people who say the dont see the attraction
in clearly very attractive women. I can appreciate you may well have ‘a type’ or a preference for curvy over skinny or blonde to brunette, emo v’s preppy etc. (I’m referring to merely physical attraction in this instance not personality, humour, intellect or any other factors of the person as a whole). There are certain aspects of the human face that we are hard wired to find attractive as part of our instinctive ability to seek out good genes in a potential partner. Primarily symmetry, high cheekbones, full lips and wide set sparkling eyes, all of which suggest youth vitality and fertility - the classic ideal of beauty which is designed* by nature to appeal to our primitive side and, crucially, suggest there might top notch genes to had for breeding. This is not some Aryan wet dream it’s a simple anthropological fact that applies to all races.

So what I really don’t get is people who describe certain celebs/personalities (call them what you will) who are clearly very beautiful as ‘ugly’, ‘munters’ or whatever. Because their work, attitude, politics or media profile are not to your taste does not make them physically unattractive. Admittedly his can be very annoying - Amanda Holden makes me want to smash my telly but I think she is physically attractive and this pisses me off.

A few have been flagged up here this week such as Angelina Jolie and most notably the chick of the moment - Megan Fox. I have my suspicions Ms Fox may well be dumb as a rock as suggested by an entire film crew, maybe she is a horrible person. Sure her movies are awful. Maybe she eats babies. But as far as looks go – to describe her as ugly is simply ridiculous.

I received a link to 501 pics of Megan Fox in my email this morning. Please, feel free show me just one where she could by any stretch be described as ‘ugly’.

Lyndsay Lohan, Jessica Alba, Britney Spears, Beyonce – they might well be the sort of people you would never tire of punching, but whether you like it or not, they are not, at least in the physical - ugly.

*designed – fuck off creationists you don’t count you remove yourself from the gene pool by your sheer stupidity.
( spimf ™ is whoever you want him to be, Wed 21 Oct 2009, 12:46, 28 replies)

Spot on...
Although I also believe in people having different tastes - I suspect that the types you mention have alternative agendas - be it jealously or insecurity. Some people just find it difficult to admit that other people are beautiful. It's in our nature to keep the people around us down to make ourselves feel better. We can boost our own egos by saying that these people are 'ugly' - especially if you get someone to agree with you.

Which makes it even funnier when you find proper hippo-potta-pigs saying that people like Megan Fox are munters.

On the flip side - I also have some time for the argument that the average person doesn't have the wealth of make-up artists, flattering lighting and airbrushing options at their disposal...but it's still out of order when you see people salivating with glee over any telephoto-lens photos of these celebs 'privately' having an off-day.

*clicks*
( Pooflake braces for an onslaught..., Wed 21 Oct 2009, 12:58, closed)

i've worked in the creative industry for years
I've art directed photoshoots where the model turns up and you think - meh!

But as you say - lighting, make up, talented photographer and retouching. Yeah it can and often does make an incredible difference - the point is we are merely emphasising what is instinctively to all of us seen as being attractive.

I have to say the worst offenders are women bitching about other women.

"Yeah she's pretty I suppose - in an obvious way" no shit!

Interestingly many men prefer what they perceive as a 'no make up look' women will scoff at this because they will say - "but she’s caked in the stuff".

Red lips, flushed cheeks and wide eyes are all indicators of sexual arousal and availability. Men are just easier to fool. We’re not attuned to detail.

Many anthropologists think the high propensity of cosmetic surgery and dental work are 'tricking' us into being attracted to individuals with less desirable genes and ultimately adversely affecting out evolution
( spimf ™ is whoever you want him to be, Wed 21 Oct 2009, 13:10, closed)

Now then
while Megan Fox is undoubtedly beautiful, and I can't deny that, she doesn't do it for me. I think it's more a question of attainability - the women I find most attractive (note, not beautiful - there's a difference) are those which I think could feasibly be an achievable sexual partner for me.

Yes, Britney, Angelina et al are classic beauties. But in terms of who I 'fancy', I can think of a lot of girls I know who turn me on far more, simply because I think that (disregarding the fact that I am not 'on the market' just now) they could in principle be enticed to my bedroom.

Edit - I've just read Pooflake's post above, and actually I find a lot of the un-made-up photos of these women more attractive than the 'glamorous' pics.
( K2k6 has a proper job these days, Wed 21 Oct 2009, 13:05, closed)

this is classic natural selection though
People rarely 'punch above their weight' studies have shown that people can match individuals to their partners from photographs by comparable levels of 'attractiveness'

As humans we can subvert this with other qualities we can find appealing in a mate. Status, personality etc.

