Unattractiveness and the discussion of style

[Margaret]

Originally Posted by thealbatross

for the life of me I have never seen a good $10 haircut.

And you know this because you're in the habit of asking strangers how much they pay for their haircuts?

This remindes me of people who say they've never seen a convincing hairpiece or natural-looking plastic surgery. How the hell do they know?

 

[thinman]

Originally Posted by thealbatross

As it relates to this topic I was rather astonished to read some of the responses to the "What is the most you would spend on..." thread in regards to how little some members are willing to pay for a haircut versus socks or underwear. Even with the limited hair I have up top I am more than willing to spend 30+ on a haircut. Considering that a person walks around with the same head of hair everyday it seems that those interested in their overall appearance would be at least willing to invest the same amount of money and effort into their hair as they would with purchasing a tie. So much for the comments about the membership being above average in the grooming department; for the life of me I have never seen a good $10 haircut.

Given the huge impact grooming can make on how one is perceived, I was also struck by how little forum members spend on haircuts when I checked the "What is the most you would spend on..." thread. I may get flamed for writing this, but there are some areas where men can learn from women: hair care and skin care come immediately to mind.

 

[thealbatross]

Originally Posted by Margaret

And you know this because you're in the habit of asking strangers how much they pay for their haircuts?

This remindes me of people who say they've never seen a convincing hairpiece or natural-looking plastic surgery. How the hell do they know?

Perhaps I should rephrase that statement; I know that I have never received a good haircut for $10, or knowingly seen someone who has. While I don't know their pricing; I once had the accidentally education of sitting outside a Hair Cuttery for over an hour and I can say that the haircuts I saw were pretty bad, it really made me wonder why people with a full head of hair didn't take better care of their natural assets.

 

[poorsod]

Originally Posted by willie

I can understand why many people have very negative feelings about plastic surgery. There are good and bad reasons to have plastic surgery.

There are plenty of men who would prefer a shorter hair style but grow their hair long because they have been teased about their protruding ears: I see no reason why they should not have this corrected through a very simple procedure. This is actually a very common procedure for men.

I had a favorite uncle when I was a teenager who was a very handsome man except that he had a very long, ugly nose. Many of the family members ridiculed him for considering plastic surgery. I told him to have the ugly nose fixed and he was grateful to find some support. He found a good surgeon and looked great for the rest of his life.

The work of a good plastic surgeon is usually not obvious. Where some people get in trouble in when they unreasonably seek perfection. I do not see anything wrong with correcting basic flaws that greatly impair one's appearance, and possibly quality of life.

The one procedure that many older people seem to go overboard with is eye surgery. I notice a lot of people who always look surprised because their eyes seem to be open too wide. Some people also have too many facelifts and do not look at all natural. Also strange to see a slim, petite woman with massive breasts. Generally speaking, you do not notice the good work. For this reason people think all surgery is obvious.

Severe maloclusion can also cause various problems. For some people crowded, protruding teeth destroy the appearance of the entire lower half of the face and jaw, can also cause serious speech impediments. I currently know one woman who would be beautiful except that she looks so horrible every time she opens her mouth.

In contemporary American society it is no longer necessary to go through life with these disadvantages

This reminds me of a lecture by nobel laureate and plastic surgeon Joe Murray.
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/m...y-autobio.html

He said that plastic surgery is surgery of the soul. It brings out how people see themselves. i.e. plastic surgery let's people show externally how they feel internally. He showed his life's work and some of the most amazing reconstructions you have every seen.

The difficulty I have is finding the line between surgery of the soul and hubris.

 

[mensimageconsultant]

Originally Posted by lawyerdad

I don't see that your conclusion follows from your premises at all. I have never had a woman ask me about, much less ask to test, my "maximum strength potential". Recognizing the dangers of confusing the specific with the general, I'll note that I'm in better physical shape at 37 than I was at 29. At neither age have I been, nor have I desired to be, at 100% of my maximum strength potential, the relevance of which seems dubious if you are not a professional athlete.

It's good that you've improved your physical fitness, but maybe that's related to the natural fitness peak, finding yourself starting to slip and correcting it. Most men get less physical activity in their thirties than in their twenties and don't particularly improve their eating habits. Muscle mass declines, and body fat increases. In casual attire, that can very negatively affect attractiveness.

Originally Posted by lawyerdad

Indeed, as (if I read your post right) you acknowledge that status (which I take to include professional and economic success, among other things), improved social skills, etc. will in general make a man more successful, I don't see why you then turn around and act as if they don't "count". If one defines "attractiveness" in such a way as to make it synonymous "being in the best possible physical shape", then yes, all other things being equal 25 year-olds are generally going to be more "attractive" than 48 year-olds. But what does that prove?
As I've said, people are more than the stastical average of the attempted quantification of their various physical attributes. Attraction is a complex and dynamic phenomenon. To some women (and some men) an older, wealthy, parental figure is likely to be the most "attractive" potential mate, for reasons that will be particular to that person.
And I trust you're right that someone who isn't married by the time they are 40 is unlikely to get married? But it seems likely that rather than concluding that proves he has "missed the window" and suddenly gotten too ugly to marry, one could equally well conclude that he may be a loner, may have a personality that simply isn't compatible with pair bonding, or just such a complete a-hole that nobody can stand being around him for extended periods of time.

Anecdotally, the personality traits you list usually are associated with a not-so-good appearance. If they're associated with good looks, then the man probably won't have much trouble marrying anyway.

You're still wondering why the improvements with age don't count (or, more accurately, hardly count with most). It's because most men (young and older bachelors) are fighting over a relatively small pool that goes off the market quickly and can afford to be very selective. "Very selective" in that sense often includes what most would call "superficial."