Physical attractiveness

[Shytan]

So this is something I read about 3w2s: "They are also among the most physically attractive of the types, something which adds considerably to their social desirability." The post went on to compare the physical attractiveness between the two 3 subtypes, saying 3w4s were less physically attractive than 3w2s.
So I'm curious, what are the most to least considered physically attractive types generally?

[Adam Strange]

So this is something I read about 3w2s: "They are also among the most physically attractive of the types, something which adds considerably to their social desirability." The post went on to compare the physical attractiveness between the two 3 subtypes, saying 3w4s were less physically attractive than 3w2s.
So I'm curious, what are the most to least considered physically attractive types generally?

Well, ordering the types on a scale of attractiveness seems like a thankless job. Plus, one's opinions will be strongly affected by one's own type. Having said that, though, I'd say the most conventionally attractive types follow the quadras, with Alphas looking most feminine (my scale only applies to females) and Deltas looking kind of like men.

See? Thankless.....

Now, if you want my personal attractiveness scale, the most beautiful, long range durable women are the ESI's. The most attractive professionals are SLI's by far, and the hottest women are LSI.

The next level holds the types that I think are attractive (some guys might think spectacularly so) but are not so attractive to me that I would join our fortunes. These types include the EII's, the IEI's, and the SEI's.

As for the rest, I hope we can still be friends. I think I'm in trouble now.

Conventionally, I have read that the IEI's are the most feminine type, the LSI's are the most athletically beautiful, and the ESI''s are the most artistically beautiful. And I agree with that.

[Muddy]

Common perception is that most LIIs and ILIs are unattractive nerds so there is that.

[Adam Strange]

Common perception is that most LIIs and ILIs are unattractive nerds so there is that.

But there are exceptions. I was giving my opinion of the best that I have seen of each type.

One of my sisters is LII, and she is extremely attractive. Natural blonde, she is very female and goes to the gym enough to have abs, and she has a very hungry smile. She's married, but it is her third marriage and she's had a lot of fairly amazing (and some not so amazing) BF's. It's that Fe-seeking.
I put a picture of my sister's face through pictriev.com, and she looks a lot like Julie Bowen, who is no slouch. But I agree with you, @Muddy. In the pantheon of beauty, LII's are not always placed in the front row.

I dated an ILI for a while who was pretty in a sharp, intelligent way. It didn't work out because Victim-Victim, but she was quite pretty. I actually like the female ILI look, but I never think it will go any where. They are already good at most of the stuff I do.

[Saoirse]

A lot of physical attractiveness comes from maintenance, like working out and dressing well. Some types are better at those kinds of things, on average, and/or more interested in them. I also think the physical confidence that comes from Se makes one seem more physically attractive.

I think trying to establish a general ranking is an impossible and perhaps not useful effort. We all have different preferences, and what is more important for an individual is his/her own attractiveness, not his/her type's average attractiveness. There are very attractive people of every type. Do you have a specific purpose for wanting a ranking for this? Usually types are useful because they let you predict behavior/understand someone better for situations that you haven't seen them in yet, using information from situations that you have seen them in. But for physical attractiveness, you don't need to know someone's type to know if they're attractive, you can just look at them, right?

[darya]

So this is something I read about 3w2s: "They are also among the most physically attractive of the types, something which adds considerably to their social desirability." The post went on to compare the physical attractiveness between the two 3 subtypes, saying 3w4s were less physically attractive than 3w2s.
So I'm curious, what are the most to least considered physically attractive types generally?

It comes down to grooming and how one carries themselves, no type is born more attractive than the other, that's down to individuals.

About 3's: all of them put significant amount of time in grooming, but not necessarily to be attractive - my 3w2 sp/so LSE friend for example follows the fashion and puts much time in grooming, but it is to look put together, presentable and like a responsible well off grown up - always appropriately dressed, whether it's for a sports event or bussiness meeting - she takes dress codes seriously, but with her personal spin.

