Why is it so common for straight women to acknowledge the beauty of other women, but str men...

[usmbguest5318]

All people -- without regard to gender -- innately understand and recognize the physical traits that make people more or less attractive. The relevant traits that make for attractiveness, furthermore, are universal.

• Facial attractiveness: evolutionary based research
  
• Physical Attributes That Are Universally Attractive
  
• How to Build the Ideal Male Body

It comes down basically to proportions and symmetry. Eyes, noses, lips, brows, arms, legs, butts, necks, etc. come in a huge variety of specific forms, but it's how they're arranged that drives whether a specific person will be considered good looking or not.

• The Math Behind the Beauty
  
• What is What is Beautiful? -- This slide presentation has some men in it...rare insofar as most discussions of this nature use female imagery.

Succinctly, the more "Golden Mean" conforming the face and body, the more attractive will it be perceived across all cultures and raced.

It seems there is an assortment of vertical and horizontal ratios that determine what's hot and what's not. Here are the ones for the face.

• Vertical golden ratios:
  • White – Hairline : Eyebrow top : Eye top
  • Gold – Eyebrow top : Eyebrow bottom : Eye top : Eye bottom
  • Blue – Eye pupil : Nose flair : Nose bottom
  • Green – Eye pupil : Nose bottom : Mouth
  • Green – Eye pupil : Nose bottom : Chin
  • Green – Eye pupil : Mouth : Chin
• Horizontal golden ratios:
  • Gold – Face side : Eyebrows : Face side
  • Gold – Face side : Eye inside : Face side
  • Gold – Face side : Nose width : Face side
  • White – Face side : Eye outside : Nose center
  • Blue – Eye outside : Eye inside : Nose center
  • Green – Mouth outside : Lip cupid’s bow : Mouth outside

In addition to the "parts ratios" noted above, the researchers also identified an overall horizontal and vertical proportion.

Some might feel these more generalized "full face" ratios are less reliable, for we can find exceptions.

The researchers noted in an interview, “Angelina Jolie does not have golden length and width ratios. Elizabeth Hurley gets the golden ratio for length but is different from the width golden ratio by one per cent. But Canadian country pop musician Shania Twain has “both the length and width ratios.” Florence Colgate, voted in 2012 as having the most beautiful face in Britain, also failed to meet both metrics.

For my part, Angelina is the only woman I recognize of the four above. For my part, I think the two women in the middle are better looking than Angelina. Looking at Angie without her "face" on, I think she's a decent enough looking woman, but not exceptionally so.

In any case, I think that the "exception" claim is nothing more than hair-splitting. As alluded to above, it seems to me that what's relevant is not "who's best looking" but rather "is person X good looking or not good looking." I think that while an ideal ratio value can be identified, what's important is whether one's own features are "close enough" to that ideal that one is still good looking.

The discussion above has illustratively used women. I did so because I've been down this line of discussion before and remembered how difficult it is to find images that explain the same concepts using men as the models. I suppose there's a whole other discussion one might have on why that is.

Applying the notions and research findings, it seems very clear to me that men and women are well aware of their own attractiveness (facial and corporeal), that of others and how they compare. What man hasn't of some woman thought or said, "She's out of my league?" Such a statement is a tacit recognition that their own physical attractiveness isn't on par with that of the woman in question, but more to the point of the OP question, it's also a recognition that there are other men who are "in her league." So, yes, men do know.

Now why don't men remark directly upon their own or other men's attractiveness? Well, I have my own views on that, but I haven't researched them to find out if they are spot on. I suspect they are, but I could be mistaken. Anyway, here're what I think are the reasons:

• Cultural evolution -- In modern times -- essentially the period of recorded history -- human culture has increasingly become one wherein physical traits don't indicate a man's ability to be a capable provider for his mate and offspring. The "perfect" aggregation of bodily features may indicate that one is healthier, stronger, possessed of greater endurance, virility and vitality, etc. With the introduction of money, however, one need not be physically exemplary. The outward signs of superiority as a competitor in the natural world just don't matter as much.
  
  Men and women both recognize that is so. Accordingly, we observe the "trophy wife" comes into existence. Trump is a fitting example of that. Though he may have been reasonably fit and handsome in his younger days, by the time he wed Melania, he was just rich. For however he treats her, he's more than able to provide her and any children they have together with the best odds one can give for succeeding, enduring and thriving, and he's able to do so long after his own demise.
  
  Because this is as it is, men are given to remarking upon their own and one another's ability to compete based on monetary measures and their surrogates. Women have come to look for and prefer those cues rather than physical cues of a man's being a good mate. How does that manifest itself among men? Well, IMO, by making good looking men who also manage to become wealthy become the men whom other men love to hate.
  
