I’ve got lots of ideas knocking around my skull, but it sometimes takes external stimuli in order to get them out of my head and in comprehensible form – like this catty blog post by real-life libertarian girl Ilana Mercer concerning Christian martyr-cum-amateur porn star Carrie Prejean:
“Blond Squad†is a synonym here for the conservatives’ chick of choice. She can be brunette, although that is not preferable. She has to be dumb.
Prejean’s looks comport with what I’ve termed the porn aesthetic. She is most certainly not beautiful.
Those who’ve been conditioned to consider beautiful women who look well-used, cheap, unrefined, and whorish even in their youth will object. But you only have to think of Audry Hepburn, or the bare-faced Julie-Christie to remember what natural, striking beauty is.
Following Mercer’s link leads us to a post where she defines the “porn aesthetic“:
…they represent what I call the porn aesthetic the essence of which is not true sensuality or real physical beauty, but something that corresponds to the lowest form of sex. They are pornographic phenoms theirs are faces that men want to see on hookers; on women they have plain crude sex with. They look well-used, cheap, unrefined, and whorish even in their youth.
That post serves as a teaser for this column she wrote for WorldNetDaily, “Sluts Galore: Scenes from 2006â€:
Ideas about feminine beauty are bust. The sublime 1350 B.C. bust of Queen Nefertiti showcases her fine cheekbones and graceful neck. Her Western contemporary look-a-like, down to the perfectly shaped dainty face, was Audrey Hepburn. Catherine Deneuve embodied the French ideal of female beauty, immortalized in the bust of Marianne.
But forget these regal beauties; they, apparently, have nothing on the double-chinned, large, flat expanses that make up Britney Spears’ crude mug. Nefertiti, Hepburn, Deneuve—your patrician pulchritude no longer excites the “porn generation”; the sly, weasel-like looks of a Paris Hilton do.
The culture’s aesthetic preferences are now shaped by the basest of instincts. I call it the porn aesthetic, another example of which is Hue Hefner’s harem of hos. The three kept creatures are currently starring in a reality show called “The Girls Next Door.”
According to Wikipedia, “The prototype of the girl next door is often invoked in American contexts to indicate wholesome, unassuming, or ‘average’ femininity.” Like Ali MacGraw in “Love Story,” perhaps? Hef’s hos have bleached, cotton-candy hair, augmented by extensions, silicone breasts, and demented, syphilitic grins. But according to an entirely new sensibility, they are the girls next door.
So, according to Miss Mercer, Carrie Prejean isn’t beautiful because she looks like a woman that men instinctively want to bang, and Audrey Hepburn IS beautiful because she looked like a woman that men instinctively DIDN’T want to bang. That’s a statement so retarded only a libertarian woman could argue it in earnest.
Both Roissy and Obsidian have argued in the past that women, not men, determine which males are alphas in the context of mating and sex. The flip side of this, by way of Spengler’s Universal Law of Gender Parity, is that men, not women, determine which females are beautiful. The primary purpose of female beauty is to help us men determine who is most worthy of receiving our sperm-missiles, and the yardstick we use to measure it is the penis. The harder the dick, the hotter the girl – it is that simple. To demonstrate how Mercer is incapable of grasping this concept (like most women), here’s her picture of the girl she claims “is most certainly not beautiful”:
Carrie is a bit more masculine then I’d like, but I’d still hit that and come back for seconds, thirds, and fourths – and so would most normal, non-outlier (read: not David Alexander) dudes. She’s an 8.
Here’s Audrey Hepburn, a woman Miss Mercer singles out as an example of “natural, striking beauty”:
Audrey’s no slouch face-wise, but she had a body like a prepubescent boy. 7.
And here’s Mercer’s other example, Julie Christie:
I’d hit it…with six beers in my system and to break a dry spell. 5, possibly a 6.
Now, I’m sure some of you are thinking, “Ferdinand, you reductionist, cock-centered, evo-psych-loving pig-dog, you’re wrong! In past epochs, women’s beauty was determined by higher concepts then what men got off to!” Take your romanticist golden age crap and stick it where the wind breaks. The female beauty ideal has always been determined by what men wanted to nail, as Lynne Lawner wrote in Lives of the Courtesans:
Falling in love with statues and paintings, even making love to them is an ancient fantasy, one of which the Renaissance was keenly aware. Giorgio Vasari, writing in the introductory section of the Lives about art in antiquity, tells how men violated the laws, going into the temples at night and making love with the statues of Venus. In the morning, priests would enter the sanctuaries to find stains on the marble figures.
Yes, that’s right. Those beautiful Greek marble statues that are supposedly symbolic of a higher ideal of beauty? Guys were so turned on by them that they dry-humped them and shot their sticky loads in their crevices. I hope that visual is permanently burned into your brain. And all of those paintings of beautiful women from the Renaissance? They were the jerk-off fantasies of the men who created them. Yes, we of the male species really do think with our little heads that much.
