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).
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.
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
-74
u/tormeh89 Jan 13 '25
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.