"BYOB" (aka Bring Your Own Beauties) - A discussion

[SonofdonCD]

Originally posted by 88mph
I like cute girls more that I like "beautiful" girls.

I am a fan of the indie rock types...

So very sexy.

Well, that's the thing about my definition of "Beautiful". It's wholly subjective.

Not everyone is going to be able to come up with a list of people everyone will agree is Universally Beautiful. And as they say, "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder." So If you are really attracted to indie rock types, then by all means, they are "Beautiful.

And not to pester you, but could you give us some examples? Maybe a link to a pic or something? That was kinda the whole point of this thread: to share who we think are good looking.

[rezo]

cute girls are the winners.

Cute - Cute is just one notch above Average/Normal because being cute is not typically associated with being extremely good looking. Instead, being called "Cute" is like being called "Young". There is an innocence that almost can't exist in someone whose more attractive.

this definition probably fits better than the vague reference to innocence that I gave in 7F's topic. except that you put it on the bottom rung

I'll find some pictures to put here: don't know where to look. so. . . tomorrow

[Punky Skunk]

Originally posted by SonofdonCD
And Rob and Shinobi128, instead of picking on my choices, why not share yours, or contribute in some way to the conversation instead?

My apologies, maybe I could've stated my opinion a little better.

"Universal beauty," as you describe it, are people who look perfect more than they actually look good (except for Daisy, she's just ugly ). I like a unique look (and no, not a hideous chin cleft), while super models look "flawless," which deprives them of character in my eyes.

[SonofdonCD]

I guess I didn't state my case well enough.

rezo,

While I ranked "Cute" lower than beautiful and gorgeous, that doesn't mean they aren't good looking. The ranking wasn't really meant to see who looks better per se (cause hey, good looking is good looking, no matter if you're cute, gorgeous or beautiful ), but moreso as to catagorize beauty. And in order to get others talking about it, I gave my views on it.

Plus, it wasn't at the bottom anyway. "Average/Normal" girls were.


Rob,

You, my friend, are the first person I have ever heard say that Daisy is UGLY! Not even a "She's alright" or "She's not my type", but "She's UGLY"?!? Wow, I guess you don't have "Universal Tastes" .

But seriously, gorgeous (or Super model type) women overall, while very good looking in my eyes, aren't the most desireable women to me. But whose the most desireable wasn't the topic of this thread, pure physical beauty was. Who you like to look at and who you want to marry can be two absolutely different people.

I personally don't want a gorgeous woman. I'll take a normal woman whom I'm very compatible with much sooner than a gorgeous woman who I have nothing in common with, even if she wanted me. (Well, I'd have to think about that... ) But a normal woman isn't as good looking as a gorgeous woman, if you catch my drift. After all, if the normal woman looked as good as a gorgeous woman, what is normal then?

And I must admit, I don't understand how looking "Perfect" is a downfall. (Even though I don't think anyone looks "Perfect" anyway.)

To reiterate: This thread is NOT about who you'd want to go out with or marry, or who has inner beauty. But it's about those chosen few whose physical traits have charged them with the title of "Good Looking" .