Yeah I’m with you on this. I think it’s silly to claim that there is some objective standard of beauty that holds true for every man or woman. That’s not to say that there are no fundamental traits of an attractive woman: good skin, hip to waist ratio, regular features, good hair etc. I’ve always thought that Madeline Stowe is a smoke show, very hot 🔥 I love her hair, body and voice. So I vote Madeline. Another thing I love in a woman, slender hands and fingers. Good nails are also a sign of good health. I’ve seen women with nice facial features and figures with hands that had chipped nails or chubby fingers and that turned me off. Also, the hands and the Adams Apple are the best way to spot a tranny. But Andrew Tate wouldn’t be discouraged!
He needs the practice; hopefully the Romanian court will put him in prison for a while. The remaining mystery is whether he will be the pitcher or the catcher!
I left a comment on Vox’s post about this. There’s measurable symmetry that’s the basis of classical beauty and then there’s attractiveness. We’ve all know women that weren’t beautiful but had undeniable sex appeal. Some intangible or maybe very tangible quality that causes you to say ‘hell yeah’.
I usually go for blondes and ‘Celtic’ women, but I’ve always thought that Monica Bellucci was the best thing Italy ever produced. I never thought that Claudia was anywhere close to a 10, either. Frankly, very few ‘super models’ ever had any real appeal for me. It’s someone else’s idea of beauty. Now, they’re all trannies or fat. Go figure.
As a chick, the beauty of Stowe is in her feminity without the necessity of the super model aspect. She represents a more classic beauty compared to the swimsuit supermodel of Claudia. In a current world of turning beauty standards into political narratives I welcome a swimsuit issue that excludes darks, gays, trans, and fatties. Bring back a sense of normal female beauty that isn't representing degeneracy.
I agree with Vox on this one, but it’s hard to make an objective claim since they’re so different.
It comes down to their noses. Claudia’s is upturned and more refined. Her breasts are also more perfect than Madeleine. Claudia also aged better. On the other hand, Claudia has a severity about her face that is pleasingly absent in Madeleine.
But it’s a choice between two very beautiful women.
Yes, while the physical appearance might "technically" be higher for Claudia, I believe Madeleine would be the better overall choice, inclusive of personality, which of course is "invisible" to the untrained eye.
I prefer Claudia over Madeleine. I’m too retarded to give either an accurate numerical rating, but I believe Claudia is more attractive because she has a very doll-like face. It seems almost unnatural, yet it is natural, so that incredible rarity produces beauty. Conversely, the first thing I noticed about Madeleine was her forehead. It seems a little big compared to the rest of her face, but she’s still beautiful otherwise.
I should also mention I’m measuring their objective beauty solely in their face. I believe a woman’s beauty below the neck can be subjective within some defined boundaries.
Both women are very beautiful, I'd say Claudia, because she got warmer shots. As far as objective beauty, I don't even see the need to go into rationalizations like symmetry and the like. It's pretty obvious that appearance affects behavior in predictable ways whether or not it's acknowledged. If someone had knowledge of the behaviors of various men and their SSH rank around a woman, that information alone suffices for a very good guess of her objective beauty, without any pictures needed. In fact that's a very effective technique used by authors to stoke the reader's imagination before any description is given.
Based on the pics here I'm in Camp Madeline. Claudia "looks good", if we're talking subjective attraction, but I agree with you that I don't see what is special in her facial structure. (I'm doing my best to separate personal attraction from judgment of the objective appearance.)
Given the decision between the two, I'm going for Madeline based on what's here.
I've always found the hard absolute rankings hard to pull off given the difference of "pretty" in women. It's true that you can rank any two women according who is prettiest according to objective standards, but as far as setting a real-life 10 who is Prettiest Bestest and Hottest, I am skeptical.
If a 10 is the perfected ideal of beauty of women, then I think of it as more like a Platonic ideal. It's a limit that won't be found in any really-existing person.
The eyes are the windows to the soul. I always looked for what I could see there. In addition, I have always found women with dark eyes (the darker, the better) and dark hair particularly attractive. I wouldn't look at Claudia more than about 2 seconds, clothed or unclothed. Her eyes appear vacant to me. No soul there. I would have been more attracted to Madeline when I was younger, but even there, she appears to be not a very "deep thinker". Again, very little "soul" there. My own wife, one of what we call "the black Irish", is particularly beautiful to me and always has been. I think I fell madly in love with her from the first moment I saw her, and have become more in love with her the longer we have been together, which is 44 years, so far. Amazingly to me, she loves me too. I still don't understand that. I just accept it.
Yeah I’m with you on this. I think it’s silly to claim that there is some objective standard of beauty that holds true for every man or woman. That’s not to say that there are no fundamental traits of an attractive woman: good skin, hip to waist ratio, regular features, good hair etc. I’ve always thought that Madeline Stowe is a smoke show, very hot 🔥 I love her hair, body and voice. So I vote Madeline. Another thing I love in a woman, slender hands and fingers. Good nails are also a sign of good health. I’ve seen women with nice facial features and figures with hands that had chipped nails or chubby fingers and that turned me off. Also, the hands and the Adams Apple are the best way to spot a tranny. But Andrew Tate wouldn’t be discouraged!