Now, if Miss Mercer wanted to argue that women are becoming less feminine, I’d agree. If she wanted to argue that women are becoming more crass and vulgar, I’d wholeheartedly agree. But the cock doesn’t care about a woman’s class or behavior; it just wants a nice, warm, attractive place to snuggle for the night. Mercer’s notion of “true” female beauty springing from something other then what men want to fuck is pure bullshit. Her vision blinded by female solipsism and her mind dulled by historical ignorance, she can’t help but get it wrong.
And, ladies, if you think it’s unfair that we get to determine what we find attractive in you, keep in mind that it’s also unfair that you get to determine what you find attractive in us. We can’t help our dicks any more then you can help your pussies. This is the Age of Flesh, where the desires of the loins rule all. I don’t make the rules, I just point them out.
{ 90 comments… read them below or add one }
” . . . theirs are faces that men want to see on hookers; on women they have plain crude sex with.”
This assumes two things:
a) that I would not want to have plain, crude sex with a woman with a very pretty face
and
b) that men choose what women are willing to work in the porn industry.
It takes a special type of girl to get gang-banged on camera. The porn industry has its share of mule faced mutts, but who the fuck is Mercer to judge?
As you point out, Ferdi, she hasn’t exactly got the keenest eye for beauty. She pulls a couple of “classic” examples of beauty I couldn’t quite honestly give a fuck about, to, or on.
As for whence cometh true female beauty, she can latch onto that Platonic Formal Cause nonsense if she likes, but true beauty isn’t inside. It’s skin deep. If it’s attached to the type of personality that would take money to blow six guys in a Winnebago, so be it.
So if you reckon women can’t correctly guess the ideal form for a women considered very beautiful by men then can men correctly guess what the ideal handsome man should look like?
I just love how these people never associate cause and effect. Huge social changes occur; then (surprise!) sea-changes in related phenomena occur; yet never the twain shall meet, in the minds of people like Mercer.
–
It’s time for Episode No. 87 of “Duh!”, with your host Epoxy.
Mercer says:
Mercer forgets that, for the first time in history, the porn aesthetic is now in competition with the classic-beauty aesthetic.
THEN
In all other places and all other times, the porn aesthetic and the classic-beauty aesthetic had separate spheres of influence. The former was the bailiwick of courtesans, mistresses, and demimondaines; the latter, the domain of royals, wives, and “respectable” women.
The two spheres intersected, of course, but only incidentally, with occasional defections from the demimonde to the courtly life (never the other way around). The best analogy is with organized crime vs. lawful business, which regulate their separate spheres (with a minimal trickle of mafioso types into certain echelons of business and politics).
The example of Nefertiti is especially laughable, as her hubby Akhenaten’s extrapair horndog status was beyond legendary. She could strut around with her highfalutin “patrician pulchritude” all she damn well wanted – while Akhenaten was getting his “porn aesthetic” from a whole horde (whorde?), even including a couple of his own daughters.
NOW
In the last century, the two spheres of influence have been smashed together, merging every bit as gracefully as ammonia and bleach. The resulting smoke of cultural chlorine and hydrazine has dissipated to reveal a situation in which the vast majority of men must now get their porn-fix and their patrician-fix, simultaneously.
Since the two are no longer separate, a fortiori they are now in competition with each other.
It’s easy to see which will win.
The classic, asexual beauty of Audrey and Christie is an adagio for strings. It’s subtle, understated, the result of years of careful cultivation – and, most importantly, it’s imperceptible to those who have not been raised to appreciate it.
The beauty of a Prejean or a Britney is the addictive, heart-pounding beat of an electro-house or hip-hop track. It is primal, almost universally appealing (except to those who pretend to be “above that sort of thing”), and can be created with relatively little effort.
If the two genres compete for shelf space, which will sell more records?
If the two aesthetics compete for male attention, which will sell more women?
–
The short answer to Mercer is this:
Yes, the culture’s preferences are now being shaped by the porn aesthetic.
And the blame falls squarely at the feet of the moronic countercultural liberals who lifted the doggie gate between the culture and the porn aesthetic in the first place.
Gil -
False premise. Men are much, much more looks-oriented than are women, so of course they can.
By contrast, women are much, much more status-oriented than are men.
So here’s the analogy:
Just as women are terrible at determining true female beauty, men are terrible at determining the status cues that attract women (hence the widespread belief, as laughable as it is rampant, that nice-guy whiteknighting will get and keep a good woman).
And, just as men can accurately assess other men’s looks, women can very accurately assess other woman’s standing in various social pecking orders.
You’re unfair to Julie Christie. She’s probably 30 years old and kitted out like a Russian spy in this shot and she’s still a 7. In her younger days she was a 9. Her strong jawline detracts from her femininity and gives her a challenging look but also suggests sexual vigor. This may be a personal kink, but I find slightly masculinized northern European women like her a real turn-on.
