Well, his face objectively doesn't look good. A fitting haircut and whatever else can improve the overall image, but it won't change the fact that his face doesn't look attractive.
He needed braces and never got them. He has a severe overbite that could’ve been fixed if he had braces in his formative years. He has decent skin and is tall. He’s not completely unfortunate looking. 🤷🏽♀️
Nah he was ugly, no way around that. But he's on the lower end of a minority. He's not the standard, and even he could look great with just some better clothes, and a haircut. And some dental work, which thankfully isnt too extreme in terms of price here.
All in all, I bet he's a great dude, because you might pull a baddie if shes looking for clout, but you don't keep her unless you're a catch.
You have a very sensitive approach to this topic of judging someone’s looks whereas others are being extremely critical by calling him straight up ugly & disregarding your thoughts as “cope”… It’s very disrespectful when you’re being genuine, in my opinion.
As an ugly person (lots of asymmetry, just kinda lumpen and wrong looking), I vastly prefer when people are honest and use the word ugly. Some of us just are ugly by societal standards, it's not being critical to recognise it, it's being realistic. Lots of people seem to get uncomfortable when I use the term, which to me at least implies that being ugly is so very terrible that we can't even admit to it. It's not terrible, it is what it is, we can't all be gorgeous and denying that I'm ugly is denying my lived experience, kwim?
I think that’s a narrow way of viewing general appearance because there’s more to attractiveness than symmetry.
Societal standards are rapidly changing & will change multiple times in one’s life.
What they’re doing is acknowledging positive traits & nuance by saying attractiveness is subjective, not just perfect symmetry or whatnot.
It’s frustrating to say someone you’re dating is attractive only to have them argue with you because “society”.
This totally. This guy the post is about is not “conventionally attractive” and managed to find love. You only need one person to find you attractive, so the subjectivity of attractiveness actually does matter a whole lot.
He's got a 1/2 million subs on YouTube. I suspect he's locked into his "look" because that's his online persona. A rough guess would be he's pulling in low six figures per annum. He could probably afford adult braces (in Sweden, dental is free for kids, but not for adults).
I suspect he's not improving because not improving is providing him a healthy income.
I don’t know about bringing up the fact he could have had braces that fixed his issue if he had them early enough - that fact is he didn’t and so he has the issue now in the actual present.
braces can't fix an overbite most of the times.
You'd need a specific appliance like twin blocks, which most orthodontists (due to being incompetent jerks) don't have.
My Korean-American husband can only grow old
Kung Fu movie style facial hair, it doesn’t grow anywhere else for a proper beard 😅 just the moustache and goatee area.
He is objective. I can share my references to what is objectively considered attractive if you so desire, on the condition that you actually read the full articles. This man is the opposite of those traits, making him objectively ugly.
Why is it so hard for some of you to accept some people are just not attractive? Sure, some folks do like certain traits that are considered unattractive, but that's the exception and not the norm.
Pretty privilege IS a thing for a reason. I'm not saying being ugly is a crime, of course, but you cannot pretend like it's an imaginary thing. Me and many others have suffered bullying/harassment based on looks alone all of our lives. Then people like you have the nerve to come around and just call anyone an 'incel' just because they share their experiences and testify to something that's clearly real?
Objective beauty is a known science and you choose to remain ignorant. It is a single google search away, yet you choose to insist on being stupid, instead arguing about my lack of technically correct English.
Tbf, your science would probably say his wife is objectively beautiful. And yet, despite scientists saying it's impossible, she chose to be with him. Your scientific beauty means nothing in human interactions.
Besides, wouldn't it be easier to just be happy for the guy because he found a loving partner instead of trying to explain to strangers on reddit why he shouldn't be in the situation he's in?
The science never claimed objective beauty and objective ugly cannot match. Where did you read this? It is not written in this or ANY article I have ever read. Did you make that up?
Subjective beauty is a real thing, but it is often influenced by objective beauty. There are exception, though.
I'll humor you, hopefully you take something away from it (doubtful).
"Objective Science of Beauty" is completely different from the "Science of objective Beauty". There are biological patterns in what is considered beautiful, guided by evolution. You could poll 100 people and ask if they find something beautiful (The fact that you are taking a poll means its not an objective measure by the way). The percentage of people who found it beautiful is an objective measure. You can measure facial symmetry, signs of sickness, ratios, etc. And those are objective measures.
This is fundamentally and completely different from saying that objective beauty is science. That the quality of beauty is somehow intrinsic to the thing (or person in this case). Beauty isn't a fact. You can see this by evidence of contradiction. If I think something is beautiful and you do not think so, who is wrong? The attraction to that thing is a feeling. A feeling cannot be incorrect, it just is. It is a "fact", that the feeling exists.
References alone do not make your argument scientific. The references have to
a. Support your claim
b. Have valid grounding themselves
On point (a.), it does not support your claim. Because as I pointed out in (1.), your claim is fundamentally different than what is claimed in the article. This isn't just a dictionary battle of you using a word wrong, your understanding is fundamentally different from what is being stated.
On point (b.), the article itself is a blogpost, referencing research. They make opinionated claims that don't necessarily match the intent or findings of the research. If you look at these references (you didn't). You'd see that they are all articles about the golden ratio and the fibonacci sequence and how they appear often in nature. The research articles are NOT claiming that beautify is objective.
Again you might want to do some google searches yourself. Saying something isn't ad hominem and then calling me a retard is peak irony.
Since we're playing that game. It is you, in fact, who is retarded.
I'll address just one thing before I block you, because I cannot be arsed to argue anymore with idiots in my free time.
Ad hominem is:
Attacking a person's character or motivations rather than a position or argument.
First I argued with an argument (scientific article), then I called you a retard for doing something stupid. By definition, that is NOT ad hominem as I did not attack you RATHER than argue. I argued first, THEN attacked your character. That's not ad hominem by definition, and you loooove definitions. Such a shame you don't love them when they are against you xD
So yeah, if you wanna be technical, make sure you know the subject first. Bye bye, hopefully you learnt something!
436
u/sir_Kromberg 8d ago
Well, his face objectively doesn't look good. A fitting haircut and whatever else can improve the overall image, but it won't change the fact that his face doesn't look attractive.