EXCLUSIVE OFFER - WATCH CAMSODA GIRLS LIVE FOR FREE!!! - CLICK HERE
  • We have blocked access to our website from TOR nodes and a datacenter in France (some VPN connections to the country might be faulty) due to abusive behaviour. If things quiet down - they'll be enabled again in a few days/weeks.

Discussion Butterface Thread

Sort by date Sort by reaction score
Barron Mann said:
imma be real and this is of course overstated at this point but I wouldn’t miss this thread if it were to be taken down 😭 literally 5% of ppl posted here have ugly faces and most of that percentage are from ppl reiterating Sara Jay lmao
Click to expand...
I am actually shocked this thread is still up. If a girl is making money off her looks, she probably isn't a Butterface.

It just seems to be trashing girls people don't like. And then White Knights riding in to defend M'Lady when she gets posted on here 😂
 
OtisDiego said:
You are such a neckbeard holyshit. Did she not respond to your PMs?
Click to expand...
I feel like most of the girls posted here by dudes are just cause they wouldn't pay attention to them or respond to their DMs. It's just neckbeards getting revenge on an internet forum.

But every once in a while we get a Sara Jay and Gabbie Hanna.
 
Last edited:
A thread like this was never really gonna work out since it's pretty subjective. There are literally dudes out there into straight up crackheads or 80+ year old women so what one person finds a butterface someone else might find a 10/10.
 
Demon_King said:
A thread like this was never really gonna work out since it's pretty subjective. There are literally dudes out there into straight up crackheads or 80+ year old women so what one person finds a butterface someone else might find a 10/10.
Click to expand...
I see this repeated like a mantra itt but it is not a unique sentiment. There are definitely objective beauty standards though, beauty may be relative due to our placing it on an ordinal type scale but calling it entirely subjective is simply wrong (not that you did but others have). The easiest example is facial symmetry, which is a sign of genetic health and hardwired into us to perceive as more attractive/desirable than asymmetry. Eye spacing is another, too close or too distant are signs of MRDD. I'll stop there but you get the point. The question of beauty is different than whether you would smash, the latter being more a question of how thirsty a person currently is, and again being ordinal in nature it is relative so even if you cast a wider net for the category of "beautiful" there is still a hierarchy within that category which you'll find people agree on with minor variations. Whether or not some people use the term beautiful more loosely is a sign of personal standards, not proof that it is entirely subjective.

That said:
I will reiterate Sarah Jay
Richelle Ryan
Lyra Lockhart

Additonally:
Joanna Angel
Piper Perri
Kenzie Reeves
Harmony Wonder
Coco Lovelock

I wish I could remember more, I have some really good examples but I'm drawing blanks on the names.
 
Just seconding this - beauty, attractiveness and what arouses a person are different things.
Beauty in a way has to do not only with what one finds personally arousing/attractive, but with what one intuits as being percieved as beautiful for other people too. One might not know whether an exact, particular individual thinks the Elgin marbles or the paintings of Van Gogh are beautiful, but they are generally agreed upon as being beautiful. That's what people mean when they say "beauty is a social construct" - often what we fiind beautiful is enmeshed with social norms. That's why one might be irresistibly attracted to say, big noses, a bit of a belly or a weird face, but feel kind of "hmm, that's not something I'd say out loud" for fear of mockery.
The "butterface" concept is that it implies (at least for me) that the person in question is strangely attractive and/or arousing even when they might be quite far from what people generally think constitutes a "beautiful person"; because "beauty" is often reduced to a face (symettrical, proportionate features) and a particular spectrum of body types as gtx980ti put it, it comes off as strange/uncanny to feel attracted to things outside of that norm; also we tend to conflate having a beautiful face and having beauty everywhere else - the shock in realizing that a plain face might hide a gorgeous body is part of the fun/arousal of it, I guess.
If one just wants to call a person "ugly" or any other thing, one could easily do that; it wouldn't require a new concept. One can say a person lost all attractiveness by being and acting like a enourmous turd, but that does not make a person ugly. Doing that ("thats an uggo lol") because of some perceived slight is sort of immature.

TL;DR: beauty, attractiveness and what arouses a person are different things. In a Venn diagram, Butterfaces hit two of the three - arousing and somehow attratcive, but not necessarily beautiful as people in general would find it.
 
I mostly agree with you, I'm actually surprised to have received a thoughtful reply of decent length and maturity.
askaska said:
That's what people mean when they say "beauty is a social construct" - often what we fiind beautiful is enmeshed with social norms.
Click to expand...

To put a finer point on this, there are organic and artificial "norms" with the latter being a more modern phenomenon due to mass media and the understanding of mass psychology. Some trends/norms are created artificially and propagated with a certain agenda in mind typically ideological and/or utilitarian for the purposes of soft social engineering (the Catholic church being one example since it was based on a foreign religion). Organic norms simply arise as a culture develops and represent a people's nature and their interaction/reaction to each other and their environment. (Obviously there are feedback loops as well but I don't want this to turn into a novel) Without keeping that difference in perspective it's easy to transpose causation. As an example, the "beautiful/healthy at any size" nonsense is an example of an artificial norm/construct being pushed top-down and intended to change what is seen as beautiful. Exceptions or deviations exist for most things (such as paraphilia, etc.) and by definition are abnormal, as such it is not normal for people to find; squinty eyed pig faces, multiple chins, lumpy misshapen box or trapezoidal asses, and dunlaps/fupas; beautiful. The progression is reversed with organic norms; youth and femininity, hourglass figures (for women), etc.; are seen as beautiful (for good and natural reasons) and thus established the norm, not the other way around. "Beautiful at any size" is a social construct intended to change norms and thus change what is seen as beautiful artificially, and in the opposite progression as above. There are many examples, it's actually interesting especially when you see how so much is equivocated and obfuscated with relativism or erroneously categorized as "entirely subjective" as a means of dismissal.

Hopefully that wasn't too long, but it is an important distinction and I wasn't entirely sure what your position was on that hence why I said I mostly agreed with what you wrote.
 
gtx980ti said:
Hopefully that wasn't too long, but it is an important distinction and I wasn't entirely sure what your position was on that hence why I said I mostly agreed with what you wrote.
Click to expand...
I think some stuff is quite close to "natural" as far as beauty goes - especially when they are related to health; beyond that there's a spectrum of things that are generally thought of as beautiful by many (but not all) societies/cultures; and then there's things that are artifiicially constructed, or emerge through some combination of external factors, be them economic, social, cultural, religious, etc. Not everything is "natural", not everything is "constructed"; in both cases the basis for the standards are often obfuscated. The breadth of this spectrum of beauty might be very narrow or very large, but by definition it cannot encompass everything, otherwise the concept itself (and by itself) stops making sense. With context everything can be made beautiful; without it many things won't.
A sort of "body neutrality" i.e. to not let one's own body perception/judgement - be they positive or negative - overwhelm every other sphere of life and be a burden or weapon seems to me to be a better alternative to what's out there around terminally online people.
Generally we don't think of the basis for our tastes, but it's an interesting thing to think about and talk about. haha. Thank you for the response, it was a iinteresting read!
Back to butterfaces; to me a big part of the appeal is that when they hit the right spots their peculiarities grow on me; I know rationally they aren't beauty queens, but they're right in the spot where they are physically attractive enough and seem approachable enough to kick off the right chain reactions. It's fun!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom