'She's not THAT pretty'

beks101

Have you ever said it? Have you ever had it said about you?

This thread was inspired by a few of the comments I read on the 'deadly looking' thread but didn't want to hijack...:)

I'm sure it's been done to death, the good old female-to-female begrudgery, but it's always an interesting one!

I went to college with an exceptionally good looking girl, absolutely stunning, she'd walk into a room and every head, male and female, would turn. Let's call her Sarah...she became commonly known as 'hot Sarah' around campus, something that even she would joke about. Yet over the four years in college, I lost count of the amount of times I heard other women, both friends and acquaintances, saying 'she's not really that pretty...' and then go on to validate their argument with 'too skinny', 'too conventionally good looking, it's boring...', 'too mainstream', 'no distinguished features' etc.

When I look back, it's almost hilarious that anyone would debate this girl's attractiveness, it was just off the charter, but (and I say this with great shame) at the time I remember feeling almost compelled to join in. Naturally I'm still jealous as hell when I see an absolute knock-out of a woman, but at least now I'm comfortable saying 'she's amazing-looking' instead of denying the very-obvious in the first place.

I think it relates to all aspects of appearance though, the next big one (pun unintended) being weight. A few years back I lost about two stone, was a size six, not skin and bone at my short height but fairly slim and petite. A lot of women didn't like that one. I went from being the girl that every girl loved to complete hostility upon meeting female strangers/acquaintances and even some friends. I got glares and nasty comments, with one friend calling me 'Anny-rexic' to my face (hilarious) and others saying I was 'obviously starving myself' or 'too thin it's disgusting' behind my back. In hindsight it came off too fast but I looked the best I've ever looked, certainly nowhere near a walking skeleton.

Why do we do this? Have you ever had it done to you? Have you ever been isolated because other females can't handle the 'competition' when you are around, or even lost friends because you became 'too much of a threat'? How did you learn to stop doing it, or how have you learned to cope with it?

Nervous Wreck

The whole thing comes down to one word: Insecurity. Most people who say things like that are just saying it because they know that they're not as pretty/thin/whatever themself. The other thing is attention. Lots of girls are just as stunning as the girls they defame but the new girl always stands out and getting pushed off a pedastal to make way for someone new and pretty can be quite upsetting. Generally, most people (IME anyway) get over the whole buzz as they get older and more secure in themselves. Unfortunately, some don't, and that's a real shame. Never something one should worry about really though. Just the way some people are.

Catari Jaguar

Well I think girls are hot and I'll point them out in the street with my boyfriend and vice versa. If she's pretty then I'll say it, but if I don't think she is then I'll say it. There are a ton of girls that wouldn't be my type that I just think are boring or skinny or whatever but I can see their attraction to people (like Cheryl Cole for instance, give me Kimberly Walsh any day)

Lia_lia

Pics?

Pittens

The hating on Karen Gillian is a case in point.

Catari Jaguar

Pittens wrote: »

The hating on Karen Gillian is a case in point.

Huh?

Pittens

New Doctor Who sidekick, disliked for her bad acting largely ( although not always) by female Dr. Who fans.

Catari Jaguar

Pittens wrote: »

New Doctor Who sidekick, disliked for her bad acting largely ( although not always) by female Dr. Who fans.

Is that because she's pretty or because she gets to work alongside a man that they crush on? Maybe they don't like red heads??? Did they dislike Billie Piper?

Although, you'd think with Twilight mania and the R-Patz obessision girls would be jealous of Kristen Stewart, but instead they idolise her and wanted her to get with him in real life. Weird.

Pittens

Pittens wrote: »

New Doctor Who sidekick, disliked for her bad acting largely ( although not always) by female Dr. Who fans.

But she's awesome! AND she's very pretty. I was stunned when I saw her pic in some mag

Although, you'd think with Twilight mania and the R-Patz obessision girls would be jealous of Kristen Stewart

She'd be ok if she wasn't looking pouty/emo, I'm a bit tired of seeing her face all over the buses...

Junior D

cherub rock wrote: »

Well I think girls are hot and I'll point them out in the street with my boyfriend and vice versa. If she's pretty then I'll say it, but if I don't think she is then I'll say it. There are a ton of girls that wouldn't be my type that I just think are boring or skinny or whatever but I can see their attraction to people (like Cheryl Cole for instance, give me Kimberly Walsh any day)

Ha great minds think alike

I've said it. Not out of jealousy, but I'm a straightforward person. I'd be the first to point out a stunning looking girl, but sometimes people are raving about someone and I just don't see it. I think a lot of people are taken in by blond hair, and call someone stunning because they're blonde and blue eyed when they actually have a very average face. I know quite a lot of girls like that - some of them dyed their hair dark and then people started saying they looked plain, so they were hardly stunning in the first place, surely? Facial features appeal to me over hair colour. I wouldn't normally have a preference for ginger haired people, but I saw Karen Gillen in the flesh a couple of months ago and she's gorgeous, and would be with any hair colour/clothes.