  Thus men who are not good looking, IMO, don't much care to acknowledge the good looks of other men because doing so necessarily acknowledges, invites and forces a comparison with other men. That can't possibly be something an average or unattractive man wants to do, and if he's also not wealthy, he's going to be even less inclined to do so. Good looking men, on the other hand, know they are and they know just as well that everyone else can see they're good looking. For them, it just goes without saying.
  
  I think there are two exceptions: one has to do with fathers and sons and the other has to do with tragedy. Fathers know damn well whether their sons are handsome.
  • Fathers and Sons -- I think a father's awareness of his son's look affects the nature of encouragement and advice he gives his son(s) regarding how they might go about interacting with girls. I know I experienced that with my three sons. My youngest is an embarrassingly good looking kid and girls fawn all over him. My oldest is better looking than average, but not like the youngest. My oldest boy's "game is party looks based, but his not so very handsome that his looks alone are enough.
    
    I suppose, given this thread's theme, it's worth noting that if a father can discern his son's relative looks, he can also discern that of other men. The same is so for guys and their brothers. I know my brothers and I are of basically equal looks, so, blessedly, there was no sibling angst among us in that regard. By comparison, I'm fairly sure my two oldest sons envy their younger brother's "chic magnet" looks.
  • Tragedy -- Men, like women, when they observe the great misfortune of another man, will acknowledge his handsomeness. I had a high school friend who had gone rock climbing, fell and died. When I told my dad about it, in addition to reflecting on his character, he commented that Mark was a "nice looking kid." Mark was 22 when he died.
• Cultural Norms -- In every culture I've encountered -- various European ones, Japanese, Chinese, Indian and, of course, American, statements attesting to another's looks are construed as compliments and entreaties for sexual interaction. I think that shallow people are incapable of seeing such comments any other way, and not-so-shallow people just don't want to expose themselves to the risk that a remark about another's looks will be construed thus or as disingenuous. Combine that with the cultural stigmas and stereotypes about homosexuality and you get men who don't openly and publicly remark upon other men's looks. I think insecurity also begins to play a role in that sense.
  • Insecurity -- I think there are a lot of insecure men. I don't want to go into why they may be, for I think "why" will vary from man to man. I can say that when I go to the gym, I notice whether other guys' bodies. That I do doesn't mean I want to "get busy" with them; it means I'm not blind.
    
    It also means that I'm aware of how my own body compares with that which women are likely to encounter, and that matters to me when I'm "on the prowl," or at least open to opportunities, so to speak. That manifests itself in my wearing clothing that makes it clear that the six-pack I'm carrying doesn't circumnavigate my waist. Just as I'm aware of the results of my regular gym presence, I think men whose sole relationship with a gym is spelling it are equally aware and choose their attire to mask, as much as possible, that being the case..

So those are the main reasons that come to mind when I consider the question this thread poses. I suppose, at the end of the day, it comes down to men, within the context of intragender competitiveness, merely wanting to accentuate the positive and minimize the negative. Simply saying nothing does that more effectively than does noting that some other dude is good looking.

I appreciate your big analysis on this. Let me ask you this though: do you ever pay attention to whether a guy's face is symmetrically handsome?

do you ever pay attention to whether a guy's face is symmetrically handsome?

If you're asking do I look at a guys face and expressly think about the symmetry of mug, no, I don't. But then I neither do I with regard to women's faces. I don't because recognizing that the face is, pleasingly to the eye and psyche, well proportioned and symmetrical is wired into our brains. There's no need in common experience to think about it in any deliberate way. It's one of the few things that "one just "knows," regardless of whether one knows why.

One sees that quite clearly in the images below. When one looks at the first set of images below, one's brain instinctively knows that the person has a vertically symmetrical face. One need not measure or explicitly think about it to tell. The "telling" happens automatically.

Looking at the second set of faces above, the second and third versions of that face look different from the first. That's because the model's face isn't vertically symmetrical, but it's made symmetrical in versions two and three. If you study the face, you can tell what doesn't match, but as we go about our lives encountering people, we don't "look that hard," so to speak; we just see the face and think "two-bagger," "eww," "ok," "nice looking" or "f*cking gorgeous," or whatever range of terms one uses.

Here is a more dramatic illustration of the concept.

Are there people who actually think about whether a face is symmetrical? Yes, there are: plastic surgeons, makeup artists and fashion photographers/photo editors. There may be others who do, but I know people in those professions do. Plastic surgeon Dr. Stephen Marquardt developed a tool based on this Golden Ratio to show how facial features can be corrected to achieve facial harmony.