Please, people, do NOT derail this thread with more petty squabbling over 1-2 numerical points.
Ferdi,
As per usual, good post, sir! And thanks for the shoutout, too.
I was cracking up at how OneSTDV tried to define what an Alpha Male was using Eli Manning, and then he turned around and tried to poo poo Tom Brady. Only a clueless (and pussyless) chump would even fix his mouth to suggest such a thing. I submit the same is true on the female side.
Whew.
The Obsidian
Ironically, Ilana Mercer’s little whine is because Prejean DOES have a masculine personality.
Thus, the full-on attack by Larry King was smashed. But she IS also very pretty. So the usual whining about how a bad-man was SO MEAN to poor Larry backfired.
Now, the woman-whores, that is IIana Mercer and her ilk, are being called on to take her down.
Prejean is required to support Gay Marriage, OR ELSE. The Establishment, which included IIana, has spoken.
All of them are physically hot.
end of story.
I don’t give a fuck about numbers.
Men are usually pretty terrible at picking out which men women find handsome. However, they aren’t distracted by things like dress or status, like women are when judging other females’ looks.
Epoxy nails it on this one.
Sure, the culture became pornified. What the heck did women expect when they embraced sexual liberation? Of course things were going to flow to the lowest common denominator once the rules were simply thrust off. The fact that so many of the liberal so-called cognoscenti are in denial about this is frankly baffling.
I don’t know that I’m an expert in distinguishing between “porn beauty” and “natural striking beauty”, but based upon looking at the pictures in this post I would say that this is an example of Steve Sailer’s law of female journalism:
As I’ve mentioned before, a remarkable fraction of female journalistic output, at least the most heartfelt stuff, consists of demands for society to change so that that particular female journalist would be considered hotter looking.
http://isteve.blogspot.com/2009/07/female-journalism.html
It seems that the picture at the top of the blog and on Ilyana’s website is her. She seems to be more on the classical side of the spectrum.
1. I would like to point out that the most important male-attention-garnering feature on any woman who is at least a 5, is a smile showing she is genuinly happy to see you.
2. The picture of Ms Prejean would be improved by a point or two if she were giving it her professional smile.
3. The classic example of porn-aesthetic is Pamella Anderson. Big blong hair, big fake tits, and beyond stereotypically stupid. I don’t much care for her or that type myself. Synonym = skank.
4. To paint all desireable conservative chicks as “blond squad” and stupid is just mean spirited character assassination.
5. To call young audry’s looks “natural” is a bit of a stretch considering the makeup preparation that went into all of her public appearances, movies and still photos.
“I’d hit it…with six beers in my system and to break a dry spell. 5, possibly a 6.”
http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/uncyclopedia/images/7/71/Nothitit.jpg
“This is the Age of Flesh, where the desires of the loins rule all. “
That, my friend, it the Quote of the Day
In theory I agree with you.
In the specific cases given, I would take Audrey over Carrie Prejean any day. Don’t get me wrong, both women are attractive, but Hepburn facially is simply more beautiful, at least to me. Her features are more refined.
Normally Audrey Hepburn is the kind of woman I’d want to bear my children. And Carrie Prejean is the kind of woman I’d want for a fling in the back seat of my car taking my load deep inside of her.
Given the choice of either of them in the latter scenario I’d probably take Hepburn in the back seat too. There is something touching about debauches involving perfect pretty dolls.
I consider Hepburn to be beautiful in a refined girlish and almost pixie like way, and I consider Prejean to be pretty.. more than pretty enough.. in an attractive bargirl or milkmaid sort of way. I do not think Prejean is in Hepburn’s league.
Prejean’s body is far sexier than Hepburn, whose girlishness isn’t much of a turn on. But Hepburn’s face makes up for this. To me.
All that said, your point stands.
Julie Christie is more “handsome” than beautiful. Yep, there’s the appropriate epithet.
More attractive shots of her can be found than the one you posted, of course, but you’re right. 2 Beers in her case, 1 beer in Prejean, and Hepburn sober. Christie has a sort of elegance to her looks, but what beauty she does have does not move my loins. Her personality and smile could make up for this, but I really wouldn’t consider her to be anywhere near as physically attractive as either Hepburn or Prejean. Younger photos of her are more attractive.
Not too bad here:
http://www.leninimports.com/julie_christie_gallery_5.jpg
Brittney, I barely consider pretty. She is, or was, cute with a hot body. Not in either Prejean’s or Hepburn’s league. Brittney spears are a dine a dozen in any college town bar.
Both you and Novaseeker have a good point on the pornification of our culture.
Seriously, what do people expect? Strip the public’s innocence and lay everything bare and then all polite sentiment is removed. Sentimentality has little place in a brothel, those who object to this, while knowingly laying the foundations of the situation presently at hand, are suffering from a bit of a disconnect.