My other ESE 3w2 so/sx friend on the other hand spends ages on looks, but it's more sexy, youthful, breezy blonde type of look. The second friends has always attracted tons of guy attention and is considered very sexy (she also acts very flirtily), the first one no guy ever notices in a romantic way - because her style is kinda asexual, too official (but also the way she carries herself - very bubbly, but never with sexual undertones). Bottom line, they are both very into fashion, looks, hair, what's the correct way to look - but they have different priorities and ideas how they want to present themselves and what reaction they want from others.

So no, not every 3w2 is a sex bomb, far from it.

3w4 are just as much (if not more) into looks, to the point when it can look contrieved and it can take eccentric undertones. You have naturally pretty and naturally ugly types on both sides, as with any other type. What someone finds attractive is very subjective, if you like bubbly, enthusiastic types, then you're going to prefer 3w2's. If you're attracted to more mysterious, standoffish vibe, than 3w4 is your bet. 3w2's are probably considered more mainstream attractive - I'm almost never attracted to type 3 guys, especially not 3w4, too much similarity (and gayness and glibness).

Other types: 1s, 2's and 6's (with some 6w7 exceptions) are also usually clean and groomed in conventional ways, because they like to look presentable and think that's the right thing to be in society.
4's, 5's - wild card, all sorts of weirdos
9's - from very groomed and fashionable to biggest slob hoarder territory.
7's - from hippy smelly pits wild child to groomed players who look like 3's but with more natural swag.
8 - usually clean and normal looking? lol

So - it's very difficult to just generalize, it's almost got just as much to do with instinctual variants than it does with type. And ofc personal tastes. I usually prefer 6/7 line for guys, but not because they look better, it's the boyish charm <3

[Birdie]

Attraction is biologically based and rooted in evolution. It really does not have to do with personality theory. I still don't understand how the idea of one's appearance reflects their personality. I can see how features we can control (hair colour, hair style, eye colour, etc...) can be used as ANECDOTAL evidence but for the most part our appearance is totally unrelated to personality. For example, how would anyone accurately type someone born a defect? Or someone with down syndrome? This is a deep flaw in the idea that you can type someone based on their appearance. I know, an unpopular opinion here on this board.

[Adam Strange]

Attraction is biologically based and rooted in evolution. It really does not have to do with personality theory. I still don't understand how the idea of one's appearance reflects their personality. I can see how features we can control (hair colour, hair style, eye colour, etc...) can be used as ANECDOTAL evidence but for the most part our appearance is totally unrelated to personality. For example, how would anyone accurately type someone born a defect? Or someone with down syndrome? This is a deep flaw in the idea that you can type someone based on their appearance. I know, an unpopular opinion here on this board.

I agree with this, but will add that I do like to guess personality types based on appearance. However, my method is basically learned correlation, which means I look at a face and at the type that the person claims, and I make a correlation.

This method seems to work surprisingly well for people who look like the people for whom I have correlations, and not so well otherwise. For example, I know very few ESE's and therefore can't type them visually very well. I also can't type people who are either very young or very old, nor those with physical deformities. I can arrive at a type with a high (self) certainty in a few seconds for some types, but it can take days, weeks, or months for me to arrive at some other people's types. It depends on the depth of my correlated data base for that type.

I don't see this limitation as a failure of the method, rather it is a result of limited data. And I actually do believe that a person's personality is reflected in their face.

I should add that the alternate method of typing a person by their written or verbal output can also fail in many cases. For example, it can fail when a person has a mental illness or a personality disorder.

My method is identical to the one that Google uses to train its driverless car's AI. The AI program watches what the driver does for many miles under many road conditions, and when it encounters a similar road condition, it does what the sum of the remembered drivers do in that situation. In a Tesla, you can disable the AI driver, but you can't disable the AI from reporting back to the company's data centers on how you drive the car, because the company needs that data to train its new AI's.

[Birdie]

I agree with this, but will add that I do like to guess personality types based on appearance. However, my method is basically learned correlation, which means I look at a face and at the type that the person claims, and I make a correlation.