FWIW:

• Evolutional Advantage and Perceptual Bias theories (the scientific sense of the word, not the lay sense) explain the role of facial symmetry. (The corresponding discipline is anthropology.)
• Only the very best looking people have "ultra," or even literally, symmetrical faces. For most folks, it's a matter of degrees; it's not binary.
  
  
  
  
  
  The picture above isn't posted to "rag" on Romney. (I suspect someone here, upon seeing it first thought was that it is here for that purpose.) It's here to offer an exaggerated illustration of how the symmetry thing works. Romney's face in the original image is necessarily asymmetrical because of the cant of his head. The left and right mirror images, therefore, end up looking like caricatures of him.
  
  Here's another politician's face.
  
  
  
  
  
  It should not come as a surprise that Reagan's mirror image doesn't look as strange as does Romney's. First, it's more straight on. Which of them is/was more or less attractive than the other is anybody's call. I can tell that each of them was handsome.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  MItt, George and Mitt's brother Scott. I bet you can tell which of the Romney brothers got the better pickings from the "looks pool."

Let me be me more clear: what I am asking is it you have ever looked at a man's face and said "he's a handsome guy." Put aside whether or not you paid attention to his face's symmetry. Picture the late Paul Walker. Did he have a handsome face?

what I am asking is it you have ever looked at a man's face and said "he's a handsome guy."

In my OP, I mentioned that my former friend who died rock climbing was handsome. I just above stated that Reagan and Romney was/is handsome. So, obviously, the answer to your question must be "yes."

I suspected when I responded to your prior question that you didn't actually read my initial post because your earlier question didn't make sense given what I wrote, and neither does the clarified version of it. I answered it thinking "I'm going to be courteous and answer this question even though it doesn't make any sense. Lemme just see what happens after I do...If he asks me another question for which the answer is alluded to or explicitly stated, I'm going to just disengage...."

I'm thus certain you're not reading (or fully comprehending -- I don't know which, but it doesn't matter from where I sit) what I've written; moreover, given that you've asked the question you have, I don't think you read my response to your initial inquiry. Thus your next question which I've answered below will be the last of yours on this topic that I answer.

Picture the late Paul Walker. Did he have a handsome face?

Hang on, lemme see what Paul Walker looked like (I recall hearing his name when he passed, and I'm sure they had images with the news, but that doesn't mean I remember what he looked like)....

....Yes, he had a handsome face. (Was he the guy who was in a Pie movie? I know that's not the right title, but I don't recall the film's title...I guess I could Google and get it eventually.....)

Why would you ask me or anyone that question? It doesn't even make sense to me that anyone -- male or female -- could look at the guy and not know he was good looking.

Well, you can be dick about this all you want, but it would have been simpler for you to just simply state you found the rock climber handsome. You pontificating about the science of facial symmetry and it's relation to beauty ultimately was irrelevant to my question. It was about men acknowledging all of the physically attractive features of other men. So, sure I'll admit I didn't read everything you wrote. Damn, no one could blame me.

Also you simply stating you found the rock climber handsome was one specific example and not good looking men in general. That says a lot.

you can be dick about this all you want, but it would have been simpler for you to just simply state you found the rock climber handsome.

I did say that.

my former friend who died rock climbing was handsome.

I'm not being a dick. I'm rather heavy-handedly imploring you to communicate with me in a coherent and mature fashion. I'm willing and happy to engage with you on this topic, but I'm not keen to have to keep repeating myself.

you simply stating you found the rock climber handsome was one specific example and not good looking men in general. That says a lot.

What? I know what that sentence says. I don't know what you mean by having written it.

 

[Billy000]

I appreciate your big analysis on this. Let me ask you this though: do you ever pay attention to whether a guy's face is symmetrically handsome?

do you ever pay attention to whether a guy's face is symmetrically handsome?

If you're asking do I look at a guys face and expressly think about the symmetry of mug, no, I don't. But then I neither do I with regard to women's faces. I don't because recognizing that the face is, pleasingly to the eye and psyche, well proportioned and symmetrical is wired into our brains. There's no need in common experience to think about it in any deliberate way. It's one of the few things that "one just "knows," regardless of whether one knows why.

One sees that quite clearly in the images below. When one looks at the first set of images below, one's brain instinctively knows that the person has a vertically symmetrical face. One need not measure or explicitly think about it to tell. The "telling" happens automatically.

Looking at the second set of faces above, the second and third versions of that face look different from the first. That's because the model's face isn't vertically symmetrical, but it's made symmetrical in versions two and three. If you study the face, you can tell what doesn't match, but as we go about our lives encountering people, we don't "look that hard," so to speak; we just see the face and think "two-bagger," "eww," "ok," "nice looking" or "f*cking gorgeous," or whatever range of terms one uses.

Here is a more dramatic illustration of the concept.