The funny/successful/intelligent ugly bloke with the stunning girl who genuinely loves him is commonplace. Looks are clearly not everything. Women are better at spotting potential good qualities other than simply looks in men. They need a provider who will stick around.

Men are across the board more simplistic in this. They are programmed by nature to impregnate as many females as they can. And if required - fuck off to the next one.

Socially unacceptable and morally reprehensible but a biological truth nevertheless
( spimf ™ is whoever you want him to be, Wed 21 Oct 2009, 13:19, closed)

Socially unacceptable here and now,
but it wasn't that long ago it was considered de rigeur to have another house for the mistress.
( Blind Meach Cautiously optimistic, Wed 21 Oct 2009, 13:31, closed)

It might
be a biological truth. But people put a deal too much emphasis on what we supposedly have in our genes and how it governs our behaviour. Thus the human v animal debate.

And I genuinely don't find Megan Fox attractive. Even in a purely asthetic sense. But that's because she looks like faintly dusty plastic to me. However put me in the same room as Jennifer Connelly and my knees would probably wobble.

If it applies to men, surely it should apply to women? Scientists tell us the perfect type of man to make us go wobbley at the knees- tall, beefy etc, a great provider, and yet loads of my friends are far more attracted to thin non muscular people. To the genuine extent of not seeing anything special about the men who should by rights be making us swoon
( Amberl was stripey and dominated Europe, Wed 21 Oct 2009, 13:40, closed)

i get the megan, jennifer twos up then
kewel
( spimf ™ is whoever you want him to be, Wed 21 Oct 2009, 16:20, closed)

You're kinda right
There are many many beautiful women out there I'm sure. But to be seen as attractive is surely a personal thing?
A woman has to be WOMAN for me to really go arse over tit, perfect example (I've said it before and I'll say it again); Monica Bellucci. Embodies all that is lovelyness and has that glint in her eye. Give me a real woman any day over some pop tart eye candy!
( Blind Meach Cautiously optimistic, Wed 21 Oct 2009, 13:13, closed)

but monica conforms to all the classic ideals of femine beauty and attraction
curves hips and full breast are just another inicator of fertility and good genes for breeding.

Jo Brand would be difficult to regard as physically attractive.
( spimf ™ is whoever you want him to be, Wed 21 Oct 2009, 13:20, closed)

What comes out the mouth
or goes into it for that matter plays a large part so to speak, so even though Jo would be a good laugh and all that, it doesn't make me any more likely to jump into bed with her!
We often find ourselves attracted to a personality as much (or more) than looks, so whilst Monica may not be everybodys cup of tea, she rocks my boat. That said, I'd be more likely to bed Jo Brand than some irritating bint who may have fluttery eyelashes and fantastic tits.
( Blind Meach Cautiously optimistic, Wed 21 Oct 2009, 13:24, closed)

you are in the main simply reiterating my point
however anyone who could bring themselves to shag jo brand would have to be a very visually impared, very very drunk man.

booze - natures way of ensuring munters breed too
( spimf ™ is whoever you want him to be, Wed 21 Oct 2009, 13:31, closed)

I have my moments!
I do worry about your point about cosmetic surgery fooling us though. What happens to the kids who are now "ugly" in their own parents eyes beacause the nose is too big? Setting us up for a big fall here evolution wise.
( Blind Meach Cautiously optimistic, Wed 21 Oct 2009, 13:35, closed)

These women and men are very attractive but incredibly boring to look at.
Plus they all look the same. I love a big nose on a guy and some flaws/scars etc.

When I look at someone I want to read their face and attractive people are like reading a bus timetable.

Edit - but that might just be the artist in me. *shrugs*
( girlinthehole, Wed 21 Oct 2009, 13:41, closed)

in practice you will be most physically attracted
to those regarded to be of a similar level of attractiveness to your own

nature sets things up this way

draw your own conclusion

men are a different kettle of fish. women will tolerate scars and a broken nose because it suggest the ability to fend off attackers and hunt well enough to provide. nature wants males to be tough and strong. this shapes female ideals of physical attraction. intelligence is also often more of a factor as males are traditionally 'problem solvers' no flaming please i am talking anthropologically

and BTW i earn my living as an artist :p
( spimf ™ is whoever you want him to be, Wed 21 Oct 2009, 13:57, closed)

Probably..........but I don't have a big nose : )

( girlinthehole, Wed 21 Oct 2009, 13:59, closed)

