ugly face = nerd ?

unique_freak

Incels.Net Regular
I am probably the ugliest member of this message board. I had lots of friends in elementary school, despite being ugly. However, in Middle School I was labeled as a nerd, and I was ostracized. I was so ostracized that I always sat by myself at lunch in both Middle School and High School. In Middle School and High School, I dressed the same as the other students, and I acted normal. I am convinced that what set me apart to be labeled a nerd is that I had/have an extremely ugly face. I think that popularity in Middle School and High School is strongly correlated with physical attractiveness.

Contrary to popular belief, beauty is largely NOT within the eye of the beholder. If a bunch of white guys in America were to judge the attractiveness of the faces of a large group of white women, the white guys would tend to agree with each other on which white women had pretty faces and which white women had ugly faces. Facial attractiveness is determined by objective factors such as symmetry (symmetrical faces are viewed as beautiful/handsome) and proportions between facial features.

I had an internet friend named Dan that I met on a short person's support message board. Dan and I have never met in real life. Just out of curiosity, one time Dan asked me to email a photo of myself to him. We are both straight. Dan just wanted to see a photo of me because we had exchanged hundreds of messages over the years, and we had never seen each other. When Dan saw my photo, he said that I "looked a little bit nerdy. But if I lost weight and changed my hairstyle, I would probably look ok" (according to Dan). I was wearing glasses in the photo, which probably contributed somewhat to his calling me ugly. However, I believe that if most guys wear dressed exactly the same as I was in that photo, Dan would not have said that I am ugly. I told Dan that I believe that ugly = nerdy. He responded, "Yeah but ugly is a particular type of nerdy". -----I will admit that there is a nerdy type of look that is unrelated to the ugliness/handsomeness of a guy's face such as wearing a pocket protector, glasses, having one's pants pulled up extremely high on one's body, etc. However, I still think that a major (UNACKNOWLEDGED) factor in determining whether or not one is viewed as nerdy or not is a person's facial features. So I think to a large degree, nerdiness is NOT merely a particular type of ugly.

If a handsome guy at my high school dressed and behaved exactly like I did, the handsome guy would not be considered a nerd, while I would be considered a nerd.

Has anyone else noticed this?
 

Ojdhin

Others look for waifus, I make my own waifu
Yes symmetry matters. However take a ruler to Adam Levine, Brad Pitt, and Leonardo dicaprio. Proportion varies greatly.

I have an idea why this is. People don’t actually know quantitatively what is ‘attractive’ so its like a bunch of blindfolded people feeling a bear and trying to figure out what it is. As a result people think differently towards the same thing but everyone assumes the other person thinks in the same way. The reason I actually laugh at foids, normies and chads is because I have measured many faces considered attractive, and there is a wide range of proportion.

Therefore when two people coincidentally both find a person ugly, the entire flock assumes a similar opinion, because they don’t want to believe the standard is arbitrary and subjective.
 

unique_freak

Incels.Net Regular
However take a ruler to Adam Levine, Brad Pitt, and Leonardo dicaprio. Proportion varies greatly.

I have an idea why this is. People don’t actually know quantitatively what is ‘attractive’ so its like a bunch of blindfolded people feeling a bear and trying to figure out what it is. As a result people think differently towards the same thing but everyone assumes the other person thinks in the same way. The reason I actually laugh at foids, normies and chads is because I have measured many faces considered attractive, and there is a wide range of proportion.

Therefore when two people coincidentally both find a person ugly, the entire flock assumes a similar opinion, because they don’t want to believe the standard is arbitrary and subjective.
Baloney
 

Ojdhin

Others look for waifus, I make my own waifu
Ojdhin said:
However take a ruler to Adam Levine, Brad Pitt, and Leonardo dicaprio. Proportion varies greatly.

I have an idea why this is. People don’t actually know quantitatively what is ‘attractive’ so its like a bunch of blindfolded people feeling a bear and trying to figure out what it is. As a result people think differently towards the same thing but everyone assumes the other person thinks in the same way. The reason I actually laugh at foids, normies and chads is because I have measured many faces considered attractive, and there is a wide range of proportion.

