Bangkok or bust
A life of poorer quality due to skull & bones
-
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2018
- Posts
- 4,175
Speaking as a straight woman.
Are women really not as visual as men or do most men just not have much to look at?
I can walk in to a public place and see 10 cute girls and 1 (If that) cute guy. Women seem to have things that just make them naturally “aesthetic”: soft rounded features, breasts (of any size), indented waists, curved hips. These features aren’t reserved for top tier women; they’re on almost every woman except for fat women. I can even find beauty in facially ugly women because many still have these attractive bodily features.
Average men on the other hand... I can’t even begin to think of aesthetic features. It doesn’t even compute. If they work hard in the gym they can have nice muscles but of course that requires work (and those muscles still aren’t guaranteed to be pleasing). Tall height is very pleasing to the eye but only 25 percent of men can be considered “tall”. For the most part, average men are just kinda “there”. Nothing catches the eye, nothing stands out. It’s impossible to sexualize their bodies because they just appear functional.
This leads me to the SMP. Is the “disparity” in it really about hypergamy/polygyny? Are women really not that attracted to their “equals” because they have sky high standards, or do their ‘equals’ just not have innately attractive feats? And for men. Are men really happy to dive below their league because their sex drives “allow” them to be attracted to most women, or is it just that most women have innately attractive features?
By the way, while I believe this is the case for average women/men, I believe that attractive men are FAR more appealing than attractive women. Angular features (signaling a healthy amount of T), tall height, masculine physique (gym or no gym), hooded eyes, thick brows, gorgeous deep voices... these men can be compared to demi-gods. Maybe it’s their rarity, maybe they just really do look like works of art, no idea.
Are women really not as visual as men or do most men just not have much to look at?
I can walk in to a public place and see 10 cute girls and 1 (If that) cute guy. Women seem to have things that just make them naturally “aesthetic”: soft rounded features, breasts (of any size), indented waists, curved hips. These features aren’t reserved for top tier women; they’re on almost every woman except for fat women. I can even find beauty in facially ugly women because many still have these attractive bodily features.
Average men on the other hand... I can’t even begin to think of aesthetic features. It doesn’t even compute. If they work hard in the gym they can have nice muscles but of course that requires work (and those muscles still aren’t guaranteed to be pleasing). Tall height is very pleasing to the eye but only 25 percent of men can be considered “tall”. For the most part, average men are just kinda “there”. Nothing catches the eye, nothing stands out. It’s impossible to sexualize their bodies because they just appear functional.
This leads me to the SMP. Is the “disparity” in it really about hypergamy/polygyny? Are women really not that attracted to their “equals” because they have sky high standards, or do their ‘equals’ just not have innately attractive feats? And for men. Are men really happy to dive below their league because their sex drives “allow” them to be attracted to most women, or is it just that most women have innately attractive features?
By the way, while I believe this is the case for average women/men, I believe that attractive men are FAR more appealing than attractive women. Angular features (signaling a healthy amount of T), tall height, masculine physique (gym or no gym), hooded eyes, thick brows, gorgeous deep voices... these men can be compared to demi-gods. Maybe it’s their rarity, maybe they just really do look like works of art, no idea.