I do agree though, that a lot of women do do the whole 'she's not that pretty' thing just to be bitchy, especially when accompanied by hostility towards the person. I totally believe the story about 'Sarah' in college, I've seen it happen in my college with a girl who was a professional model. She was a lovely girl but people didn't like her because she was pretty. I think it's almost easier to be a plain looking women in terms of being accepted by other women. I will never understand why it's OK to be a bitch to someone because they're better looking than you.

seenitall

beks101 wrote: »

Have you ever said it? Have you ever had it said about you?

This thread was inspired by a few of the comments I read on the 'deadly looking' thread but didn't want to hijack...:)

I'm sure it's been done to death, the good old female-to-female begrudgery, but it's always an interesting one!

I went to college with an exceptionally good looking girl, absolutely stunning, she'd walk into a room and every head, male and female, would turn. Let's call her Sarah...she became commonly known as 'hot Sarah' around campus, something that even she would joke about. Yet over the four years in college, I lost count of the amount of times I heard other women, both friends and acquaintances, saying 'she's not really that pretty...' and then go on to validate their argument with 'too skinny', 'too conventionally good looking, it's boring...', 'too mainstream', 'no distinguished features' etc.

When I look back, it's almost hilarious that anyone would debate this girl's attractiveness, it was just off the charter, but (and I say this with great shame) at the time I remember feeling almost compelled to join in. Naturally I'm still jealous as hell when I see an absolute knock-out of a woman, but at least now I'm comfortable saying 'she's amazing-looking' instead of denying the very-obvious in the first place.

I think it relates to all aspects of appearance though, the next big one (pun unintended) being weight. A few years back I lost about two stone, was a size six, not skin and bone at my short height but fairly slim and petite. A lot of women didn't like that one. I went from being the girl that every girl loved to complete hostility upon meeting female strangers/acquaintances and even some friends. I got glares and nasty comments, with one friend calling me 'Anny-rexic' to my face (hilarious) and others saying I was 'obviously starving myself' or 'too thin it's disgusting' behind my back. In hindsight it came off too fast but I looked the best I've ever looked, certainly nowhere near a walking skeleton.

Why do we do this? Have you ever had it done to you? Have you ever been isolated because other females can't handle the 'competition' when you are around, or even lost friends because you became 'too much of a threat'? How did you learn to stop doing it, or how have you learned to cope with it?

Yeah, this thread is very similar to the other one; I kind of just vented my opinion on there, on the way women's insecurites work themselves out through certain celebrities, so I am done for now.

Women's passive-agressive jealousy (bitchiness) gives me headaches.

RacoonQueen

Or maybe different people just have different ideals of what is attractive in another woman - same as they do with men?

rainbow kirby

RacoonQueen wrote: »

Or maybe different people just have different ideals of what is attractive in another woman - same as they do with men?

Agree with this. We all have our own opinions of what constitutes "attractive", and this can differ quite considerably from person to person.

ztoical

RacoonQueen wrote: »

Or maybe different people just have different ideals of what is attractive in another woman - same as they do with men?

Was just about to post the same thing. I'm not mad about men with hairy chests but know several friends who think it's super hot and attractive. Now not saying in the OP's example there wasn't some people saying it due to having issues with either the girl in question or themselves but you'd be hard to find one person that every single person says is pretty/attractive.

As I went to art college [actually two different art colleges] we'd often talk about how people looked from an artistic view point and talk about how some people wouldn't be straight up pretty when you look at them but they've got interesting features that not everyone fill find attractive but certain people will find very attractive. As an artist I find the majority of people that I'm told are 'pretty'/'good looking' I don't rate at all mainly cus if I was to draw them I wouldn't find them interesting as they tend to be very blah. The first art school I went to hired life drawing models were ever it could find them and we got some really interesting people who might not be seen as pretty but were interesting to look at and draw. Second art school had a firm they got their life drawing models from and these models were actual models who did fashion modeling and they were just really crap to draw, bland on top of bland.

Sound Bite

Think its a awful thing to say whether its true or not.
The only reason someone say it IMO is out of jealousy.

Sound Bite

Sound Bite wrote: »

Think its a awful thing to say whether its true or not.
The only reason someone say it IMO is out of jealousy.

Total rubbish. How does genuinely not finding someone attractive make you jealous? Being a bitch to someone because they're pretty, yeah that stems from insecurity and jealousy, but commenting on their looks is commenting on their looks. Would you think it was an 'awful thing to say' if a woman said a man wasn't THAT handsome?

Pittens

[quote=[Deleted User];66717888]Total rubbish. How does genuinely not finding someone attractive make you jealous? Being a bitch to someone because they're pretty, yeah that stems from insecurity and jealousy, but commenting on their looks is commenting on their looks. Would you think it was an 'awful thing to say' if a woman said a man wasn't THAT handsome?[/QUOTE]

Is it really genuine?

Eve_Dublin

I´ve vented my opinion on this on the other thread but I would like to ad that I think a lot of it stems from the pressure on young women to be the most beautiful. I readan article a few years ago from a feminist writer from the sixties (I will try and find it) that back in the day, women were more accepting of the fact that they weren´t the most stunning woman in the world. That there was the pretty girl and then there was everyone else. Film stars were film stars, they weren´t like you and me but nowadays you have young girls comparing themselves to the unattainable and trying to emulate these famous beauties by starving themselves, slathering themselves in too much fake tan, dying their hair, caking on too much make up...so much so that they´re completely changing their physical appearance in the quest for supposed "beauty".

