Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well I think she is pretty and she has a nice body. But I'm guessing that some people feel the way about People deciding she is the most Beautiful Person the same way I did about that guy they picked as the Sexiest Man Alive. I was like WTF?
Actually this is just reminding me of how hot and sexy and cute Channing Tatum is, so I'm posting a gratuitous picture.
"American men"
Pretty much all men. Men and women obviously are thinking of 'Beauty' in different ways. Is yours less valid? Depends on the context. If your looking at it from the stand point of a Heterosexual woman finding a man your point is less valid. Your female friends and even strangers can tell you how beautiful you are, but if the opposite sex thinks of you as ordinary when all your friends say you are beautiful your not going to easily find a man. Of course, if you are just making a general statement of appreciating a womans beauty I find your point just as valid.
And I think that this is the perfect example of the disconnect between the way that men and women think about beauty. I do not equate my "beauty" with finding a man or with a man desiring me. If a man says that I am beautiful, I interpret that as he finds my appearance pleasing not that he wants to have sex with me. As a woman, I see men who are physically attractive all of the time but that does not mean that I necessarily want to have sex with them; I am simply appreciating their physical attractiveness.
I don't think she is any more or less beautiful than most of the winners of past years. I never understood what all the rage was about with Gwyneth Paltrow or Julia Roberts.
She won and she feels good about herself, good for her.
Why? Because our opinion is somehow less valid simply because you personally happen to disagree? Women have the ability to see true beauty because we are thinking in terms of the woman's full package and not just whether the woman is someone that we want to have sex with. American men give their "soldiers" far too much of a say in who is beautiful.
Lupita possesses more than just physical beauty. The woman radiates grace, intelligence and style. She's the full package.
And I think that this is the perfect example of the disconnect between the way that men and women think about beauty. I do not equate my "beauty" with finding a man or with a man desiring me. If a man says that I am beautiful, I interpret that as he finds my appearance pleasing not that he wants to have sex with me. As a woman, I see men who are physically attractive all of the time but that does not mean that I necessarily want to have sex with them; I am simply appreciating their physical attractiveness.
Agreed. There's definitely a difference between beautiful and sexy. There's overlap, but they're not necessarily the same. An 80-year-old woman can be beautiful. A woman who's had a double mastectomy can be beautiful. Someone in a wheelchair can be beautiful. There's more to beauty than looking hot in a bikini.
She's attractive. People magazine needed fresh faces to do story about. What's better than a rising Oscar winner?
What's better than a rising Oscar winner is an average person on the street. I, for one, am sick and tired of seeing these magazines rave about celebrities as being the most beautiful people out there. They are choosing from a very small pool of people. I guarantee there are people more beautiful than everyone on that list, living all around us, at least if we level the playing field and take away the uber-expensive hairstylists, makeup artists, fashion designers, etc. that these celebrities can afford. Give everybody a week with no doing-up of any kind, then give 'em all a washcloth, a bar of soap, a hair brush, a towel, and a hair dryer. An hour after they shower, THEN check them for beauty. You'll see.
After all, every one of us has seen those "celebrities without their makeup" pictures. They look as average as any other woman when you take away the things they can buy with their astronomical wealth. Wealth and prominence should not equal physical beauty.
People magazine needs a fresh face to do a story about, especially where beauty is concerned? The best example I can think of was in my arms as we went to sleep last night, and woke up next to me this morning.
What's better than a rising Oscar winner is an average person on the street. I, for one, am sick and tired of seeing these magazines rave about celebrities as being the most beautiful people out there. They are choosing from a very small pool of people. I guarantee there are people more beautiful than everyone on that list, living all around us, at least if we level the playing field and take away the uber-expensive hairstylists, makeup artists, fashion designers, etc. that these celebrities can afford. Give everybody a week with no doing-up of any kind, then give 'em all a washcloth, a bar of soap, a hair brush, a towel, and a hair dryer. An hour after they shower, THEN check them for beauty. You'll see.
After all, every one of us has seen those "celebrities without their makeup" pictures. They look as average as any other woman when you take away the things they can buy with their astronomical wealth. Wealth and prominence should not equal physical beauty.
People magazine needs a fresh face to do a story about, especially where beauty is concerned? The best example I can think of was in my arms as we went to sleep last night, and woke up next to me this morning.
People is a celebrity magazine, whose audience is interested in celebrities. That's who they are responsible to satisfy, not those who don't care about celebrities. Their audience is not interested in "average people on the street", so for what reason should they feature them? Since when is a celebrity magazine supposed to make some sort of societal statement rather than cater to what its' readers buy it for? I guess you think Cosmo should concentrate on study tips for improving SAT scores rather than relationship quizzes and sex tips, and Playboy should feature The Women of Walmart??
This is not some shallow woman, in any case, she is a highly intelligent, articulate women who graduated from Yale. I think she looks not only beautiful but regal, like an African Queen, and I think her poise, intelligence and personality make her all the more beautiful.
People is a celebrity magazine, whose audience is interested in celebrities. That's who they are responsible to satisfy, not those who don't care about celebrities. Their audience is not interested in "average people on the street", so for what reason should they feature them? Since when is a celebrity magazine supposed to make some sort of societal statement rather than cater to what its' readers buy it for? I guess you think Cosmo should concentrate on study tips for improving SAT scores rather than relationship quizzes and sex tips, and Playboy should feature The Women of Walmart??
This is not some shallow woman, in any case, she is a highly intelligent, articulate women who graduated from Yale. I think she looks not only beautiful but regal, like an African Queen, and I think her poise, intelligence and personality make her all the more beautiful.
Then let People title its article "America's 100 Most Beautiful Celebrities", or if they want to be presumptuous, "The World's Most Beautiful Celebrities".
The problem is that People doesn't title its articles as such. Rather, by titling them "World's Most Beautiful Woman", "50 Most Beautiful", "100 Most Beautiful", "The 50 Most Beautiful People In The World", they are automatically asserting their belief that celebrities are inherently more physically beautiful than people who aren't celebrities. This is simply not true, and I am married to the proof. Let them do articles about celebrities if they want to. But when they try to say that American celebrities are the most beautiful PEOPLE in the WORLD, that's just so much blather.
I don't think she is any more or less beautiful than most of the winners of past years. I never understood what all the rage was about with Gwyneth Paltrow or Julia Roberts.
She won and she feels good about herself, good for her.
Julia Roberts had a huge PR machine working for her. Same with Jennifer Aniston. Neither of them are much above ordinary/average. Hollywood used to have real beauties, really striking looks. What happened to that?
Location: where you sip the tea of the breasts of the spinsters of Utica
8,297 posts, read 14,166,733 times
Reputation: 8105
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth
Julia Roberts had a huge PR machine working for her. Same with Jennifer Aniston. Neither of them are much above ordinary/average. Hollywood used to have real beauties, really striking looks. What happened to that?
Meh ...... even the old Hollywood broads mostly were hyped, they weren't that beautiful to me. However I do have a kind of thing for that WW2 pinup gal, Rita Hayworth:
I don't think beauty should be mixed up with talents ..... it's not "The Most Accomplished" list.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