This method seems to work surprisingly well for people who look like the people for whom I have correlations, and not so well otherwise. For example, I know very few ESE's and therefore can't type them visually very well. I also can't type people who are either very young or very old, nor those with physical deformities. I can arrive at a type with a high (self) certainty in a few seconds for some types, but it can take days, weeks, or months for me to arrive at some other people's types. It depends on the depth of my correlated data base for that type.

I don't see this limitation as a failure of the method, rather it is a result of limited data. And I actually do believe that a person's personality is reflected in their face.

I should add that the alternate method of typing a person by their written or verbal output can also fail in many cases. For example, it can fail when a person has a mental illness or a personality disorder.

My method is identical to the one that Google uses to train its driverless car's AI. The AI program watches what the driver does for many miles under many road conditions, and when it encounters a similar road condition, it does what the sum of the remembered drivers do in that situation. In a Tesla, you can disable the AI driver, but you can't disable the AI from reporting back to the company's data centers on how you drive the car, because the company needs that data to train its new AI's.

Thank you for explaining this to me! (:

[Shytan]

@Economist I was just curious is all, after reading that part about 3w2s and 3w4s.

[Shytan]

@Birdie No no you're right.

[Adam Strange]

@Birdie No no you're right.

She didn't say she agreed with me, she just thanked me for explaining what I believe.

[Shytan]

Attraction is biologically based and rooted in evolution. It really does not have to do with personality theory. I still don't understand how the idea of one's appearance reflects their personality. I can see how features we can control (hair colour, hair style, eye colour, etc...) can be used as ANECDOTAL evidence but for the most part our appearance is totally unrelated to personality. For example, how would anyone accurately type someone born a defect? Or someone with down syndrome? This is a deep flaw in the idea that you can type someone based on their appearance. I know, an unpopular opinion here on this board.

@Adam Strange Actually I was referring to this

[esq]

@Birdie

An idea that's been going through this thread has been that physical attractiveness can have a lot to do with grooming and with styles of self-dress, which are, in turn, strongly influenced by one's personality. Ennea-types will groom themselves with different motivations in mind, and so they'll end up with different results. Socio-types have different strengths and blindspots and values, so their grooming and their behavior will also trend toward different styles or even different levels of finesse or effort.

[Birdie]

@Birdie

An idea that's been going through this thread has been that physical attractiveness can have a lot to do with grooming and with styles of self-dress, which are, in turn, strongly influenced by one's personality. Ennea-types will groom themselves with different motivations in mind, and so they'll end up with different results. Socio-types have different strengths and blindspots and values, so their grooming and their behavior will also trend toward different styles or even different levels of finesse or effort.

Right, that's why in my post I mention variables within one's control as being anecdotal evidence of typology.

[Mr inappropriate]

I think being ugly causes introversion during school/teenage period, hence it may be correlated with Enneagrams withdrawn types.

[Persephone]

I think being ugly causes introversion during school/teenage period, hence it may be correlated with Enneagrams withdrawn types.

This way of thinking is flawed, obviously. Attractiveness is built on a lot of things going beyond physical features. Also beauty is in the eye of the beholder. People don't become introverted because they are ugly, do they?

[Mr inappropriate]

This way of thinking is flawed, obviously. Attractiveness is built on a lot of things going beyond physical features. Also beauty is in the eye of the beholder. People don't become introverted because they are ugly, do they?

But OP asks "physical attractiveness". I dont care about thing beyond physical features in this post. Beatuiful people receive more positive feedback, which should help them maintain a more better connection with outer world around them. Someone needs to do an experiment about this, like rating a bunch of people in terms of natural physical apperance (without make up or hair gels etc) and making them take E/I tests and then contract E vs I scores of people who received an avarage rating above 7,5 and below 5,0 . What do you expect the result to look like ? So I say, people can become introverted because they are ugly but this doesnt mean its the only cause or all introverts are ugly.

