Be advised: this thread is not for serious in-depth discussion of weighty topics (we have a link for that), this thread is not for anything Culture War related. This thread is for Fun. You got jokes? Share 'em. You got silly questions? Ask 'em.
- 135
- 1
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Mostly specific classmates I don't remember and you wouldn’t know, but in terms of celebrities the ultra-stereotypical examples are Megan Fox or Pamela Anderson, whose popularity I always thought of as a statistical curiosity but not something particularly relatable. I found my bottom-quartile female classmates significantly more attractive just on the basis that they were younger and physically present in the room with me.
Well, that hardly seems like an apples-to-apples comparison. Presumably if you had a choice between having sex with one of your bottom-quartile female classmates and having sex with Megan Fox, you'd opt for the latter.
Is Megan Fox what is supposed to be a stereotypical 10? I didn't remember how she looks like so I went and looked up, and tbh I am not a huge fan. Kinda confirms I have weird tastes - I'm not a big fan of many celebrities (speaking purely visually) that are commonly considered 10 in the US. Of course, comparing virtualized image on screen with a living person in the same room is pointless.
Certainly she was widely considered one of the most desirable women in the world at the tail end of the 2000s.
Okay, just further expounding upon the grim point I made about myself in a comment below:
Whenever I'm considering the relative attractiveness of actresses in movies and shows, I always like to check their dates of birth and when the project was actually filmed. It's like my equivalent of checking the early life section. It doesn't always turn out how I expect when I think to look it up, but it certainly does most of the time.
And of course most people know that 22-year-old Megan Fox in Transformers: Revenge Of The Fallen mogs all subsequent Megan Fox. But IMO, she is herself mogged by 19-to-20-year-old Megan Fox in the first live-action Transformers, who is in turn super mogged by 14-to-15-year-old Megan Fox in Holiday In The Sun. She's maybe slightly mogged by the slightly younger 14-to-15-year-old Olsen twins in the same movie, but the three of them are all super mogged by 12-to-13-year-old Emma Watson in Prisoner Of Azkaban. Is she mogged by her 11-to-12-year-old self in Chamber Of Secrets? Maybe, I would need to go refresh my memory to say, but I think I've dug myself deep enough at this point.
And sure, a significant contingent of the world's entire male population got a celebrity crush on Emma Watson growing up because she was put in the spotlight, and I'll readily admit that she was above-average attractive. But not that far above average! Not top percentile, maybe not even top decile. If she'd been a bit closer to my age and gone to my school, she'd have just been another physically attractive girl, somewhere towards the upper end of a vaguely-sorted pool that included basically every girl who didn’t have something extremely wrong with her. Because at the end of the day, I don't really intuitively believe in Helens of Troy. I just don't think there are girls all that much more beautiful than a normal baseline girl's lifetime peak, which is around puberty. Now, I'm aware that my personal opinion is both deeply socially unacceptable and not representative of the typical man, but - you see how those two things pull in opposite directions, right? Like, you've seen all those studies where men list what age of women they're attracted to and the graph mysteriously starts at 18 and immediately plummets? Really broken world we've got here.
Yes, thank you! I'd personally put the peak a little later than you (16 rather than 13, to give more time for breasts and hips to develop, which is not to say that 13-year-old girls are unattractive) but it is ridiculous the we are all forced to pretend that a woman's attractiveness peaks in her twenties. No, that's bullshit. Doubly so because, by then, there is a negligible chance that she is still a virgin, and virginity is in one of the things men are most attracted to.
I'd much rather marry the 13-year-old Emma Watson, who is going to grow up into the 16-year-old Emma Watson anyway, than a 25-year-old Emma Watson. More fertility-years and attraction-years that way, and more chance (which is to say any chance) of a hymen.
Yeah, it really says something freakish and unsavory about me that I don't see "breasts and hips" as that much of a draw. Like, at best I'll aesthetically appreciate them but I know it's not to nearly the normal extent, like I'll go "oh, nice, those are neat" and maybe if I'm really smitten I'll start thinking objectively about their practical utility in motherhood. And at worst they're immediately uglifying and I'm left thinking "wow, she kind of looks old and fat and like her mom now, she was way cuter a few months ago before those grew in", which is a position I've only fully found myself in once but it still left me feeling like enough of a creep for a lifetime and then some. But it mostly just doesn’t enter into consideration for me; my cluster of prioritized traits looks more like "short, thin, neotenous, healthy, happy, vulnerable, innocent".
That's kind of why I was surprised. When I looked up your examples there really wasn't much of a difference in how she looked between 14 and 25; she looked more or less the same, like most adult women do.
Were you actually as you claimed to be (and not just self-assigning the label because reasons), I believe you would only have considered the version of Emma Watson at 11 as maximally attractive and at the same time failed to consider any other examples.
You know, because she still actually looks like a kid.
On the unflattering side for my psychology (actually I'm pretty sure these are all unflattering sides for my psychology), there's definitely an artificial cliff where my mind exaggerates the significance of age 18, just in the opposite of the direction it's "supposed" to, like crossing that threshold, despite doing nothing biologically whatsoever, transmutes a woman into socially-endorsed safe-horny that makes me feel like a cuck if I pay too much attention to it. And of course I'm not stupid, so I know that a girl who's 17 and 364 days is barely any different from that, and at that point we're kind of playing the unexpected hanging paradox until my interest gradually fades back in somewhere earlier.
But on the, uh, other unflattering side for my psychology, the center of my attention is definitely "hebepilled", with girls generally getting less interesting to me the further they get away from that. Again, not completely uninteresting, just less interesting, but it is a palpable difference. In middle school my crushes were generally age-appropriate, sometimes even older than me, although I'd occasionally really creep people out by expressing interest in, like, someone's nine-year-old sister or something. For the first half of high school they remained age-appropriate but the average trended younger relative to me (and I chafed as social pressure tried to do the reverse), but for the back half of high school the objects of my affections were all in middle school (no I never got anywhere with them, I was a big gawky weirdo), and after graduating, now that I don't have adolescent hormones raging and I don't spend my time in a prison for minors, I kind of gradually passively gave up on a sexual life and just ruminate too much about it instead.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link