Seenitall you said in the last thread that you wouldn´t be jealous of anyone famous (I would be the same except for my riidiculous jealousy of Scarlett Johansson! I can explain....long story...let´s just say I´d an ex who was a little TOO obsessed by her). Famous women have millions to spend on themselves and the average Irish girl is never going to compare so there´s just no point but we have companies using these women´s images to market their products and subliminally making us believe that we, the average lady on the street, can look like these women. It´s all very sinister so honestly, I wouldn´t be so hard on girls like this (although it does irritate me)....there is a REAL pressure on us to be beautiful and if your in anyway insecure and particularly when you´re a young, impressionable woman, then it´s hard to be rational and not let the jealousy surface.

Eve_Dublin

Pittens wrote: »

Is it really genuine?

Of course it´s genuine in a lot of cases. Not every woman in the world is a neurotic ball of insecurity, contrary to popular belief.

Eve_Dublin

Eve_Dublin wrote: »

Of course it´s genuine in a lot of cases. Not every woman in the world is a neurotic ball of insecurity, contrary to popular belief.

Why would they be bothered to comment on someones looks if they weren't remarkable so?

Eve_Dublin

Moonbaby wrote: »

Why would they be bothered to comment on someones looks if they weren't remarkable so?

If I commented on someone not being a particularly good football player, would it be jealousy? Why is it only commenting on looks that´s seen as "jealousy" and not just stating a fact? Yep, some girls say it out of jealousy but some girls are simply stating a fact. It´s probably not a nice thing to say but it doesn´t ALWAYS stem from jealousy.

Pittens

Of course it´s genuine in a lot of cases. Not every woman in the world is a neurotic ball of insecurity, contrary to popular belief.

It is never genuine. We all know who are the good looking women. It is really decided by men. if the vast majority of hetrosexual men ( and homosexual women) think a woman pretty, then she is. And that is not getting into the why of the thing: which is actual easy enough. ( eyes, bone structure, skin, teeth, smile, etc.).

So if plain jane is the only person to find a fantastic looking celeb merely alright looking, if she just doesn't see it, then we can take that as jealousy rather than her actually seeing things different from the rest of the human population.

Similarly, although you never see or hear this, a plain Joe cant really get away with not seeing the whole fuss about Brad Pitt.

he can't go around with a beer belly, acne, and bad teeth and proclaim " I am Just not seeing the Brad Pitt thing. What is every body else thinking?"

Of course you never see a guy react like that? If you did, what would you think?

Pittens

Why is it only commenting on looks that´s seen as "jealousy" and not just stating a fact?

Becuase it is not a fact. The women singled out are clearly good looking - in fact that is often why they are famous.

You can say Messi is a crap player. But he isnt.

ztoical

Moonbaby wrote: »

Why would they be bothered to comment on someones looks if they weren't remarkable so?

because the fact they aren't remarkable is in it's self interesting? Maybe I can't look at this objectively as I pretty much spend every day looking at people and drawing them - just today I drew half a dozen people on my way to my studio and as a result of having to look so closely at people I've found that most people are interesting and have things about them that make them attractive in different ways but I find what alot of people think of as making someone pretty [nice shape face, good hair, good skin, etc] I find very unremarkable.

People actions also help shape your view and opinion of them but it's not always jealousy that's the major emotion. For example I saw a girl that would have been considered very pretty on the tube earlier today. I watched her eat some food then drop the empty wrapper on the floor of the train with out a second thought [been kicking myself all day for not calling her on it] She still looked the same after littering but I found myself looking at her and seeing the flaws more then the pretty.

Eve_Dublin

I would never say Messi was a great footballer!! Are you mad?

I would agree that yes, the beautiful women of the world that are considered as such ARE beautiful....no doubt about it BUT (again) there ARE exceptions...those that exist in the "grey" zone and that´s the women I´M talking about.

women know the beauty secrets of other women. We know that some of the supposed beauties out there have had a lot of surgury and we know the powers of make up. An average Plain Jane can look "stunning" with the right make up, clothes, etc. I´ve a pretty good eye for guessing what a woman looks like minus the slappage.

It doesn´t matter if you stick up a ropey picture of Megan Fox who women AND men have commented on how she is "not really that good looking"....fact of the matter is the woman is twenty million better looking than your average woman on the street even in a ropey photo. She has a good base...super cheekbones, sexy eyes etc.Those comments stem from jealousy BUT there´s women out there who are very much in the "grey" zone.

Let me see...Britney Spears for example....NOT as good looking as everyone says in my opinion but she has a fantastic team of stylists on her side.

Edit: just to add, the comment above did not stem from jealousy. I was simply stating a fact. If you don´t believe me, then I can´t convince you other wise.

ztoical

Pittens wrote: »

So if plain jane is the only person to find a fantastic looking celeb merely alright looking, if she just doesn't see it, then we can take that as jealousy rather than her actually seeing things different from the rest of the human population.