Ok,
can I take it back about Jo Brand or have I made my bed?
( Blind Meach Cautiously optimistic, Wed 21 Oct 2009, 14:02, closed)

fraid so
inexcusable
( spimf ™ is whoever you want him to be, Wed 21 Oct 2009, 14:03, closed)

that
is a bit depressing to think of. Surely everyone tries for the person they think is most attractive?
( Amberl was stripey and dominated Europe, Wed 21 Oct 2009, 14:06, closed)

Attractive
does not necessarily equate to beautiful though.
( K2k6 has a proper job these days, Wed 21 Oct 2009, 14:15, closed)

good point
but if spimf is right and beauty is the basis for most feelings of sexual attraction (which would only make sense) it doesn't then make sense that people aim for a proportionately attractive to themselves partner
( Amberl was stripey and dominated Europe, Wed 21 Oct 2009, 14:29, closed)

you would think so but this does not happen in practice
couples where the 'looks' factor is 'imbalanced' are statistically remarkable. to even casual observers they look unusual - 'they're an odd looking couple' 'you wouldn't imagine him as her boyfriend' there are a number of factors mitigating in this:

anxiety - is he/she 'too goodlooking for me?' 'will i be able to hold on to them?' (This is why confidence is rated as a particularly desirable characteristic in males, women worry more about the practicalities of life so they put priority on partners with the self confidence to succeed.) One of the most common causes for divorce is when one partners physical looks remains essentially as they were but the other changes significantly ie weight gain, most women will tolerate baldness but their husband turning into a huge lard bucket will be a problem, 'uneven' degrees of aging etc, marrying a sex kitten who overnight becomes a cat will be a problem for many men (we're shallow). couples who evolve together tend to stay together

this is where compensatory attributes enter "he's very bright and has his own company". "hes a goodprovider". "she's warm and caring" "shes a good mother to my children" these may seem sexist but society often skews our attitude to our basic human requirements.

All of this is aside from the more complex aspects of attraction to personality which takes longer to work out and ultimately boils down to simply whether we like them or not. It is this process that can allow even the most careful bloke to be reeled in by a right munter ;)

all these complexities aside - the norm is to have a partner that the majority of outside observers would regard as having roughly similar levels of physical attraction. it is a simple law of human nature.

im no greek god but then i am Spimf - so naturally i am married to a supermodel - so long as she keeps her looks that is.
( spimf ™ is whoever you want him to be, Wed 21 Oct 2009, 16:11, closed)

There's a big difference between fantasy and reality
Which your original point was, I think, refering more to fantasy, rather than the rather drab real world we live in. It's easy to class a pretty girl a munter because you know you wouldn't have a chance, and it looks big and clever. It's another thing to be in the real world interacting with ladies you might have a chance with.
Mick Jagger; "If you can't be with the one you love, love the one you're with"
( Blind Meach Cautiously optimistic, Wed 21 Oct 2009, 16:41, closed)

I thought my original point was clear
dont suggest someone who is clearly beautiful (at least in the physical sense) is ugly simply because you dont like them, their work, their politics or even their personality.

i'ts daft and is more than slightly tinged with 'bitter'

the fantasy reality aspect is irrelevant. ive worked with models who couldnt be more down to earth and approachable - others who were miserable shallow bitches prowling around after footballers - both stunningly beautiful. Ive had a Miss World runner up fold her exceptionally long legs into my car* then laugh and joke with me like a plumber.

*sadly not a honda civic but a honda s2000
( spimf ™ is whoever you want him to be, Wed 21 Oct 2009, 16:53, closed)

Ah,
ok, I'm only trying to say beauty is not the same as being attracted to. I actually agree with you on that point, people do exactly that. That's the hypocrasy showing through them.
It's probably that I am so stunningly handsome no-one will ever live up to my expectations.

I remain suitably chastised though. Choosy rather than bitter I would say.

The fantasy/reality thing, which out of the two examples in the edit did you actually find yourself attracted to? Not just an I would moment?
( Blind Meach Cautiously optimistic, Wed 21 Oct 2009, 17:13, closed)

definitely the s2000
i've had 4 identical to this
( spimf ™ is whoever you want him to be, Wed 21 Oct 2009, 17:18, closed)

Superb!
Priorities all present and correct I see.
( Blind Meach Cautiously optimistic, Wed 21 Oct 2009, 17:23, closed)

While I do agree in every way
There is always an exception to every rule.

Cat Deeley is plain, there I said it.
( baw__bag contains traces of nuts on, Wed 21 Oct 2009, 17:27, closed)

interesting choice
she has a distinctly bent nose

so lack of symmetry. interesting.

great legs though

having said that i think the nose might have been fixed
( spimf ™ is whoever you want him to be, Wed 21 Oct 2009, 17:45, closed)