Props are given for being the only blogger this year using the term demimondaine. Erudition matters.
Well, if we are using the beer scale*, I would rate young Audry a 4, Prejean a 5 and Christie a 5.
* Number of beers I would be willing to buy for them to get them in an agreeable mood to let me “hit that”.
I rates young Audry only a 4 because I guess she is a lightweight. If four beers doesn’t do it for her I don’t think 5 would help. 6 would make her unconscious.
I’m not buying any for the statue and I doubt I could drink enough to mistake that for a real woman.
non-outlier (read: not David Alexander) dudes. She’s an 8
Actually, with some nails, Mademoiselle Prejean is very attractive to me. In contrast, you’d have to be gay to do Audrey Hepburn…
And the blame falls squarely at the feet of the moronic countercultural liberals who lifted the doggie gate between the culture and the porn aesthetic in the first place.
The lifting of said gate is what makes life worth living in our modern world. It brings a bit of visual flair to excite one’s senses, especially on a drab boring day. Besides, if you’re going to be a depressing pity-party sub-human, it’s nice to have something worth fucking to miss out on instead of drab, boring girls that aren’t worth a marriage AND divorce.
I don’t much care for her or that type myself. Synonym = skank.
I like skanks. :-)
I’m with Kamal on this one. 100%
O.k., for those of you that would pick Audrey, you really are sick. Not only is she old, but worse she’s DEAD. Twisted, pervert necrophiliacs. You all disgust me.
This post reminds me of that big “When God was a woman” schtick that was big in the 80′s and the feminist pointed out all the small female statues that could be found prehistory and they used that as evidence of goddess worship.
Then a guy pointed out a simplier form of worship and explanation: The statues were early porn.
I would say, though, that currently the standards are being blurred between the two types of beauty archetypes, due to the current culture and sliding everything toward the slutty.
I think an illustration of that is Natalie Portman. She’s often compared to Audrey Hepburn facially (and the two women also share relatively boyish physiques, more prominent than average eyebrows and so on), but it’s instructive to examine the differences, and how they reflect the eras.
Here’s a classic of Hepburn: http://blog.filmjabber.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/sabrina-audrey-hepburn.jpg
Boyish physique and hairstyle, but a face like Helen of Troy.
If we switch to Portman, we can see, in this example, the similarly fine features of her face, but with very different makeup choices, reflecting the current culture: http://www.hollywoodmeddler.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/natalie-portman.jpg
Even more exaggerated here: http://justpressplay.today.com/files/2009/07/natalie-portman.jpg
Of course, Hepburn was wearing makeup as well, but the style of it was to accentuate her face, whereas with Portman’s make-up choices, it’s to drive her face towards a more overtly sexual look. These two women have roughly similar facial characteristics, but what you see with Hepburn is a demure, feminine look (for her face itself), whereas with Portman the makeup is used to drive her natural face towards a more provacative and sexual look — more pornified or raunchified.
Epoxytocin No. 87:
In other words, “classic beauty” is a total crock of crap that the upper classes invented for the sole purpose of differentiating themselves from the lumpenproles.
robert61:
You did read what I wrote about outliers, right?
Professor Hale:
It’s what chicks do to other chicks. You can’t help but sense a little envy dripping from Mercer’s every word.
Thras:
Nice try. A hit is a hit is a hit. And I’m being awfully generous to Julie Christie, who look-a like-a man in that pic.
Kamal S:
Oh, don’t get me wrong. I agree with you that Hepburn’s face is prettier then Prejean’s, and I have a thing for the ingenues too, but I prefer to evaluate these things holistically. Hepburn’s face isn’t enough to make up for her crack-thin body in my opinion.
Professor Hale:
That didn’t stop the dozens of dudes who came before.
Kamal -
The golden mean is somewhere in the middle. A look that’s too much madonna and not enough whore is a problem, but so is the obverse.
I’m with you on the dissolute delights of debauching demure doll-like damsels, but I draw the line at bodies (like Hepburn’s) that would make me feel more like a pederast than a seducer. You want a woman who will make you feel like Casanova, not Peyrefitte.**
Wrong guy on your scorecard. That one was scored by no. 87.
Just sayin’.
–
**Kamal, erudition man — this was a gift for you, sir
As are 99% of all cultural shibboleths. The only markers of class that are not complete crocks of shit are (a) self-control and (b) future time orientation.
I hope you aren’t implying the same about actual adagios for strings, though. I love classical music.
Epoxytocin No. 87:
Depends on what kind you like. Most classical is fine (I prefer Romantic pieces myself), but people who take opera seriously – when the noblemen of yesteryear for whom it was written didn’t take it seriously (check the history books) – deserve to be ruthlessly mocked.