So if a super attractive woman finds a 'fantastic' looking celeb merely alright looking then her opinion is more valid then a plain jane cus she couldn't be jealous?

What makes someone fantastic looking? Isn't the whole point that different people have different ideas of what 'fantastic' is? Not all celebs look the same so surely your going to find some that you think as better looking then others. Lets say for example I think Tilda Swinton is really good looking and that Megan Foxx is alright looking. Now Megan Foxx has been voted best looking or something by FHM and Tilda Swinton has not but clearly from an aesthetic view point I find Swinton's appearance to be more attractive then Foxx...does that mean I'm jealous of Megan Foxx or that simply I've got different tastes?

Pittens

ztoical wrote: »

So if a super attractive woman finds a 'fantastic' looking celeb merely alright looking then her opinion is more valid then a plain jane cus she couldn't be jealous?

What makes someone fantastic looking? Isn't the whole point that different people have different ideas of what 'fantastic' is? Not all celebs look the same so surely your going to find some that you think as better looking then others. Lets say for example I think Tilda Swinton is really good looking and that Megan Foxx is alright looking. Now Megan Foxx has been voted best looking or something by FHM and Tilda Swinton has not but clearly from an aesthetic view point I find Swinton's appearance to be more attractive then Foxx...does that mean I'm jealous of Megan Foxx or that simply I've got different tastes?

Yeah, they are all 9 's or 10s. You are not saying you don't see either as good looking. Anyway to the first question about whether the suer attractive woman would be more genuine by knocking the looks of another woman. No. But I don't really see that.

Pittens

Pittens wrote: »

Is it really genuine?

Of course it is. Why is it fine to say you don't like a wine that everyone else seems to like, or you don't like a singer everyone else seems to like, but saying a woman isn't that pretty makes you jealous? It's stating an opinion.

And nothing is 'decided by men' :rolleyes: It's not like a woman is pretty or she isn't, is it? I hear way more men than women debating over women's looks. And why are you assuming a woman who says another woman isn't pretty is a plain jane? That's a hell of a lot of projection there.

Like Eve Dublin says, women can 'see through' other women very easily. If a girl is only 'hot' because she has dyed blond hair and layers of make-up, I can see that immediately. I have loads of model friends who you might not look twice at on the street because they don't dress up, but they have a great bone structure and figure.

I really don't understand why my boyfriend can say he doesn't find Jennifer Lopez or Anna Kournikova attractive, and that's fine, but if I were to say the same, it means I'm jealous.

ztoical

Pittens wrote: »

Yeah, they are all 9 's or 10s. You are not saying you don't see either as good looking.

Actually I am saying that I don't think one is good looking. I don't rate megan foxx as being all that and I know loads of people who think Tilda Swinton is very odd looking and not attractive at all. It doesn't mean anyone is jealous just that people have different tastes. There are loads of celebs out there I just don't get what people find attractive about them [olsen twins, most of the cast of twilight etc] I can't possible be jealous of all these people, they just fall into an aesthetic that doesn't appeal to me while I'm sure I can name half a dozen people that others would think are average to below average looks wise in their eyes but who I find very interesting and attractive. I'm not saying any of these people ugly or deformed just that for me they're not that pretty.

Pittens wrote: »

Anyway to the first question about whether the suer attractive woman would be more genuine by knocking the looks of another woman. No. But I don't really see that.

Look harder then cus the only people I see in clubs and pubs knocking other people are pretty girls knocking other pretty girls....those groups are the only ones I put in the 'saying it due to being jealous' group.

Eve_Dublin

Pittens wrote: »

The hating on Karen Gillian is a case in point.

This thread was in After Hours a few weeks ago....do you reckon these MEN are all jealous of her? No? If we do the same then we´re jealous? Hmmm.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055648493&highlight=karen+gillian

metaoblivia

I'm sure I've said it at some point. I've certainly thought it, but I usually keep thoughts like that to myself. It never comes across well when you say it out loud. It always sounds catty and jealous, even if you don't mean it to, you just really happen to think she's not that pretty.

As for whether or not it's been said about me, I'm sure it has. I think it's been said about most women. And some times it may have been jealously and other times the other girl just may not have found me that pretty. When I went into grad school, my class had a lot of women around my age. And while they bonded with each other quite quickly, I kind of got left out, even though I was nice and amiable with them. I just figured that it had more to do with me being on the quiet side.

So, one day in class, we all started talking about interests or something, and when it came my turn to speak, I mentioned I was really into singing when I was younger. And one of the girls said, "Oh really? I thought you would have been a cheerleader," it this really snide way and this entire group of girls broke out laughing. And at that point I realized something else was probably at play. Later on, one of the older women in the class came up to me and said, "You know why they do that, don't you?" And it felt really nice to have another woman recognize it and acknowledge it. Because a lot of times, you're left out there on your own to deal with female begrudgery, and it can be very lonely.

iguana

Pittens wrote: »

New Doctor Who sidekick, disliked for her bad acting largely ( although not always) by female Dr. Who fans.