[Persephone]

But OP asks "physical attractiveness". I dont care about thing beyond physical features in this post. Beatuiful people receive more positive feedback, which should help them maintain a more better connection with outer world around them. Someone needs to do an experiment about this, like rating a bunch of people in terms of natural physical apperance (without make up or hair gels etc) and making them take E/I tests and then contract E vs I scores of people who received an avarage rating above 7,5 and below 5,0 . What do you expect the result to look like ? So I say, people can become introverted because they are ugly but this doesnt mean its the only cause or all introverts are ugly.

Hm good question. You seem to cover social reclusiveness rather than cognitive introversion. What you find a 7 will be a 5 to someone else, and that's my point. It has nothing to do with types.

[Chae]

I think being ugly causes introversion during school/teenage period, hence it may be correlated with Enneagrams withdrawn types.

Flipping this around. I used to look extremely ugly. Thus I became a 378, aka epitome of extroversion that could project confidence where there was none, could remain upbeat, could elevate strong character over being vulnerable. That's the other side of the story and it's called... compensation Chae genetics were like: "listen babe yer not attractive outside gurl so you get a character that 1) makes itself "beautiful" 2) overpowers all flaws 3) is so assertive that forces others into your attraction zone aw yeah let's do this"

[Mr inappropriate]

Hm good question. You seem to cover social reclusiveness rather than cognitive introversion. What you find a 7 will be a 5 to someone else, and that's my point. It has nothing to do with types.

I dont think they are too different. Also large sample size should erase that subjectivity. Its more close to you reality, for example school is full of people; so one person finding you 8 or 4 wont matter over the general attitude you get.

[Mr inappropriate]

Flipping this around. I used to look extremely ugly. Thus I became a 378, aka epitome of extroversion that could project confidence where there was none, could remain upbeat, could elevate strong character over being vulnerable. That's the other side of the story and it's called... compensation Chae genetics were like: "listen babe yer not attractive outside gurl so you get a character that 1) makes itself "beautiful" 2) overpowers all flaws 3) is so assertive that forces others into your attraction zone aw yeah let's do this"

I doubt you are the norm, more likely an exception Also physical features can change with age and it can override your previous assumptions that you are ugly or beautiful.

[suedehead]

Male attractiveness is binary - the vast majority of women want to fuck the same small set of guys with similar facial traits.

[Hope]

But OP asks "physical attractiveness". I dont care about thing beyond physical features in this post. Beatuiful people receive more positive feedback, which should help them maintain a more better connection with outer world around them. Someone needs to do an experiment about this, like rating a bunch of people in terms of natural physical appearance (without make up or hair gels etc) and making them take E/I tests and then contract E vs I scores of people who received an average rating above 7,5 and below 5,0 . What do you expect the result to look like ? So I say, people can become introverted because they are ugly but this doesnt mean its the only cause or all introverts are ugly.

Introversion is not about shyness or shame. Introversion is about people needing spend more time alone while extroversion is about people needing to be with other people. Introverts focus on the inside, extroverts on the outside. Extroverts gain energy and good feelings when they are with people and lose energy when they are alone, Introverts are the opposite, gain energy from being alone and being with people make them feel tired.
That's all.



Attachment 10145

Scientific studies says that all of this is due neurochemical differences on extroverted and introverted brains, there are some interesting articles on the web.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...b011b83a6be33a

[Adam Strange]

Flipping this around. I used to look extremely ugly. Thus I became a 378, aka epitome of extroversion that could project confidence where there was none, could remain upbeat, could elevate strong character over being vulnerable. That's the other side of the story and it's called... compensation Chae genetics were like: "listen babe yer not attractive outside gurl so you get a character that 1) makes itself "beautiful" 2) overpowers all flaws 3) is so assertive that forces others into your attraction zone aw yeah let's do this"

I actually don't know any ugly IEE's. They kind of have an open attractiveness about them. Even the ones who are not super model beautiful are attractive. I work with one who goes from being hot to looking a bit like a guy to being hot again. IDK how that works, unless it is the triumph of projected personality over a Delta* face.

*I married an SLI Delta who is extremely attractive, but sometimes she looked a lot like Clint Eastwood in his early films. No stubble, tho.