With you 100%. The late Romantic composers – Dvorak, Chopin, Tchaikovsky et al. – are my bag. With opera, I’m a “highlight film” kind of guy: I can appreciate a good aria, but you’d have to pay me a tidy sum to sit through an entire opera.
Back to the topic at hand…
In other words, “classic beauty†is a total crock of crap that the upper classes invented for the sole purpose of differentiating themselves from the lumpenproles.
Don’t sentimentalize the lumpenproles and their tastes. The upper classes have often been right and their pleasures genuinely superior.
Thrusday:
Don’t sentimentalize the lumpenproles and their tastes. The upper classes have often been right and their pleasures genuinely superior.
Agreed.
Audrey Hepburn had a magnetic effect on nearly all the men she met. Remember how Marilyn Monroe sang for JFK’s birthday? Well the following year, (the year that he died) Audrey Hepburn sang for his birthday!. She, not Marilyn, was his favourite actress.
Mel Ferrer, her first husband, was something of a Hollywood playboy. He could of had any woman he wanted in Hollywood. He chose her. In fact after they divorced, he still tried to get back with her.
I read her biography years ago and remembered that nearly all the leading me she starred with were smitten by her. Sex is plentiful. Class is not.
Hmm…
What could have possibly happened over the past half-century that would make men prefer sluts instead of wife material? Apparently, whatever it was, it’s not something that libertarians endorse.
Personally, I don’t find Prejean attractive. Bottle blonde hair and fake tits are dealbreakers. They should be banned from beauty pageants, like steroids in baseball. I would gladly volunteer to do the testing myself.
,i>Audrey’s no slouch face-wise, but she had a body like a prepubescent boy. 7.
*PA shakes his head in disagreement*
PA: audrey’s body is perfect. skinny enough to use a cherio as a hula hoop.
Carrie Prejean loses some rating points on account of her upper lip.
But I give her a solid 9.
That photo is definitely not the best photo of her.
Thursday Men are usually pretty terrible at picking out which men women find handsome
This isn’t true Thursday. Every man at the chateau knew that epoxy is very handsome and his masculine handsomeness is the major reason lilgrl gets so much hate.
Every man at the chateau knew that epoxy is very handsome and his masculine handsomeness is the major reason lilgrl gets so much hate.
I know that George Clooney is hot and you know Adriana Lima is hot, and that’s about it.
Women definitely aren’t good judges of female attractiveness. For Pete’s sakes, many of them find Sara Jessica Parker gorgeous; whereas virtually every man deems her the ugly horseface that she truly is.
Women definitely aren’t good judges of female attractiveness.
Yes we are. We know the type of women most men find hot. That why some women become jealous and hateful at the mere site of a gorgeous girl esp a gorgeous girl who turns her nose up at other women.
Among women, a woman’s natural beauty + grace+charm= sum total of beauty.
men= would I do her or Is she the best looking girl in the room.
For Pete’s sakes, many of them find Sara Jessica Parker gorgeous;
Sara is attractive to women because of her personality but rather average looking(not ugly) face and thin body aka another version of jennifer annison.
Women can find beauty in average looking women who exhbit grace and class.
But… women can identify true beauty of the sort that appeals to men. No woman who is being truly objective would say that oprah is more physically beautiful than liya kabede.
@Thursday- stop telling stories. You know epoxy is goodlooking for christ sakes.
George Clooney is past his prime and most women know it. They are just repeating what they here everyone else say. Just like the people who went on and on about Jennifer Aniston being so hot a few years ago when the true beauty was Courtney Cox.
Well, chic, I don’t doubt that women who actually are attractive can know that, because obviously, their experiences of male interest in them allow them to gauge that, and they can compare it with their girlfriends, and see how they all compare, relatively. But the fact that, as you say, women find SJP attractive because of her personality (what personality, BTW? You mean Carrie Bradshaw’s personality, i.e. the fictional character she plays, who they idolize, because they’d like to live her life; how stupid) goes to show, how once again, their judgement is biased and unreliable. Just like when they say they want X, Y, and Z in a guy, but will date a guy who’s nothing like their supposed ideal, because he pushes all their buttons, so they can’t help themselves.
If a lefty woman dislikes another woman’s politics (whether Carrie Prejean, Sarah Palin, Condi Rice), they immediately DE-HUMANIZE the woman. They can’t simply disagree, but they have to say she is ugly, dumb, etc.
That is why no picture ever created gets lefty women angrier than this one.
Julie Christie is a 5?
Have you seen Dr. Zhivago? She was a solid 9+ in her prime.
LOL. You call Julie Christie a 5-6 and then proceed to talk about how women are not the judges of female beauty. Pot meet kettle.
Thursday:
Oh, stop giving the upper classes credit they don’t deserve. They’re humans like everybody else – sometimes they get things right, sometimes they get things wrong.
chic noir:
If that’s how women determine beauty, then NO, they DON’T know what men find attractive. QED.