You are exactly what the OP in the other is about. The bee you have in your bonnet that the only reason people don't like her is jealousy of her looks was exactly what popped into my head when I read the post. A lot of people, men and women, find her character terrible. I know far more men who can't stand Amy than women.

Is Karen Gillan gorgeous? Clearly. I wouldn't go gay for her but I know if my husband was single he sure as hell wouldn't turn her down. But Amy is horrible, the character is a completely awful person and very, very two dimensional. That could be partly down to Gillan's acting, partly down to the writing/direction or a combination of both. I wouldn't judge her acting based on Amy as actors can come across differently when working with different directors.

I love watching gorgeous, strong female characters on tv, especially in science fiction. It doesn't even have to be good sci-fi, I used to adore Max in Dark Angel. I just loved watching her, my husband and I used to watch it on E4 on weekend mornings and it wasn't the storylines that kept us watching. I quite liked Logan too though tbh. But Amy makes my skin crawl, she's just horrid.

Pittens

Is Karen Gillan gorgeous? Clearly. I wouldn't go gay for her but I know if my husband was single he sure as hell wouldn't turn her down. But Amy is horrible, the character is a completely awful person and very, very two dimensional. That could be partly down to Gillan's acting, partly down to the writing/direction or a combination of both. I wouldn't judge her acting based on Amy as actors can come across differently when working with different directors.

See, none of that is true. It is clearly your opinion, she acts her part fine as far as I can see ( better than Tate and Agyeman )and most men in that thread agreed. So, whatever annoys you about her is subconciously some form of jealously. The fact that you dont react like that for all women is neither here, nor there.

What we are talking about here - as the OP says is the phrase "I dont get it, she is not that pretty" as applied to objectively good looking women.

Guys dont do that for Brad Pitt, Johnny Depp et al. So something is up. I dont believe that any of this is "subjective" - looks are largely objective.

Miss Lockhart

Pittens wrote: »

I dont believe that any of this is "subjective" - looks are largely objective.

So are opinions on acting :rolleyes:

iguana

Pittens wrote: »

See, none of that is true. It is clearly your opinion, she acts her part fine as far as I can see ( better than Tate and Agyeman )and most men in that thread agreed. So, whatever annoys you about her is subconciously some form of jealously.

OMG!:pac::pac::pac: I don't quite know how to respond to that. I agree she's miles better than Agyeman, she's a terrible actor, really, really awful. She is however utterly gorgeous, objectively at least equal to Gillan, subjectively if I had to choose one it would be Aygeman. However considering the fact that a lot of people really liked Martha and Aygeman's portrayal, we must both be very jealous of her to criticise her performance.:rolleyes:

And why do almost all of the men I know IRL really not like Amy? Are they actually secret women in men's bodies? Maybe it's because taste is subjective, I think CSI is a stupid programme, many people would disagree. I think Amy is an awful character because I find her seriously two dimensional, there is nothing about her that I connect with. She's my least favourite character on the show ever and certainly I'd list her as one of my least favourites on anything ever.

ztoical

Pittens wrote: »

what we are talking about here - as the OP says is the phrase "I dont get it, she is not that pretty" as applied to objectively good looking women.

The key word there is objectively....who decided what is the standard for a woman to be considered "objectively good looking"? Sure Renaissance painters used maths to figure out what the ideal face should look like but looking at any fashion magazine you'll see loads of different shaped faces and body types...if there's so many different types of people out there how can we say what is good looking to everyone? I can go out to eat and be told by the waiter that everything on the menu tastes good, that doesn't actually mean I will like everything on the menu as it will come down to my own personal taste.

Pittens wrote: »

Guys dont do that for Brad Pitt, Johnny Depp et al. So something is up. I dont believe that any of this is "subjective" - looks are largely objective.

Not comparing like for like here. It's seen as ok for a woman to comment on another woman were as it's not always seen as ok for a straight men to comment on the attractiveness of other men, even if it's just objectively and not in a sexual way. I can say I've plenty of gay male friends who are happy to say they don't find certain male celebs attractive

K-9

iguana wrote: »

And why do almost all of the men I know IRL really not like Amy?

Poor representative sample?

From reading the Dr. Who section of this site and the redhead appreciation thread on AH, that doesn't seem to be the general opinion.

Ickle Magoo

K-9 wrote: »

Poor representative sample?

From reading the Dr. Who section of this site and the redhead appreciation thread on AH, that doesn't seem to be the general opinion.

And you don't think Dr Who fans or the posters in the redhead appreciation thread are a poor representative sample?

iguana

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

And you don't think Dr Who fans or the posters in the redhead appreciation thread are a poor representative sample?

Tbf, all the people I know who have an opinion on Amy are Doctor Who fans.;)

I'm not sure where the red headed appreciation thread comes into it though. Gillan is clearly a very attractive woman, she won't be to everyone's taste, but nobody is. Objectively she is certainly good looking.

Dudess

Sound Bite wrote: »

Think its a awful thing to say whether its true or not.
The only reason someone say it IMO is out of jealousy.

