'She's not THAT pretty'

Eve_Dublin

I´d just like to ask a question out of curiosity. We all know a lot of famous women have had a lot of surgery done and even though we know this, we still compliment their beauty. So I want to know would you consider these women "beautiful" knowing how much surgery they´ve had? Are they really beautiful if they paid for it?

Personally I would have a natural repulsion when I come across "fake" but that´s just me. I don´t like to wear a lot of make up (just mascara everyday and a bit of foundation and lipstick for special occasions) but I´m talking about surgery and as well as superficial enhancing. If I know a woman has had surgery or has had an extreme superficial makeover to change how she looks permanently or temporarily and even if she looks great, I still wouldn´t call her beautiful. To me beauty is something natural. I understand not everyone is born gorgeous and feel they need to alter how they look so they are because beauty is valued above all else in a woman but I still wouldn´t call them beautiful. I guess I see it as not everyone can excel in everything. I´m not good at Art and I have accepted that and moved on, for example. The fact that most women with money to spend nowadays can be "beautiful" kind of cheapens the label in my opinion. Like every second woman is "beautiful" but not naturally.

I think it creates huge pressure among women to be beautiful that didn´t exist so much in the past because it´s almost unacceptable NOT to be "beautiful" because any woman can be. Marketing has made us believe that beauty is within the reach of any woman with the money to spend, even if it just means spending 60 quid in Boots.

What do you think? Am I being too harsh?

ztoical

Eve_Dublin wrote: »

I´d just like to ask a question out of curiosity. We all know a lot of famous women have had a lot of surgery done and even though we know this, we still compliment their beauty. So I want to know would you consider these women "beautiful" knowing how much surgery they´ve had? Are they really beautiful if they paid for it?

Personally I would have a natural repulsion when I come across "fake" but that´s just me. I don´t like to wear a lot of make up (just mascara everyday and a bit of foundation and lipstick for special occasions) but I´m talking about surgery and as well as superficial enhancing. If I know a woman has had surgery or has had an extreme superficial makeover to change how she looks permanently or temporarily and even if she looks great, I still wouldn´t call her beautiful. To me beauty is something natural. I understand not everyone is born gorgeous and feel they need to alter how they look so they are because beauty is valued above all else in a woman but I still wouldn´t call them beautiful. I guess I see it as not everyone can excel in everything. I´m not good at Art and I have accepted that and moved on, for example. The fact that most women with money to spend nowadays can be "beautiful" kind of cheapens the label in my opinion. Like every second woman is "beautiful" but not naturally.

I think it creates huge pressure among women to be beautiful that didn´t exist so much in the past because it´s almost unacceptable NOT to be "beautiful" because any woman can be. Marketing has made us believe that beauty is within the reach of any woman with the money to spend, even if it just means spending 60 quid in Boots.

What do you think? Am I being too harsh?

Can you name someone who is a natural beauty? Cus lets face it we've all got something fake going be it make-up, hair products, high heels or that push up bra that always works in the club. What do we draw the line as being fake? This idea of the natural beauty is itself fake....people put forward as natural beauties from history we've only got paintings and written accounts of their beauty which lets face it are biased and as we move into the era of photography and film people become more fake. People you see on television don't look the same in real life as you need to pile on the make-up just to make them look any way natural under hot television lights and camera filters and certain shapes and cuts of clothes read better on camera then others so they are taped and tucked into clothes. Even someone whose consider really stunning will need to be photoshoped in photos as the way cameras and lighting work it's always going to create odd shadows and patches that need to be edited.

Then there's natural aging, should we be judging people in their 50's the same as someone whose 20? I prefer people to have lines and wrinkles on their faces as it gives them character and makes it look like they've lived, that to me is attractive and interesting while alot of people don't want these lines as they see them as unattractive and go to great lengths to remove them.

Wibbs

ztoical wrote: »

Not in early Japanese and Chinese art. Wood block prints from around the 8th century show men and women with the same eye size.

Look at them again and look at ones from Korea too. The mens eyes are smaller. More "male", often heavier lidded too.

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.

I agree, but the manga style is like you say a much later influence. Clearly nowadays the ideal is for euro style eyes without the asian epicanthic fold. As an aside I dont see whats unattractive about that eyelid. Other populations have it. Even some europeans have it to some degree. I am not suggesting you'll see manga eyes before 1900, just that the size of eyes tends to follow a gender bias. It can be subtle enough though.

