My very own definitions of Beauty
I’ve got several categories for women:
– IGN
– average
– cute
– pretty
– beautiful
– gorgeous
And there’re two pan-categories:
– not hot
– hot
Basically, the categories can be more broadly defined as follows:
IGN – “I Got Nothing”. Basically, I try not to discuss looks with a person who I consider less beautiful than average. I rather intend to focus on other qualities when I talk to them. Of course, just because I don’t talk with a woman about how beautiful her face is doesn’t mean that I don’t find her beautiful. I just start to focus on other attributes (personality, good person, etc.)
Average – These are, generally, women I don’t look twice at, but I can always find something attractive if I look hard enough.
Cute – These girls usually look like they’re young, and not sexually attractive. They look as if they have a beauty they can grow into. Of course, sometimes you see a cute 24 year old, which usually means they won’t “grow into” anything.
Pretty – This is where the women start to peak an interest in me. Usually, the woman is more mature-looking than a cute girl, but still has a childishness to her.
Beautiful – This is, in general, the best I see. This is the type of woman I stop and stare at, or turn my head to watch.
Gorgeous – I’ve only ever called one woman gorgeous in my life. Unless you count Eris and my car, in which case I’ve called three women “gorgeous”.
Importantly, there is also one concept that you may have seen in my email signatures: “The charms of a woman are directly related to the speed of her passing.” This basically means that the less time I see a woman for, the more attractive she is to me. I don’t notice flaws at first, but I really think that it’s human nature to pick out flaws in others. As I talk to a person, or look at them, I start to think, ‘Well, she’s not really so hot. Look at those stretch marks. Look at the way her nose curves. Her breasts are too large!’ Maybe it’s part of human response to the unattainable (i.e. if we can’t have it, we convince ourselves we wouldn’t want it anyway), or perhaps it’s just our way of boosting our ego (e.g. “I’m better looking than he/she is”).
Any of the above 6 can be either hot or not hot. The hot/not hot dichotomy can be explained as a transitive category that changes depending on the time, the subject, and the effort put into it. No one is always hot, nor is anyone never hot. Hotness, of course, is simple, animal attraction to a person.
None of these categories are hard-and-fast, and they’re very transitive. They require being placed within a time and place, and on a particular subject.
Yes, I judge a woman’s looks before I judge her personality; then again, you try judging something you can’t see before you judge something you do see. I do not judge personality by looks, but I do take my first impression there. If you’d like to call me on this, and say you don’t do this, then please, cast the first stone.
Lest you think I’m shallow (and I know you do), get a load of this webpage I found *after* I had written this short musing