It's not an opinion if it directly contradicts fact. I can't stand women bitching about how other girls look, how they're dressed or undressed etc, but if I think "What's all the fuss about?" then that's merely puzzlement at OTT fawning over someone who I don't think is as spectacular as they're made out to be - I'd say it about a man or a woman. For instance, I've never understood why so many women are weak at the knees for George Clooney and Richard Gere. It's rare that I'd pay something like this much attention, but I couldn't see what the fuss was about Scarlett Johansson a few years ago - thought she was quite plain looking. I think she's blossomed into a stunning woman now, but I don't think she was particularly incredible a few years back. And I've never understood what the fuss was about (not so much now but a few years back) re Julia Roberts.

Ickle Magoo

iguana wrote: »

Tbf, all the people I know who have an opinion on Amy are Doctor Who fans.;)

I'm not sure where the red headed appreciation thread comes into it though. Gillan is clearly a very attractive woman, she won't be to everyone's taste, but nobody is. Objectively she is certainly good looking.

Well, I've heard a fair few comments from people (shock horror both male and female :pac:) who just tuned in to see who the new side-kick was or who read about/saw her interviewed and not just programme enthusiasts...

K-9

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

And you don't think Dr Who fans or the posters in the redhead appreciation thread are a poor representative sample?

:pac:

Very good, was more about the Martha and Amy part of the post.

I suppose it's a more representative, general sample in the Doctor who board. I suppose, seeing as I'm subscribed to the Redhead thread, I'm biased! Martha is stunningly beautiful as well. I do think Karen is under estimated as an actress though. She is very young and some just see her as eye candy.

ztoical

Dudess wrote: »

It's not an opinion if it directly contradicts fact. I can't stand women bitching about how other girls look, how they're dressed or undressed etc, but if I think "What's all the fuss about?" then that's merely puzzlement at OTT fawning over someone who I don't think is as spectacular as they're made out to be - I'd say it about a man or a woman. For instance, I've never understood why so many women are weak at the knees for George Clooney and Richard Gere. It's rare that I'd pay something like this much attention, but I couldn't see what the fuss was about Scarlett Johansson a few years ago - thought she was quite plain looking. I think she's blossomed into a stunning woman now, but I don't think she was particularly incredible a few years back. And I've never understood what the fuss was about (not so much now but a few years back) re Julia Roberts.

+ 1

I think there's two different things being discussed here. There's the catty herd of women in a nightclub/bar/office/classroom bitching about how someone looks/dressed/acts etc etc and there's the different issue of making general comments about wither you find famous person X good looking or not. The two are not one and the same. One is snarky and bitchy and usually unrelated to how the person looks or acts while the second is people having opinions that are normally down to their own taste and preference. Just look at the men who make you drool thread to see the massive difference in taste women on this forum have in men...I don't find every man in that list attractive so why would I think every actress/singer/model is good looking?

If we didn't judge people on how they look to us we'd all just get off with the first person we see when we walk into a pub but we don't. Like it or not when you walk into a room you do judge everyone in there, it's not a bitchy or horrible thing, you just look at everyone and based on your own tastes will note who most fits what you find attractive be it based on face, body, hair, clothes, all or none of the above. We all have our own measure of what appeals to us but it is different to people putting someone down to make themselves feel better.

iguana

K-9 wrote: »

Very good, was more about the Martha and Amy part of the post.

If you look at forums with a more ethnically diverse group of users there is a lot of love for Martha. A lot of Urban75 posters would list her as a favourite. I think she's awful, that scene in The Doctor's Daughter where she had to cry when her fish friend died. It was one of the worst professional acting scenes I've ever seen, (and I watch Secret Life:o). But opinions on acting are subjective, she has fans and she does keep getting work, so enough people obviously rate her.

As for Gillan's acting ability, as I've said I haven't seen her in anything else, she could be great in another role. I don't like Amy (really don't like her) but that doesn't mean I don't like Gillan.

beks101

ztoical wrote: »

What makes someone fantastic looking? Isn't the whole point that different people have different ideas of what 'fantastic' is?

Absolutely, there are so many variables on 'attractive' it's unbelievable, and that's what keeps the world spinning, but then there are women (and men, but that's another thread) who walk into a room and there's just no way you can't notice them.

There's a science behind it too - perfect symmetry in facial features, big eyes & mouth, full lips, ideal waist-hip ratio, ample bosom, etc etc. It has nothing (or at least very little) to do with makeup, clothes, fake tan, etc With my college classmate, it was tick, tick, tick, tick and tick.

Maybe this 'conventional' beauty isn't to everyone's taste but it certainly catches the eye of virtually everyone who runs into it in my experience and it's more common sense than personal preference to describe such a woman as 'beautiful'.

I agree with Paloma Large Top in terms of women who everyone deems 'stunning' because they're blonde, and/or wear a lot of makeup, provocative clothing, etc...but without their armour there's nothing special to look at. I see this all the time, especially as I work in TV - stylists who the tabloids describe as 'blonde bombshell' or 'brunette babe' and when they're standing in front of you, you realise they just have a well-developed sense of style and lots of money...that's when it becomes debatable.