Are there people who actually think about whether a face is symmetrical? Yes, there are: plastic surgeons, makeup artists and fashion photographers/photo editors. There may be others who do, but I know people in those professions do. Plastic surgeon Dr. Stephen Marquardt developed a tool based on this Golden Ratio to show how facial features can be corrected to achieve facial harmony.

FWIW:

• Evolutional Advantage and Perceptual Bias theories (the scientific sense of the word, not the lay sense) explain the role of facial symmetry. (The corresponding discipline is anthropology.)
• Only the very best looking people have "ultra," or even literally, symmetrical faces. For most folks, it's a matter of degrees; it's not binary.
  
  
  
  
  
  The picture above isn't posted to "rag" on Romney. (I suspect someone here, upon seeing it first thought was that it is here for that purpose.) It's here to offer an exaggerated illustration of how the symmetry thing works. Romney's face in the original image is necessarily asymmetrical because of the cant of his head. The left and right mirror images, therefore, end up looking like caricatures of him.
  
  Here's another politician's face.
  
  
  
  
  
  It should not come as a surprise that Reagan's mirror image doesn't look as strange as does Romney's. First, it's more straight on. Which of them is/was more or less attractive than the other is anybody's call. I can tell that each of them was handsome.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  MItt, George and Mitt's brother Scott. I bet you can tell which of the Romney brothers got the better pickings from the "looks pool."

Let me be me more clear: what I am asking is it you have ever looked at a man's face and said "he's a handsome guy." Put aside whether or not you paid attention to his face's symmetry. Picture the late Paul Walker. Did he have a handsome face?

what I am asking is it you have ever looked at a man's face and said "he's a handsome guy."

In my OP, I mentioned that my former friend who died rock climbing was handsome. I just above stated that Reagan and Romney was/is handsome. So, obviously, the answer to your question must be "yes."

I suspected when I responded to your prior question that you didn't actually read my initial post because your earlier question didn't make sense given what I wrote, and neither does the clarified version of it. I answered it thinking "I'm going to be courteous and answer this question even though it doesn't make any sense. Lemme just see what happens after I do...If he asks me another question for which the answer is alluded to or explicitly stated, I'm going to just disengage...."

I'm thus certain you're not reading (or fully comprehending -- I don't know which, but it doesn't matter from where I sit) what I've written; moreover, given that you've asked the question you have, I don't think you read my response to your initial inquiry. Thus your next question which I've answered below will be the last of yours on this topic that I answer.

Picture the late Paul Walker. Did he have a handsome face?

Hang on, lemme see what Paul Walker looked like (I recall hearing his name when he passed, and I'm sure they had images with the news, but that doesn't mean I remember what he looked like)....

....Yes, he had a handsome face. (Was he the guy who was in a Pie movie? I know that's not the right title, but I don't recall the film's title...I guess I could Google and get it eventually.....)

Why would you ask me or anyone that question? It doesn't even make sense to me that anyone -- male or female -- could look at the guy and not know he was good looking.

Well, you can be dick about this all you want, but it would have been simpler for you to just simply state you found the rock climber handsome. You pontificating about the science of facial symmetry and it's relation to beauty ultimately was irrelevant to my question. It was about men acknowledging all of the physically attractive features of other men. So, sure I'll admit I didn't read everything you wrote. Damn, no one could blame me.

Also you simply stating you found the rock climber handsome was one specific example and not good looking men in general. That says a lot.

you can be dick about this all you want, but it would have been simpler for you to just simply state you found the rock climber handsome.

I did say that.

my former friend who died rock climbing was handsome.

I'm not being a dick. I'm rather heavy-handedly imploring you to communicate with me in a coherent and mature fashion. I'm willing and happy to engage with you on this topic, but I'm not keen to have to keep repeating myself.

you simply stating you found the rock climber handsome was one specific example and not good looking men in general. That says a lot.

What? I know what that sentence says. I don't know what you mean by having written it.

I've been completely coherent this entire time and was mature up until my last post as a response to you being a condescending prick.

What I meant by my last thought was that you see handsome men all of the time but the only example you could give was a rock climber.

 

[usmbguest5318]

If you're asking do I look at a guys face and expressly think about the symmetry of mug, no, I don't. But then I neither do I with regard to women's faces. I don't because recognizing that the face is, pleasingly to the eye and psyche, well proportioned and symmetrical is wired into our brains. There's no need in common experience to think about it in any deliberate way. It's one of the few things that "one just "knows," regardless of whether one knows why.

One sees that quite clearly in the images below. When one looks at the first set of images below, one's brain instinctively knows that the person has a vertically symmetrical face. One need not measure or explicitly think about it to tell. The "telling" happens automatically.

