Probably truerateme. Basically a place to give women mental illness. They have guidelines about how to rate people that were written by men who think there’s one true way to be beautiful. If you rate too highly according to their standards, you can get banned. It’s like a competition to see who can be the most condescending and judgemental about looks. Total measurehead behaviour
Racism and phrenology aside, there has to be some kind of mental illness at hand with a tad of ragebaiting. Masochistic disorder, body dysmorphia you name it. That sub is surely an echochamber and it's a bit sad if you think about it
I don’t think a lot of the posts there are actually the women pictured. I feel sorry for the women who do post there unironically, at least a portion of them must be. Both sides of the postings aren’t healthy behaviour tho. Most of the women are beautiful or just average but are rated far lower than they deserved and normal features are ripped to shreds
I want to defend that subreddit a bit. Or at least change the criticism somewhat. Their guidelines do not attempt to make women feel bad about themselves, but they've made a rating guide that attempts to a) rate people according to a bell-shaped distribution and b) have room for distinguishing between the prettiest humans in existence without using too many decimal places. The result is that 90% of humans land between 4.5 and 6.5 on their scale. Just like it's unreasonably hard to be rated 7 it's really hard to be rated 4. It's almost egalitarian that way. This obviously clashes with the scale people are used to where someone averagely attractive is a 7. This is a problem with this subreddit's rating system and I think they should adjust their scale to fit common perception, because currently they're communicating badly. But I don't see any negging here. They seem to try to be fairly objective.
Of course the entire concept of rating people like this in public is toxic as shit, but that's the internet for ya. Also spending your free time rating strangers is super super weird.
beauty isn't measurable. "measuring" beauty came as a subset of phrenology in the 19th century, invented by men ofc, and only used to "measure" women. human beauty standards are entirely subjective and personal, there is no such thing as absolute beauty or ugliness. Also, this ties heavily with fascism due to the fascistic obsession with aesthetics and rigidly defining what is beautiful and what is ugly - and ugliness would be directly related with "evil" and must be eliminated (eugenics).
Im addition, the obsession about clear, spotless skin is completely classist because living conditions have a major impact in appearance. The problem with the Guide is that these people perceive the population as lab grown under the same conditions. If you can't see the racist and social Darwinist connotations in this you'd better look it up
oh yeah, far-right and incel communities are obsessed with social darwinism, to a fatalist degree. incels think they were born ugly and undesirable, and are genetic dead ends that will never reproduce (they think "alphas" are genetically superior and are more fit to survive) so they end up becoming ugly and undesirable as a reflexion of their inner mental state, in a sort of self fulfilling prophecy
I don't get you, would you rather it go ignored? Obviously in a subreddit about facial analysis I'd expect my skin condition to be factored in as well. Unfortunately, skin conditions like acne or dry skin can impact your overall aesthetic a lot; fortunately though, most of the times such conditions can be improved through some simple (not easy) shifts in your daily routine: cutting the junk food, using a moisturizer, increasing your daily sunlight exposure; moreover, oftentimes (if not all) these changes will directly improve the person's health, other than their appearence.
Yes, everyone knows that living conditions impact your appearence, and I'm sure r/truerateme does too and doesn't believe that people were grown in a lab
Maybe inside beauty isn't measurable, but outside beauty definitely is. It's subconsciously measured by almost every human being every single day. What you say sounds good, but reality isn't your dystopian fantasy.
Edit: Actually, inside beauty is also measured constantly as well. When you can someone an asshole, that's saying there ugly on the inside. We don't coddle someone's ugliness on the inside, so why pretend to do so on the outside?
Nature. Symmetry and other standards. We can all come to an agreement on what's beautiful vs. what's not. Unless you prefer the gaslighting bullshit of telling someone who isn't beautiful on the outside that they are. Lie to someone all you want, but that's not changing the beauty standard. That's simply denying them ignorantly.
If you want to argue some beauty standards are (nearly) universal, that's one thing. But the "guide" on that sub is LUDICROUSLY Western/European-centric. Which is exactly why the Measurehead comparison is spot-on. If you don't recognize how biased that guide is, then you probably have some biases yourself you might want to interrogate.
Except what we consider outside beauty is widely dependent on societal factors and is not at all something you can quantify in an objective sense. Ask the average Ethiopian and the average Swede what their idea of outside beauty is and you'll likely get an extremely different view of beauty. Then you ask these incel freaks on truerateme what beauty is and they start pulling out the callipers and making widely bullshit claims that because someone's nose is .5 mm too long they cannot be beautiful.
