I've never bothered looking at either thread until now, but since it came up, I went and looked through every page of the "Hottest Chicks" thread, then went and looked through every page of the "Beautiful Men" thread over in PLEBA. And I'd have to say the "Beautiful Men" aren't a very diverse lot either--only two nonwhite men in the whole 24 pages for example, and for the most part not even remotely "typical" looking guys in terms of face and body. And the very few who aren't exceptionally conventionally attractive aren't some ordinary guy off the street--they're classic iconographic types in some other way, guitar gods etc. To the extent that either thread is meant to uphold some kind of "standard" about what's attractive, it's not a standard the average person of either sex could ever hope to live up to.
The thing about
both of these threads is, they're about FANTASY, not statements as to What I Expect And Demand Anyone I Would Deign To Go Out With Must Be Like. My guess is that most of the men posting in Hottest Chicks in fact have or have had quite "ordinary" looking, not-at-all-famous-or-celebrated partners whom they adore(d) and are/were very happy with, and that most of the women posting in Beautiful Men have or have had the same. Playboy is not meant to be a prospective girlfriend directory. Why grant this kind of stuff more power than it deserves? Most people of either sex are never going to be admired, envied or sought after by large numbers of people--that's just reality. It's such a waste and a shame to chronically beat up on yourself for failing to "achieve" that, when you already have friends, family, coworkers and maybe a partner who love, appreciate and respect you for what you are, even if they let you down sometimes, as all people do.
I think so much of this self-loathing comes from fear that you'll never be "truly" admired and desired by someone of the opposite sex, and it's just so hard to speak convincingly to that fear. It definitely is true that conventionally attractive people of both sexes get more initial interest and this can be painful to accept, but at the end of the day that's just the vain side of human nature talking (on both sides usually). "Beautiful" or not, "successful" or not, you're not going to win anyone's love or hold their interest for very long if your personality doesn't attract them too. Looks and success are a lot easier to quantify than "personality" though and in some ways that actually makes them less threatening as "standards"--unfortunately, this also makes it easier to fault yourself if some hoped-for connection doesn't work out, because it gives you something tangible to compare yourself to and come up short. Which is just wrongheaded thinking from the beginning; love generally fails (or fails to happen) for far more fickle and complex reasons than the people involved not "deserving" each other in some quantifiable way. We could all make out our own lists of "What I
really find attractive in a man/woman" or "Why I
really love my partner" etc., but these things never capture the reality, not even close; invariably the resulting list could just as easily apply to any one of millions of people, most of whom we wouldn't in truth feel much of anything for, not even after a hundred dates.
It would be reassuring, if maybe also depressing in some cases, if these kinds of lists lived up to their premise, but they never do. I am happily married and most days endlessly grateful for it, but there's absolutely nothing about me that makes me more innately "deserving" of it than anyone else, that much I'm sure of. I am no one special.
, but I don't go out and compare any or all men to them or have unrealistic expectations because of it. I wonder how (and how much) men and women are different in that regard.
