Thread: Can males judge other males' attractiveness?

Attractiveness may not be the best word to use. If instead of asking which guy is more attractive, you asked which guy is more pleasing to look at, you might get better results. Some shapes tend to be more pleasing to look at than others. A man should be able to tell which person is more pleasing to look at, like they could pick from two trees, or animals, or pieces of art or cars or anything. There isn't really any attraction there however, and often its just humans like symmetry and look for things to be in correct proportions to what they expect. A heterosexual man probably can't tell who is more attractive but may be able to find who features are more in proportion and is generally more pleasing to look at, which often overlaps with attractiveness(though there are differences).

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

Strong words. I suppose you're talking about my position (even if not specifically), seeing as how I'm the first one who made that argument. Your wording, though, is a misrepresentation, seeing as how I didn't specifically say that it is the only reason guys (myself included) can tell a 'good-looking guy' when they see one.



The problem with that is that attractiveness is based on subjectivity, and you're talking about it like it's objective. While you say someone can't be "retarded enough" to figure JCR to be as easy to look at as, say, Tom Cruise, you are completely failing to acknowledge that there is a lot that goes into what someone finds attractive. I know women who think Seth Rogan is the sexiest man alive. Why? Because of context. It can be something as subtle as a smile. Some people are turned off by certain shapes of noses. It can be something that would completely elude another person. To talk as if "this person is obviously more attractive to everyone than this person," is to impose your own opinion on 'what is attractive' onto other people.

As I specifically said, I also have a sense of my own image, and a general idea of my own level of 'attractiveness'. Why? Because I get feedback. The kind of analytical 'that's a good looking guy' that I experience when I see a 'good looking guy' is NOT the same as the experience I get, when I see a good looking woman. It's not even close. Attraction is the act of being drawn-to or having interest aroused by a particular something. This is not what happens when I simply recognize a guy as a 'good-looking male.' It is a recognition of "in my assessment of who might be categorized as a 'good-looking male,' this person is above average." To put more perspective on it, as I said before, it is the same as when I look at myself in the mirror and can confidently say that I think of myself as 'good-looking male.' At the same, I know of plenty of people who don't think I am attractive, and favor people that I wouldn't think of as more on the 'good-looking' side of the spectrum as I am.

The same arguments you're making about John C. Reilly and Seth Rogen, you could make about Rosie O'Donnell and Oprah (possible female equivalents to their looks), yet no guys are coming out saying that they're attractive in their own special way in context. They're acting like these women are walking excrement that melt your face when you look at them, and that nobody would want them or love them.

That's why I'm angry, it's all the sexist double standards. For girls in society, attractiveness IS brutally, ruthlessly objective. In a fair, just world, it should be the same for guys.

Originally Posted by DeeryTheDeer

The same arguments you're making about John C. Reilly and Seth Rogen, you could make about Rosie O'Donnell and Oprah (possible female equivalents to their looks), yet no guys are coming out saying that they're attractive in their own special way in context. They're acting like these women are walking excrement that melt your face when you look at them, and that nobody would want them or love them.

Huh? Are you talking about every man in the world? Personally, I haven't heard many opinions about Rosie O'Donell or Oprah (but I can imagine that the generalization is that they are not attractive). But to using a more personal example, I know plenty of guys who like Big girls, though it is probably not the norm. I know plenty of guys who are attracted to women that other guys would find hideous. To say it doesn't happen is to show a complete lack of perspective. Again, is it it the norm? No. Maybe not. But it happens. So to say anyone who has a different perspective - on the what they do and don't find attractive - is inherently spitting bullshit, is pretty biased.

Yes, women tend to get based on their looks more than men do. Is it right? No. On that, I can agree with you. However I think your anger is clouding you from the fact that it is subjective. Popular music (much like popular opinion) is general. One who is only exposed to certain perspectives tend to get the idea that such a perspective is universal - which I think you might be having trouble with - but it is not. Yes, guys can be arrogant, shallow, sexist pigs - but so can women, and don't even begin to try to dispute that. Skewed as it may be, it is still subjective.

Originally Posted by DeeryTheDeer

That's why I'm angry, it's all the sexist double standards. For girls in society, attractiveness IS brutally, ruthlessly objective. In a fair, just world, it should be the same for guys.

You really should point your fingers at the media, and the women who buy into it. Comparatively speaking there are way more things out there that are aimed at women on a superficial level simply because that's what the vast majority of them are into. If those women weren't so stuck up on hair, jewelery, makeup, and fashion, there wouldn't be such a strong market for it.

Originally Posted by Auron

You really should point your fingers at the media, and the women who buy into it. Comparatively speaking there are way more things out there that are aimed at women on a superficial level simply because that's what the vast majority of them are into. If those women weren't so stuck up on hair, jewelery, makeup, and fashion, there wouldn't be such a strong market for it.

This is a very valid point, that should not be ignored.
Women have been using their looks to their advantage for how long now? The double-standard is not all the fault of the men. How about the overwhelming double standard of females who only look for men with money and power, as opposed to what's inside. I can only hope that this double-standard infuriates you just as much, Deery.

Originally Posted by Auron

You really should point your fingers at the media, and the women who buy into it. Comparatively speaking there are way more things out there that are aimed at women on a superficial level simply because that's what the vast majority of them are into. If those women weren't so stuck up on hair, jewelery, makeup, and fashion, there wouldn't be such a strong market for it.