But when the 'objectively' good looking...and I do believe they exist, even if it's a small percentage of the population...are described as 'not that pretty'. That's when I despair.

iguana

beks101 wrote: »

There's a science behind it too - perfect symmetry in facial features, big eyes & mouth, full lips, ideal waist-hip ratio, ample bosom, etc etc. It has nothing (or at least very little) to do with makeup, clothes, fake tan, etc With my college classmate, it was tick, tick, tick, tick and tick.

I've actually been reading up on this tonight due to Wibbs' comments on the other thread. Interestingly a huge amount of it is about ratios, so people of totally varying heights and weights can still meet the same requirements of attractiveness.

I actually feel a bit weird admitting this but I measured and I met all of the desirable body and face proportions. I do consider myself attractive but I would have thought that my nose was a bit on the big side and my body a bit stumpy. I'm a short arße (166cm/5ft1) so I was surprised to learn that my height ratio is taller than average and I'm 8 heads high which is considered ideal, and my 'heads' all fit it the right spaces. I have a .7 waist hip ratio and my breasts are the exact same width as my hips.

I could certainly imagine people reading this being disappointed if they could see me though. I bet most would think 'sure she's pretty but she's not THAT pretty."

seenitall

beks101 wrote: »

Absolutely, there are so many variables on 'attractive' it's unbelievable, and that's what keeps the world spinning, but then there are women (and men, but that's another thread) who walk into a room and there's just no way you can't notice them.

There's a science behind it too - perfect symmetry in facial features, big eyes & mouth, full lips, ideal waist-hip ratio, ample bosom, etc etc. It has nothing (or at least very little) to do with makeup, clothes, fake tan, etc With my college classmate, it was tick, tick, tick, tick and tick.

Maybe this 'conventional' beauty isn't to everyone's taste but it certainly catches the eye of virtually everyone who runs into it in my experience and it's more common sense than personal preference to describe such a woman as 'beautiful'.

I agree with Paloma Large Top in terms of women who everyone deems 'stunning' because they're blonde, and/or wear a lot of makeup, provocative clothing, etc...but without their armour there's nothing special to look at. I see this all the time, especially as I work in TV - stylists who the tabloids describe as 'blonde bombshell' or 'brunette babe' and when they're standing in front of you, you realise they just have a well-developed sense of style and lots of money...that's when it becomes debatable.

But when the 'objectively' good looking...and I do believe they exist, even if it's a small percentage of the population...are described as 'not that pretty'. That's when I despair.

BINGO. You and me both.

ztoical

beks101 wrote: »

Absolutely, there are so many variables on 'attractive' it's unbelievable, and that's what keeps the world spinning, but then there are women (and men, but that's another thread) who walk into a room and there's just no way you can't notice them.

Again not everyone will notice them because different people look at different things. Photographers look for a different look to what artists look for to what model agents look for to what the general population looks for. Someone who a photographer considers attractive is usually someone a painter wouldn't have much interest in as each has a different aesthetic that they look for.

beks101 wrote: »

There's a science behind it too - perfect symmetry in facial features, big eyes & mouth, full lips, ideal waist-hip ratio, ample bosom, etc etc. It has nothing (or at least very little) to do with makeup, clothes, fake tan, etc With my college classmate, it was tick, tick, tick, tick and tick.

The "science" dates back to the renaissance and the six Neo-Classical criteria for beauty and while there's been recent study in it and they found the criteria does still stand in general in defining beauty it is a western standard of beauty not a universal one. These criteria also don't work as well any more as they were used by painters and photography captures people very differently - People think a camera just captures exactly what's in front of it but have you ever have that friend who people call photogenic or the other friend who you think is good looking but never seems to be able to take a good photo? Cameras capture peoples features in a certain way that works better with certain features.

beks101 wrote: »

Maybe this 'conventional' beauty isn't to everyone's taste but it certainly catches the eye of virtually everyone who runs into it in my experience and it's more common sense than personal preference to describe such a woman as 'beautiful'.

I don't agree as someone who has spent alot of time studying peoples features. I draw people everyday, both in casual settings and in professional life drawing sessions so spend alot of time looking at what makes people stand out and the people who would fall under the conventional beauty umbrella are usually the people who don't catch my eye as they tend to not be very interesting.

beks101 wrote: »

But when the 'objectively' good looking...and I do believe they exist, even if it's a small percentage of the population...are described as 'not that pretty'. That's when I despair.

There is a more sinister side to pushing forward this idea of good looking/pretty because that image that is pushed forward is a western idea of beauty. The BBC had a series last year about women and men from ethnic backgrounds going to extreme lengths to alter themselves to fit the western idea of beauty. They would get plastic surgery to get a western face, western shaped eyes, smaller noses, they would bleach their skin to look more white and in one case have extreme surgery to lengthen their legs to be the ideal western height. Chris Rocks' doc Good Hair has just hit Irish cinemas and its interesting viewing to hear black women talk about this idea of 'good hair' and how they all see 'good hair' as being white hair and go to extreme lengths to get their hair looking more like white hair and looking down on any black woman who opts to wear her hair natural.

Wibbs

ztoical wrote: »

The "science" dates back to the renaissance and the six Neo-Classical criteria for beauty and while there's been recent study in it and they found the criteria does still stand in general in defining beauty it is a western standard of beauty not a universal one.