[Mr inappropriate]

Introversion is not about shyness or shame. Introversion is about people needing spend more time alone while extroversion is about people needing more to be with other people. Introverts focus on the inside, the focus of extroverts is outside. Extroverts gain energy and good feelings when they are with people and lose energy when they are alone, Introverts are the opposite, gain energy from being alone and being with people make them feel tired.
That's all.



Attachment 10145

Scientific studies says that all of this is due neurochemical differences on extroverted and introverted brains, there are some interesting articles on the web.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...b011b83a6be33a

I know about this view and I completely disregard it simply for that it doesnt match up to my experience so far. All people do get tired from doing things they dont like (or interacting with people they dont like) . Neurochemistry of brains also change with time, people who take SSRI's becomes extroverted for example. How does this fit to Socionics ?
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/1...ality.changes/

Also, introversion is mostly about shame or shyness. How many introverts are there out that can be called as "shy" there compared to extroverts ?

I say, people who are shamed of their looks (or not compliment as much as others) will/may more likely to develop a personality that involves less socializing, which is very similar to Introversion.

[Hope]

I know about this view and I completely disregard it simply for that it doesnt match up to my experience so far. All people do get tired from doing things they dont like (or interacting with people they dont like) . Neurochemistry of brains also change with time, people who take SSRI's becomes extroverted for example. How does this fit to Socionics ?
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/1...ality.changes/

Also, introversion is mostly about shame or shyness. How many introverts are there out that can be called as "shy" there compared to extroverts ?

I say, people who are shamed of their looks (or not compliment as much as others) will/may more likely to develop a personality that involves less socializing, which is very similar to Introversion.

Honestly that doesn't match with my experience.

I've seen both, extroverts and introverts with problems of self image and self-esteem. In fact I've seen more extroverts with problems of self esteem (not only concerning to physical appearance). Sometimes I'm even unpleasantly surprised by the sudden demonstration of cockiness, arrogance and high self-esteem of some introverts… A lot of them are really confident and comfortable with their appearance and unashamed of showing off.
On my case I was introverted since I can remember (2 years old maybe)…and my parents says the same about me.

Anyway, antidepressants obviously modify conduct or personality traits (that's why they are used in treatment for some mental conditions), in fact, we all could artificially change or modify the functioning of our brain chemistry and our conduct in consequence, by the administration of substances and medicine, as it happens with almost every part of our body (that can be modified by adding external substances or through some other interventions). But at any rate this possibility (of external chemical modification) proves that we born without natural brain chemistry that predispose people towards extroversion or introversion.

What you are saying seem much more a product of social prejudice or self projection than product of experience and research. The low self esteem or lack of confidence is an old common myth against introversion. The scientific studies points towards different direction, distant from societal pressure. Introverts and extroverts suffer equally from shyness and shame and social anxiety, and often I see extroverts much more concerned by it.

[Pole]

Here's my objective, scientifically accurate ranking system, all in a simple list:

type 1s: The are not hot. They look years older than they are because inside they are bitter and old.
type 2s: They can look "motherly/fatherly" or completely trashy, depending on what partner they decided to devote themselves to at a young age.
type 3s: Since they have to be the hottest in the room that's what they work for. They end up looking ridiculous most of the time.
type 4s: They don't care how shitty and unfuckable they make themselves, as long as they don't look like what men want because society.
type 5s: They look like scraggly plants that didn't get enough sunlight. They really don't care about how good they look because developing their minds takes priority.
type 6s: They are decent enough to keep the species going.
type 7s: They look like monkeys.
type 8s: Ugly as hell. Completely hideous. Their strength and character wins them friends and partners tho, and people forget how ugly they are because they're charismatic.
type 9s: They look like cute, little elves.

