Why do you think it is that some people don't understand that attractiveness is not actually subjective?

Attractiveness is objective, not subjective. Other than minor details like what kind of hair color you may like or fingernail length or something.

Sociological studies have been done for decades on the nature of human attraction that have proven that the overwhelming supermajority of people find very similar facial shapes and body figures attractive, and their opposites unattractive. Attractive qualities include: slimness of face and figure (as in lower body fat as opposed to higher body fat); symmetry of face and figure; generally more petite noses with straight bridges as opposed to larger ones or ones without straight bridges; full, symmetrical tits on females and a moderate-but-not-excessive amount of musculature on males; shorter height for females and taller height for males.
https://www.nature.com/articles/srep39731
Everyone knows this. Why do some people deny it? Is denial some sort of coping mechanism?

"Beauty is in the eye of the beholder." Sure-- and almost all of us, as beholders, agree on what it is. Humans are animals. This isn't complicated.
Updates:
+1 y
answers.
0 0

Most Helpful Girls

  • Although what you say is true for most things you should bear in mind that different people are attracted by different things. You are talking about the full image. But how about specific parts of it?
    For example not all women are attracted to a man having a beard. Also not all men like skinny figures in women. Some prefer women with curves 🤷‍♀️
    So yes, the beautiful might be objective, but attraction is not.

    Example. I have an acquaintance who would probably be a dream man for many women out there. Muscular, tall, blonde, blue eyes, well trained body, big biceps, abs, etc... Yet I was never attracted to him. Yes, he is beautiful. He's very handsome and he knows it. But it just didn't work for me 🤷‍♀️ he even tried to hit on me when we first met, but I wasn't even nearly touched by his attempts. So, if attraction IS subjective, where is the objectivity there?

    • "the beautiful might be objective, but attraction is not" This makes my head hurt in several different ways. Your example is unfortunately also irrelevant.

    • Beautiful is what you see. Attraction is something you feel. They are two different things. Beauty can be found anywhere. In inanimate objects, in a flower, in a painting, in a building... But attraction is a different matter 🤷‍♀️ How is this complicated?

    • It's not complicated. You're the one complicating things. We aren't talking about all beauty literally everywhere in the world, including inanimate objects.

  • If it was objective, EVERYONE would agree. It would be undisputed.

    Not everyone does though. That’s why it’s considered subjective.

    The issue is that you don’t know the difference between the two terms.

    • Mmm... no, the issue is that you're dismissing reality in favor of philosophy.

    • Hm. Well. The reality is that generally certain features are considered attractive... which means not everyone agrees. And such terms aren’t only applied to philosophy. You’re just ignorant.

    • I don't think you quite grasped what I wrote to you. It's okay.

    • Show All

Most Helpful Guy

  • It is and it isn't. While there's an overall ideal of what's attractive, people's individuality also can influence.

    • "While there's an overall ideal of what's attractive"

    • yes. so it's both objective and subjective.

    • The point is that it is more objective than subjective, despite people saying otherwise.

    • Show All

Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions

What's Your Opinion? Sign Up Now!

What Girls & Guys Said

2 1
  • I just love how you always ask questions that you don’t want the answer to. Personally I believe attraction is subjective. If you look at my group of friends, you’ll find that we have very different types. One of my friends is into the pretty boy types, while another one likes super tall guys despite her being a midget basically, and I’m into more average guys. Think of it this way, my usual type would be a Chris Pratt looking dude, while my friend would like more of a Klay Thompson and the first friend I mentioned more like a Noah Centineo. Granted these guys are famous so it kinda invalidates what I’m trying to say, but you get the gist. People aren’t attracted to the same kind of people all the time. You can appreciate someone’s hotness or beauty, but it doesn’t necessarily mean that you like them or find them particularly attractive. Attraction is quite simple, but it’s not something objective. The way we perceive people can change drastically based upon our interactions as well, so it isn’t a one size fits all.

    • Exactly. There is such a thing known as conventional attractiveness which means that generally certain people, traits, physicalities are attractive which is objective. I disagree with it because not everyone will agree. with that person being attractive. There’s no fact: what was literally done was people were tested on what they found attractive and then it was extrapolated onto the larger population. Example? Brad Pitt is considered conventionally attractive but I don’t think he is attractive at all.

    • @Anoniemus I do find the younger him really hot, but the same thing happens to me with a boy at my school. All the girls say he’s sooo hot and I can see why they like him, but he’s just not my type, so I don’t think I’d ever date him. A famous example for me would be Tom Holland, he’s adorable but I don’t find him hot or sexy. He’s super cute though so I can see why other girls really like him.

    • ... Admitting (as you have) that attractiveness is objective does not mean you're admitting or insisting that one size fits all. Insanely, BBW porn is indeed a thing. It wouldn't be a thing if some people didn't like it. The nice thing about measurable objective data is it doesn't really matter what you or I "believe." What I'm saying is correct.

    • Show All
  • There is such a thing as 'conventionally attractive', which is what you're describing.

    Attraction, not attractiveness, is subjective however. While I can recognize that Brad Pitt, for example, is conventionally attractive. I am not personally attracted to him. I prefer someone quirkier, such as Adam Sandler, who is not necessarily conventionally handsome.

    • ... That's nice and all, but the fact that you agree that there is such a thing as "conventionally attractive" at all in the first place proves that you're willfully missing the point.

    • I'm not missing the point. I'm agreeing with you. You're right up to a point...

  • totally agree

    • people that disagree and say its objective are just tryna make the ugly people good and make some lie giving them hope that they're not conventional unnatractive, but the fact of the matter is... it is objective

    • people feel good*