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.

I agree, but again there are "default" triggers for sexual attraction in both genders. These can get exaggerated in some cultures or lessened in others.

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.

Good example of my point. Women on average have smaller feet than men(I say this as a man with small feet ). Smaller hands in general too. In puberty the surge in male hormones promotes bone growth in males. So wider shoulders, bigger jaw more robust in general. If a woman is described as "mannish" these are usually the cues people tend to reference(of course its all relative). So small dainty feet are the baseline attraction trigger if we're focusing on that area. Ok grand. So a culture gets even more focused on this and hey presto foot binding is the exaggerated end point. Ditto with slimness in our culture to some degree. A healthy body in a culture where food is plentiful would be pretty slim and toned(in men and women). But again the culture if it focuses too much on one factor exaggerates it to the point where it becomes a fetish and hence we have anorexic ideals being pushed on us from the newstands and TV screens.

ztoical

Wibbs wrote: »

Look at them again and look at ones from Korea too. The mens eyes are smaller. More "male", often heavier lidded too.

I have looked at them, I do alot of wood block printing and have spent time in Japan studying both printmaking and comics and I don't see larger eyes evident among female figures in early prints...look at the work of Utagawa Kunisada and his court ladies or Katsukawa Shunzan and his ladies by the river series. It's been a point of discussion in anime recently with more and more studios moving towards using smaller eyes in line with traditional Japanese art rather then the more established 'anime' larger eyes which developed in the 1950s.

seenitall

Eve_Dublin wrote: »

I´d just like to ask a question out of curiosity. We all know a lot of famous women have had a lot of surgery done and even though we know this, we still compliment their beauty. So I want to know would you consider these women "beautiful" knowing how much surgery they´ve had? Are they really beautiful if they paid for it?

Personally I would have a natural repulsion when I come across "fake" but that´s just me. I don´t like to wear a lot of make up (just mascara everyday and a bit of foundation and lipstick for special occasions) but I´m talking about surgery and as well as superficial enhancing. If I know a woman has had surgery or has had an extreme superficial makeover to change how she looks permanently or temporarily and even if she looks great, I still wouldn´t call her beautiful. To me beauty is something natural. I understand not everyone is born gorgeous and feel they need to alter how they look so they are because beauty is valued above all else in a woman but I still wouldn´t call them beautiful. I guess I see it as not everyone can excel in everything. I´m not good at Art and I have accepted that and moved on, for example. The fact that most women with money to spend nowadays can be "beautiful" kind of cheapens the label in my opinion. Like every second woman is "beautiful" but not naturally.

I think it creates huge pressure among women to be beautiful that didn´t exist so much in the past because it´s almost unacceptable NOT to be "beautiful" because any woman can be. Marketing has made us believe that beauty is within the reach of any woman with the money to spend, even if it just means spending 60 quid in Boots.

What do you think? Am I being too harsh?

A lovely stretch of landscape in Donegal is naturally beautiful. A lovely, well-proportioned woman will be naturally beautiful.

However, a good work of art (think of some sculptures by Michelangelo or Rodin) will be equally beautiful. The difference is, it was made by a human hand. See where I'm going with this?

Demi Moore has had some fantastic work done, both on body and face. As a refreshing change when it comes to plastic surgery, she doesn't look weird, she looks... good :eek:. Granted, she was beautiful to begin with, somewhat comparable to the quality of marble with which Rodin was working. Therefore in my opinion, she is beautiful full stop.

As to the rest, I think you said yourself (or was it someone else on the thread) that women are pretty good at sussing out who is beautiful and who is not under the slap. I think the same applies to the "work" being done - I mean, there is a world of difference between an artificial trout pout (Meg Ryan) and naturally full lips (ScarJo). Same goes for Botox and whatever else. You can build on natural beauty well, and this will be beautiful (Demi), you can build on it badly, and that will be a disaster (Kylie, Nicole "FrozenForehead" Kidman), you can build on something average and come up with a pretty good end result (Megan Fox - that girl should write a letter of ackowledgment to her cheekbones), but if there is NO quality at all at the starting point, than as things (still) stand, there will be no saving grace, no way forward.

