Dragon of Life (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
dragonoflife) wrote2005-10-06 01:28 pm
dragonoflife) wrote2005-10-06 01:28 pm
Entry tags:
On attractiveness
Despite what every female I know seems to believe, there is no absolute scale of female beauty, at least not to my mind. (Also, despite what every female I seem to know believes, they are in fact attractive. I cannot think of anyone I'm reasonably well-acquainted with who I and several others do not hold that viewpoint about. There are few things mroe frustrating and futile than trying to convince a perfectly attractive girl that she IS just that.)
There are very few absolute statements I am able to make about female beauty. In fact, I can make exactly two, which I will do so now to get them out of the way:
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
tigerphoenix is the most adorably, wonderfully expressive girl I have ever met.
cyfis has the loveliest, most incredible hair I have ever seen in my entire life.
All right? Now the rest of this wanders into less quantifiable terms.
I'm speaking solely for myself here, of course. It's possible ad really quite likely that other guys have specific traits or characteristics they look for, and rate them on a scale, resulting in a given girl being more or less attractive to them in absoltue terms.
My perceptions don't work that way.
First of all, I believe personality is inherently imprinted on beauty. So much of how a person looks depends on what that person is like. A girl can have every single classic measure of beauty in spades and beyond, but if they don't have intelligence and a personality of SOME sort, then they're no more attractive than a slack-jawed cow.
This makes it difficult for me to judge attractiveness solely by image. To really know how a person appeals to me, I need to see them move, hear them talk, get a feel for what sort of person they are. People insist this is a cop-out to get me to avoid making a determination, but this is what I absolutely believe.
A body is just a lump of flesh. How you move it, the animation you give to it, means a very great deal.
That being said, I make no secret that I am a leg man. This is not, actually, to say that rationally or intellectualy I consider the female leg to be the finest feature, though they do have many merits. Rather, the attraction is more magnetically primal. A nice set of bare legs draws my eye magnetically (best when actually done with a miniskirt or cutoff shorts; having the actual hip area concealed heightens the allure).
Nevertheless, in legs and in all other features, there is no overriding set of characteristics that can be termed supremely dominant in terms of attractiveness. I have found short, slender girls attractive, and tall, voluptuous ones. But how does one compare the two? Their features are so different that it's impossible to. Can one therefore be said to be more attractive than the other?
Absolutely not. Call that statement a cop-out if you want; I prefer to think of it as being fair, and honest. In all sincerity, I cannot label one as superior, because they both have merits in entirely different ways.
I like to think I have a reasonably enlightened outlook on appearence. So therefore: If I tell you you're attractive, I'M TELLING THE TRUTH!
There are very few absolute statements I am able to make about female beauty. In fact, I can make exactly two, which I will do so now to get them out of the way:
tigerphoenix is the most adorably, wonderfully expressive girl I have ever met.cyfis has the loveliest, most incredible hair I have ever seen in my entire life.All right? Now the rest of this wanders into less quantifiable terms.
I'm speaking solely for myself here, of course. It's possible ad really quite likely that other guys have specific traits or characteristics they look for, and rate them on a scale, resulting in a given girl being more or less attractive to them in absoltue terms.
My perceptions don't work that way.
First of all, I believe personality is inherently imprinted on beauty. So much of how a person looks depends on what that person is like. A girl can have every single classic measure of beauty in spades and beyond, but if they don't have intelligence and a personality of SOME sort, then they're no more attractive than a slack-jawed cow.
This makes it difficult for me to judge attractiveness solely by image. To really know how a person appeals to me, I need to see them move, hear them talk, get a feel for what sort of person they are. People insist this is a cop-out to get me to avoid making a determination, but this is what I absolutely believe.
A body is just a lump of flesh. How you move it, the animation you give to it, means a very great deal.
That being said, I make no secret that I am a leg man. This is not, actually, to say that rationally or intellectualy I consider the female leg to be the finest feature, though they do have many merits. Rather, the attraction is more magnetically primal. A nice set of bare legs draws my eye magnetically (best when actually done with a miniskirt or cutoff shorts; having the actual hip area concealed heightens the allure).
Nevertheless, in legs and in all other features, there is no overriding set of characteristics that can be termed supremely dominant in terms of attractiveness. I have found short, slender girls attractive, and tall, voluptuous ones. But how does one compare the two? Their features are so different that it's impossible to. Can one therefore be said to be more attractive than the other?
Absolutely not. Call that statement a cop-out if you want; I prefer to think of it as being fair, and honest. In all sincerity, I cannot label one as superior, because they both have merits in entirely different ways.
I like to think I have a reasonably enlightened outlook on appearence. So therefore: If I tell you you're attractive, I'M TELLING THE TRUTH!
no subject
I am not in the habit of sitting in front of a mirror and watching myself speak or react, so I can't say I am expressive or not. I know I try to be. Apparently, by your words, I succeed.
And yeah, I have nice eyes.
no subject
no subject
but I can still totally find someone purely physically attractive without knowing them. Vin Diesel is just fucking sexy. Michelle Rodriguez is just fucking sexy. I don't know anyhting about them, but they are hot. I can see random people and think they are attractive without having to know them.
but when someone has more than physical attractiveness, *then* I get really interested. I find my partner more attractive now than when we first met, because I know so much about him. I'm more attracted to him every single day.
conversely, there are people who have gotten less attractive to me based on their personalities. and people who I really wasn't attracted to when I first met them, who I developed an attraction to after knowing them.
but I can always be shallow and think someone is attractive based purely on their looks, too.
no subject