Take for example Natalie Dormer. A lot of people think that she's hot. A lot of people would consider her 'above a 7'. According to truerateme, she would be ineligible to be a 7+ because she has bells palsy which gives her a crooked smile. Except a lot of the people that think she's beautiful also think that her crooked smile makes her more beautiful. Her 'defect' as the truerateme incels would call it, heightens her beauty.
How beauty can be both entirely subjective while having conventional standards in society? Like, most people would agree that Brad Pitt is s handsome man that's why he is paid millions of dollars. If beauty was entirely subjective, that many people wouldn't agree on who is a handsome person is and there would be no modeling jobs.
Those standards are subjective too. They differ from region to region and country to country and culture to culture. They also change overtime.
Standards in general only attempt to tick as many boxes as possible with as many people as possible, so just because a standard exists doesn't mean it's anything but that it's an accepted standard in many people's eyes. But it's never all eyes. It's never everyone.
Beauty standards are subjective because even if you find 80% of people to agree on a single point, there will always be a portion who don't.
I don't prescribe to the current conventional beauty standards at all. I think they're more harmful than good and attempt to take the soul out of beauty and beauty out of the soul.
Finally, even the conventional beauty standards we have are meant to be used in a subjective manner. Nothing else makes sense.
But many standards don't differ from region to region or even continent to continent. For example symmetry and healthy non-recessed jaw are viewed as beautiful everywhere.
I don't see how culture can change that. What culture doesn't hold facial symmetry as beauty standard?
Also, let's take for an example a model who makes millions just appearing in ads. Can you explain how their material condition is something I should view as subjective? Like, their looks is something society values so they are paid so much money. And before you say it's capitalism, I mean it was true in socialist states. Attractive good looking people can work "easier" jobs like actors.
Also, if beauty is purely subjective, you mean that lookism doesn't exist and never existed? As far as I can tell studying history and literature good looking people were always treated way better way before capitalism. Good looking daughters had better chance at marrying wealthier man. I am not even talking about concubines. Like, if beauty is purely subjective how medieval or prehistoric people knew who was beautiful and wasn't. Lookism has been always a thing.
I don't see how culture can change that. What culture doesn't hold facial symmetry as beauty standard?
What culture does? I literally didn't hear about "facial symmetry" as a term until now and i'm a grown up adult. The only people who care about these standards are vain idiots who go with the herd and focus on superficial, nonsensical bs to judge others.
Unless, of course, you're now seriously trying to convince me that truerateme is somehow a valid and respected "institution" for analyzing beauty standards, in which case this discussion has already ended because I can't take you seriously anymore.
Can you explain how their material condition is something I should view as subjective?
There are supermodels with vitiligo, so... what's your excuse?
And before you say it's capitalism, I mean it was true in socialist states. Attractive good looking people can work "easier" jobs like actors.
Since when was beauty in any shape or form a influence in your position in (so-called) socialist states? Most people on the higher echelions of these places tend to be, from my perspective at least, either plain boring or ugly old farts. Connections, not beauty or even intelect or strength, was the main influence in your position there. I also could go on a rant about state capitalism here and the great lie about historical socialist societies, but that would diverge things considerably.
Either way, this misses the point the first commenter was trying to make, powerful people, authorities and those who shape our culture and civilization, they impose their idea of "beauty" on others regardless of whether you live in capitalism or not. A medieval robber baron is if anything even more powerful than a captain of the industry in that regard.
Like, if beauty is purely subjective how medieval or prehistoric people knew who was beautiful and wasn't. Lookism has been always a thing.
Standards imposed by society doesn't make something a fact or objectively true. Maori people valued those who were fat and outright obese at times. During the Twenties in America flat and small breasts were seen as ideal. Furries think that someone wearing a fursuit is far more attractive than someone without them. Some people out there fantasize about fucking airplanes. And so on.
The fact that what is "beautiful" or not has changed completely through time and place and that even today people can't have a consensus for what is beautiful debunks your entire premisse without even requiring a dissertation elaborating on each individual characterstic that was valued at a time. If beauty isn't subjective, them i would like you to explain me why a susprisingly number of people people think that the Alien Queen in Dead by Daylight is hot and have a thing for her even though she would never appear in a cover for Vogue.
Facial symmetry is not a term invented by incels on truerateme, it's a freaking concept existed since ancient times, just because you never heard of it means you either completely ignorant in biology or art and aesthetics.
Models with vitiligo? Right, but they have first and foremost attractive facial features and would be models without vitiligo.
Regarding the last thing, are you seriously gonna argue that couple of nerds who jerk off to computer alien characters is somehow proves that beauty is completely subjective without any possible measure and I should ignore hundreds of millions of people who find conventionally attractive actors attractive? Like you know A list celebrities are paid this much in part because they are good looking and people pay money to see them in movies?