[Chae]

Here's my objective, scientifically accurate ranking system, all in a simple list:

type 1s: The are not hot. They look years older than they are because inside they are bitter and old.
type 2s: They can look "motherly/fatherly" or completely trashy, depending on what partner they decided to devote themselves to at a young age.
type 3s: Since they have to be the hottest in the room that's what they work for. They end up looking ridiculous most of the time.
type 4s: They don't care how shitty and unfuckable they make themselves, as long as they don't look like what men want because society.
type 5s: They look like scraggly plants that didn't get enough sunlight. They really don't care about how good they look because developing their minds takes priority.
type 6s: They are decent enough to keep the species going.
type 7s: They look like monkeys.
type 8s: Ugly as hell. Completely hideous. Their strength and character wins them friends and partners tho, and people forget how ugly they are because they're charismatic.
type 9s: They look like cute, little elves.

Exposingly accurate. What about the male 4s? Or does men's wish determine both masculine/feminine looks?

Lmao @Slugabed for clicking constructive I'll do that as well.

[Stellafera]

type 6s: They are decent enough to keep the species going.

at first I was going to object but considering the rest of the list I think we're doing pretty well

[Pole]

Exposingly accurate. What about the male 4s? Or does men's wish determine both masculine/feminine looks?

Lmao @Slugabed for clicking constructive I'll do that as well.

Wasn't sure, tried to make it gender neutral but I forgot to do that for types 4s. They probably look just like the female 4s.

[suedehead]

Decisive types spruce themselves up more - there probably isn't much of a difference between types in terms of actual physical attractiveness.

Plain Se-valuer who tries too hard:

Naturally handsome Si-valuer

[empineer]

Male attractiveness is binary - the vast majority of women want to fuck the same small set of guys with similar facial traits.

Seriously? Maybe that's why there's this rumour that EII is rare? Because EII won't fuck fashionably acceptable faces just because they have facial traits

[empineer]

and Deltas looking kind of like men.

This explains my life

[Olimpia]

So this is something I read about 3w2s: "They are also among the most physically attractive of the types, something which adds considerably to their social desirability." The post went on to compare the physical attractiveness between the two 3 subtypes, saying 3w4s were less physically attractive than 3w2s.
So I'm curious, what are the most to least considered physically attractive types generally?

I'd agree that 3w2 tends to groom themselves the best in a conventionally attractive way. They are typically up-to-date when it comes to trends. The SX first version is usually the most conventionally "sexy". Female SX 3w2 individuals usually dye their hair blonde and adopt a stereotypically feminine look.

2w3 would probably be the second-best in this regard. Being a fellow image type, and with the 3 wing concerned with being "successful" at looking good, they can also look quite conventionally attractive. The women are often stereotypically feminine-looking too, though not always (less so with the Intuitives).

Type 4s may also groom themselves better or more than the average person, though their style may repel most people, depending on how "off-beat", "unique", "weird" etc it is. That's why 4w3 people usually fare better there. If they focus on their 3 wing, they can be almost just as conventionally attractive as a 3(w4), but most 4s rarely go there. One example of a 4w3 who did was Michael Jackson. 4w5 people (in their youth) are often the Goths or Emos who can be hot, but not really to most people. Type 4s often like to adopt a "niche look" of some kind, and that won't be appealing to most people.

After 3w2 and 2w3, I'd place SX 6w7, SX 7s, and 3w4.

As @darya said, 9s can be a hit or miss. They are either total slobs or acceptably dressed, typically in a laissez-faire style. The 9s who move to 3 are typically more immaculately dressed and can "look" like 3s. Similar thing applies to 1s. Many 1s are rather plain in style, but on average they tend to dress more professionally and appealing than an average 9. Especially Social 1s care more about coming across as well-dressed and professional.

So after the types above, I'd place 1s and 9s moving to 3.

The worst dressed and worst styled would be a typical 5w6, followed by 5w4. Many 5s don't pay much attention to their appearance at all, and when they do it can be quite awkward, unless they get some help... They are the most in need of some fashion advice, stereotypically. Some 6w5 and also 4w5 people can be quite sloppily dressed at times, too. 5s are too much in their heads to focus on appearance, on average.

