Going beyond the artifice, who do you really find attractive?

[OldManProdigy]

This was originally going to be a response to maddog015's thread entitled 'Hot girls (or guys) that you consider unattractive' but i felt it was too long to be a simple reply and more suited for discussion.

Personally i got to say that i am rather unimpressed with what beauty in popular culture has become today.

a hot person is a hot person, make no mistake about it, but for me there is something lost on these women in the magazines/paper/TV these days which i find rather disappointing.
Without trying to romanticize the past or anything here i find the earthy, natural good looks women had at one stage to be gone in place of a 'manufactured' image adopted by the majority of the really popular ladies of the now

I can't exactly put my finger on it, it's difficult to explain but I'll try and paint a picture with a real life example.

Growing up as a boy in the 90's shows like Dawson's Creek, Baywatch and the like were very popular with young guys because of the eye-candy, of course once the 00's kicked in and i was finally a teenager having gone through puberty and what-not, we had shows like the OC, North Shore and so on.

Basically I, like most of the male population around then were doomed to spend an ungodly amount of time oogling at the chicks in spite of the shittines of the shows, and it was the same with the movies. (plus with the internet I'd basically gotten to a point were i hardly even battered an eye-lid at a partly dressed/over-done woman.)

Now once i got a bit older, (when I was about 18) i saw the movie Logan's Run. In the movie was this Brit actress named Jenny Agutter who played the heroine, most would agree that she was an attractive lady but i could see why a lot of people would consider her bland as well.

So to cut a long story short, while watching this lady something about her caught my eye and for what seemed like the longest time i was obsessed with her. I had a huge crush on her and i couldn't figure out why. Of course i grew out of it eventually, but still to this day when i look at Jenny and the women of her time and some even before. it will evoke different feelings in me than what i feel with the latest crop.

The thing is, (and at the risk of this turning into a media hate-speech) when i compare the standards of today, to back then i draw the conclusion that there is too much emphasis being place on what the media/entertainment industry considers to be 'beautiful' for whatever reason they might have effectively closing off peoples minds to formulate their own opinions on what they see and interpret as beauty today.

Of course it's needless to say that on an individual level everyone has their own taste, but that's kind of the point I'm trying to make here, i feel that we're virtually brainwashed into thinking most of these women/men are hot when clearly as we've established in this forum half these people just bore us and fail to evoke anything.

Is it me? Am I simply romanticizing the past here? or is there anyone out there who feels this way to? Ladies - do you feel this is the case with guys in pop-culture as well?

Would love to hear thoughts on this.

 

[The Jono]

How can this thread go ahead without sounding like a terrible mysoginist?

I can't stand size zeros, not least because they're often (note the often) single-handedly the most inane and insipid people ever to walk the earth. But then again, I personally have minimal romantic ideals and much less idea what to do with the bloody things...

 

[Vanguard_Ex]

Has anyone seen that advert here in the UK for that Slendatone thing? Apparently it's supposed to help 'tone your abs' and they show these alleged results on some woman afterwards but me and my friend find her disgutsing. She just looks...sharp and fragile, like she's made of glass.

 

[AdmiralWolverineLightningbolt]

you dont like the OC??!!

also, i hate it when woman have boob jobs and end up with nipples bigger than their faces, not cool

 

[WrongSprite]

Has anyone seen that advert here in the UK for that Slendatone thing? Apparently it's supposed to help 'tone your abs' and they show these alleged results on some woman afterwards but me and my friend find her disgutsing. She just looks...sharp and fragile, like she's made of glass.

Agreed, they need some meat on them.

 

[TwistedEllipses]

I always found it funny how Katie Holmes was meant to be attractive, when she's permenantly stuck looking like she's twelve...

 

[dwightsteel]

good post, dude. Not overly preachy, and it says something a lot of people try to say, but fail miserably at. So kudos.

I think, aside from a few outliers, that I agree. There is a concept we hear thrown around a lot called "classical beauty" that evokes this idea, I believe. Girls that don't have to work too hard, yet manage to stun. And I agree, we just don't see enough of that anymore. It's tough to be impressed with girls who look like they are factory built. It feels like they were produced by general motors. They might run ok, but when you get a look under the hood, it's not very impressive.

 

[Fairee]

This thread raises a brilliant point, I reckon the way certain women and men are considered the ideal and we all should want to be like them is just stupid. Personally I like a guy who doesn't just look like another clone of "the perfect guy", I like someone a bit individual and different.

And not completely on topic, but a certain boyband who were made famous on a British reality TV show have just released a video for their first single, and for NO REASON WHATSOEVER two of them pull up their tops during the video to reveal six packs. Erm hello, why the hell did you do that? You'd never do it in real life, just chatting to someone then randomly go "look at my six pack, ain't I hawt??" It's just ridiculous.

I can't stand muscly guys anyway, their girlfriends must get so lonely when he's constantly down at the gym.....

 

[goatzilla8463]

Looks aren't the most important thing.

I'll admit, I like my girlfriend partially because she's fricking hot but mostly because we have so much in common with each other. It's what's inside that counts.

 

[Hedberger]

I got this feeling when my sister was watching Girls Of the Playboy Mansion and i thought that i was the only one. Because they really look bland with or without make-up.

 

[JBarracudaL]

Very good post.
The ever changing image of "hot" is a trend, sold to the public based on what they eat up, sort of like the human equivalent of McDonalds and Nickelback. If that makes any sense. MOST people will devour it, and that's why this standard maintains popularity, the opinions expressed on this forum in no conveys the opinion of the every day Joe; as forums of this nature tend to draw out the more... intellectually adventurous people of society? Yeah, we'll go with that.
More often than not, people will have something evoked by the popular standards of beauty, thus it remains in vogue.
If everybody felt this way, then those who produce these images would cease to generate a profit.
They would have to study different trends and popularize a different image.
The media standard of beauty is heavily generalized, obviously.

