Bet you guys would not say no to SJP!!!

Ben Hadad

Listen she isn't drop dead georgous or anything, but she is at least healthy, doesn't have any obvioes mutations or contortions. Not my thing personally, but whatever.
Horses for courses.

strobe

Who_owns_this? wrote: »

You're weird - I'm enjoying this thread which went from answering my initial question to providing me with points of interest. Would do it again tomorrow.

Obviously the script provided the story, but, oddly, scripts take inspiration from actual events and occurrences.

Why are you so weird?

I might be weird but then again I'm not the one talking about a character on an awful sit-com like they are a real person and repeating the same thing over and over and over again despite every single person on the thread universally telling you you are wrong. Seek help.

phasers

Ben Hadad wrote: »

Listen she isn't drop dead georgous or anything, but she is at least healthy, doesn't have any obvioes mutations or contortions.

She has a second head growing out of her chin!

Who_owns_this?

ncmc wrote: »

My issue with SJP is that on SATC, they had these ridiculously handsome men falling over themselves to date her. In reality, men like that wouldn't look twice at her, especially in NYC, where the women tend to be stunning. As executive producer, SJP would have had a big hand in the storyline and casting. So for me, she comes out of that as being extremely big-headed and maybe has a distorted sense of her own attractiveness. You never really saw her in the show date an unattractive man (unless he was rich )

Who_owns_this? wrote: »

That's also weird to me, but, I've seen this happen. I've lived in New York and other cities and when it comes to going out in the trendy bars, etc., guys will fall over themselves for a high pair of boobs and a tight ass rather than a pretty face any day. But, maybe that's why Carrie didn't find a lasting relationship until her 40s - too many superficial guys!

prinz wrote: »

Oh ffs. The entire premise of SATC was superficiality. She didn't find a lasting relationship because she and her ilk were shallow twats*. I think what we're dealing with here is a poster who idolises the whole SATC concept, and needs male approval to reaffirm the wish to be a SJP-alike. Sad, sad, sad.

*characters, not celebrity abuse.

Oh Jeez - take what I say into context before going into a rant. Are you always this angry or did you scratch one of your favourite dishes this morning?

old_aussie

The truth is that "any woman" who offered "free rides" would be ridden into the ground, not just SJP

Who_owns_this?

strobe wrote: »

I might be weird but then again I'm not the one talking about a character on an awful sit-com like they are a real person and repeating the same thing over and over and over again despite every single person on the thread universally telling you you are wrong. Seek help.

But I admitted I was wrong about my perception of other people's perception of Sarah Jessica Parker - who, last time I checked, is an actual real person...

(Although, admittedly, I don't check these things very often.)

SugarHigh

Who_owns_this? wrote: »

But do you really not think that she has a good chest and some curves? I know there's arguments pro and con her face, but I would have thought that her body was good without question. I can't believe I'm getting this so wrong - I'd make a terrible lesbian!!!

I didn't realse she got a boob job
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_vZr34SwUNws/S_eAqd3698I/AAAAAAAADBk/hLFkHC-OyjE/s1600/sarah-jessica-parker-boob-job.jpg

She still does not have nice rack though and has no ass.

Wibbs

Who_owns_this? wrote: »

Not dignifying this with a reply,

Ah jeez its hardly like I insulted you. Yep SATC "chick" by the sounds of it.

And, no, I said the exact opposite. That I found guys going for the girls with the hot bodies over those who were pretty.

For pretty read fat maybe? Any guy given the choice is gonna go for hot body(in his taste bracket) with pretty face. Many studies tracking mens micro looks have shown this. Men look at hip waist ratio, breasts and face. The ass doesnt get that much of a look in funny enough.

Yup. Not going to dignify this at all... !!! :cool::o:cool::o

Eh maybe you're missing the notion of dignity in a debate.

But do you really not think that she has a good chest and some curves? I know there's arguments pro and con her face, but I would have thought that her body was good without question.