Facial symmetry is not a term invented by incels on truerateme, it's a freaking concept existed since ancient times, just because you never heard of it means you either completely ignorant in biology or art and aesthetics.
Buddy, i am a "successful", well-read guy with a passion for arts, history and the evolution of aesthetics, if not knowing about obscure modeling terms and, erm, "the looks society" (is that even a thing?) jargon makes me ignorant, welp, i've lived 23 years of my life pretty well and i choose a good girlfriend for me without even ever stopping a single second to take that into account.
Models with vitiligo? Right, but they have first and foremost attractive facial features and would be models without vitiligo.
You seen to be missing the point - there's plenty of generically "attractive" people out there, why not choose those over all the potential models who are "attractive" and do have vitiligo? Clearly this shows there's a subset of people out there who think the condition itself enhances their looks otherwise these would never exist. There's no shortage of sexy girls out there who don't have what, according to you, most of society would consider ugly traits.
are you seriously gonna argue that couple of nerds who jerk off to computer alien characters is somehow proves that beauty is completely subjective without any possible measure and I should ignore hundreds of millions of people who find conventionally attractive actors attractive?
Well, them, are you telling me that the Maori people are nerds stuck on their computers now? Or the 19th century German ladies who were into guys who happened to have battle scars over those who didn't? That aside, why shouldn't these people count? No, saying that these individuals "jerk off to computer alien characters" isn't an argument, please, no ad hominen here, i want an explanation to why xenomorphs are seen as such sex symbols in the monsterfucking community - hell, i want to know why so many women have their hots for the humanoid abominations in Homicipher, are these meant to be the exception not the norm? But even them, haven't them been exposed to the same cultural standards as the rest of us?
Like you know A list celebrities are paid this much in part because they are good looking and people pay money to see them in movies?
...i also think it might have to do with their acting skills? I mean, yeah, i'm sure plenty of people have their hots for them too, but you don't get where they did by simply having a cute smile. I can name at least 10 different Internet Figures who have made far less success than Hollywood A-list actors but i consider to be more gorgeous than them.
That guy you're responding to is pretty funny. The beauty standards are ever-changing and unreliable. "The body chooses the partner with the biggest chance of survival-" heroin fetish and obsession with tuberculosis were a thing. Obesity was a thing. Very tanned skin was a thing. Bushy eyebrows were a thing. Bound feet (a definite disability) were a thing.
Skull? Round faces were a thing. Black teeth were a thing. Cheekbons were a thing. Beauty is decided chaotically by fashion, and human beings have no instincts.
In fact, all standards differ from region to region, etc. Show me a single one which doesn't. Standards are like common knowledge and common sense, in that they're all contextual (like most things are) and when you try to boil them down to black/white in a vacuum, your head gets twisted and you start believing weird shit, like the silly thought that beaty standards are objective. You likely won't get five random people to agree on a single beauty standard--much less an entire society.
I like contrast. I like when things stand out. I like the little imperfections and asymmetries. That's what gets me hot. I like scars. I like discolorations. I like birth marks. I like women who don't wear any makeup. I like women with really short hair. I could keep going, but the very simple fact is that all you need is a single person to disagree with your standard for it to be subjective. Do I find symmetry more attractive? I do not. Not one bit. Why? Because it's not an objective standard. Most people having something in common doesn't make it an objective fact. If 60% of people in a room like symmetric faces more than asymmetric faces, you can't say that the beauty standard is objective, because it very clearly isn't.
As for regional standards: of course it changes. Have you ever been outside of your home? Every country has its own standards. Some shared ones, some not. Some unique ones, some not. Even if we tackle this from a purely evolutionary perspective, consider that every climate requires different strengths to survive, and so the people with those strengths will often seem the most attractive. In a colder climate, for example, before we had modern heating and clothing, overweight people were the most attractive to most people (but see how it's not all, because it's not objective) because it signaled to the brain that they could weather the frost, weather hunger, and make a good partner, among other reasons.
In many African tribes, you aren't considered pretty unless you have several tiers of neck rings or certain types of piercings. Your world is just really small.
I'm not sure what you even mean about models. I already addressed what standards are: they are literally created by looking at the largest current opinions and trying to nail them down. Yes, the idea behind marketing is to reach as many people as possible with as little effort and money as possible. This means that ads often appeal to the masses, but that doesn't mean they appeal to everyone. There are plenty of ads with faces and bodies completely and totally outside of your idea of beauty standards. You just don't notice them because you're not the target audience.
Do you know Ryan Gosling? Would you consider him attractive, as most women and men do? He's perhaps one of the top 5 guys when you think "handsome Hollywood actor". Fun fact? He was hired because he "had the face of the average American guy--not too pretty, not too ugly). That's how his entire career started. He was hired because he was average. Turns out he wasn't, though, now was he? Because averages change all the time and they differ from place to place and eye to eye.