As I said in that thread, the figure and personality of these people generally turns me off. And an image with no personality, a model, is about as interesting as a mannequin to me, I require knowledge of ones personality before I really get attracted to them. Human beings are not so arbitrary or two-dimensional, physical appearance makes up for a small percentage of what a human is, so I'm often times confused by how people can so easily drool over a cover girl.

 

[Time Travelling Toaster]

I don't like it when the girls you see on a daily basis that have an inch thick of make up on and think the look "hot" all they look like is painted up barbies and that ain't good looks, the best girls are the ones that were little/no make-up and look proper and grown up, it's when someone can be genuine with themselves that they become the most attractive.

 

[Queen Michael]

Someone once said that men don't really like super-skinny girls, only girls think it's good-looking, but once the girls have dieted for ages to look that way, their boyfriends have to say they like it for fear that the girl might break up.
It is a pretty interesting thought.
Personally, though, I always thought androgyny (spelling?) is beautiful. A tomboy is more beautiful than anyone else in my opinion. Short hair, no make-up, glasses, jeans-and-T-shirt, that's pretty much my ideal woman physically.

Edit: In short, I'd like a girl who's a boy except really she's not.

 

[Scobie]

DELETED

 

[pirateninj4]

I firmly endorse this thread. It's about time that people woke up and started to think for themselves as to what they like and don't like. Don't swallow the tripe that gets fed to you, if you don't like it you don't have to.

I must say that a lot in the media is infuriating for someone who wants to think for themselves on this topic. But, because most people are stupid, the images we get shoved down our throats are often the most unrealistic and tragically, can be the most damaging to young men and women.

 

[geizr]

I can think of a couple possible reasonings for your reaction. The first possibility that I can think of is the novelty of the past compared to the present you experience. Basically, the overly sensationalized, highly manufactured sexual imagery of today has become mundane, whereas the more naturalized or modest state of the past is more new to you. As a result, you have more attraction to the novelty of it. Also, there is the prospect that the more modest appearance leaves more to image about the person, lending a greater perception of potential depth. This leads into the other possibility.

The other possibility is the dichotomy of style/polish versus substance/depth. Basically, there is more to romance and relationship than shallow sex and eye-candy; there has to be depth of personality, common interest, synchronization of mind and spirit, and the occasional surprise of imagination. Essentially, there has to be something there beyond the surface. The more modest appearing women gave you more time to examine the depths of their personalities(learning what they know, how they think, how they feel, what their goals are, etc.) rather than be distracted by the flash and pomp of the surface image. The more modest image gave you a chance to explore the woman, rather than be simply stun-blasted into a priapic-juvenile stupor of testosterone overload. Image is only just so interesting and is quickly known and explored because it's overt and direct. But, the landscape of the mind and soul are much more hidden and require more time and analysis to discern.

This is a problem that generalizes quite well to the game industry, and is something us old-schoolers have been screaming about for years to the deaf ears of both the game developers and the gaming press. In fact, I'll be so bold as to say that the gaming press has been largely responsible for building, encouraging, and perpetuating the problem through shallow pandering to fanboyism, lacking analysis of depth and scope, over-sensationalization of surface only elements, i.e. graphics, ultra-violence, sex, and profanity. Basically, the game industry is still being the 14-year-old pretending at grown-up. However, as gamers get older, their minds change and start to demand something deeper, with more meaning and complexity, something that stimulates beyond shallow sexuality and eye-candy. Unfortunately, what few games satisfy this, the game press spends very little, if any, time on them and focuses all its attentions on the more sensationalizing, Hollywood-like games. In creating the overt, sensational image, the game developer fails to realize or generate the mind and soul of the game, which is not created from the individual parts and their overt properties but rather from the interaction and compositional structure of those elements. Stated another way, it's the holistic, emergent properties from the interactions those elements(the whole is greater than the sum of the parts) that lends to the depth that is being sought; however, achieving this requires a focus on true artistry rather than the painting of a detailed pretty picture(which anyone can do).

EDIT: Removed the phrase "eminent-domain" as I became unsure this was the correct word construction of the concept I wanted to convey, and I rephrased the sentence slightly to clarify.

 

[Shapsters]

Sure, I will oogle at hot woman, imagine myself begin their boyfriend and whatnot. But I am most attracted to cute girls. I find they are naturally attractive, smart, and have great personalities. I also find most 'hot' girls m age are just slutty, they try too hard to be attractive and I don't like it. I love a nice cute smile and a real personality. I realize now that my love for cute girls comes from spending my early life with a very cute girl. She is still very small, has a cute smile and is all around cute, I think thats what got me hooked on cute girls.

 

[Miss_M]

I like big hairy guys who look like Rob Zombie, share my Bill Hicks philosophy, and who are willing to spend their evenings eating pizza and playing Goldenaxe naked with me =)

 

[Bellvedere]

I once read in a book that the only truely attractive people are those that look interesting and unique. Ofcorse it was set in the future with genetic engineering but it's still a good comment. I find the really attractive people are those with interesting looks. I don't mean interesting in a bad way but interesting in a - not everyone is dressed/styled/make-up-ed (<- this is a word I swear) like him/her ways.

I tend to have a really strange view (comparitively to my friends anyway) on what is hot in a guy. Also I love guys with nice hands and long fingers.

 

[The Jono]

Unique? Hah, my hat stands out like a fire in a lake.
I can't really talk about this kind of thing and stay vaguely confident. At any rate, I can deal with make up, and I'd write a lot more, if I could.