Andrew would be enthusiastic! Practicing for prison. PFP for the G.
He needs the practice; hopefully the Romanian court will put him in prison for a while. The remaining mystery is whether he will be the pitcher or the catcher!
I left a comment on Vox’s post about this. There’s measurable symmetry that’s the basis of classical beauty and then there’s attractiveness. We’ve all know women that weren’t beautiful but had undeniable sex appeal. Some intangible or maybe very tangible quality that causes you to say ‘hell yeah’.
I usually go for blondes and ‘Celtic’ women, but I’ve always thought that Monica Bellucci was the best thing Italy ever produced. I never thought that Claudia was anywhere close to a 10, either. Frankly, very few ‘super models’ ever had any real appeal for me. It’s someone else’s idea of beauty. Now, they’re all trannies or fat. Go figure.
Most supermodels are too skinny, I want some meat on them bones!
Indeed!
As a chick, the beauty of Stowe is in her feminity without the necessity of the super model aspect. She represents a more classic beauty compared to the swimsuit supermodel of Claudia. In a current world of turning beauty standards into political narratives I welcome a swimsuit issue that excludes darks, gays, trans, and fatties. Bring back a sense of normal female beauty that isn't representing degeneracy.
OMG! What a BiGoT! How do you even?
MUAHAHHAHAHAHHA
I agree with Vox on this one, but it’s hard to make an objective claim since they’re so different.
It comes down to their noses. Claudia’s is upturned and more refined. Her breasts are also more perfect than Madeleine. Claudia also aged better. On the other hand, Claudia has a severity about her face that is pleasingly absent in Madeleine.
But it’s a choice between two very beautiful women.
Yes, while the physical appearance might "technically" be higher for Claudia, I believe Madeleine would be the better overall choice, inclusive of personality, which of course is "invisible" to the untrained eye.
I prefer Claudia over Madeleine. I’m too retarded to give either an accurate numerical rating, but I believe Claudia is more attractive because she has a very doll-like face. It seems almost unnatural, yet it is natural, so that incredible rarity produces beauty. Conversely, the first thing I noticed about Madeleine was her forehead. It seems a little big compared to the rest of her face, but she’s still beautiful otherwise.
I should also mention I’m measuring their objective beauty solely in their face. I believe a woman’s beauty below the neck can be subjective within some defined boundaries.
Both women are very beautiful, I'd say Claudia, because she got warmer shots. As far as objective beauty, I don't even see the need to go into rationalizations like symmetry and the like. It's pretty obvious that appearance affects behavior in predictable ways whether or not it's acknowledged. If someone had knowledge of the behaviors of various men and their SSH rank around a woman, that information alone suffices for a very good guess of her objective beauty, without any pictures needed. In fact that's a very effective technique used by authors to stoke the reader's imagination before any description is given.
blonde hair and blue/green eyes have a way to make mid people look better than much more beautiful people with brown hair and brown eyes
Based on the pics here I'm in Camp Madeline. Claudia "looks good", if we're talking subjective attraction, but I agree with you that I don't see what is special in her facial structure. (I'm doing my best to separate personal attraction from judgment of the objective appearance.)
Given the decision between the two, I'm going for Madeline based on what's here.
I've always found the hard absolute rankings hard to pull off given the difference of "pretty" in women. It's true that you can rank any two women according who is prettiest according to objective standards, but as far as setting a real-life 10 who is Prettiest Bestest and Hottest, I am skeptical.
If a 10 is the perfected ideal of beauty of women, then I think of it as more like a Platonic ideal. It's a limit that won't be found in any really-existing person.
I picked Claudia for both. Long, lean, and great athletic curves. Madeline does nothing for me.
Write in: In her prime and through the matrix series: Monica Bellucci all day long. All day.
And for a blonde a young Chiara Mastalli, though from her older pics she seems to be a mess.
https://www.wallofcelebrities.com/celebrity/chiara-mastalli/pictures/original/chiara-mastalli_979914.jpg
Objectively, Madeline, but I don’t like brown-eyed redheads for some reason so I’d go after Claudia instead.
The eyes are the windows to the soul. I always looked for what I could see there. In addition, I have always found women with dark eyes (the darker, the better) and dark hair particularly attractive. I wouldn't look at Claudia more than about 2 seconds, clothed or unclothed. Her eyes appear vacant to me. No soul there. I would have been more attracted to Madeline when I was younger, but even there, she appears to be not a very "deep thinker". Again, very little "soul" there. My own wife, one of what we call "the black Irish", is particularly beautiful to me and always has been. I think I fell madly in love with her from the first moment I saw her, and have become more in love with her the longer we have been together, which is 44 years, so far. Amazingly to me, she loves me too. I still don't understand that. I just accept it.