I don’t think many 80-year-olds are objectively good looking. It's not fair to judge the people who stay together for love and not for physical attraction past a certain age.

> that tells random strangers they are ugly

I don't go around telling people my lover's weaknesses, but that's how statistics are made.

There is no such thing as "objectively good looking", beauty is a subjective thing based on past experiences.

Come on man, why do people say this? Do you actually think this? I understand there might be some disagreements or edge cases but it's really pretty close to objective

Nah. The most beautiful women I've ever had the pleasure of meeting were unremarkable in photos, but in-person radiated an ineffable energy that made it impossible to keep my eyes off of them. When a couple of octogenarians look at each other and describe each other as attractive, that energy is what they're talking about. Framing attractiveness as mostly objective belies inexperience.

That’s why I said “good looking” and “physical attraction” rather than generically “beautiful”. No doubt people can be “beautiful in person” but still “objectively ugly”

> No doubt people can be “beautiful in person” but still “objectively ugly”

“Ugly” is inherently subjective.

I mean, i think most people's definition of attractiveness is different from the societal orthodox view of what is attractive (e.g. your average movie star). That doesn't mean i dont know what people are talking about when they say these sorts of things.

Objective is probably a bad choice of words because in addition to not matching individual likes, the societal "orthodox" view varries by culture a lot.

OK, can you tell me, objectively, how attractive Tom Holland and Hailee Steinfeld are?

I can tell you objectively how tall they are, if one is taller than the other, and precisely how much. Height is an objective measurement.

What are the attractiveness measurements for Tom and Hailee? Which is more attractive, and by how much? What is the scale? What are the reference points? How are the instruments used to measure it calibrated?

If aliens showed up on earth, how would you explain this objective measurement to them? How would aliens rate on it? How would their native measure of objective attractiveness compare to ours? In comparison to how their measures of length, or time, or temperature, or mass, would.

> Which is more attractive, and by how much? What is the scale?

No scale, yet we have plenty of beauty contests, so I'd start there for an answer. Humans are regularly compared to others. We have different tastes but, socially, "beauty" is intended as an average.

Art studies could also point you in the direction of "objective beauty"

> We have different tastes but, socially, "beauty" is intended as an average.

That sounds like a subjective comparison then, not an objective one.

Edit: If people were to judge beauty subjectively, rather than objectively (as you claim they do), how would that be different?

Sure, let's rephrase it to be more accurate, despite everyone knowing what they meant by that phrase anyway, and this just being nitpicking.

"Objectively good looking" means "someone that a heavy majority of people would subjectively find extremely attractive".

I think the parent was simply implying that beauty has a particular kind of flavor in long-lasting relationships -- the kind where you see the young beauty through the layers of age.

You seem to be saying when people say their partners are beautiful, they're either lying or telling the truth. Ok.

The point is that memories fade in with newer perceptions.

Beauty is subjective, but most would agree romantic relationships form on the basis of one seeing some beauty in the other, not ugliness, or not too much ugliness at least. What is felt past that is not the current perceptions, its those along with a history of feelings.

There is some survival basis here but since this is not true: looking at the partner I met at 40 I see the beauty that s/he was or could have 20 year earlier. It stands right to reach such conclusion: a 19y old is not a 40y old and impacts the chance of a lasting relationship. all other parameters being equal the 19y case is superior to lasting if beauty does matter.

Another interesting bit: we are likely to have a more positive perception of the ugly we know or believe used to be a beauty. We are gene selecting species like all others in the end

As I get older, all the people I've remained friends with and kept in regular close contact with since we were all teenagers/early 20s together, don't look as old to me as other people our age. I still see parts of the teen/20s versions of them in their current faces.

But when I meet someone new our age, or even 5 years younger, I don't see that part of them because I never knew it, and they look older to me. It's weird to think that how old that person looks, that's how old we all must look, really.

(Unless by some weird coincidence, all my friends and I do just happen to look 10-15 years younger than 95% of other people our age. Which would be very comforting, but is so implausible that I can't bring myself to believe it, no matter what my brain tells me my eyes are seeing. Getting old is weird.)

Your comment is talking about age, but the person above you is talking about attractiveness. As I get older, the type of woman that I'm attracted to also gets older. Nowadays, a mature demeanor and strands of graying hair are sexy. I look back on photos of my college girlfriend and think about what awkward, immature children we were.