Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most people are around average-looking. Beauty is more or less normally distributed. Don't let grooming fool you.

But shouldn’t it count for something- doing the best with what you have?

I will admit OP’s sentiments came into my head because of the recent post on How Would Men Rate You (or something like that). There were a lot of high scores but then looking at the real world, everyone looks fine, normal, average. I’ve been going to NYC for work lately and have ended up with the same impression. When I started work in my 20s, I couldn’t believe the difference in how NYC womenpresented themselves and I presented myself. Now at 50, it’s all kind of mushed in the middle.

Sure, it counts, in the sense that you can be more "attractive" in a subjective sense.
But in terms of ratings, which usually pertain to objective beauty, I don't think having a great haircut makes up for bad bone structure.

Anonymous wrote: You have to remove a point for: swollen lips, oversized fake tatas, too skinny, fake nails, botox, fake hair, fake tan, fake eyelashes, too much makeup, dressing 10 years younger than they should

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most people are around average-looking. Beauty is more or less normally distributed. Don't let grooming fool you.

But shouldn’t it count for something- doing the best with what you have?

I will admit OP’s sentiments came into my head because of the recent post on How Would Men Rate You (or something like that). There were a lot of high scores but then looking at the real world, everyone looks fine, normal, average. I’ve been going to NYC for work lately and have ended up with the same impression. When I started work in my 20s, I couldn’t believe the difference in how NYC womenpresented themselves and I presented myself. Now at 50, it’s all kind of mushed in the middle.

Sure, it counts, in the sense that you can be more "attractive" in a subjective sense.
But in terms of ratings, which usually pertain to objective beauty, I don't think having a great haircut makes up for bad bone structure.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most people are around average-looking. Beauty is more or less normally distributed. Don't let grooming fool you.

But shouldn’t it count for something- doing the best with what you have?

I will admit OP’s sentiments came into my head because of the recent post on How Would Men Rate You (or something like that). There were a lot of high scores but then looking at the real world, everyone looks fine, normal, average. I’ve been going to NYC for work lately and have ended up with the same impression. When I started work in my 20s, I couldn’t believe the difference in how NYC womenpresented themselves and I presented myself. Now at 50, it’s all kind of mushed in the middle.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's time for a reality check. Most people living in the DMV are not attractive. DC and Maryland are especially bad. If the standard scale is 1-10, DMV residents automatically lose 2 points, with NWDC and MD losing an extra point. There are many threads in which DCUMers self-rate themselves as 7/10 or above. Statistically speaking, you are multiplying the already small odds of being attractive with the even smaller odds of being attractive in the DMV. From here on out, let's agree to be honest and adjust our self-ratings.

Speak for yourself. I used a website called Pink Mirror when I was dating because I was curious if I was being too picky. My face is indeed a 7. I have other factors that probably push it up, if anything. Lots of wealthy women found this website because they were looking for a nanny. Wealthy people tend to be more attractive, because HNW people can have their pick. It’s not weird to me at all. I expect many of the women here to be better looking than me, sure to selection bias.

Anonymous wrote:It's time for a reality check. Most people living in the DMV are not attractive. DC and Maryland are especially bad. If the standard scale is 1-10, DMV residents automatically lose 2 points, with NWDC and MD losing an extra point. There are many threads in which DCUMers self-rate themselves as 7/10 or above. Statistically speaking, you are multiplying the already small odds of being attractive with the even smaller odds of being attractive in the DMV. From here on out, let's agree to be honest and adjust our self-ratings.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most people are around average-looking. Beauty is more or less normally distributed. Don't let grooming fool you.

But shouldn’t it count for something- doing the best with what you have?

I will admit OP’s sentiments came into my head because of the recent post on How Would Men Rate You (or something like that). There were a lot of high scores but then looking at the real world, everyone looks fine, normal, average. I’ve been going to NYC for work lately and have ended up with the same impression. When I started work in my 20s, I couldn’t believe the difference in how NYC womenpresented themselves and I presented myself. Now at 50, it’s all kind of mushed in the middle.

It's 2024. We are in the middle of an overweight/obesity epidemic. Taking care of yourself matters a great deal. And PP's "don't let grooming fool you" only takes the position that perfect grooming can't make up for a lack of genetics and fails to consider the negative consequences of average or less grooming, when others make an effort.

I think perhaps you are seeing less effort in NYC because culture has changed post-pandemic. Years of sitting in the house in pajamas and no makeup changed us.

Anonymous wrote:OP could be talking about men, too, but it’s interesting that everyone automatically assumed this was about women.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most people are around average-looking. Beauty is more or less normally distributed. Don't let grooming fool you.

But shouldn’t it count for something- doing the best with what you have?

I will admit OP’s sentiments came into my head because of the recent post on How Would Men Rate You (or something like that). There were a lot of high scores but then looking at the real world, everyone looks fine, normal, average. I’ve been going to NYC for work lately and have ended up with the same impression. When I started work in my 20s, I couldn’t believe the difference in how NYC womenpresented themselves and I presented myself. Now at 50, it’s all kind of mushed in the middle.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Aside from the fact that OP is a sour puss, he/she is right. One of my more attractive friends actually left DC in his late twenties because all the women in his dating pool were so ugly. He’s no Brad Pitt but a 8/10 man and cared about aesthetics. He would complain to me about how unattractive most women in DC are.

The economists will tell you that quality rises with competition. The women here don't care about their looks like they do in, oh, say NY. Or LA. Or Texas. Or Utah. Or wherever. So we don't look around and feel ourselves at the bottom. We look around at the women who don't care much, and have no reason to make an effort. How much effort women (and men as well) put into "looks" - grooming, fitness, style, etc -- depends on the culture ... depends on the how much effort the women around them are making. And women don't make that much effort here. Well, not compared to some other places. Hence, a DC 8 is a NY 6. Or lower.

Anonymous wrote:OP could be talking about men, too, but it’s interesting that everyone automatically assumed this was about women.

Anonymous wrote:Most people are around average-looking. Beauty is more or less normally distributed. Don't let grooming fool you.

Anonymous wrote:Aside from the fact that OP is a sour puss, he/she is right. One of my more attractive friends actually left DC in his late twenties because all the women in his dating pool were so ugly. He’s no Brad Pitt but a 8/10 man and cared about aesthetics. He would complain to me about how unattractive most women in DC are.