I forget my point... (drawbacks of ageing...:()

Ah, yes! Beautiful is beautiful is beautiful. If it looks good, it's beautiful.

Eve_Dublin

seenitall wrote: »

As to the rest, I think you said yourself (or was it someone else on the thread) that women are pretty good at sussing out who is beautiful and who is not under the slap. I think the same applies to the "work" being done - I mean, there is a world of difference between an artificial trout pout (Meg Ryan) and naturally full lips (ScarJo). Same goes for Botox and whatever else. You can build on natural beauty well, and this will be beautiful (Demi), you can build on it badly, and that will be a disaster (Kylie, Nicole "FrozenForehead" Kidman), you can build on something average and come up with a pretty good end result (Megan Fox - that girl should write a letter of ackowledgment to her cheekbones), but if there is NO quality at all at the starting point, than as things (still) stand, there will be no saving grace, no way forward.

I forget my point... (drawbacks of ageing...:()

Ah, yes! Beautiful is beautiful is beautiful. If it looks good, it's beautiful.

Yes, it was I who said that about being able to tell! I´m so wise But I guess I take it a little too far...maybe I´m not as forgiving as most...or maybe I just have very good eyesight.

I see your point. If it´s looks beautiful, then it is. Yeah, that does make sense. However I still would never call a woman truly beautiful unless I know she could scrub her face of everything and still look striking. A statue is a mad made object, a human is an animal and thus is natural. I suppose it´s a personal thing....I´m actually repulsed by fakery (fake personalities most of all). Fake tan makes me queasy...physically queasy and I feel uneasy when I wear the smallest amount of make up, so I generally don´t even though I know I´d look more enhanced with it on. I don´t like looking at women close who up because I hate the look of make up on pores and I shudder when I see a foundation line on a chin and fake nails make me feel...I don´t know...uncomfortable. And porcelain veneers! Don´t get me started...I suppose it´s a bit of a phobia. I can´t explain it. Plastic surgery repels me even more. I guess there´s those who were beautiful to begin with so they´re adding to that. Demi Moore is a very good example...she was a natural beauty and now she still LOOKS great...but I can´t help imaging what she´d look like if she just let herself age naturally (and truly beautiful women can age beautifully but she works in an industry that doesn´t tolerate aging)...it´s something that niggles when I see a photo.

Saying all that, I wouldn´t knock a woman for doing what she wants to do with her body. Not at all. I´d just be more judgemental on how truly beautiful they are and wouldn´t be so quick to label them as such. I´ll probably succumb myself in about 20 years, who knows but at the moment my feelings are that it´s all getting a bit out of hand and there´s enormous pressure on women to be "beautiful", even it means caking it on so the person doesn´t resemble the same person that got out of the shower that morning or going under the knife. There seems to be no acceptance among women nowadays that they´re not "stunning" and that´s life. You have to deal with it. I think a little more acceptance of this could stop things getting REALLY out of hand (although I think they already have). I´m just repulsed by how fair it´s all come...I think it´s a pretty natural reaction though, no?

Edit: Just to add, I do wear mascara everyday and I sometimes wear bras with padding and I´ve worn lipstick, foundation at special occasions but I´m really talking about taking that to the extreme.

Wibbs

ztoical wrote: »

I have looked at them, I do alot of wood block printing and have spent time in Japan studying both printmaking and comics and I don't see larger eyes evident among female figures in early prints...look at the work of Utagawa Kunisada and his court ladies or Katsukawa Shunzan and his ladies by the river series. It's been a point of discussion in anime recently with more and more studios moving towards using smaller eyes in line with traditional Japanese art rather then the more established 'anime' larger eyes which developed in the 1950s.

We'll have to agree to disagree on the older stuff :)As for the crazy anime eyes it's good to hear there is that discussion and move away from that and good thing too. My point is that your contention that what is considered beautiful is not just cultural. There is a science behind it and there are valid organic reasons why various things including beks101 list are universal. Culture may accentuate one or more features to the point of fetish, but the underlying reasons from a reproductive point of view remain.

It's also how we want to define beautiful. A mountain view is beautiful, but has no reproductive reason to be. Indeed both male and female genitals are objectively less beautiful than the same mountain view, but people are usually and viscerally attracted to them more(in a different way). An artist(Lucien Freud a good example) may prefer to paint a very large, nay obese person, because its more interesting from a painterly point of view and it is beautiful, but is it reproductively beautiful? Ditto for an old lined face carved by time and experience.

