Pyat’s Theory of Feminine Appeal and the Rational Adjudgment of Same

[pyat]

About a year ago, I presented you all with Pyat’s Theory of Architectural Excellence and Pyat’s Guide to Rating Thespianic Quality .

In that spirit of catching Intangibles, dosing them with the Ether of Considered Analysis, and pinning them to the Board of Reason for the Edification of All, I now offer:



*Let me state before any of this that velvetpage represents an otherwise unmatched pinnacle of physical and intellectual beauty to which no other woman on Earth has any hope of ascending. We can now proceed.*

I will admit that “Beauty” is an entirely subjective and multi-faceted trait. Although it may be possible to measure its individual qualities in terms of the useful indexes below, any given rating is (almost) entirely dependent on the bias of the observer. For example, while I find most super-models pleasing to look at, I consider them strangely unappealing and sexless. To me, they are no more desirable than well-made furniture or a piece of decorative art. They are pure ornamentation. They would receive relatively low rankings from me. I know other people feel very differently.

Still, I hope that my theory can provide you all with useful tool that produces numeric qualifications of attractiveness for your personal reference and amusement. I will be providing examples to demonstrate each index. If some of those examples happen to support the preceding statement about the incomparable velvetpage, well, that’s science for you.

Please note that this is a theory of feminine appeal. If your tastes run to the masculine, you may not derive much use from my theory. I would suggest a separate set of indexes that measure factors such as “Relative Offensiveness of Odour”, “Interest in Playing Samurai Swords” and “Propensity to Buy Me Lunch.” Of course, since my own bias is towards the feminine, my standards of male attractiveness may be somewhat different than yours.

A note on ranking: These indexes are equally suited to the use of numeric ratings, letter grades, and star-rankings. Use whatever method you prefer.

Appearance in Repose
The first element of attraction is simple physical appeal. Researchers have written that this is largely based on an evolutionary preference for physical traits that suggest good health and fertility. This explains the ample breasts and wide child-rearing hips that are such standard elements of classical beauty. These elements range in their focus and extreme from society to society, but the core elements are almost universal.

However, men are (sometimes) intellectual animals and as such we often base our standards of physical attractiveness on cues entirely unrelated to basic evolutionary requirements. We may find a particular woman attractive because her squint suggests bookishness. Another woman may have a beauty-mark that brings to mind some actress for whom we once longed, even though she is otherwise entirely dissimilar. Long-hair may remind a man of a painting from the Tate Gallery he once admired. These non-obvious, non-universal physical cues generally suggest that the woman will be the “sort of person” with whom we would be happy, either in the long-term or short-term.

Physical appeal, as with the other indexes, is dramatically enhanced or degraded by observer bias. For example, I have always found very slender women slightly unattractive, particularly if they are tall. There is no obvious rational reason for this; it is simply a subjective bias. Similarly, I have a positive bias to short and curvy women, which is why I find velvetpage so ultra-bodaciously cute.

It is important to note that this index is specifically designed to rate appearance in repose. That is to say “static beauty,” or what may be seen of a woman in a photograph. Static beauty is far from being the largest element of feminine allure. It is simply the most immediately obvious.

Animation (or “Liveliness”)
Animation is the least tangible of Beauty factors. When I talk about Animation, I refer to entire bearing of a woman and the manner in which it expresses her drive and outlook on life. It is hard to quantify this. Animation is the outward expression of the inner life. We have all met a woman who possessed static beauty, but who had an ugly soul. We’ve all had an initial positive reaction quickly sour when we were exposed to the inner life of a woman – or indeed any person.

I hope my friend and fellow Sanguine booth-jockey shavastak will forgive me for using her as a positive example at this point. In her journal biography, shavastak describes herself as “6' tall, beefy (muscular *and* fat), short brown hair, usually blue eyes, rather butch.” I think she would agree with me if I were to suggest that this description does not fall within the ordinary parameters of feminine beauty as presented in society at large.

However, in that capsule description shavastak is describing herself in repose, perhaps as she sees herself in photographs, or in the mirror. When she is engaged in something that takes her interest – such as describing a book or movie she likes – her features are enlivened by an inner passion for her subject, one that is very attractive. This is an example of the quality of Animation at work. When velvetpage takes about things she really cares about – Elizabeth, writing, even crochet, her features are likewise enlivened in an extremely fetching manner.

Of course, this quality is again subject to observer bias, dependent on the observer’s opinion of the source of Animation in a given woman. For example, I find it attractive when women talk passionately about Dr. Who. Curiously, some men find this unappealing. These men are probably Republicans.

Fashionableness
Fashion is the most ephemeral element of attraction. It refers to the manner in which a woman chooses to attire or adorn herself. Like every other element, it is subjective. This is because Fashion is a form of advertising. It serves as a short-hand means of expressing a general outlook on life. A woman who shops at Sears for serviceable clothing likely has a very different world-view from one who spends hours at a leatherworker’s stall looking for a studded choker that’s “just right.” If a man finds a particular lifestyle or philosophy amenable to his own, he will likely be most attracted to a woman who dresses in a way that identifies her with that lifestyle or philosophy.

Particularly shallow observers have been known to pursue a woman based entirely on her wardrobe. When I was in high-school, one of the otherwise plainest girls took pains to cultivate her wardrobe, becoming the perfect “punk.” She had a number of very active suitors, though many of them were short-term affairs. Young men looking for a “cool punk girl” were attracted to her, but often found after time that her Animation and Attractiveness in Repose indexes did not otherwise appeal to them.

And there you have it. Pyat’s Theory of Feminine Appeal and the Rational Adjudgment of Same.

I am not responsible for any injury sustained during the application of this theory. And, since I was making it up as I went along, I also refuse to accept responsibility for any logical fallacies, implied misogyny, or inconsistencies in the text.

Comments

[pyat.livejournal.com]

I smell good enough to know you smell real purdy!

:)

[velvetpage.livejournal.com]

Thanks, but allow me to prove my point.

Do you remember the last time you noticed I was wearing perfume, without seeing me put it on?

[pyat.livejournal.com]

*tries a desperate gamble*

Uh.... you wear perfume everyday, of course! Yes!

No?

:)

[velvetpage.livejournal.com]

No.















But I'm going to let you off the hook. I can't remember either. In fact, since my sense of smell is actually worse than yours, I hardly ever wear perfume.