Looking at the second set of faces above, the second and third versions of that face look different from the first. That's because the model's face isn't vertically symmetrical, but it's made symmetrical in versions two and three. If you study the face, you can tell what doesn't match, but as we go about our lives encountering people, we don't "look that hard," so to speak; we just see the face and think "two-bagger," "eww," "ok," "nice looking" or "f*cking gorgeous," or whatever range of terms one uses.

Here is a more dramatic illustration of the concept.

Are there people who actually think about whether a face is symmetrical? Yes, there are: plastic surgeons, makeup artists and fashion photographers/photo editors. There may be others who do, but I know people in those professions do. Plastic surgeon Dr. Stephen Marquardt developed a tool based on this Golden Ratio to show how facial features can be corrected to achieve facial harmony.

FWIW:

• Evolutional Advantage and Perceptual Bias theories (the scientific sense of the word, not the lay sense) explain the role of facial symmetry. (The corresponding discipline is anthropology.)
• Only the very best looking people have "ultra," or even literally, symmetrical faces. For most folks, it's a matter of degrees; it's not binary.
  
  
  
  
  
  The picture above isn't posted to "rag" on Romney. (I suspect someone here, upon seeing it first thought was that it is here for that purpose.) It's here to offer an exaggerated illustration of how the symmetry thing works. Romney's face in the original image is necessarily asymmetrical because of the cant of his head. The left and right mirror images, therefore, end up looking like caricatures of him.
  
  Here's another politician's face.
  
  
  
  
  
  It should not come as a surprise that Reagan's mirror image doesn't look as strange as does Romney's. First, it's more straight on. Which of them is/was more or less attractive than the other is anybody's call. I can tell that each of them was handsome.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  MItt, George and Mitt's brother Scott. I bet you can tell which of the Romney brothers got the better pickings from the "looks pool."

Let me be me more clear: what I am asking is it you have ever looked at a man's face and said "he's a handsome guy." Put aside whether or not you paid attention to his face's symmetry. Picture the late Paul Walker. Did he have a handsome face?

what I am asking is it you have ever looked at a man's face and said "he's a handsome guy."

In my OP, I mentioned that my former friend who died rock climbing was handsome. I just above stated that Reagan and Romney was/is handsome. So, obviously, the answer to your question must be "yes."

I suspected when I responded to your prior question that you didn't actually read my initial post because your earlier question didn't make sense given what I wrote, and neither does the clarified version of it. I answered it thinking "I'm going to be courteous and answer this question even though it doesn't make any sense. Lemme just see what happens after I do...If he asks me another question for which the answer is alluded to or explicitly stated, I'm going to just disengage...."

I'm thus certain you're not reading (or fully comprehending -- I don't know which, but it doesn't matter from where I sit) what I've written; moreover, given that you've asked the question you have, I don't think you read my response to your initial inquiry. Thus your next question which I've answered below will be the last of yours on this topic that I answer.

Picture the late Paul Walker. Did he have a handsome face?

Hang on, lemme see what Paul Walker looked like (I recall hearing his name when he passed, and I'm sure they had images with the news, but that doesn't mean I remember what he looked like)....

....Yes, he had a handsome face. (Was he the guy who was in a Pie movie? I know that's not the right title, but I don't recall the film's title...I guess I could Google and get it eventually.....)

Why would you ask me or anyone that question? It doesn't even make sense to me that anyone -- male or female -- could look at the guy and not know he was good looking.

Well, you can be dick about this all you want, but it would have been simpler for you to just simply state you found the rock climber handsome. You pontificating about the science of facial symmetry and it's relation to beauty ultimately was irrelevant to my question. It was about men acknowledging all of the physically attractive features of other men. So, sure I'll admit I didn't read everything you wrote. Damn, no one could blame me.

Also you simply stating you found the rock climber handsome was one specific example and not good looking men in general. That says a lot.

you can be dick about this all you want, but it would have been simpler for you to just simply state you found the rock climber handsome.

I did say that.

my former friend who died rock climbing was handsome.

I'm not being a dick. I'm rather heavy-handedly imploring you to communicate with me in a coherent and mature fashion. I'm willing and happy to engage with you on this topic, but I'm not keen to have to keep repeating myself.

you simply stating you found the rock climber handsome was one specific example and not good looking men in general. That says a lot.

What? I know what that sentence says. I don't know what you mean by having written it.

I've been completely coherent this entire time and was mature up until my last post as a response to you being a condescending prick.

What I meant by my last thought was that you see handsome men all of the time but the only example you could give was a rock climber.

What I meant by my last thought was that you see handsome men all of the time but the only example you could give was a rock climber.

What? Mitt Romney, Ronald Reagan, Paul Walker, and my former friend aren't enough for you. Go pick up a copy of People or GQ, Men's Fitness or some other magazine that routinely features images of handsome men. It's quite likely that I'd easily assert the men they've pictured are handsome.


