The way and degree to which people in different cultures consider a metaphor to be appropriate, acceptable, or apt has been the subject of controversy in recent decades. According to structure-mapping models, metaphors are understood by mapping relations from the base domain to relations in the target domain. However, previous research lacks literature on cross-cultural contexts and differences in the degree of acceptability of metaphors in different cultures. To address this gap, in this study we examined cross-cultural differences in metaphor aptness among participants from three different cultures. We developed two questionnaires, an acceptability judgment-task and a parallel-relation test using the COCA (English), PLDB (Persian), and KorAP (German) corpus databases. The results suggest striking differences in the acceptance of a metaphor in different cultures where the vehicle of a metaphor is not present. It is suggested that metaphors are considered apt through the process of categorizing the salient features that are considered structurally similar. This idea is partially consistent with studies that support class-inclusion models which suggest that hearers place the topic of a metaphor in a category in which the vehicle fits. The absence of a domain (whether topic or vehicle) may lead to unacceptability of a metaphor. Lack of cultural background in the use of these words hinders the process of finding a salient feature between them and the counter domain in a metaphor to form an appropriate alignment.