FeministX:
Prominent man-jaws don’t make for hot chicks.
If you’re trying to convince people you aren’t Half Sigma in disguise, you’re doing a pretty poor job.
Chic -
That’s the problem: you’re conflating “attractiveness” with “beauty”.
Admittedly, “beauty” can include the traits you’ve described, such as grace and charm. This is the sort of “beauty” that can influence a number of non-sexual interactions, such as a woman’s rank within female pecking orders.
However, we’re not talking about that sort of beauty. We’re talking about attractiveness, which is measured by exactly one thing – what men think.
Women’s problem lies in thinking that the same sort of “beauty” that will allow them to rise in other situations is directly applicable to their appeal to men.
It’s not.
BTW, Ferdinand, this article would have been more effectively titled if the last word were “attractiveness”.
Thursday -
Why the chip on your shoulder today bro?
You’re usually the model of equanimity / diplomatic-speak around here.
Sorry Ferdinand, I tried to ignore this post (I really did), but I just couldn’t resist turning it into a parody.
http://mustardseednovel.blogspot.com/2009/11/just-follow-your-penis-and-balls.html
Todd -
I posted a comment at your site, but it was moderated. (Somehow I’m not surprised.)
Basically:
You do understand that FB is talking about attraction, not action, here.
Right?
Do you, Todd, think that you can actually muster some sort of conscious control over exactly which women you find attractive?
…the mustered seed of attraction, as it were?
Ya mate Roissy reckoned Audrey was his favourite out of all those Hollywood beauties over time. It was that one where all the women merged into each other.
Should have posted this:
http://roissy.wordpress.com/2008/02/25/beautiful-women-past-to-present/
I was surprised at his choice, cause like you I thought that sort of ‘classy’ type was not that sexy as such.
Epoxytocin,
I moderate every comment, and post them all (unless they just consist of insults, which has only happened once).
I’ll reply to your question on my website.
Todd White:
You are a completely unsurprising character.
Jay:
You’d be surprised. Men of, ahem, *dissolute* tendencies like Roissy and myself generally aim for the classy ingenue types – you get that “despoiling the innocent” thrill. Here though, I gave the nod to Prejean because she doesn’t have a body like a little boy.
You’re usually the model of equanimity / diplomatic-speak around here.
1. Chic only reacted as she did because her reading comprehension was so terrible.
I.e. there was no insult to your looks.
2. Ferdinand is dead wrong that the proles are anywhere near as likely to have good taste as the upper classes. He’s starting to sound like some pick-up Tolstoy.
Thursday:
Criticizing the upper classes != romanticizing the proles.
A low blow. Tolstoy was an idiot because he exalted the peasantry during a time in which the nobles were unequivocally superior. High culture suffered a mortal blow when the European aristocracy was wiped out in World War I. Ever since then, the upper classes have been getting dumber and dumber.
Dude, I just compared you to Tolstoy. It wasn’t entirely a diss. ;)
What is ironic is that most men do not find Britney very attractive now. When she was 17, yes, because of her youth. As a blowsy, nutty single mother with two small boys, not so much.
If you look at women men find attractive, you see certain common denominators. Actress Teri Hatcher in the 1990′s was the most “downloaded woman in the Internet” but is now an aging cougar. Maxim and FHM and so on generally have the following women on the covers: Eliza Dushku, Laura Prepon, Mila Kunis, Megan Fox, etc.
What are the common features?
1. YOUTH. This cannot be emphasized enough.
2. Curves and fitness.
3. “Accessibility” i.e. non-plastic surgery, non “model” looks. Somewhat “girl next door.”
That’s about it. Men have found fit, attractive, non-stuck up young women attractive always. They always will.
Some women maintain attractiveness longer, and others see it fade quickly (Nikki Cox, Christina Applegate, Britney Spears, and Teri Hatcher being good examples).
and others see it fade quickly
It is amazing how so many women who were smoking at 20 have fallen to mediocrity just by age 30.
Nikki Cox
Jennifer Love Hewitt
Christina Applegate
Of course, no one has fallen further (albeit from age 35 to 45) than Keely Shay Smith. She went from a 9 to a 3 in just a decade.
I never thought I would utter the following words :
I am glad that I do NOT have to sleep with the woman Pierce Brosnan has to sleep with.
I think this is more of a white phenomenon, though. That is why we see Salma Hayek and Halle Berry still competitive at 40.
“Of course, no one has fallen further (albeit from age 35 to 45) than Keely Shay Smith. She went from a 9 to a 3 in just a decade. ”
Did you get that from my blog? I posted on this before it seemed to be commonly mentioned in the game community.
http://feministx.blogspot.com/2009/09/hope.html
Christina Applegate is still good looking. she has aged remarkably well.
tood think this is more of a white phenomenon, though. That is why we see Salma Hayek and Halle Berry still competitive at 40.