Curves? Are you serious? Like I said, I like her body. That's closer to my "type" than most men Ive knows type, but there is no way on earth the word curve should be in the same sentence as SJP. She is very thin. No wonder there are women with unrealistic views of theirs and other women's bodies when SJP is described as having curves. Good chest though. You're not the only one to mention it. I caught someone on TV3(bug shock) describing george clooneys current squeeze as "showing off her curves". Sweet zombie jebus, SJP has more and she's like a matchstick with the wood whittled away.

Jaxxy

iguana wrote: »

I'm not sure that's so true. The women I find most attractive are ones that I see something in them that reminds me of me (or at least an idealised me). I like hourglass shaped women, with somewhat muscular limbs and large facial features, especially eyes and lips. Personality wise I like them to be confident, overtly sexual while also tomboyish, a good example is Max in Dark Angel.

I think it makes sense that what we find attractive in the gender we aren't attracted to is something that we recognise in ourselves or someone who has something we wish for ourselves.

+1.

Excellent observation. This explains all of my girly crushes.

Wibbs

SugarHigh wrote: »

She still does not have nice rack though and has no ass.

Like I said people differ, I'd say she has nice little bum. Probably well toned too judging by her core muscles.

Gummy Panda

I'd ride her. Waste not, want not.

If I had a choice, it would be Angelina Jolie.... RAWR!

phasers

Meh

amacachi

phasers wrote: »

Meh

That would be the definition of having no arse as far as I'm concerned.

Millicent

Who_owns_this? wrote: »

I agree on that though. The ending of the series and the movie afterwards (which I though was awful) was very unfair to Carrie. But, I never said it was a feminist thing - thank God!!

Unfair my arse! She was a whiny, selfish, self-obsessed whinge bag who cheated on the lovely Aidan with Big, even though he was the nicest character they'd had her go with -- attentive, kind and good to her friends. The Carrie character annoyed me for her vacuousness and self-obsession. Honestly, had the show just featured the other three, it would have improved 200%.

Who_owns_this?

Wibbs wrote: »

Ah jeez its hardly like I insulted you. Yep SATC "chick" by the sounds of it.

Come on Wibbs - I was obviously messing when I said that. I was just trying to lighten the situation. Conversation - not argument - is what I was looking for. Debate don't hate... (just made that up)...

Wibbs wrote: »

For pretty read fat maybe? Any guy given the choice is gonna go for hot body(in his taste bracket) with pretty face. Many studies tracking mens micro looks have shown this. Men look at hip waist ratio, breasts and face. The ass doesnt get that much of a look in funny enough.

For pretty read not completely toned all over. I'm talking girls sized 8 who are pretty v. girls sized 6/8 who have toned tummies and big boobs and tiny waists. Regardless of faces, I have seen guys go for the tight assed, high boobed girls (like I've said) over the pretty girls. Or, to put it another way, great body / good face wins over good body / great face.

Wibbs wrote: »

Eh maybe you're missing the notion of dignity in a debate.

Another joke there Wibbs.

Wibbs wrote: »

Curves? Are you serious? Like I said, I like her body. That's closer to my "type" than most men Ive knows type, but there is no way on earth the word curve should be in the same sentence as SJP. She is very thin. No wonder there are women with unrealistic views of theirs and other women's bodies when SJP is described as having curves. Good chest though. You're not the only one to mention it. I caught someone on TV3(bug shock) describing george clooneys current squeeze as "showing off her curves". Sweet zombie jebus, SJP has more and she's like a matchstick with the wood whittled away.

I'm getting the sense that people are not agreeing with me on this... I, personally, thought that SJP had curves. Not huge breasts, but some. And, slim or skinny though she is, she's not straight up and down - she is curvy. Proportionally. Her bum might be tiny, but she is tiny. Blow her up 200% and you'll see curves everywhere. It's all about proportion people!!

Wibbs

amacachi wrote: »

That would be the definition of having no arse as far as I'm concerned.

That's the beauty of different tastes. I think she's got a nice little pert bum. I don't like big arsed women myself.

prinz

Compare the two..

http://www.marieclaire.co.uk/imageBank/s/Sophie-Dahl13.jpg

http://girlstalkinsmack.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/SARAH-JESSICA-PARKER-2.jpg

One has attractive womanly curves. One doesn't. Don't need to blow her up 200% or anything else.

