty is subjective.
 
  • +1
Reactions: DarkLoner94
Cope sweet foods are not dumb they help you cope before you go off the edge and kill yourself
Did you read the part where I said "Humans are dumb as fuck"?

I think it might apply to you. LMAO.
 
  • JFL
  • So Sad
Reactions: FailedNormieManlet and Anchor_Ship
@Korea this girl just curved me it’s such rage fuel I thought I was getting some pussy today holy shi so I say all good to her basically saying she is with other people right now and is busy I say all good and she says Wdym nah BITCH YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN holy shi i thought I was going to get some pus while my parents were out of town extreme ragefuel
 
  • JFL
Reactions: Korea
Did you read the part where I said "Humans are dumb as fuck"?

I think it might apply to you. LMAO.
I’m emotional right now I want money to surgery max and I want a physique
 
@Korea this girl just curved me it’s such rage fuel I thought I was getting some pussy today holy shi so I say all good to her basically saying she is with other people right now and is busy I say all good and she says Wdym nah BITCH YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN holy shi i thought I was going to get some pus while my parents were out of town extreme ragefuel
LMAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.

Send me a pic of her in dm????:hnghn::hnghn::hnghn:
 
  • +1
Reactions: Anchor_Ship
@Korea would you watch a movie with me we don’t need to have sex we can cuddle plz I’m sorry for my sins plz
 
  • JFL
  • Woah
Reactions: Korea and FailedNormieManlet
@Korea would you watch a movie with me we don’t need to have sex we can cuddle plz I’m sorry for my sins plz
No, I'm too busy fucking your stepmother tonight sorry son.

Is Elsa still treating you well?

I'm sorry for not being around more son.
 
  • JFL
Reactions: Anchor_Ship
Whats a low hormonal development physique example on a woman?
Someone like Keira knightly, fan bing bing, kareena Kapoor, Ronda rousey

So they don't have high E/T ratio fat stores on hips, belly, thighs, tits, ass.

Nor do they have high T/E ratio large muscles that sculpt a shape (think Gracyanne Barbosa, Miesha Tate, Kendra Lust). Mostly these foids tend to be older than 30 and/or anabolicly enhanced because it's v v rare for young women to have high T/E
 
  • +1
Reactions: FreakkForLife and Chadethnic101
I have pmed my face to quite a few people, and despite our efforts in trying to be objective with ratings, what was observed from anecdotal experience was that the ways users had rated me was almost akin to a bell curve.

I had a few users rating me quite low, many rating me very avg looking and a few rating me quite highly.

Thus I came to the conclusion that I am quite avg looking.

Now at looksmax we try to objectify attractiveness, we try to see it as a measurement like height. If someone were to be 165cm vs 180cm. It is an objective fact the 180cm person is taller, there is no debate. Whereas when we are rating faces, there is debate. There is no objective fact, different people find different things attractive and our own biases even appear on this site - a site where we are literally are trying to minimise bias. Now imagine what people irl think, how subjective looks are. How one man can be a very good looking person to one girl, but very ugly to another -> much like how to some users I am above avg looking, but to other users I look awful.

Thus in order to give any meaningful answer as to "what is my rating", we must understand that ones rating is an average, and thus objective beauty does not exist (if it did, everyone would have the same opinion).

Now there is another explanation for this (one which makes a fair amount of sense to me) as men we are actually more varied in our taste/rating. And so thus AUTOMATICALLY our ratings are going to be more spread out and we most likely rate differently to how women would actually rate.

I'd like to hear your opinions on this
theory:
1. women find the genes they feel their kids need more attractive and the genes they dont need/already have less attractive.

2. if a lineage consistently goes for the same traits they are probably genetically attracted to those traits. (ex: every guy in the lineage is tall whether hes ugly or not)

does this matter for ratings and should we stop using psl? no
 
Yet you shit on many legit super handsome male celebs like Hrithik Roshan and Sidharth Malhotra who have insane appeal but overrate a normal looksmaxxed handsome south asian/ arab guy like Zayn, so further proves the point on the subjectivity of looks
Shut the fuck up.
 
I have pmed my face to quite a few people, and despite our efforts in trying to be objective with ratings, what was observed from anecdotal experience was that the ways users had rated me was almost akin to a bell curve.

I had a few users rating me quite low, many rating me very avg looking and a few rating me quite highly.

Thus I came to the conclusion that I am quite avg looking.

Now at looksmax we try to objectify attractiveness, we try to see it as a measurement like height. If someone were to be 165cm vs 180cm. It is an objective fact the 180cm person is taller, there is no debate. Whereas when we are rating faces, there is debate. There is no objective fact, different people find different things attractive and our own biases even appear on this site - a site where we are literally are trying to minimise bias. Now imagine what people irl think, how subjective looks are. How one man can be a very good looking person to one girl, but very ugly to another -> much like how to some users I am above avg looking, but to other users I look awful.

Thus in order to give any meaningful answer as to "what is my rating", we must understand that ones rating is an average, and thus objective beauty does not exist (if it did, everyone would have the same opinion).

Now there is another explanation for this (one which makes a fair amount of sense to me) as men we are actually more varied in our taste/rating. And so thus AUTOMATICALLY our ratings are going to be more spread out and we most likely rate differently to how women would actually rate.

I'd like to hear your opinions on this
This only proves that you should observe reactions of the opposite gender, if they chase you then you're 10, if they flee at your sight you're 0, if they do neither then you're somewhere in between

Asking people will not give you clear answers because a lot of people purposely lower or up real SMV
 
That's because judging attractiveness can be done on two levels: a rational one and a subconscious one. In perfect circumstances both go hand in hand and agree with each other, but when rating someone without having someone else fairly close in attractiveness as a comparison, people will give different ratings. It doesn't mean they don't feel the same about his looks though. It also has to do with the exposure everyone has to human faces. People will obviously rate as more attractive someone who looks better than the majority of people they know of. But since people aren't that different average wise regarding looks all around the world, except for the racial differences, this won't be a huge issue and women especially will agree with whom they find ugly, average or attractive. So if someone had lived among very ugly people all their life and then sees a person better looking than all of these people yet still bellow average compared to a much higher population, chances are he will still see him as unattractive, but will rate him much higher than others will.

