Miscellaneous desk
< October 3	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 5 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

October 4

Are they real?

trolling asked and "answered"

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

How come I don't see women this attractive in real life? http://imgur.com/lWA318O http://pstutorialsws.deviantart.com/art/Premium-Looks-Photoshop-Actions-441454718. (The first image was stretched horizontally I tried to resize it so the face still probably looks a bit wide). Do women close to those without makeup even exist? It's always a disappointment when you look at them close up in real life, but those pics and many others are close up shots and they are still gorgeous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Money is tight (talk • contribs) 02:56, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are 7 billion people in the world. Some of them are bound to be attractive enough for you. --Jayron32 03:24, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You mean 3.5 billion, I'm not bisexual. What im complaining about is that all the women i've seen are a disappointment up close without makeup or good lighting, which is what i really care about: that natural everyday look. I've seen decent looking ones but they just don't make my heart jump unlike those pics and others. Maybe it's because i haven't been out much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Money is tight (talk • contribs) 03:30, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And what do they say about you up close? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:53, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Valeria Lukyanova may be just the she-beast you're looking for. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:22, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

good lighting makes anythang more attractive tbh ~Helicopter Llama~ 15:45, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

...but liquor is quicker. —71.20.250.51 (talk) 17:39, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Ogden Nash said it elegantly. That's a recurring theme. I like the way Flip Wilson put it: "You marry a beautiful woman, eventually she turns ugly. You marry an ugly woman, get a few drinks in you, and she starts lookin' good!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:51, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You don't see women who look like that in reality because you're not seeing women who spent an hour having a professional put their makeup on - then have endlessly tweaked lighting - and finally having every tiny imperfection 'adjusted' in Photoshop. It's very likely that such an appearance never happens 'for real' at all.

There are endless numbers of videos on YouTube exploring this. For example this shows the value of makeup this shows how lighting makes a difference and this shows what Photoshopping an image can do. With these three technologies, we can make absolutely anything look like anything else - what you see in photos of celebrities can be as real or as fake as you can imagine. The sequence of tweaks done in this photograph take an ugly guy in a wig and turn him into a female supermodel. If an expert on what is considered beautiful is let loose with these tools, the result can be literally unattainable by any real woman - including the one in the original photograph.

So, you're basically doomed. Fortunately (as I'm sure you'll one day discover) - what makes for the PERFECT partner has very little to do with superficial beauty - so if you decide you're only interested in meeting people who come even remotely close to what you see in glossy magazine covers - you're going to miss out on the person who would have made you happier over the remainder of your life than the most stunning looks could ever possibly deliver. SteveBaker (talk) 17:54, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The most beautiful part of any woman (and the most enduring) is the part between the ears. That can be difficult to understand when you're young and... let's say "frustrated". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:07, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If You Wanna Be Happy... Tevildo (talk) 21:09, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SteveBaker i know what you're trying to say but i dont even find most females celebs with all that glamour makeup attractive. Only a few movie stars comes close to the first pic i posted (Imogen Poots in Centurion comes close). It's not that im frustrated because i want women who look like that, as these supermodels/movie stars are far out of my league and only the most devilishly handsome rich bad boy can get them, im just confused because i dont see any of them in real life. You say photoshop/makeup/lighting makes a big difference, yes i agree, but surely those women must be a bit stunning naturally to begin with. I have seen quite decent naturally looking women IRL, but the few stunning ones IRL (none as good as first pic though) are very clearly covered in makeup and had their hair colored to look pretty, whereas in the first pic i posted i can only tell she has skin makeup (no human has skin like that up close), and maybe some lipstick. Money is tight (talk) 01:01, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In her day, Sophia Loren couldn't look unattractive even if she tried. Even with messed-up hair, dirty face, grubby peasant attire...[1] Here are some 1955 photos (see sheet 9/12) taken at home, without glamour makeup or designer clothes, (albeit professionally photographed):[2] —71.20.250.51 (talk) 01:55, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, what kind or bee ess is this? It should have been hatted before a single answer was given. Does this need to go to ANI? μηδείς (talk) 01:56, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This could also be handled as a probability exercise, if we view the chances of each body part being "perfect" as an independent event. Let's say we say each has a 10% chance of being perfect, or at least close enough to it for you. Then, if they have maybe 20 body parts you care about, the chance that any one woman will have all 20 be perfect would be 0.1²⁰, or you'd need a line of 10²⁰ women to find one perfect one. Your chances of finding her are not good, using those numbers. But if you only require that each body part be in the top 50%, and only care about 10 body parts, then 1 in every 1024 women would meet your specs. Of course, the chances that you would also meet her specs are not good. StuRat (talk) 02:12, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can't really use probability like that because (as we discussed a week or two ago) "beauty" is really "average-ness". The most average looking person is the one that most people find most beautiful. So simply multiplying the odds of perfection doesn't capture the fact that each feature is effectively in the center of a bell-curve of probabilities. SteveBaker (talk) 17:30, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Snickers unhatted this, but in truth the OP has already gotten the best answers he's likely to get. Makeup means a lot. If he saw Kim Kardashian on the street "bare-faced" he might not even recognize her. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:00, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, she's actually much hairier. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:12, 6 October 2014 (UTC) [reply]

again, closing rather disgusting sexist trolling, seek a forum, there are no RS here. μηδείς (talk) 21:55, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]