[ SECRET POST #4214 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #4214 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.










Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 14 secrets from Secret Submission Post #603.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

No such thing as an "objectively" attractive man in the first place

[(Anonymous)]

Of course there is. Your finding one or more of them attractive does not make them objectively attractive. You could think Steve Buscemi is sex on a stick, but that doesn't make him objectively attractive.

[(Anonymous)]

What *does* make someone objectively attractive?

[(Anonymous)]

DA

I take it more as overwhelmingly attractive to the majority rather than literally attractive.

[(Anonymous)]

objective not attractive

[(Anonymous)]

I get people using it as a figure of speech! But the poster seemed like they were using it seriously/literally.

[(Anonymous)]

Symmetry and having familiar/averaged features are biggies. There are others.

https://www.sciencenewsforstudents.org/article/what-makes-pretty-face

https://amp.businessinsider.com/characteristics-that-make-you-attracted-to-someones-face-2018-2

[(Anonymous)]

But people still find different things attractive.

Those are the factors that generally underlie attraction, yes, but people's actual, existing, everyday attraction still lines up differently from person to person.

[(Anonymous)]

I personally believe the "science" behind beauty is hogwash. Every single person on the planet has a different definition of beauty and beauty standards change from culture to culture. The idea that more attractive people earn more for example makes no sense. If this were true, then why aren't all the billionaires in the world good looking? All the high earners I've ever seen/met range in looks. Yes, some good looking, some not.

I wouldn't worry too much, OP. I also get irritated by society trying to tell me what celebrity I should find "hot' (Though I like Ryan Gosling's acting and Channing Tatum's charm and humour, I find neither of them particularly do anything for me). I personally tend to lust after the more unusual looking actors, like your aforementioned Adam Driver. Also, I often find other factors than looks make me attracted to a celebrity. Example, I find Tom Hiddleston's elegance and intellect incredibly hot. Robert Downey Jr's sense of humour is attractive.

I think it's actually pretty healthy to not be drawn into what everyone else is saying you should believe; ie that Ryan Gosling is hot.

[(Anonymous)]

Intelligence and a sense of humor are easily the sexiest aspects of any human being to me. Yes.

[(Anonymous)]

But, I mean, how do you actually know that's the case?

Have you done some kind of double-blind test?

[(Anonymous)]

On average, just like taller people earn more on average than shorter people on average (up to a limit). Individual billionaires are not relevant, and being conventionally attractive is a lifetime boost to earnings, not a guarantee of billions.

[(Anonymous)]

Being Christopher Plummer in his prime.