I suspect now that what follows is more the nature of input you sought; and had you put enough context around your questions -- that is, imbued them with coherence; it's just a part of coherence, but when it's missing, sentences and paragraphs from which context is absent are incoherent -- I'd have known so and said so.

I have seen a TV show called Vampire Diaries. Every male I saw in the episode I saw is handsome. I may be mistaken, but IIRC, that show is on the CW network, which I'm told almost without exception buys only content that's literally overflowing with really, really good looking actors. I've watched Empire and I don't recall there being anything but handsome actors on that show. I cannot tell you the name of any of the actors in any of the shows I just mentioned, with the exception of Taraji Henson, who is a D.C. native and that is why I know her name and can put a face to her name.

When you ask me to think about specific men, and I in turn do so, I have no trouble discerning whether any one of them is handsome and I have no trouble telling you or anyone what I think in that regard. When I walk down the street, I see men, but I whether they are handsome or not will not cross my mind until I find myself interacting with them on some level closer than simply passing them on the street, so to speak. When a woman is headed my way on the street, I've decided what I think of her looks before we even get within speaking distance.

It's not that I don't know or can't tell what men are handsome and what men are not. It's that the impetus for my dong so differs from that of my doing the same with regard to a woman. With men, there must nearly always be an external catalyst inspiring me to make an assessment of another man's looks. With women, I'm predisposed to making the assessment independently of any impelling stimulus from without.

 

[Skull Pilot]

...struggle with acknowledging the handomeness of other men?

Now, many of you will say it is because straight men do not want to be perceived as gay by others, and that is certainly true NOW, but why hasn't this ever been common in Western culture as far back as we've seen? There was never a time when it was common for men to acknowledge men as good looking. It couldn't have become taboo if the practice never seem to have existed in the first place.

Ya know?!

I never looked at other men like that so

and IMO women tell each other they look good because their husbands of boyfriends don't tell them enough

 

[Billy000]

Let me be me more clear: what I am asking is it you have ever looked at a man's face and said "he's a handsome guy." Put aside whether or not you paid attention to his face's symmetry. Picture the late Paul Walker. Did he have a handsome face?

what I am asking is it you have ever looked at a man's face and said "he's a handsome guy."

In my OP, I mentioned that my former friend who died rock climbing was handsome. I just above stated that Reagan and Romney was/is handsome. So, obviously, the answer to your question must be "yes."

I suspected when I responded to your prior question that you didn't actually read my initial post because your earlier question didn't make sense given what I wrote, and neither does the clarified version of it. I answered it thinking "I'm going to be courteous and answer this question even though it doesn't make any sense. Lemme just see what happens after I do...If he asks me another question for which the answer is alluded to or explicitly stated, I'm going to just disengage...."

I'm thus certain you're not reading (or fully comprehending -- I don't know which, but it doesn't matter from where I sit) what I've written; moreover, given that you've asked the question you have, I don't think you read my response to your initial inquiry. Thus your next question which I've answered below will be the last of yours on this topic that I answer.

Picture the late Paul Walker. Did he have a handsome face?

Hang on, lemme see what Paul Walker looked like (I recall hearing his name when he passed, and I'm sure they had images with the news, but that doesn't mean I remember what he looked like)....

....Yes, he had a handsome face. (Was he the guy who was in a Pie movie? I know that's not the right title, but I don't recall the film's title...I guess I could Google and get it eventually.....)

Why would you ask me or anyone that question? It doesn't even make sense to me that anyone -- male or female -- could look at the guy and not know he was good looking.

Well, you can be dick about this all you want, but it would have been simpler for you to just simply state you found the rock climber handsome. You pontificating about the science of facial symmetry and it's relation to beauty ultimately was irrelevant to my question. It was about men acknowledging all of the physically attractive features of other men. So, sure I'll admit I didn't read everything you wrote. Damn, no one could blame me.

Also you simply stating you found the rock climber handsome was one specific example and not good looking men in general. That says a lot.

you can be dick about this all you want, but it would have been simpler for you to just simply state you found the rock climber handsome.

I did say that.

my former friend who died rock climbing was handsome.

I'm not being a dick. I'm rather heavy-handedly imploring you to communicate with me in a coherent and mature fashion. I'm willing and happy to engage with you on this topic, but I'm not keen to have to keep repeating myself.

you simply stating you found the rock climber handsome was one specific example and not good looking men in general. That says a lot.

What? I know what that sentence says. I don't know what you mean by having written it.

I've been completely coherent this entire time and was mature up until my last post as a response to you being a condescending prick.

What I meant by my last thought was that you see handsome men all of the time but the only example you could give was a rock climber.

