I don't know... I think I'm objective. My baby is cute: very regular features, round symmetrical head, no funny puffy folds on face, no ears, etc. sticking out. But DC does not have Gerber baby looks - i.e. huge eyes, very full lashes, very chubby rosy cheecks, curls. So I think I can tell the difference. Nonetheless the way my baby looks is "best" to me - and I can (and have) spent hours just looking at DC. But I can still "see" the objective ideal - just does not have any emotional resonance for me.

I think my 4-year-old is average. When she was younger there were many months at a time I thought she was kind of funny looking. I did not eat her.

Isn't that biologically programmed so parents take care of their kids?

I used to babysit for two of the most gorgeous baby girls (Gerber esque) who were unrelated....they are both now not so good looking young adults. Another baby who was kind of funny looking with awkward features is now a pretty attractive young woman. SO you never know.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My kid is very cute. Objectively. Has had a modeling contract at a major NY modeling agency since he was 6 months old and was on a cover of a magazine at 7 months. Has been in a lot of ads. He is 4 yrs old now and we will be spending the summer in NYC for his work. So yeah, he's pretty cute.

That's depressing.

(And I know a baby model who isn't very cute...)

He's not a baby model since he stopped being a baby. Not depressing at all. He's able to pay for his own college at this point.

I

I feel really bad for kid models. It should not be allowed.

I think we are meant to think our kids are the cutest and the best. That's why we don't eat them or throw them out the window even after months of sleep deprivation.

Anonymous wrote:Can we please stop knocking the blond hair, blue eyed kids? I think it would be offensive for me to say that all AA and Asian and brunette and redhead kids are ugly and sickly and creepy, so please don't say that about my kids.

+1