Are these categorisations subjective or objective?Yes I know beauty is subjective, but the relative definitions of these words and which physiognomy fits in which category
Yes. Cute is more youthful like the teenage neighbor girl you had a crush on. Beautiful is the bimbo you see at a club with a lot of eyeshadow and that piercing gaze. Cute has softer features. Sexy has more Nordic features.
>>18556607Subjective-ish with 2 tbsp of objectivety. You have a phenotype. We all do. A man can either have a masculine "sexy" face, a pretty "cute" face, or an aesthetically pleasing "beautiful" face. Same goes for women. All the guys I know prefer cute or beautiful over sexy. I've actually found the same to be true in the real world with respect to what women prefer, which I find somewhat odd. Maybe it's due to birth control pills.
It doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things. An attractive face is an attractive face. Other things matter more once you cross the mass appeal threshold.
>>18556607The "sexy" ones just look bogged and like only boomers would be attracted to them
>>18556642Holy fox and grapes.
>>18556607
>>18556643They're right though. Advertisers with access to big data know what people like which is why shit sold to fat boomers has "sexy" women and shit sold to anyone under 50 has "cute" or "beautiful"
As long as you have an actual life (friends, career, real hobbies, knows how to clean, cook, groom, etc. etc., common sense shit) and as long you're not fat, you'll have a fair shot at dating, like memes aside folks. I have friends with bordeline deformed faces that check these points and they all have healthy neurotypoical girlfriends. The whole cute vs sexy vs beautiful is not going to be ground-breaking for your sexlife (which is non-existent at this point in time). Male models look like ordinary people under ordinary light with no retouching applied. They're human fucking beings with all that it entails, including mood-swings, weird smells, loose skin, shit, snakes, etc.
>>18556643Ok roastie