The other problem with our society is balance and where we focus. We focus on youth and reproductive triggers like few others have(ironic as we tend to live longer). Where they have venerated youth, they have also focused on great age. So the greeks as an example were big into gilded youth, but at the same time venerated great age and the wisdom that comes from it. To the point where they would mash up the two and you can find heroic/god statues where the male body is heavily muscled and youthful yet the head is an older one. The renaissance dudes did the same. http://www.awakentoprayer.org/God.creating.adam.jpeg Micks god there, all grey hair and flowing beard has a physique the guys in the fitness forum hereabouts would kill for You tend to see similar balanced weighting of all stages of life(except inbetweeny middle age) in most art from most cultures before our own.

So this fetish of youth skews out perceptions. Particularly for women. They really bloody well get it in the neck on this score. In hunter gatherer societies and many others, older women are looked up to as much if not more than older men, or men in general(and more looked up to than 20 year old women). Women were/are celebrated for their youth, they're celebrated for the middle mother/wife part and the celebrated for their post reproductive age. The old maiden mother and "crone" vibe. Very strong in many cultures including our own in the past. Today all we concentrate on is the maiden aspect. What is considered ideal is the figure and face of an 18 year old and a specific 18 year old archetype while we're at it. To the ridiculous degree where we can see ads for anti aging skin cream being modeled by late teenage women. Its insidious crap too. So someone like Jenny aniston is admired, not because of her age, but because she has through good luck with her genes, hard graft and possible help kept the maiden look.

It also plugs into this she's not that pretty thing too. When a section of society is lauded for just one thing, anything they do outside of that is ignored or hauled up for comparison to that one things. Its no great surprise that women get that or do that to other women.

iguana

Wibbs wrote: »

The other problem with our society is balance and where we focus. We focus on youth and reproductive triggers like few others have(ironic as we tend to live longer).

The thing is though, that despite what we (and the media) focus on is irrelevant to our sub-conscious perceptions. If we favour a particular facial bone structure, for example, that usually stays the same for our whole lives. And while a man of 25 isn't going to find a beautiful 80 year old woman attractive a man of 90-65 very likely will.

My grandmother will be 80 next month and she gets a lot of attention from the men in her peer group. She always has a boyfriend (or two) and plenty of other men taking her to dances and giving her presents. She's obviously not going to have men in their 20s and 30s looking at her in desire, but ageing doesn't remove everything that made her attractive in her youth, regardless of what wider society venerates.

Look at someone like the 64 year old Helen Mirren. She is an utterly beautiful woman, ageing isn't changing that just narrowing the field of who would consider her as a mate. Or going older Katherine Helmond at 81 is still captivating, imo. Again obviously younger people won't find her sexually attractive but that doesn't diminish her beauty.

beks101

Wibbs wrote: »

It also plugs into this she's not that pretty thing too. When a section of society is lauded for just one thing, anything they do outside of that is ignored or hauled up for comparison to that one things. Its no great surprise that women get that or do that to other women.

+1,000,000. This is what it's all about, really.

Being 'beautiful' gives a woman a power that is head and shoulders above any other talent or skill she may have, and this is probably the single most bang-your-head-against-a-wall frustrating aspect of being female in this day and age. Looks first, anything else after. Looks breed 'value' and yield power like no other.

The girl I described in my first post was highly academically intelligent (550 points in Leaving and ended up getting a 1.1 degree), very talented at acting/performing and had fantastic social skills (don't you just love her already?? :rolleyes:) -so she was exceptional on more counts than just her looks. But she didn't become known as 'Smart Sarah' or 'that talented actress' etc...it was 'Hot Sarah.'

I can surmise the 'not that pretty' thing from other women, while mainly stemming from insecurity, is egged on by the fact that she was almost given a superpower on college campus as a result of something she did nothing to achieve - she was simply born that way. It's not her fault of course, but many less confident/attractive woman are going to look on the constant attention/admiration/adulation etc and seemingly easy-pass in life on so many fronts that her looks get her, and think, 'what did she do to deserve that? Where's the work/reward balance in that?'

