Who is the judge here?

[Cuusardo]

It's been my understanding that it is up to the individual to judge whether or not a person is attractive.  If that is the case, then words such as "handsome" or "beautiful" should not be used in mdescs.  I have seen at least one PC and one NPC with words like these in their mdescs.  Short, tall, fat, skinny, and other such subjective terms are understandable, but this is just TOO subjective, IMO.

[My 2 sids]

If judgment is in the eye of the beholder than why do I have the idea that over half the people (both sexes) have about the same picture in their head when I say "beautiful chick" or "sexy guy"?  The truth is there is a standard norm that society accepts as beauty.

However, I do understand from where you are comming.

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

I disagree. You'll note that nary a novel exists where one does not read some subjective material, and the reason for this is simple. We work with words here, and not pictures. While I certianly don't support phrases like, "This man is handsome", phrases like, "This dwarf has noble features and would be considered handsome in silt horror circles" are quite fine.

[Crestor]

Don't be subjective. It is much more interesting to read a detailed description of a beautiful face, than to read "this is a beautiful woman". Let the reader make the judgements -- write it in a way that makes people think "she must be beautiful" or "he must look like a mean bastard" rather than writing the subjective remark itself.

Apparently, you're right.  And I can see why, too.

[spawnloser]

If judgment is in the eye of the beholder than why do I have the idea that over half the people (both sexes) have about the same picture in their head when I say "beautiful chick" or "sexy guy"?  The truth is there is a standard norm that society accepts as beauty.

No...not everyone has the same idea of what is 'sexy' or 'beautiful' as there are different tastes about the world.  Maybe there is a common idea of what is 'sexy' around where you live...but on the other side of the planet, they probably have a completely different idea of what is 'sexy.'

[Cuusardo]

Let's take present day Earth, for example.  

In the USA, the generalized ideal of beauty for a woman is supermodel-thin with virtually no body hair.  In some countries in Europe, the ideal of beauty is a volutpuous woman with hairy armpits and legs (aka the natural look).  It truly is a big difference when you think of it.  I mean, back in Rennaissance times the ideal woman was Rubenesque, because it was a sign that she was well fed.  

Even in societies with certain ideals, everyone's preference is different.  Some men like women with large breasts, while others prefer women with smaller ones.  Some women like tanned, muscular men, while others are attracted to tall, scrawny men.  Some people find deeply tanned skin attractive, others prefer pale skin.

My point is, no one can tell you what is beautiful.  That is up to the individual to decide.  Just because YOU think you are attractive does not mean that everyone who looks at you will think so.  And that is why words like "beautiful" or "cute" or "handsome" do not belong in mdescs.

[grog]

For example, I've met women who think that I'm attractive!  I don't really agree with them, I wouldn't date me even if I was a woman.  

And I've also met plenty of women who prefer my ex-roommates, one of those thin hairless types who puts on weight (in wiry muscle)when he works out (and we both do that a lot) and a tall gangly guy who hits on everything remotely cute with breasts. (and some things without)

We do have tastes that converge, but all in all we also find some women attractive that the other shakes his head and goes, "Your choice, man" (not including tall gangly guy, who finds anything remotely cute with breasts to be attractive)


This post has been edited for your protection, it has been edited because this (HA) writer can't seem to formulate a correct sentence.

[Gorobei]

Ugh... Paris Hilton...

[spawnloser]

Ugh... Paris Hilton...

Agreed.

[Carnage]

If judgment is in the eye of the beholder than why do I have the idea that over half the people (both sexes) have about the same picture in their head when I say "beautiful chick" or "sexy guy"?  The truth is there is a standard norm that society accepts as beauty.

No...not everyone has the same idea of what is 'sexy' or 'beautiful' as there are different tastes about the world.  Maybe there is a common idea of what is 'sexy' around where you live...but on the other side of the planet, they probably have a completely different idea of what is 'sexy.'

Actually, beauty comes down to proportions of the face. Everything needs to be in the right proportion (called the Golden something. Mean?) to be seen as beautiful. Marilyn Monroe, called one of the most beautiful women of all time, met or nearly met the Golden whatever 100%.

[Krath]

If your face is completely symmetrical, you are a beautiful person. It is a proven fact. Is that what you were talking about, Carnage?

[Lazloth]

Golden section (or divine proportion).