*Willard comes with all guns a blazing*
check out Gabrelle Union and Kenya Moore they beat both Salma and Halle by a landslide.
epoxy You’re usually the model of equanimity / diplomatic-speak around here
You’re not blind. you know the reason likgrl gets so much hate is because you are so handsome.
epoxy and ferdinand- reread my post.
If there are going to be blog posts regarding something as subjective as beauty then it should be mandatory that those posting must also post a photo of themselves.
chic noir:
I read your post just fine. You’re still wrong. Female beauty is a manifestation of attractiveness, and female attractiveness is determined not by women, but by men. At the gut level, guys don’t care about “grace” or “charm,” they care about what she looks like. See this comment from Thursday or the comment from Hermes in this post if you want clarification.
anoukange:
Beauty is not subjective.
A statement is true irregardless of who is saying it. To quote Roissy, “would a fat girl be less fat if it was a toothless homeless bum calling her fat?”
I sort of skimmed the post, and I think it had something to do with Carrie Prejean being hot and Audrey Hepburn being not hot.
While I’m sure my guy made wonderful, enlightened comments, as always, I think it’s important to point out that:
Ferdinand could have replaced “Carrie Prejean” with “Adriana Lima”, and he would’ve gotten the same responses to this post from everyone…except Epoxy.
Most boys are not so un-influenced by the media as they like to think.
That is all.
LILGRL:
*Sigh* Read the post. I wrote this in response to Ilana Mercer’s contention that Prejean is not beautiful and Hepburn and Christie are. I worketh with the tools I am given.
That’s been covered already.
I dunno, I think all you’re proving is that guys’ tastes in female beauty — while consistent in some respects — do indeed change over the ages. When they were at their peak, Audrey Hepburn and Julie Christie were wildly attractive to millions of men.
Audrey was a ballerina and a model; she appeared on the cover of Time; she starred opposite the biggest male stars of her time. She obviously wasn’t a fleshy, slutty, easy-to-have jerkoff fantasy for horny teens, but that was part of the point: she had charm and class as well as beauty, and that combo was found enchanting and delightful by men and women worldwide for about 20 years. She was a combo of two archetypes, the princess and the gamine.
Julie Christie was a different case. She was one of the great sex stars of the ’60s and ’70. She was the long term girlfriend of one of the great male sex stars of the time (Warren Beatty). She was the female in one of the great sex scenes of the era, opposite Donald Sutherland in “Don’t Look Back.” She had a model’s scrawny body, but that slightly masculine jaw gave the package some kinkiness and the full mouth gave her a lewd quality. She was found classy and porno-hot, in other words.
Anyway, the millions of guys who fantasized about having an affair with Audrey in Paris or about enjoying a sexy high life with Julie in London weren’t fooling themselves. They really did find these two women two of the most attractive in the world.
I did read the post (after I posted that comment), but my point was really that I bet a lot of guys think Adriana Lima is along the same level of hotness as Carrie Prejean. That’s all, really…don’t read too much into it.
Oh, and I just read the link you posted –
My point, here, is that you guys do not exist in a vacuum where pure female beauty is all you see, whether you like to think that or not. What you instinctively think is beautiful is totally influenced by the media/society (though, obviously, not as much as what women think is attractive is influenced by media/society), you just don’t realize it.
I have met a few guys who are more in touch with their raw sexual side than most guys — a few guys who are less influenced by the media and/or society in what they find attractive. But not many.
And absolutely none of those guys think Adriana Lima is hot. However, most guys (in my experience, correct me if my experience is totally outlier-ish) do think Adriana is hot. That’s all.
This has nothing to do with internet nerdlings having high porn standards. It has everything to do with realizing that, while guys do define female attractiveness (duh), they are definitely influenced (as all of society is) by outside factors.
By the way, that’s not really an argument with anyone. Just a comment for the board.
@ lilgrl
I call bullshit. How are you arbitrating to what level a man is or isn’t in touch with their “raw sexual side”?
Ferdinand:
Beauty is subjective. That’s not up for debate it is a fact. Now if someone or something in on the end of the spectrum (a.k.a. ugly) and they are clearly ugly then yes, they are ugly. I’m talking more along the lines of beauty already being aknowledged and then guys debating whether or not the girl is beautiful. I’m talking about the nuances not the obvious. oh, and since the guys over at The Spearhead posted pics, we all should so we can see which ugly people are commenting on beauty.
OMG, the guys at the Spearhead posted pics?!?! I AM SO ON IT.
Someone direct me!!!
I call bullshit. How are you arbitrating to what level a man is or isn’t in touch with their “raw sexual side�
By how little or how much he finds her attractive, I’d guess.
Nah, it’s actually more a question of how easily he gets hard. It’s not like I’ve slept with these guys.
Dude someone direct me to this pic thread.