Ickle Magoo

But isn't a "not that pretty" comment just in response to someone over-stating how gorgeous they find the person in question? I think some of it just comes down to human nature. If I went on and on about how gorgeous a bloke was to a group of other men, I'd bet my house that comments regarding the blokes less attractive qualities would be forth-coming....

iguana

beks101 wrote: »

Being 'beautiful' gives a woman a power that is head and shoulders above any other talent or skill she may have,

With the exception of Susan Boyle. If she had been good looking or even unremarkable she would never have been highlighted in the way that she was. I found that whole thing fairly distasteful. 'Somewhat unattractive woman has rather great voice!!!!!!' OMG what a crazy shock!!!!!!!!!:eek::eek::eek:

Just the opposite end of the scale of, wow, gorgeous woman has phd in astrophysics!!!!! Amazing!!!!!!

I remember many, many years ago spending the night with a friend of a friend. At one stage in the night we ended up talking about literature and it turned out we were both Shakespeare fans. His favourite play was MacBeth, mine was Hamlet and our second favourite was each the other's favourite. We were enthusiastically discussing them and debating why 'our' play was best. All of a sudden he just stopped talking and in this really shocked voice exclaimed, 'of all the people I thought I'd ever discuss Shakespeare with it was never you.

Apparently the way I dressed and was flirty and had watches to match my dresses and had big boobs and was pretty meant I was shallow and stupid.:rolleyes: At the time I was actually sort of pleased to have shown him how much more there was to me than his assumptions. But I look back on that now and I'm sort of pissed. I mean fine, I was dressed up and flirty but he only ever saw when I was in bars and nighclubs, that's how people usually are in those places, yet I was judged as an airhead for it. I was a journalism student and he was a full-time barman. If either one of us was going to make unflattering judgements about the other's intellect surely it should have been the other way around?

iguana

iguana wrote: »

I remember many, many years ago spending the night with a friend of a friend. At one stage in the night we ended up talking about literature and it turned out we were both Shakespeare fans. His favourite play was MacBeth, mine was Hamlet and our second favourite was each the other's favourite. We were enthusiastically discussing them and debating why 'our' play was best. All of a sudden he just stopped talking and in this really shocked voice exclaimed, 'of all the people I thought I'd ever discuss Shakespeare with it was never you.

Apparently the way I dressed and was flirty and had watches to match my dresses and had big boobs and was pretty meant I was shallow and stupid.:rolleyes: At the time I was actually sort of pleased to have shown him how much more there was to me than his assumptions. But I look back on that now and I'm sort of pissed. I mean fine, I was dressed up and flirty but he only ever saw when I was in bars and nighclubs, that's how people usually are in those places, yet I was judged as an airhead for it. I was a journalism student and he was a full-time barman. If either one of us was going to make unflattering judgements about the other's intellect surely it should have been the other way around?

God, don't even get me started on that. I was going to make a topic about this a while ago. I'm sick to death of people assuming I'm some airhead bimbo because I like pretty dresses and am talkative. When men wear nice clothes and talk about trivial topics, that's absolutely normal, but when women do it, it makes them thick? It feels like in order to be taken seriously as a woman, you need to be unattractive, badly dressed and dull. Like you I've been talked down to by men who have no further education and don't come across as that intelligent and it's infuriating. I don't claim to know everything, but I've always done really well in college and am doing an MA now, I'm not an idiot!

tinkerbell

cherub rock wrote: »

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.

Not many people idolise Kristen Stewart - there's so much hating going on with her - you either like her or absolutely despise her, and so many people hate her and say about her acting ability - but the same people who say those things are Rob Pattinson OBSESSED - so it's pretty obvious that they are just jealous idiots that she gets to kiss him in the Twilight movies and / or in their personal life. Personally, I like her and I think she looks amazing and her acting is fine.

I haven't read the whole thread (just the first page) but someone said about losing weight and then being called anorexic and whatever. That's from just jealous fat women who are too lazy to get off their arse and exercise, and so hate it then when other women actually make the effort to get fit, keep slim and trim. You're not gonna get a thin person calling you anorexic if you're a size six - they'd be saying you look great. Size six is not anorexic ffs.