Very attractive people are much rarer and that's why people often disagree on who's more attractive when comparing them. But men and women will still feel a similar level of attraction to any of them ( probably this being the other reason for why it's hard to come to a consensus on who is more attractive ).

Thus I agree with you but this is my explanation for why it is like that. Not because some people's brains are programmed differently and they see certain features as more or less attractive, but because people aren't good at judging things rationally, especially if straight men have to rate men, where no attraction is involved, as well as exposure to human faces, has a major influence on this. And very importantly: attractiveness ≠ looks position/rating. Obviously the higher you go on the scale the more you will find people as attractive, but unless people are being exposed to the same people they won't be able to give identical or very similar ratings, because they are firstly and foremostly rating how common or uncommon someone's looks is based on their own set of reference ( so not necessarily of how much attraction they feel towards them ).

So in theory looks are objective but ratings cannot be.
 
Last edited:
  • +1
Reactions: Deprived and FailedNormieManlet
90% of women find tall men attractive
no u dont get it. its not about 10% of women liking short guys.

100% of women are attracted to tall men more than short

its just that 10% of women would be low enough smv and such lack of options that they will date short guys
 
no u dont get it. its not about 10% of women liking short guys.

100% of women are attracted to tall men more than short

its just that 10% of women would be low enough smv and such lack of options that they will date short guys
Go outside nigga, there are plenty of cute girls with short guys JFL
 
are u saying 10% of them women are attracted to short guys more than tall guys?
not 10%, much lower. Point being that looks are entirely subjective and our attempts at quantifying this shit won't really work. At most we can only predict trends
 
not 10%, much lower. Point being that looks are entirely subjective and our attempts at quantifying this shit won't really work. At most we can only predict trends
just stop making threads and download bluestacks nigga
 
@FailedNormieManlet We could say that beauty is subjective but there are objectively attractive features, what do you think about that?
 
  • +1
Reactions: FailedNormieManlet
@FailedNormieManlet We could say that beauty is subjective but there are objectively attractive features, what do you think about that?
I think yes there are featues which are attractive to MOST people. But the idea that someone's attractiveness can be objectively rated is a bit crazy. I think we can only really provide an estimate at most. Look at how users wildly vary in their ratings of people
 
  • +1
Reactions: Chadethnic101, Deleted member 7098 and JamesHowlett
I have pmed my face to quite a few people, and despite our efforts in trying to be objective with ratings, what was observed from anecdotal experience was that the ways users had rated me was almost akin to a bell curve.

I had a few users rating me quite low, many rating me very avg looking and a few rating me quite highly.

Thus I came to the conclusion that I am quite avg looking.

Now at looksmax we try to objectify attractiveness, we try to see it as a measurement like height. If someone were to be 165cm vs 180cm. It is an objective fact the 180cm person is taller, there is no debate. Whereas when we are rating faces, there is debate. There is no objective fact, different people find different things attractive and our own biases even appear on this site - a site where we are literally are trying to minimise bias. Now imagine what people irl think, how subjective looks are. How one man can be a very good looking person to one girl, but very ugly to another -> much like how to some users I am above avg looking, but to other users I look awful.

Thus in order to give any meaningful answer as to "what is my rating", we must understand that ones rating is an average, and thus objective beauty does not exist (if it did, everyone would have the same opinion).

Now there is another explanation for this (one which makes a fair amount of sense to me) as men we are actually more varied in our taste/rating. And so thus AUTOMATICALLY our ratings are going to be more spread out and we most likely rate differently to how women would actually rate.

I'd like to hear your opinions on this
just don't ask subhumans or ass-lickers for ratings
 
  • +1
Reactions: FailedNormieManlet
just don't ask subhumans or ass-lickers for ratings
This site is flawed the whole rating system. It's straight men rating straight men. We need blackpilled women or some shit ffs
 
  • +1
Reactions: Chadethnic101 and Deleted member 17829
This site is flawed the whole rating system. It's straight men rating straight men. We need blackpilled women or some shit ffs
they're only honest among other girls. and even then the virtue signalling is programmed into most of them.

your best bet would be to create an account on vindicate or whatever the female "looksmaxing" forum is called, larp as a girl and post pics of "this guy" aka you from time to time
 
  • +1
Reactions: FailedNormieManlet
they're only honest among other girls. and even then the virtue signalling is programmed into most of them.

your best bet would be to create an account on vindicate or whatever the female "looksmaxing" forum is called, larp as a girl and post pics of "this guy" aka you from time to time
Sounds legit, but I can tell what the sort of comments will be like if I posted an avg looking man :feelswhy::feelswhy::feelswhy::feelswhy:
 
  • JFL
Reactions: Deleted member 7098
Sounds legit, but I can tell what the sort of comments will be like if I posted an avg looking man :feelswhy::feelswhy::feelswhy::feelswhy:
we can't be that ugly if gays keep approaching and wanting to fuck us (y)
 
  • JFL
Reactions: FailedNormieManlet

Similar threads

S
Replies
8
Views
270
rteme
R
PROMETHEUS
Replies
72
Views
2K
zerotohero
zerotohero
BucketCrab
Replies
51
Views
3K
Luffymaxxing
Luffymaxxing
BlackpillRemedy
Replies
52
Views
2K
i_love_roosters
i_love_roosters

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top