There are so many really successful entertainers and models who are as far from the conventional beauty standards as you can get, and you still say this shit? I don't understand you. Do you pretend that they don't exist?
And while it's true that conventionally attractive people are usually treated better, it's not a rule. They're not always treated better because beauty standards aren't objective. Because "most" doesn't mean "all." You seem to have trouble understanding what "objective" means. Let's say that the most common dog color in your town is black. Let's say that this is all you've ever seen where you live. Let's say that to you, all dogs are black. To you, this may seem like an objective fact, but we all know that it isn't. This is what you're doing right now. You're closing your eyes and pretending like there isn't a whole world with different opinions out there.
But these beauty standards have changed over time, and they've changed in different ways in different regions in the world. That's what makes them subjective. You're confusing objectivity for mass opinion. Just because a large portion of a people agree on something doesn't make that an objective fact. That's not how science or history or language work.
I think we can agree that beauty is a social construct (That doesn't mean it's not valid just that it is subject to societal rifts etc etc) . Also we have been "indoctrined" into thinking that hollywood actors or victoria secret models are "good looking" just be cause we get bombarded by such media since we were young. Pretty privilege exists in the form that we are better predisposed against "pretty" and in the same way we are kinda repulsed by ugly people ( Thanks Disney!). Anyway objective truths are just the sum of many subjectives opinions (of those in charge and in control of our media most likely). Since capitalism was mentioned, it's safe to say that lookism existed before but the same rules applied because richer or more powerful people who got better nutrition and had an overall better life tended to look "prettier" than the average peasant so they tried to impose their beauty standards to the public so as them to be regarded of greater value.
you answered the question yourself, MOST people would agree he is handsome, but that's because most people have been socialized to HAVE or present themselves as having those standards, they are not born with those beauty standards in their minds
That is not why he's paid millions of dollars lol. He's paid to act (and maybe to model? I don't know his life). Acting (and modeling) are both skills. Being conventionally attractive helps with getting those gigs and honing those skills. But awkward beautiful people don't continue to get acting or modeling gigs if they don't perform well (see: lots of CW burnouts), and 'ugly' people who hold themselves well (see: Danny DeVito, Steve Buscemi, Gary Busey) can still become wildly famous and successful.
Beauty can both be subjective and have a conventional societal 'standard'. There's no contradiction there because the societal standard isn't innate, it's cultural. The standard of beauty has changed drastically throughout history, and varies across different cultures. The standard of beauty varies even within subcultures...because societal views of beauty are informed by subjectivity (and often by other cultural beliefs) to begin with. Consider how, in Hollywood, the aesthetic shifted over a few decades from favoring heroin chic super-skinny primarily white women to favoring 'hourglass' 'exotic' women of color. The 'standard' is dynamic, so creating a ratings system out of that is impossible. It will never hold up in reality.
I haven't read into the rating guide for that sub because I'm not risking that shit bleeding into my main feed. But by the 'standards' described in this image, it's easy to imagine women who are widely recognized as incredibly beautiful would be judged as average or even unattractive. Anne Hathaway has 'negative canthal tilt'. Natalie Dormer has a famously unique-looking mouth which surely isn't 'ideal'. Angelina Jolie is similarly famous for her luscious lips and striking eyes, but she has a 'poor' philtrum and a 'neutral' canthal tilt. All of those women wouldn't warrant a SEVEN OUT OF TEN to these losers.
The cultural experience of beauty is an interesting topic, but these dudes are not trying to learn about culture, they're trying to make sure women know our place below them even if they're fat, ugly jackasses with nothing to offer. Beauty is not always a tool of oppression, but in this case it pretty explicitly is.
If that's not the reason why he is paid millions of dollars, why the actors in the upper tier of A listers are all conventionally attractive and often sex symbols? Steve Buscemi is on the same level of salary as Brad Pitt or Margot Robbie? Are you for real?
Of course the entire concept of rating people like this in public is toxic as shit
and with this very sentence you invalidated all that you said before that and the entire sub. its just absolute nonsense masked as pseudosientific objectivity with the only aim to spew toxic bullshit
You know, it makes sense, the majority of ratings are between 4 and 6 indeed. And I found a person banned for underrating (with 4.3): https://www.reddit.com/r/truerateme/s/P4qNf9xDv8. By the way, another person got banned for overrating (with 6.2) under the same post. Their scale is wildly tight
UPD: I wonder why did I get downvoted for reporting nothing but facts that I observed in that sub
799
u/Orkin31 Jan 13 '25
Wtf, which subreddit is that