I think when we talk about beauty we're in danger like you said of equating the western/current cultural ideal with a universal ideal and in that I agree. Though beks101 list "perfect symmetry in facial features, big eyes & mouth, full lips, ideal waist-hip ratio, ample bosom" is universal across cultures and time. Looking deeper into it would appear big eyes for Asian women is a recent thing due to the western influence, yet if you look at earlier Chinese or Japanese art, you will note that while men are represented with narrow eyes, the women are represented with larger eyes by comparison. So bigger eyes in women is desired. Also her list doesnt involve, size, nor skin colour, nor hair colour or length, nor any other cultural "fashion". While I also agree that some of this harks back to classical and neo classical ideals, there are reasons why these ideals were noted. The exaggeration of the underlying ideals is cultural, but those ideals themselves are not.

There is a more sinister side to pushing forward this idea of good looking/pretty because that image that is pushed forward is a western idea of beauty.

I would agree. Even within the west the ideal is narrow. So a woman with pale skin is currently considered less ideal than a woman with lightly tanned skin. Blonde is considered above brunette and defo above red. So to find a natural blue eyed blonde with built in tanned skin is going to be pretty rare, even in the west. Which is a bit mad ted.

The BBC had a series last year about women and men from ethnic backgrounds going to extreme lengths to alter themselves to fit the western idea of beauty. They would get plastic surgery to get a western face, western shaped eyes, smaller noses, they would bleach their skin to look more white and in one case have extreme surgery to lengthen their legs to be the ideal western height.

I agree its crazy.

Chris Rocks' doc Good Hair has just hit Irish cinemas and its interesting viewing to hear black women talk about this idea of 'good hair' and how they all see 'good hair' as being white hair and go to extreme lengths to get their hair looking more like white hair and looking down on any black woman who opts to wear her hair natural.

Havent seen it as yet but did catch a bit of it on Oprah. Interestingly he also made the point that it wasnt just black women either, when he pointed out that the majority of the white women in the audience had dyed hair, nearly always blonde. That although they had the kind of hair black women aspired to, they were still fiddling about with the natural. One thing that did occur to me though was with black hair in the natural, it has fewer options as far as styling goes, compared to straight european or asian hair. Small afro, big afro, sculpted afro. So maybe at least some of this is just to increase the palette of styling options?

I would say though that we have to be careful in ascribing insidious motives behind all of this. Humans throughout history have sought to adorn and change themselves to fit into whatever culture they were in and to fit into the ideal. When people think of Helen of Troy, the movies would have us believe in some skinny blonde straight haired scandinavian type. The ideal of feminine beauty back then would be thin alright, but she would have had dark(they didnt even have a word for blonde hair) curly hair, very white makeup with red lips and red dots on her cheeks as if a three year old raided their mothers makeup kit. But Helen herself was held up as the ideal. Women would have wanted to look like that ideal, even if the woman herself never did. If we look at the stone age venus figures that show a very obese body type(still with the .7 hip waist ratio though), women would have aspired to that too. This stuff has always been with us. For men too, to different degrees throughout history.

Where it is insidious today is where the dissemination of the cultural ideal is complete and one ethnic ideal trumps all others globally. So an African woman who has the actual underlying biological ideal, may be considered less "beautiful" than the European woman who has a couple of the surface ideals. Then add in the technology we have today, that allows us to change our appearance in a manner far beyond what a woman of Helens time would have imagined. Breasts too small? Oh we can change that. Waist too big? Oh we can suck that fat right outa ya. Skin too dark/light, lips too thin, jaw or nose too big? Oh we can change that too. And humans being what they are we'll run with those. Then add in the technology to change someone's appearance in a photo*, beyond what is possible in reality. OK that's dodgy enough in a painting but a painting is fairly removed from reality. A photo tricks us into thinking its real. The camera never lies idea. It lies like a bastid. Thats the scary bit.

PS I'm one of those guys who doesnt think the new wan in Dr Who is all that, but lets keep that convo to the relevant forum

*and now they can do it with video. Video photoshop basically, where the old vaseline on the lens trick is way more sophisticated.

ztoical

Wibbs wrote: »

Looking deeper into it would appear big eyes for Asian women is a recent thing due to the western influence, yet if you look at earlier Chinese or Japanese art, you will note that while men are represented with narrow eyes, the women are represented with larger eyes by comparison. So bigger eyes in women is desired.

Not in early Japanese and Chinese art. Wood block prints from around the 8th century show men and women with the same eye size. It was with the influence of the west that the style started to change, most notable after the second world war and the rise of manga style art. Manga characters have very large eyes as they developed from the early masters like Osamu Tezuka's Astro Boy and his attempts to draw his characters to look like Walt Disney characters. Different cultures will always have a different focus on what they feel is beautiful but it can change with time and influence from other cultures. In China for example tiny pointed feet were considered very attractive and in rich families young girls feet would be broken over and over then folded and bound to create these tiny pointed feet. This went on for over 1000 years and only stopped in the 1950's when Mao banned it.