What I meant by my last thought was that you see handsome men all of the time but the only example you could give was a rock climber.

What? Mitt Romney, Ronald Reagan, Paul Walker, and my former friend aren't enough for you. Go pick up a copy of People or GQ, Men's Fitness or some other magazine that routinely features images of handsome men. It's quite likely that I'd easily assert the men they've pictured are handsome.


I suspect now that what follows is more the nature of input you sought; and had you put enough context around your questions -- that is, imbued them with coherence; it's just a part of coherence, but when it's missing, sentences and paragraphs from which context is absent are incoherent -- I'd have known so and said so.

I have seen a TV show called Vampire Diaries. Every male I saw in the episode I saw is handsome. I may be mistaken, but IIRC, that show is on the CW network, which I'm told almost without exception buys only content that's literally overflowing with really, really good looking actors. I've watched Empire and I don't recall there being anything but handsome actors on that show. I cannot tell you the name of any of the actors in any of the shows I just mentioned, with the exception of Taraji Henson, who is a D.C. native and that is why I know her name and can put a face to her name.

When you ask me to think about specific men, and I in turn do so, I have no trouble discerning whether any one of them is handsome and I have no trouble telling you or anyone what I think in that regard. When I walk down the street, I see men, but I whether they are handsome or not will not cross my mind until I find myself interacting with them on some level closer than simply passing them on the street, so to speak. When a woman is headed my way on the street, I've decided what I think of her looks before we even get within speaking distance.

It's not that I don't know or can't tell what men are handsome and what men are not. It's that the impetus for my dong so differs from that of my doing the same with regard to a woman. With men, there must nearly always be an external catalyst inspiring me to make an assessment of another man's looks. With women, I'm predisposed to making the assessment independently of any impelling stimulus from without.

See the last two paragraphs of your post is you actually addressing my actual point - a man acknowledging the handsomeness of other men. Of course, overall, you haven't addressed WHY straight men in general have always been so reluctant to acknowledge the handsomeness of other men. I would have bothered reading the entirety of your post if that was your point to begin with. That's why your own perspective was something i overlooked in the previous posts. Instead, you decided to focus on the science between facial beauty and it was irrelevant to my OP. Should I really bother reading your entire essay if it was mostly irrelevant?

Now, you are claiming my post was incoherent because of a lack of context when we both know that is bullshit.

 

[usmbguest5318]

In my OP, I mentioned that my former friend who died rock climbing was handsome. I just above stated that Reagan and Romney was/is handsome. So, obviously, the answer to your question must be "yes."

I suspected when I responded to your prior question that you didn't actually read my initial post because your earlier question didn't make sense given what I wrote, and neither does the clarified version of it. I answered it thinking "I'm going to be courteous and answer this question even though it doesn't make any sense. Lemme just see what happens after I do...If he asks me another question for which the answer is alluded to or explicitly stated, I'm going to just disengage...."

I'm thus certain you're not reading (or fully comprehending -- I don't know which, but it doesn't matter from where I sit) what I've written; moreover, given that you've asked the question you have, I don't think you read my response to your initial inquiry. Thus your next question which I've answered below will be the last of yours on this topic that I answer.

Hang on, lemme see what Paul Walker looked like (I recall hearing his name when he passed, and I'm sure they had images with the news, but that doesn't mean I remember what he looked like)....

....Yes, he had a handsome face. (Was he the guy who was in a Pie movie? I know that's not the right title, but I don't recall the film's title...I guess I could Google and get it eventually.....)

Why would you ask me or anyone that question? It doesn't even make sense to me that anyone -- male or female -- could look at the guy and not know he was good looking.

Well, you can be dick about this all you want, but it would have been simpler for you to just simply state you found the rock climber handsome. You pontificating about the science of facial symmetry and it's relation to beauty ultimately was irrelevant to my question. It was about men acknowledging all of the physically attractive features of other men. So, sure I'll admit I didn't read everything you wrote. Damn, no one could blame me.

Also you simply stating you found the rock climber handsome was one specific example and not good looking men in general. That says a lot.

you can be dick about this all you want, but it would have been simpler for you to just simply state you found the rock climber handsome.

I did say that.

my former friend who died rock climbing was handsome.

I'm not being a dick. I'm rather heavy-handedly imploring you to communicate with me in a coherent and mature fashion. I'm willing and happy to engage with you on this topic, but I'm not keen to have to keep repeating myself.

you simply stating you found the rock climber handsome was one specific example and not good looking men in general. That says a lot.

What? I know what that sentence says. I don't know what you mean by having written it.

I've been completely coherent this entire time and was mature up until my last post as a response to you being a condescending prick.

What I meant by my last thought was that you see handsome men all of the time but the only example you could give was a rock climber.

