[ SECRET POST #2503 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2503 ⌋

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

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11.


__________________________________________________



12.


__________________________________________________



13.



__________________________________________________



14.


__________________________________________________



15.
















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 05 pages, 105 secrets from Secret Submission Post #358.
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

[diet_poison]

I don't think you really understand what "tastes" and "preferences" are. They are, by definition, not objective.

When I look at that picture, I just see another airbrushed celeb TBQH. Not ugly, but certainly not remarkable. Her fake eyelashes stand out to me; those are kinda gross.

[hiyami]

Not OP, but I think it's a question of vocabulary.

Maybe I'm wrong, but to me attractive is by definition subjective, while ugly is a bit more objective. It doesn't simply mean "not very pretty", it means something is definitely off with the features / skin. As they say, difformities or diseases-induced problems that makes the viewer uneasy.

Anyone who is considered conventionally attractive (which isn't to say they're attractive to everyone) can't be called ugly.

[diet_poison]

But if you're defining it from the POV of the viewer, literally saying whatever it is makes them feel uncomfortable, then yeah it's subjective...

[(Anonymous)]

There's a difference between preferences and what society objectively calls attractive/unattractive.

For example, I don't find Brad Pitt attractive, but I'm also not blind. I can see that he's very attractive from a societal standpoint (especially back in the 90s when he was younger). Just because he isn't my type that certainly doesn't mean he's ugly.

[diet_poison]

How does it suddenly go from subjective to objective just because it's a majority opinion???

[(Anonymous)]

It doesn't. But let's not pretend that our society doesn't have a standard of beauty that many Hollywood actors and actresses fit into. When people say someone is "traditionally attractive" they aren't talking about people who look like Susan Boyle or Steve Buscemi.

[diet_poison]

Nobody said anything about "traditionally attractive". We're talking about whether someone can be "objectively attractive" which isn't the same concept.

[(Anonymous)]

I guess it depends on your definition. I'd say they're the same thing. Maybe "traditionally attractive" is a better term, because it doesn't imply that everyone should find her attractive.

But I see it like this... Citizen Kane is considered an "objectively good" film. I personally don't care for it. But I would never say that it's a bad film just because I don't enjoy watching it. Same goes for celebrities...Megan Fox, Angelina Jolie, Brad Pitt, George Clooney, etc all do nothing for me. But no matter how unappealing I find them, there's no way I could ever call them ugly. That would be ridiculous, because they aren't ugly people by Western standards.

[diet_poison]

See, I don't really buy into "objectively good", or at least not in the sense that it's universal. It can be objectively good according to a specific standard which may be widely accepted but that is still ultimately defined by people's standards. I think calling it "objectively good" without qualifying that fails to recognize that the entirety of human reaction to any art is by definition completely subjective.

And when it comes to physical attraction to a person, that's even more far removed. There isn't a formal rating scale used to determine attractiveness (except maybe among neckbeards and the like). It's not art (at least not entirely) since you're born with many features that you cannot change except at great expense (if then). It just is what it is. So I'm ok with "traditionally" or "conventionally" attractive, but not "objectively" attractive. Nope. (And OP was going beyond even that; they weren't just arguing that she's conventionally attractive, which she is, but implying that there was something wrong with people who disagreed, or that they were lying, because it's impossible to have an opinion which differs from OP on this topic. Nope, definitely nope.)

[(Anonymous)]

This. A lot of the celebs that are considered hot today aren't really my type, but I will readily admit that they're attractive. It's just not my kind of attractive. Me personally not finding them attractive doesn't mean they're ugly, it just means that they aren't my type.

[(Anonymous)]

My thought on seeing that picture was she is either using way to much hairspray or someone went overboard on Photoshop's high pass filter.