[Carnage]

Yes, that's what I'm referring to, Krath and Lazloth. It goes a bit more beyond 100% symmetrical though. The nose has to be a certain proportion in relation to the other features, etc. Your face can be perfectly symmetrical but if your nose is gigantic and your eyes are tiny you're not going to be drop-dead gorgeous.

[grog]

Large eyes are considered attractive, mainly because a baby's eyes are usually large in proportion to it's face.   It's genetics insuring we find children cute enough that we won't drown them when they . . . well act like children.

[My 2 sids]

In the USA, the generalized ideal of beauty for a woman is supermodel-thin with virtually no body hair.

But, you are proving my point.  There are generalized norm standards among any group.  You all can bitch, whine, and give examples to the contrary all you want.  The fact remains that there are norms accepted by the majority of any society.  It's no different than someone's example of a dwarf with "noble" features.

[Crestor]

As 2 sids said, it's still subjective, Golden Section or not.  Yes, human beings on Earth may well find symmetry appealing (though even then there will be those who don't).  But who's to say whether humans on Zalanthas, or any of the other races, feel the same way?

The initial point was, I think, that even if it's true of a large proportion of people, even if we do accept that the Golden Section applies on Zalanthas, even if we accept that elves, dwarves and even mantis have the same standards as humans...there'll always be one that doesn't.  And having a word such as 'beautiful' in a desc is implying that whoever looks at them finds them beautiful.

Unless you'd like to take the stance that the word 'beautiful' in that context is simply a synonym for 'symmetrically-faced'.  But I don't think we want to go down that road.

[Cuusardo]

Large eyes are considered attractive, mainly because a baby's eyes are usually large in proportion to it's face.   It's genetics insuring we find children cute enough that we won't drown them when they . . . well act like children.

I think babies aren't cute.  Most of them are ugly in my opinion.

[My 2 sids]

Ok, quick note about the eyes.

A person's pupil will dialate when they are arroused.  That's the eye thing.  People are drawn to people with large eyes (an optical illiusion by the pupil) are sexy because of our natural attractivness to other humans who are arroused.  (All about reproduction people... everything is)

The baby...
Actually babys (when first born) tend to look like their fathers.  Mother Nature's way of saying "This is -your- kid.  Raise it."

[Malifaxis]

The baby...
Actually babys (when first born) tend to look like their fathers. Mother Nature's way of saying "This is -your- kid. Raise it."

It's fucking genetics that passes on physical relation traits, and from my experience, the children have an equal percentage change of looking like either.  Mother Nature could give two farts and a fuck about who raises the children.  It's Nature, it continues regardless of whether your damn sack of larval human flesh lives or dies.

RE: Lazloth, Carnage, and Krath:

The golden section, as it is termed, is a damn artistic point.  Just because someone's face is symmetrical does not make them beautiful.  Any person, literally any, can be beautiful, if they are able to take what they are given and use it correctly.  Am I able to judge what is correct?  No.  But I've seen it.  I've seen a relatively overweight woman with more than a bit of acne take about 80% of a bar's attention because she was able to use what she had, and project her sensuality through motion and speech.  It was actually very humorous to watch the *ahem* 'attractive' women in the bar sneer and hiss and spit about it.

The first time I saw the word 'attractive' in an sdesc, I literally had to stop myself from PKilling them just to purify the damn game world.  No one is attractive to everyone, or even close to everyone.  If you have the basic, intrinsic, instinctive need to play a damn F'me PC, then bloody well go and put some effort in to it.  Don't force it down our damn throats.

Malifaxis the confrontational.

[grog]

I think babies aren't cute.  Most of them are ugly in my opinion.

So you don't find baby kittens, little puppies, and various other large eyed animals cute?  

Besides, one of the cool things about humans is that we can programmed (self or otherwise) into finding almost anything attractive or unattractive.

[Cuusardo]

Animals are a TOTALLY different story.

[Anonymous]

It doesn't matter to me because regardless of anything you write,  I'm going to get a picture in my head of your PC and that's that.  It'll be roughly based on the size you give, but even the most well-written descs about hair color or skin tone won't matter to my mind's eye.

I had a mental picture of my own PC with a beard even though he never, ever had one.

[Angela Christine]

Yeah, what is so cute about a baby?  He's bald, he's fat, and he's never worked a day in his life.

These things are objective, and apply almost universally.  Sure, there may be a few people who think that having one eye higher than the other is sexy, but that is not the norm.  