What I meant by my last thought was that you see handsome men all of the time but the only example you could give was a rock climber.

What? Mitt Romney, Ronald Reagan, Paul Walker, and my former friend aren't enough for you. Go pick up a copy of People or GQ, Men's Fitness or some other magazine that routinely features images of handsome men. It's quite likely that I'd easily assert the men they've pictured are handsome.


I suspect now that what follows is more the nature of input you sought; and had you put enough context around your questions -- that is, imbued them with coherence; it's just a part of coherence, but when it's missing, sentences and paragraphs from which context is absent are incoherent -- I'd have known so and said so.

I have seen a TV show called Vampire Diaries. Every male I saw in the episode I saw is handsome. I may be mistaken, but IIRC, that show is on the CW network, which I'm told almost without exception buys only content that's literally overflowing with really, really good looking actors. I've watched Empire and I don't recall there being anything but handsome actors on that show. I cannot tell you the name of any of the actors in any of the shows I just mentioned, with the exception of Taraji Henson, who is a D.C. native and that is why I know her name and can put a face to her name.

When you ask me to think about specific men, and I in turn do so, I have no trouble discerning whether any one of them is handsome and I have no trouble telling you or anyone what I think in that regard. When I walk down the street, I see men, but I whether they are handsome or not will not cross my mind until I find myself interacting with them on some level closer than simply passing them on the street, so to speak. When a woman is headed my way on the street, I've decided what I think of her looks before we even get within speaking distance.

It's not that I don't know or can't tell what men are handsome and what men are not. It's that the impetus for my dong so differs from that of my doing the same with regard to a woman. With men, there must nearly always be an external catalyst inspiring me to make an assessment of another man's looks. With women, I'm predisposed to making the assessment independently of any impelling stimulus from without.

See the last two paragraphs of your post is you actually addressing my actual point - a man acknowledging the handsomeness of other men. Of course, overall, you haven't addressed WHY straight men in general have always been so reluctant to acknowledge the handsomeness of other men. I would have bothered reading the entirety of your post if that was your point to begin with. That's why your own perspective was something i overlooked in the previous posts. Instead, you decided to focus on the science between facial beauty and it was irrelevant to my OP. Should I really bother reading your entire essay if it was mostly irrelevant?

Now, you are claiming my post was incoherent because of a lack of context when we both know that is bullshit.

overall, you haven't addressed WHY straight men in general have always been so reluctant to acknowledge the handsomeness of other men.

Actually, I did address that in my first post in this thread. The organizational structure of that post is as follows:

1. Assert that everyone is capable of recognizing good looks in others, no matter either's sex.
2. Explain the nature of that capacity and how it works.
3. Intermediate conclusion --> men can and also do discern good looks in other men
4. Discuss in general why I think men are reluctant to acknowledge other men's attractiveness even though they are aware of it.

The fourth section of my first post is introduced with the following statements:

...why don't men remark directly upon their own or other men's attractiveness? Well, I have my own views on that, but I haven't researched them to find out if they are spot on. I suspect they are, but I could be mistaken. Anyway, here're what I think are the reasons

I proceeded then to discuss the two phenomena that I think are why men are "reluctant to acknowledge the handsomeness of other men." That discussion comprises the majority of what I wrote in that post, and had you actually taken the time to read it, you'd have known that, from the very start, I did directly answer the question you asked, identifying and discussing the two general reasons I posited (1) cultural evolution and (2) cultural norms. Had you read my post rather than skim through it, you'd have known that, and you also would not have had to ask me any of the subsequent questions you did.

But that's not what you did. What you did was disrespectfully make some sort of assumption(s) about the content of my first post and not actually bother to read all of it to find out whether your assumption(s) held true. That, in turn resulted in your deucedly bidding me to repeat what I'd already stated in my first post, which engendered my ongoing exasperation with you, particularly in light of the remark in my second post.

 

[blastoff]

"Hey, Bob, how's it going?"

"Great, Jim, how 'bout you?"

"All's fine, thanks...Hey, that's a killer outfit, you look great! Where'd you get it?" "Is it Ralph?..."

"Oh, this? Naw, just something I've had a while and sort of forgot about." Like your shoes, by the way. Who are they?..."



See, it just doesn't work for guys.

 

[Correll]

Probably because males are all about being macho, it's one of the primitive ways of getting a mate. Women want a protector, they want strong genes for their children.

Males look for beauty, good skin, fertility, and so it's all about beauty, so women are looking for beauty, and will comment on this to each other, whereas men are looking for strength and will comment on this together.

I don't know if evolutionary theory necessarily explains it, but I appreciate your input.

Men are happy enough to discuss the wealth (ability to provide) of other men.