And as for "she's not THAT pretty", jealous ugly women again who say that! Women can be so bitchy, as a result, I have way more guy friends than girl friends as I just can't deal with the drama of women, it just annoys me.

parker kent

ztoical wrote: »

Can you name someone who is a natural beauty? Cus lets face it we've all got something fake going be it make-up, hair products, high heels or that push up bra that always works in the club. What do we draw the line as being fake? This idea of the natural beauty is itself fake....people put forward as natural beauties from history we've only got paintings and written accounts of their beauty which lets face it are biased and as we move into the era of photography and film people become more fake. People you see on television don't look the same in real life as you need to pile on the make-up just to make them look any way natural under hot television lights and camera filters and certain shapes and cuts of clothes read better on camera then others so they are taped and tucked into clothes. Even someone whose consider really stunning will need to be photoshoped in photos as the way cameras and lighting work it's always going to create odd shadows and patches that need to be edited.

As a guy, I don't even consider girls on TV, in photographs or nights out when deciding if somebody is a natural beauty. Day-to-day life is when that can decided. You say that people don't look the same in real life as they do on TV. That is true, in fact they often look better as all the smoke and mirrors is taken away and you see the real person.

Celebrity wise I can vouch for Caroline Morahan being a natural beauty. I happened to run into her one day at a blockbusters in Dublin and she was just there in sweat pants and without make-up. She looked so beautiful, it was ridiculous. My friend who worked there said she came in all the time like that and always looked fantastic.

She is one example out of many. Really pretty girls do not need anything to enhance them, they look just as beautiful in grey sweatpants watching TV as they do in stilettos and a Dior dress.

The notion that natural beauty is fake is not true for me anyway. I see girls every day who are naturally beautiful. But they are not photoshopped nor are they in layers of make-up, they are just going about their daily lives. Photoshop cannot reproduce the dazzling electric blue eyes or cute, smiley faces I see every day. These are girls that are jaw-droppingly beautiful with perfectly symmetrical faces, high cheekbones, wide, bright eyes and perfectly proportioned bodies. Maybe girls view each other differently, but to my male eyes there are natural beauties all around us!

Now I just need to get one as a girlfriend

JimmyCrackCorn

Never got why women do that to themselves. The constant pressure to compare yourselves to someone else, be it looks or how much of a car crash there lives are.

Give yourselves a break.

smelltheglove

tinkerbell wrote: »

Not many people idolise Kristen Stewart - there's so much hating going on with her - you either like her or absolutely despise her, and so many people hate her and say about her acting ability - but the same people who say those things are Rob Pattinson OBSESSED - so it's pretty obvious that they are just jealous idiots that she gets to kiss him in the Twilight movies and / or in their personal life. Personally, I like her and I think she looks amazing and her acting is fine.

I haven't read the whole thread (just the first page) but someone said about losing weight and then being called anorexic and whatever. That's from just jealous fat women who are too lazy to get off their arse and exercise, and so hate it then when other women actually make the effort to get fit, keep slim and trim. You're not gonna get a thin person calling you anorexic if you're a size six - they'd be saying you look great. Size six is not anorexic ffs.

I really really dont like her, but not for her acting, because the girl NEVER smiles, I mean she is a pretty girl, she has gotten very lucky in life recently and yet she still wont smile! People spend money seeing her movies, idolise her yet when she turns up on a red carpet she looks like she is so depressed like shes going to a funeral!

I had the comment said about me, a long time ago, I was an air hostess and me not being girly decided to stay in when all the others went out. Well we had been staying in a hotel and a guy there asked a few of them where I was. Apparently they were quite disgusted that of the 30 or os in our group he was asking after me, like what was so special about me! I was quite insulted by it to be honest, I was a pretty enough girl when I was young and slim too, (not now unfortunately) I may not have been as fashionable or hung up on myself as the others were but did that mean he should fancy them over me? Like they were better than me.

When I look at girls on the street I will be looking at them as if would I like to take their photo. There are some stunning looking girls that I wouldnt particularily like to photograph, not because they are too goodlooking or anything but because of expression and a level of interest. I would happily point out to someone if I think they are good looking, I have done quite recently, some people are taken aback but I always say it is because I think hey would look good on camera.

I hate negativity, I hate when people put others down without merit or reason, jealousy is a terrible thing at times!

The Lovely Muffin

I've said it about other women and I've also said about myself, many times, that I am no looker either.

In fact, I have in the past thought of and called myself ugly.