I don't see anything wrong with enjoying fashion and makeup, but I think it's become so expected of women from all levels of society that even the ones who don't enjoy it feel stonewalled into getting into it anyway. They're left feeling like they have no worth if they don't. Women who can barely afford their rent are buying $5 tubes of lipstick.

I saw in the mall a place called Magical Eyebrows. I'm not sure exactly what they did, but it involved a needle in the woman's eyebrow.

Pretty much my reaction when I saw it happening....

In the end these standards are unfair for everyone and not everyone buys into it because they want to, but because they feel they have to, to function in society. For some women using their looks is the only way they feel they can get ahead while I'm sure some guys feel the exact same way about money and power (both physical and financial). This is an all encompassing problem with society as a whole.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

This is a very valid point, that should not be ignored.
Women have been using their looks to their advantage for how long now? The double-standard is not all the fault of the men. How about the overwhelming double standard of females who only look for men with money and power, as opposed to what's inside. I can only hope that this double-standard infuriates you just as much, Deery.

It is stupid that women try to get by on looks and only date guys for their money, I agree with that, but it does not infuriate me as much. You know why? Because men have not been systematically oppressed, subordinated and dehumanized for centuries by women in almost every culture in the entire world. Today's media is still a symptom of it. I can't lie and say that I have an equal amount of sympathy, because the playing field is set up nowhere near equal. I'm not saying that women don't do crappy things or that any gender is "better", but I'm just calling it for what it is.

Looks are subjective, but to an evolutionary extent. Usually, a universally "attractive" person is viewed as such because they're genetically healthy.

To be honest, all sides of this issue bother me- from guys being pressured to never admit the attractiveness of another male (I sympathize with the intense pressure on boys to be masculine and not show emotion, by the way), to women (and men) saying things like, "Christina Hendricks looks like what ALL women are supposed to look like" all the time. I have never in my life heard someone say that one man looks like what all men should change themselves to look like.

If we just got rid of all these gender based social stigmas, I wonder what we'd REALLY think and say- or if anything would change at all.

People could probably make the argument that woman can't tell how attractive other woman are. Most heterosexual woman probably think they know what men want but so many times it is shown that they really have no idea. Often times they are just guessing based on how media portrays woman, and often they are wrong. Like all the young girls who starve them self because they think men like really skinny woman, when most men really don't like super skinny woman at all.

Originally Posted by Alric

People could probably make the argument that woman can't tell how attractive other woman are. Most heterosexual woman probably think they know what men want but so many times it is shown that they really have no idea. Often times they are just guessing based on how media portrays woman, and often they are wrong. Like all the young girls who starve them self because they think men like really skinny woman, when most men really don't like super skinny woman at all.

Women's bodies are attractive, and not just in a pretty-scenery type of way. There is a sexual component, something enticing about looking at a woman with a nice body in a bikini. And as far as I know, I'm straight. It's definitely not the same as a male's attraction to a female, it's a lot more toned down, but at least some women definitely have a sense of how hot a woman looks, not just from guessing, but because they feel some hint of arousal themselves. I've heard some (straight) women completely agree, while others don't. But you might be partly right. It might be subjective, and for whatever reason, women tend to find different women attractive than men. Or maybe there is an extra component in attraction to a woman that men have and women don't. Also, if you're going to claim women can't tell, you need to take into account that other men's opinions differ from your own too, and conclude that the women's opinions differ more from men's in general than men's do from each other.

But I tend to believe in the spectrum between heterosexual and homosexual, not just the three categories of straight, bi, gay, and it's possible I'm attracted to women slightly more than most women are, but I have heard this from other women too.

I can tell who is an attractive guy. But also it varies because some girls say "that guy is so fucking hot" and I'm just like "ahhhh.... wtf?"

Basically if I was gay, I know the guys I'd want to fuck lol

Attraction involves so much more than looks. Sure, men are more visual, but there is a very large difference between a woman a guy would have sex with and one he could have a long, satisfying relationship with. The types who are all sex appeal and no personality (far too many) are the ones men regard as tissues. That is to say, they are used by men and tossed out.

Society teaches young girls, through various mediums, that first and foremost you have to be beautiful, very beautiful, in order to have even a slim chance of being valued. They are taught that personality traits and skills take a back seat. This is a self-fulfilling prophecy. These teachings cause young women to be highly insecure about their appearance, thus causing them to put much more energy into it while neglecting other aspects of themselves. If most women do not have personality traits that stimulate men's interest, then it really will become wholly about their physical appearance. There is lots of evidence that says people seek out those who validate how they already feel about themselves. This is speculation, but having a female population with low self-esteem could cause them to seek out wealthy and powerful men because it puts those women in a subordinate position.

One of my great fears is that this is already happening and that it is only going to get worse. Being somebody who is only attracted to the truly strong sort of woman (not the wannabees) with a high sense of self-worth, living in that society would be a nightmare. The heart of the problem is capitalism and the media, but that's a conversation for another day. But then, I don't really know.

-

I actually have no idea which guys are or aren't really physically attractive. I have a general idea of who is physically attractive, but sometimes I overhear girls talking about guys they think are attractive and I think, "What? That guy's fucking ugly." There are a few individuals whom I do feel are attractive, but these individuals have more of a feminine appearance.

From what I've read, there seems to be more agreement on what physical features men as a collective find attractive, but when it comes to what women find physically attractive, there is less agreement.