*sigh* my point is really this: there are definitely women out there who, if you weren’t TOLD they were beautiful by society, you would NOT think they were beautiful. jennifer love hewitt (hewett?) is one of them (just b/c someone mentioned her in this post). or like, kirsten dunst (okay, nobody thinks she’s hot, but you get the point).
I don’t think they did post pics.
Chic,
You’re right. Courtney was way better looking then Jennifer.
If you want to see some well-preserved women, I’d have to say: Selma Hayek, Halle Berry, and Stacey Dash (1966!).
Hottest women IMO: Salma Hayek, Paz Vega, Monica Belluci, Megan Fox, Rhona Mitra & Anya Lahiri.
“Women definitely aren’t good judges of female attractiveness. For Pete’s sakes, many of them find Sara Jessica Parker gorgeous; whereas virtually every man deems her the ugly horseface that she truly is.”
Funny. I pointed out to my husband my astonishment that ugly horsefaced SJP ever got a starring role in community theater, much the less a network comedy show.
My husband said, “I dunno. I’d do ‘er.”
I hit him with my pillow.
B –
Just FYI, I’ve never met anyone who’s thought SJP was attractive. Male or female. Period.
Zed posted a full body shot of him walking on the beach on the “Do Western Women want Peace” thread. Welmer has one up at his site. I’ll get back to you all on the rest…
Ray Sawhill:
Charm and class were only requisite when the West had some semblance of high culture and monogamous behavior. Epoxytocin explained it better then I did. Even still, the most important thing is that the woman in question had to meet some sort of attractiveness threshold, which Hepburn did – I said as much in the post. Mercer’s unstated claim that class carries currency on its own, or can supplant natural physical beauty, is wrong. Men only care about those attributes in a girl if they want to stick it in her to begin with.
LILGRL:
That may be true, but to what degree? Not by much. Rosie O’Donnell is famous and no normal straight dude would want to hit that.
anoukange:
Then why din’tcha say so?
The only Spearhead guys I know of who’ve posted their pictures online are Welmer, zed, and Jack Donovan. I certainly haven’t – that would totally ruin the mystery!
And again, what difference does it make if the person is ugly or beautiful?
B:
That’s not saying much. Most guys will hit close to anything. Your husband was being more honest then most.
I’ve never met anyone who’s thought SJP was attractive.
I’ve met plenty. My ex thought she was the bees-knees.
“And again, what difference does it make if the person is ugly or beautiful?”
Do I dare say to illustrate what I’m sure to be examples of pure hypocrisy in a most blatent form? Or that there are double standrards for men and women on beauty, which of course there are, and that’s fine. It will never change. Women are suppose to lure the male in in our species so beauty is a must, just as great sex and burning attraction between a couple is a must..but being extemely critical, the way I have found many guys in this part of the interenet to be, causes me to want to see behind their masks is all.
SJP has a slammin body but her face isn’t all that great. In real life she is said to be a controlling “type A” personality and it shows on her face. She aged herself with little stress relief would be my guess.
Ferds–
Excellent. That’s all I had to say.
It wasn’t really at you, anyway, it was at the guys who are SRSLY resistant to the idea that what they find attractive is AT ALL influenced by outside factors.
“Just FYI, I’ve never met anyone who’s thought SJP was attractive. Male or female. Period.”
Yah. That’s why I hit hubby with pillow. If his standards of “doable” are that low, then the fact that he’s willing to do ME may, perchance, not be the grand compliment I thought it was…
You’re out of your mind FB. Julie Christie in her prime was a 10. Without a doubt.
Your picture of her is a fraud. That’s a dirty faced stressed out, older looking pic. She’s getting bravely into role there, no doubt for Doctor Zhivago.
LIL–
I agree that it is to an extent LIL. I also don’t think female beauty is as be all end all as Roissy would have it. It’s more a matter of thresholds. With increments of looks still mattering after, but increments of other things mattering more. As well, no matter how beautiful, most men will reject a truly nuts woman for LTR. Most not all. Well most will if she’s not vastly higher than what they can otherwise get.
I think we need a photo of Alias Clio in her youth to settle this debate once and for all.
anoukange:
See my link to LILGRL above. The opinions of anonymous supergeeks with bogus high standards shouldn’t concern you or anyone else.
Doug1:
Damn, I hit a nerve.
In any event, those pictures were picked by Mercer, not me. As I said to LIL, “I worketh with the tools I am given.”
I don’t find any of the three particularly desirable. Prejean looks dumb and two-dimensional; she projects no sensuality or feminine softness. Hepburn is too precious and boyish; and Christie is too thin and masculine.
Really Audrey Hepburn a 7? Have you seen the cover of “Breakfast at Tiffanies”? That poster is iconic for her feminine curves which adds to her sexy figure.
You’re a key board jock faggot. You’re blog should be shut down, since your perspective and opinions are moot. The other commentators who agree with you are moronic and should be put down for the benefit of society.
{ 5 trackbacks }