SugarHigh

It's scary how serious some people take this show.

ncmc

prinz wrote: »

Compare the two..

http://www.marieclaire.co.uk/imageBank/s/Sophie-Dahl13.jpg

http://girlstalkinsmack.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/SARAH-JESSICA-PARKER-2.jpg

One has attractive womanly curves. One doesn't. Don't need to blow her up 200% or anything else.

Christ that picture of SJP is scary, in her defence though, it's only recently that she has become emaciated like that. She was very slim during the SATC run, but not near as malnourished as that.

And a bit off topic, but it bugs me when magazines talk about women having 'curves' when in fact they just have a big rack (normally fake) and the rest of their body is that of a prepubescent boy :mad:.

iguana

Who_owns_this? wrote: »

Come on, if you poured many other girls into the outfits that SJP wore during SATC, they would have just looked silly. Check out the opening sequence. Every time that SATC started and SJP was walking around in that pink leotard, did you think - wow - weirdo? Of course you didn't.

From the leotard to the "newspaper dress" to the fluorescent creations, SJP brought the crazy catwalk fashion to the city, and she in a way that some plain girl never could.

She looked like a freakin' clown. I was 20 when the show came out and while the sex part of the show obviously got my peer group talking once we got past that, the ridiculous clothes Carrie wore was the big talking point.

SugarHigh

ncmc wrote: »

Christ that picture of SJP is scary, in her defence though, it's only recently that she has become emaciated like that. She was very slim during the SATC run, but not near as malnourished as that.

And a bit off topic, but it bugs me when magazines talk about women having 'curves' when in fact they just have a big rack (normally fake) and the rest of their body is that of a prepubescent boy :mad:.

Everything can be forgiven if you have a big rack.

Who_owns_this?

prinz wrote: »

Compare the two..

That is a scarily bad pic of SJP.

On the other hand. Sophie Dahl (is that who it is?) looks like hell. What an odd face.

Who_owns_this?

iguana wrote: »

She looked like a freakin' clown. I was 20 when the show came out and while the sex part of the show obviously got my peer group talking once we got past that, the ridiculous clothes Carrie wore was the big talking point.

Really? You shouldn't have bothered watching it then.

Millicent

Who_owns_this? wrote: »

Really? You shouldn't have bothered watching it then.

Eh, calm down! You can't really call anyone else superficial if you're advocating that someone shouldn't have watched a show because they found someone's appearance questionable or against their tastes...

phasers

Who_owns_this? wrote: »

Really? You shouldn't have bothered watching it then.

When were their clothes the central focus of an episode? it had nothing to do with anything most of the time. SJP was dressed like a moron about 90% of the time.

SugarHigh

Whenever someone insults SJP you seem to take it as a personal insult to yourself as if you have been seeking an identity through the object of your adulation.

Who_owns_this?

Millicent wrote: »

Eh, calm down! You can't really call anyone else superficial if you're advocating that someone shouldn't have watched a show because they found someone's appearance questionable or against their tastes...

Chill out there Millicent. Was just suggesting that it's a bit silly to watch a show where the big talking point was how crazy the clothes were. I think that one could do better with one's time. But hey - what do I know?

Who_owns_this?

SugarHigh wrote: »

Whenever someone insults SJP you seem to take it as a personal insult to yourself as if you have been seeking an identity through the object of your adulation.

I know. It seems to be my personal mission in this thread to defend her. But, that's the stance I'm taking in this particular conversation and I'm going to defend as long as I believe in it.

Don't worry - I'll be bored of it tomorrow and you can trash talk this seemingly innocent woman to your heart's content.

Millicent

Who_owns_this? wrote: »

Chill out there Millicent. Was just suggesting that it's a bit silly to watch a show where the big talking point was how crazy the clothes were. I think that one could do better with one's time. But hey - what do I know?

It's not a personal attack so don't address it as one.

And as I recall, as a woman, when that show was out, discussion of her clothing was fairly unavoidable, pushed on people by magazines, newspapers, television shows etc. That show consciously geared itself up to appeal to the aspirational desires of many women. The show willfully made the clothes (and especially the shoes) a major talking point.

PeterIanStaker

I'd rather commit beastiality than f*ck SJP.