tbh it basically means "neither ugly nor attractive to me"
It has nothing to do with actual averages.
this post was submitted on 05 Aug 2023
25 points (83.8% liked)
Comradeship // Freechat
12 readers
1 users here now
Talk about whatever, respecting the rules established by Lemmygrad. Failing to comply with the rules will grant you a few warnings, insisting on breaking them will grant you a beautiful shiny banwall.
A community for comrades to chat and talk about whatever doesn't fit other communities
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
The way that I have seen people use it is as “I find you unattractive, but I dont want to hurt your feelings”
Unattractive, yes, but not ugly.
It's more like "I personally don't find you attractive, but I guess someone else might"
Isnt the case that there will always be someone who finds someone attractive?
Sure, but that doesn't mean it's always imaginable. People generally don't realize how broad the human experience is.
So what they actually mean is "I can imagine a hypothetical person being attracted to you"
I dunno about the average woman, but the average man is definitely this.
Most gorgeous Albanian man
Isn't he dreamy?
Honestly I’m not super sure either. I think most people just use it to mean that someone is not particularly noteworthy to them. They have a nice appearance if you sit there and look at them, but it doesn’t surprise you like running into a model would? Idk just spit balling here
A person that looks like the vast majority of people you see everyday, and there’s nothing particularly head turning about them compared to everyone else you see on a daily basis.
I don’t see it as a “beauty” or “objectification” issue, just a way to say that there’s nothing particular impressive about a person in your opinion.
It’s a rude and capitalist way of thinking where people are objectified and commodified so commodity terms are applied to humans like the idea of averages
I don't understand. Sexual selection, based on factors, such as physical appearance, has existed long before the advent of capitalism, and will likely continue to exist long after it has withered away.
The idea of commodifying someone down to the way they look is problematic. In capitalism we have the idea of sorting someone looks wise simply for the sake of the way they look look wise rather then the effect that would have on their ability to reproduce as has happened historically.
eh, I'm willing to bet pretty people have always held advantages in society regardless of the economic system
Someone they deem to be neither physically attractive nor ugly; basically, in the middle or around the middle of the spectrum of attractiveness.
Of course, "attractiveness" is highly dependent on individual preferences, so there's no universal answer.
Based on the local population: average height, average weight, average skin colour. Not too attractive, not too ugly. No unique features.
This would be of course regional and specific to the person saying it. Some examples of averages: if someone is in the middle range of weight, so not skinny nor fat they would be average. If this person / these people are in China, black/dark hair color would be average. If this average person has natural red hair, they would only be average in the annual ginger meetup as being a ginger is rare everywhere.
If you need a picture of this for your area, this is very Googleable. Here is a example average looking women. https://images.app.goo.gl/wFzkRwFjM1WnkfQt8
For some reason, I found all of these attractive. I thought that average meant unattractive
Na. Average isn't bad. It also isn't exceptionally good, it's simple in the middle. I mean people could say it meanly to make themselves feel better because the are "above average", but fuck them.
The average person looks "Asian" (approx 60%), more specifically Chinese or Indian (approx 18% each). Note that for the purposes of this calculation, the European peninsula is not considered a part of Asia. Sorry Mayos, they kicked you out.
More like Europeans made up their own definition of "continent" so they didn't have to be lumped in with the rest of Asia, because they were too "civilized" and "culturally distinct", which makes no sense because every corner of Asia is virtually unrecognizable from the rest.
By that logic, North and South America should be one continent, and that would be absurd. It’s good to have a distinction.
But Eurasia just works better in general.
North and South America ARE one continent, by definition. We call it north and south for solely political reasons.
The Isthmus of Suez used to join Africa and Asia until the Suez canal was constructed. Should Europe, Asia, and Africa be considered a single continent??? That would be hilariously absurd.
Your first statement is also not true, that entirely depends on where you are from as different countries list North and South America as one continent or two. Russia views them as one. China views them as two. The US views them as two, many African nations view them as two, many South American nations view them as one.
So it has less to do with politics and more towards on what culture you are from. It has little to do with politics as a wide variety of countries have varying opinions.
Internationally by the UN and scientific organizations they are recognized as two separate continents.
I thought it was based on tectonic(?) plates rather than divisions that we can see on the surface. Which brings me to the same conclusion as you, although now that I think about it I have no idea how many plates are in the Americas.
Wait, is there not a physical separation between the two? I thought there was a waterway of some sort…
Nope, they are linked by the Isthmus of Panama and there is no natural waterway division.
The Panama Canal is a manmade waterway.
Thank you for the correction!