Dudess

I love how some people on this thread TELL women, who go to great lengths to explain themselves, that they're jealous merely for not understanding the fuss over certain women. Would they be jealous if they couldn't understand the fuss over certain men?

Posy

Dudess wrote: »

I love how some people on this thread TELL women, who go to great lengths to explain themselves, that they're jealous merely for not understanding the fuss over certain women. Would they be jealous if they couldn't understand the fuss over certain men?

Ha, I don't think so!
I had that scenario in college a few years back. A girl on my course- a nice girl, lovely looking- was constantly fawned over by the guys on the course. Of course it's natural to be a (bit!) jealous of girls that make the fellas drool but I literally couldn't see it! To me, she was very nice personality-wise and just above average looks-wise. But I did not get why everyone thought she was so stunning. But if I was to voice that opinion I'd just be called petty and jealous. Aargh.

Dudess

I don't get why so many women go into a weakness for Tom Selleck - will it be assumed I'm jealous of Tom Selleck? Highly unlikely (not keen on a 'tache for one ) so why can't the same be applied in the case of a woman? Why is it jealousy because she's the same gender as I? Peeps who think it's a case of jealousy every single time (not disputing it possibly IS jealousy sometimes) can fuk off tbh.

K-9

Dudess wrote: »

I don't get why so many women go into a weakness for Tom Selleck - will it be assumed I'm jealous of Tom Selleck? Highly unlikely (not keen on a 'tache for one ) so why can't the same be applied in the case of a woman? Why is it jealousy because she's the same gender as I? Peeps who think it's a case of jealousy every single time (not disputing it possibly IS jealousy sometimes) can fuk off tbh.

Generally a moustache isn't liked on a woman!

But yes, I agree, this isn't a gender specific issue!

Dudess

JimmyCrackCorn wrote: »

Never got why women do that to themselves. The constant pressure to compare yourselves to someone else, be it looks or how much of a car crash there lives are.

Give yourselves a break.

Read the thread?

And re the WAG look: Chanelle, Danielle Lloyd etc. I personally don't consider a lot of these women attractive - as in MY idea of attractive. Objectively they are pretty - I'm certainly not deeming them ugly - but I just, generally, don't consider their "look" attractive, with some exceptions of course (e.g. Cheryl Tweedy, Alex Curran).

LilMsss

tinkerbell wrote: »

I haven't read the whole thread (just the first page) but someone said about losing weight and then being called anorexic and whatever. That's from just jealous fat women who are too lazy to get off their arse and exercise, and so hate it then when other women actually make the effort to get fit, keep slim and trim. You're not gonna get a thin person calling you anorexic if you're a size six - they'd be saying you look great. Size six is not anorexic ffs.

I take exception to this comment and the assumption that 'fat' women, at whichever size or weight you happen to deem them too fat to have a valid opinion, are jealous or lazy!

And your comment on not getting a 'thin person' calling you anorexic or saying you're too thin is total crap. I was fat for years while I was growing up and have never been jealous of anyone, either looks, personality etc. Now while I may have been envious with regard to certain aspects of people's looks, fashion, personality etc, it was always fleeting and I have never been jealous, as I am not a jealous person.

While I don't think it's anyone's place to comment directly to someone on their appearance, when it comes to body weight, everyone thinks they have an opinion, and insist on sharing it. I lost 6.5 Stone through working my ass off at the gym and it was people of all sizes (particularly skinny) who commented on it throughout.

People constantly told me I had gotten too thin. I was a size 14 and was hardly too thin, although some of my bones were sticking out, but that's just my frame. What some of them really meant was, don't get any thinner than me!!!

And BTW I have always exercised even at my heaviest, although obviously I do a hell of a lot more now. So if I had commented on someone's appearance while in the process of losing weight (and exercising), would my opinion have been invalidated by the fact that I was fat and obviously 'jealous' and 'lazy'???

Dudess

tinkerbell wrote: »

I haven't read the whole thread (just the first page)

.

Size six is not anorexic ffs.

It can be. I for instance certainly would be underweight if I went down to a size six (I acknowledge many petite, slender women can be perfectly healthy at size six though).

And as for "she's not THAT pretty", jealous ugly women again who say that!

Seeing as you're not bothering to read the thread, here's the tl;dr version: when women say "She's not THAT pretty" it's not always jealousy, just their opinion. People have varying opinions.

Women can be so bitchy

Can't they just?