[ 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]

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.)