It’s strange to use the fact that popular celebrity actresses are not stunningly attractive in candid photos as evidence that women don’t get that (naturally) attractive. Celebrity actresses are selected for a whole lot more than attractiveness, plus eventually they get old/out of their prime age (why are you exclusively displaying images of late twenties/early thirties women when it’s widely accepted that attractiveness peaks at 21 or younger?).
Furthermore, the fact that celebrity actresses only look good with makeup / in certain clothing etc. is again partially a product of their selection process—they are chosen for looking and acting well on camera, not being naturally overwhelmingly beautiful in person.
I didn’t select their photos because they were successful actors, I selected them because they’re the celebrities most commonly cited as beautiful on the internet, and because they either appear at the top of popular surveys for most attractive women, or are the most viewed women on deepfake websites.
Of course, for any category of sex symbol you put up in a post like this—instagram models, regular models, onlyfans models, actors, singers—you’re gonna get the response “Ah, but those aren’t the prettiest women!” And, fair enough, but I suspect that if you or romeo left an example of a particular woman you find more attractive than Ana de Armas, you’d find that actually a large proportion of observers disagree with you. My thesis is not that you can’t find a woman that you find significantly prettier than her, but that it’s very hard to find a woman who broadly and significantly more appealing.
Also, I feel like what you and Romeo are saying is not actually incompatible with the broader point? It’s a little like if I said that height was normally distributed, and as evidence I pointed out that Kareem Abdul-Jabbar was only 1.5 feet taller than the average human, and someone went “But the tallest person in human history, Robert Wadlow, was 8 foot 11 inches!” If “women more attractive than Ana” are so rare that they don’t rise to the top of acting, music, porn, or modeling, and they’re not generally the ones mating with the highest status men, then of what use is their attractiveness?
What use is it to be that attractive? Probably not much. Two of the four most beautiful women I’ve ever seen were at the cash register in a shop. (One of the others, the most beautiful one, was probably a university student (in Louvain, long ago); I’ve no idea about the fourth, but she was in my local shopping center, which isn’t a glamorous place.)
Could there be an observation bias at play here? Could it be that most extremely beautiful women do live glamorous lives but you are not a part of those scenes?
Tails come apart. The most successful actresses are not the most attractive women.
On average, the most successful actresses are certainly more attractive than their male counterparts at least. While both tend to be good looking, a man who is not attractive but has other talents (funny, athletic, good at physical acting, charismatic) tends to have a better chance at fame than a woman with the same talents and the same flaws.
Tails come apart. The most successful actresses are not the most attractive women.
Yes, I was going to leave this comment.
It’s strange to use the fact that popular celebrity actresses are not stunningly attractive in candid photos as evidence that women don’t get that (naturally) attractive. Celebrity actresses are selected for a whole lot more than attractiveness, plus eventually they get old/out of their prime age (why are you exclusively displaying images of late twenties/early thirties women when it’s widely accepted that attractiveness peaks at 21 or younger?).
Furthermore, the fact that celebrity actresses only look good with makeup / in certain clothing etc. is again partially a product of their selection process—they are chosen for looking and acting well on camera, not being naturally overwhelmingly beautiful in person.
I didn’t select their photos because they were successful actors, I selected them because they’re the celebrities most commonly cited as beautiful on the internet, and because they either appear at the top of popular surveys for most attractive women, or are the most viewed women on deepfake websites.
Of course, for any category of sex symbol you put up in a post like this—instagram models, regular models, onlyfans models, actors, singers—you’re gonna get the response “Ah, but those aren’t the prettiest women!” And, fair enough, but I suspect that if you or romeo left an example of a particular woman you find more attractive than Ana de Armas, you’d find that actually a large proportion of observers disagree with you. My thesis is not that you can’t find a woman that you find significantly prettier than her, but that it’s very hard to find a woman who broadly and significantly more appealing.
Also, I feel like what you and Romeo are saying is not actually incompatible with the broader point? It’s a little like if I said that height was normally distributed, and as evidence I pointed out that Kareem Abdul-Jabbar was only 1.5 feet taller than the average human, and someone went “But the tallest person in human history, Robert Wadlow, was 8 foot 11 inches!” If “women more attractive than Ana” are so rare that they don’t rise to the top of acting, music, porn, or modeling, and they’re not generally the ones mating with the highest status men, then of what use is their attractiveness?
What use is it to be that attractive? Probably not much. Two of the four most beautiful women I’ve ever seen were at the cash register in a shop. (One of the others, the most beautiful one, was probably a university student (in Louvain, long ago); I’ve no idea about the fourth, but she was in my local shopping center, which isn’t a glamorous place.)
Could there be an observation bias at play here? Could it be that most extremely beautiful women do live glamorous lives but you are not a part of those scenes?
On average, the most successful actresses are certainly more attractive than their male counterparts at least. While both tend to be good looking, a man who is not attractive but has other talents (funny, athletic, good at physical acting, charismatic) tends to have a better chance at fame than a woman with the same talents and the same flaws.