Therefore when two people coincidentally both find a person ugly, the entire flock assumes a similar opinion, because they don’t want to believe the standard is arbitrary and subjective.
Baloney
Well I mean its math, so I don’t know why its baloney. I reject universal objective attractiveness. If there was such a thing every organism on earth would look the same. Given enough time humans could diverge into different species, some with long faces and grazers, some with huge teeth and carnivores. Since you do not find a chimp attractive and chimps dont find you attractive there is no such thing as objective attractiveness. It all comes from a cultural axiom of the perfect human couple, which actually varies between cultures.

Anyways if you disagree then whatever to each their own. (personally I think this is pretty much undeniably true, thats why it is funny when I see people reject it. Unless the universe isnt the product of evolution in which case G-d also rejects judging ppl based on appearance so yeah, lookism is just cultural stupidity.)
 

unique_freak

Incels.Net Regular
Well I mean its math, so I don’t know why its baloney. I reject universal objective attractiveness. If there was such a thing every organism on earth would look the same.
No, they wouldn't. Humans don't breed with dogs so humans are not influenced in any way by dog's facial proportions. It is incontestable that all other things being equal, all heterosexual women prefer tall men, yet all men are not the same height.

Women care less about face and more about height than men do, so women might choose to mate with a man with bad facial proportions if the man is tall. SO we are not going to all end up with 100 percent identical faces.


Given enough time humans could diverge into different species, some with long faces and grazers, some with huge teeth and carnivores. Since you do not find a chimp attractive and chimps dont find you attractive there is no such thing as objective attractiveness. It all comes from a cultural axiom of the perfect human couple, which actually varies between cultures.
Yes, there is some variance of what is attractive BETWEEN cultures, but WITHIN a culture, there is large agreement on which faces are attractive and which are unattractive.



Anyways if you disagree then whatever to each their own. (personally I think this is pretty much undeniably true, thats why it is funny when I see people reject it. Unless the universe isnt the product of evolution in which case G-d also rejects judging ppl based on appearance so yeah, lookism is just cultural stupidity.)
Human sexual attraction has been determined by natural selection.
 

Ojdhin

Others look for waifus, I make my own waifu
Ojdhin said:
Well I mean its math, so I don’t know why its baloney. I reject universal objective attractiveness. If there was such a thing every organism on earth would look the same.
No, they wouldn't. Humans don't breed with dogs so humans are not influenced in any way by dog's facial proportions. It is incontestable that all other things being equal, all heterosexual women prefer tall men, yet all men are not the same height.

Women care less about face and more about height than men do, so women might choose to mate with a man with bad facial proportions if the man is tall. SO we are not going to all end up with 100 percent identical faces.


Given enough time humans could diverge into different species, some with long faces and grazers, some with huge teeth and carnivores. Since you do not find a chimp attractive and chimps dont find you attractive there is no such thing as objective attractiveness. It all comes from a cultural axiom of the perfect human couple, which actually varies between cultures.
Yes, there is some variance of what is attractive BETWEEN cultures, but WITHIN a culture, there is large agreement on which faces are attractive and which are unattractive.



Anyways if you disagree then whatever to each their own. (personally I think this is pretty much undeniably true, thats why it is funny when I see people reject it. Unless the universe isnt the product of evolution in which case G-d also rejects judging ppl based on appearance so yeah, lookism is just cultural stupidity.)
Human sexual attraction has been determined by natural selection.
You are contradicting yourself.

Natural selection is not absolute, it is arbitrary and the standards for survival shift.

70 million years ago, all placental mammals looked the same. They looked like a tree shrew, so our ancestors found tree shrews attractive at some point.

Therefore attraction evolves and fluctuates and is by definition, random and meaningless, and non absolute.

Stop looking at the ‘big’ picture and look at the complete picture. Just as a group of shrews evolved into all mammals today, a group of humans will evolve into a bunch of ugly grotesque monsters given enough time. You need to have perspective.

Also…Culture is turd flowing from human backside. Give me enough time and resources I’ll make the culture desire incels.

Sorry about your negative experiences. Personally, I’ve been a complete loner and everyone was afraid of me, so I wasn’t bullied or harassed alot.
 
Last edited:
Top