Another cross-cultural attraction point is a woman's waist/hip ratio.  Accross the world .7 is the magick number.  This ratio is found in all body types, and all cultures.  "Little in the middle but she's got much back."    If you have 20 inch hips and a 14 inch waist you're in.  If you've got 50 inch hips and a 35 inch waist you're in.  Regarless of whether your culture worships thin or voluptous, the hourglass figure rules.  It is easy for a young woman to maintain this ratio, but very difficult for a pre-pubecent girl or a post-menapausal woman to do so.  There is a clue there, it is a sign of health and fertility.

Some folk like small breasts, some like melon breasts.  Some think a champaign glass is the perfect size.  Some think more than a handful is a waste.  Some think bigger is better, and way bigger is way better.  So you might think there is no concensus about breasts, but there is.  Breasts should be round and perky, not saggy.  It doesn't matter if you are talking double A or double D, pert and perky beats slack and saggy.  Being able to tuck your boobs into your pants is never sexy.  Go figure.  

Clear skin is always considered more attractive than skin marked by blemishes and weeping sores.  Who knew?


Now it is time for the obligatory disclaimer.  There are fetishists and other individuals that are attracted to something outside the norm.  There are amputee porn sites, for people that find missing limbs sexy.  There are shemale and t-girl porn sites, for people turned on by chicks with dicks.  Sometimes a whole culture will decide that something weird, like freakishly tiny feet, is sexy and people growing up in that culture will indeed find the freaky thing sexy.  But that doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of humans, regardless of culture, will find symetrical features, certain proportions, large eyes, clear skin, and a .7 hip waist ratio to be attractive. It is dishartening to think physical attractiveness comes down to math, but I guess everything comes down to math in the end.

The objective physical traits are obviously not the whole story.  As Krath mentioned, behavior plays into it too, but that is harder to quantify and is best represented by emotes, not in the description.  These physical traits will affect how attractive people rate photographs, and their first impression.  But I'm sure we've all met people that looked fantastic in photographs but were repulsive in person, because of their mannerisms, habits, speach and personality.  Likewise we've all met people that looked plain, even ugly, when we first met them but after a little while we forget we ever thought they were unattractive because they are so great to be with.  Charisma and personality are not objective physical traits.

But these physical patterns are keyed into the lizard brain, the primal bit at the back that we don't like to think about.  That is why guys don't care if a particularily round and gravity defying pair of breasts are natural or implants, the primitive part of the brain recognises the pattern, and says, "hubba hubba."  Nobody told it about implants, and it probably wouldn't care anyway.  Being able to afford cosmetic surgery also indicates that you are in a good breeding position, because if you can afford surgery then you can afford food.


AC

I think babies aren't cute.  Most of them are ugly in my opinion.

I agree 100%.

[Rindan]

Actually, beauty comes down to proportions of the face. Everything needs to be in the right proportion (called the Golden something. Mean?) to be seen as beautiful. Marilyn Monroe, called one of the most beautiful women of all time, met or nearly met the Golden whatever 100%.

I don't find Marilyn Monroe to be that attractive.  Personally, I would rather people find other ways to suggest what they want instead of bluntly saying it.  I won't start spaming wishes to have such people disemboweled, but I personally rate it about how I would rate an 'emote grins in agreement with ~runner about shit shoveling sucking hardcore'.  I am not going to say anything, but if they asked me for something they could do to improve their play, I would suggest less subjectiveness.

One of the larger issues is that you make it annoyingly hard to describe that person.  I remember one 'the hanDsomE, dark-haired'.  I had to tell someone to go find him.  Normally, I just reword the sdesc for convenience and throw in something about clothing or the mdesc if I remember it.  I am just a stupid human, not my character.  My memory sucks, especially when it comes to memorizing text.  If someone is wearing a bright pink shirt I am probably not going to notice in game, despite the fact that I would of course notice instantly if I visually saw it.  This means that in cases like 'the hanDsomE, dark haired man', I might have trouble describing him, not because my character wouldn't know, but because unless I feel like calling him hansom, I have just deprived myself of the most obvious features.  I personally think that it is just good courtesy to make your sdesc something that is descriptive for the OOC sake of people around you so that they don't need a copy of your mdesc in a text file all the time.  

It isn't a big deal, but it is a courtesy.  I would prefer people have their descriptions avoid subjectiveness, especially in the sdesc.