If you have an email ending in @hotmail.com, @live.com or @outlook.com (or any other Microsoft-related domain), please consider changing it to another email provider; Microsoft decided to instantly block the server's IP, so emails can't be sent to these addresses.
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
Just looking at bbc news and there is an article about this
dating website.
Beautifulpeople.com gets existing users to vote on whether or not someone's attractive enough to join.
I honestly hate the idea of this. Fucking vanity and arrogance.
EDIT:
The story was about the site banning 30k users who joined up when the rating system was down.
Have a twatty comment by the site's managing director:
"We have sincere regret for the unfortunate people who were wrongly admitted to the site and who believed, albeit for a short while, that they were beautiful,"
Comments
WHICH SHE IS
Unless she got that way by smoking or other bad lifestyle habits (yes, I mention that every time this comes up), why would you be disappointed on that basis alone?
For me, an amiable personality can make any face or body look beautiful, hence the existence of Ugly Cute. But that's mostly because mutual acceptance is the most important thing to me in a relationship.
where they believe themselves to be better exclusively on the basis of
being less physically attractive to the majority, even if they do not
know the non-physical qualities of the beautiful people they look down
on.
"beauty is skin deep"
"well it looks like a pretty deep dig for you, fattie"
Mousa, if the concept of beauty is subjective, then allowing people to vote on what they consider beautiful is the best way of determining what is beauty.
Don't get me wrong, I find the idea of a dating site based solely around looks to be shallow as fuck, but at the same time pretending that beauty doesn't exist just reeks of sour grapes.
Scientists have been figuring out how people determine what is beautiful, though. For example, people with "mixed" features - even if they don't exist - are deemed more attractive, because the blending of different facial features is a sign of genetic variation. Symmetry (but not perfect symmetry) is also considered attractive, because a symmetrical face is a sign that the person is disease-free and had good prenatal and postnatal care. In men, wider shoulders, muscles and hirsuteness are considered attractive, especially when the woman is ovulating, while in women large, perky breasts and wide hips are considered attractive.
This isn't true for everyone, but overall women will choose men who are most physically fit and assertive when they're ovulating, and when they aren't ovulating will choose more feminine men (because they're seen as better caretakers). Men are overall more attracted to women who are better suited for childbirth and child-rearing.
Culture also has an effect. In most cultures, light-skinned women were prized because it was a sign of wealth - a woman who didn't have to work out in the fields would have paler skin. Until relatively recently, smaller breasts were more attractive in western culture, because large breasts were perceived as matronly. In almost all cases, physical characteristics that indicate wealth and youth are perceived as attractive.
I've got my own theory that tanning and skinniness are popular now because it's a sign that the woman has the time and wealth to sunbathe and eat healthy, fat-free food. I have no way of proving that, though.