[Shytan]

I'd agree that 3w2 tends to groom themselves the best in a conventionally attractive way. They are typically up-to-date when it comes to trends. The SX first version is usually the most conventionally "sexy". Female SX 3w2 individuals usually dye their hair blonde and adopt a stereotypically feminine look.

2w3 would probably be the second-best in this regard. Being a fellow image type, and with the 3 wing concerned with being "successful" at looking good, they can also look quite conventionally attractive. The women are often stereotypically feminine-looking too, though not always (less so with the Intuitives).

Type 4s can also groom themselves better than the average person, though their style may repel most people, depending on how "off-beat", "unique", "weird" etc it is. That's why 4w3 people usually fare better there. If they focus on their 3 wing, they can be almost just as conventionally attractive as a 3(w4), but most 4s rarely go there. One example of a 4w3 who did was Michael Jackson. 4w5 people (in their youth) are often the Goths or Emos who can be hot, but not really to most people. Type 4s often like to adopt a "niche look" of some kind, and that won't be appealing to most people.

After 3w2 and 2w3, I'd place SX first 6w7 and 7s. After that, 3w4. After that, (male) SX 8.

As @darya said, 9s can be a hit or miss. They are either total slobs or acceptable dressed, typically in a laissez-faire style. The 9s who move to 3 are typically more immaculately dressed and can "look" like 3s. Similar thing applies to 1s. Many 1s are rather plain in style, but on average they tend to dress more professionally and appealing than an average 9. Especially Social 1s care more about coming across as well-dressed and professional.

The worst dressed and worst styled would be a typical 5w6, followed by 5w4. Many 5s don't pay much attention to their appearance at all, and when they do it can be quite awkward, unless they get some help... They are the most in need of some fashion advice, stereotypically. Some 6w5 and also 4w5 people can be quite sloppily dressed at times, too. 5s are too much in their heads to focus on appearance, on average.

so where would you put 4w3s?

[Olimpia]

so where would you put 4w3s?

Not sure... It can be a hit or a miss with them.

If they have a strong 3 wing focus like Michael Jackson did, I'd put them on the same level as 3w4.
That would be the third place.

If they dress like Lady Gaga, they'd probably be below the fourth place.

First Place:
3w2

Second Place:
2w3

Third Place:
SX 6w7, SX 7, 3w4, SX 2w1 (female), 4w3 with a strong 3 focus (e.g Michael Jackson).

Fourth Place:
1, 9 moving to 3, SX 8 (male).
...

Last Place:
5w6

All of this is just based on "conventional attractiveness" and what is attractive to most people on average.
Individual preferences may differ.

P.S: The guy in my signature has got the 4w3 look, somewhat similar to MJ.
That kind of look is pretty close to my personal First Place.

 

*First Place:
SX first or second 4w3 (with a stronger 3 wing), SX 3w4 (with a stronger 4 wing).
Plus Leather.

Second Place:
SX 7 with 4 fix, 9 moving to 3, 3w2

Third Place:
SX 6w7, SX 8 SLE-Se, SX 7 with 3 fix

...
Last Place:
average 5w6 LII;
crusty-old-person-from-a-retirement-home-look or the infamous beggar-on-the-streets-look

*I've mostly given up on this style, because all the guys who dressed that way turned out to be gay ime...

[wacey]

Decisive types spruce themselves up more - there probably isn't much of a difference between types in terms of actual physical attractiveness.


Naturally handsome Si-valuer



[/spoiler]

Wow good looking.

[wacey]

Male attractiveness is binary - the vast majority of women want to fuck the same small set of guys with similar facial traits.

What a beautiful mind you have.

[idontgiveaf]

I like tall mesomorph guys. my ex boyfriend was not really into the gym but he can just builds muscles easily looking like he's going to the gym. But he's not a gym buff.

I don't like gym buff

So there. I just wanna share that i got turn on by my ex boyfriend fb pic.

We're far away from each other but it makes me think maybe we're really meant for each other

Because we're sexually compatible like his penis size is perfect and he's height against mine.. When i knee down i don't have to adjust nor him because his dick fits perfectly in my mouth when i knee.

That's all.