would you be universally beautiful if it meant you could have whomever you wanted?

[RecordProducer]

I just laugh that my 24 yr old H is so worried about his 42 yr old wife !

You're 42 and your husband is 24?

When I turn 42, my husband will be 60 ... of course, that's only if he's still my husband in 9 years.

 

Dude, don't tempt me, you KNOW you're next on the list if my M doesn't work out !!

 

I'm messy but a great cook, and you said you didn't mind hired help !

Hm... I fink I faw two puffycats!

 

Excessively good-looking men aren't taken seriously, just like beautiful women aren't taken seriously in most fields. So no, I wouldn't want to look like a male model.

"Excessively"! : I bet I'd never hear ya say "Excessively good orgasm."

 

This reminds me of that poll about women's breast and the (female) journalist concludes: "The poll indicates that men like women's breasts to be a little bigger than they should be."

 

"Should" be! And how big should they be? I guess about the size of hers.

[JohnnyBlaze]

Excessively good-looking men aren't taken seriously, just like beautiful women aren't taken seriously in most fields. So no, I wouldn't want to look like a male model.

Hell, I'm not taken seriously as it is! (Surely, you can't be serious...) So between the option of being an ugly mutt who isn't taken seriously and a GQ hottie who isn't taken seriously...hmm, lemme think about this for a minute...I choose the latter!

[RecordProducer]

Hell, I'm not taken seriously as it is! (Surely, you can't be serious...) So between the option of being an ugly mutt who isn't taken seriously and a GQ hottie who isn't taken seriously...hmm, lemme think about this for a minute...I choose the latter!

Hahah, Johny, that was really funny!

Also, I think MT might have misinterpreted the seriousness with which unattractive people are taken - lack of smile doesn't mean they're being taken seriously!

[Taramere]

Hahah, Johny, that was really funny!

Also, I think MT might have misinterpreted the seriousness with which unattractive people are taken - lack of smile doesn't mean they're being taken seriously!

 

That's true. People who always have stern faces and never joke around because they're so set on being taken seriously are perfect stooges. What successful sitcom doesn't have a pompous character or two like that in it? Often they're quite likeable....but mainly because the audience likes to laugh at them.

 

imagine you could take a love potion that would make you as irresistible to your *preferred* sex as if you were universally attractive. Would this change your answer? Why or why not?

 

No. What I think of the way I look is more important to me than what anyone else thinks of it. Let's say every man in the world thinks dark hair is more beautiful than fair. I'm still not going to change my hair colour, because I wouldn't suit dark hair. Same goes with huge fake boobs. I don't care how many men think they look cracking. I don't, so I wouldn't have them. They wouldn't go with my personality.

 

I can see how at times it would be fantastic to be universally attractive. Last night I caught the end of a documentary on Cheryl Cole from the band Girls Aloud. She's the sweetheart of the UK just now. I've yet to meet a man who doesn't think she's utterly gorgeous...and I'd agree. On the other hand, being that gorgeous would probably be a bit like staying in a really luxurious hotel. Fantastic for the first few hours, then you kind of take it for granted. The excitement and thrill of luxury gone.

 

The ideal for me would be to be okayish but fairly nondescript without make up, but to have the kind of face that responded really well to make up. That way you have choice. You can draw attention with your looks if you're in the mood, or be ignored if you're in a more introverted frame of mind.

[RecordProducer]

Often they're quite likeable....but mainly because the audience likes to laugh at them.

The most likeable people are those who don't seem to pose any threat for others. While I understand the concept and I am even glad about this "reverse discrimination," it enables mediocre people to shine and gain more social power than they deserve.

 

If people don't like you, try showing your weaknesses - not your qualities - and they will start liking you.

[Taramere]

The most likeable people are those who don't seem to pose any threat for others. While I understand the concept and I am even glad about this "reverse discrimination," it enables mediocre people to shine and gain more social power than they deserve.

 

If people don't like you, try showing your weaknesses - not your qualities - and they will start liking you.

 

An assessment of mediocrity, like beauty, isn't usually something that's reached objectively. If someone shines and gains social power, the chances are that it's because they are exceptional in some important way (even if not for the thing they've achieved fame in) rather than because they're unthreatening. Possibly their talents don't lie in areas that are popularly or openly valued. They might be clever in a Machiavellian way. Or perhaps they're fantastic in the sack, and they've slept with the right people. Or perhaps they're just widely (though not universally) regarded as being talented in the area they've achieved fame in.

 

I think it's just human nature to increase criticism of a person in proportion to the success they enjoy- and therefore very successful people often start to be deemed mediocre. For instance...an extremely pretty girl who has a a strong voice and can sing in tune might be perceived by many as a talentless bimbo if she isn't perceived as having suffered for her art. Gone through some kind of initiation of fire (playing rough clubs etc) to win her success.

 

If she was a little less pretty, and restricted her musical activities to her local pub, people who heard her sing would probably express amazement that she hadn't achieved fame and fortune ("but of course, it's always these talentless bimbos who sleep with the right people who get ahead isn't it?")

 

I think often when successful people talk about their weaknesses, they might simply be trying to correct popular assumptions that they've had it easy. That they've never had to struggle with private demons. Maybe they do it because honesty is extremely important to them, and they can't bear to be perceived as being "more" than they think they are. Or perhaps they do it in order to be more popularly perceived as human and therefore likeable (as you say). Or they might feel that their image is a little dull, and needs to be spiced up. Attention seeking, demonstrating that they too have suffered in the course of perfecting their craft.

 

I don't see how it's possible for anyone to be universally attractive. Some people are sufficiently committed to contrarianism that the widespread perception of a person as attractive or talented will be sufficient reason to dismiss them as being neither. Others, as you say, need to see some weakness before they'll deign to like a person. Still others fear or despise the concept of weakness so much that they would attack/reject rather than warm to anyone who admitted to weakness.

[shadowplay]

The ideal for me would be to be okayish but fairly nondescript without make up, but to have the kind of face that responded really well to make up. That way you have choice. You can draw attention with your looks if you're in the mood, or be ignored if you're in a more introverted frame of mind.

 

Sounds good to me.

[shadowplay]

Taramere: Just looked up Cheryl Cole because I hadn't heard of her. Her face is simultaneously gorgeous and entirely bland. She's cheap looking, which probably limits her career possibilities to stereotypical bimbo roles. Personally if I had to be universally beautiful I'd choose a face with more character and class like some old movie star's.

[shadowplay]

An assessment of mediocrity, like beauty, isn't usually something that's reached objectively. If someone shines and gains social power, the chances are that it's because they are exceptional in some important way (even if not for the thing they've achieved fame in) rather than because they're unthreatening. Possibly their talents don't lie in areas that are popularly or openly valued. They might be clever in a Machiavellian way. Or perhaps they're fantastic in the sack, and they've slept with the right people. Or perhaps they're just widely (though not universally) regarded as being talented in the area they've achieved fame in.

 

I think it's just human nature to increase criticism of a person in proportion to the success they enjoy- and therefore very successful people often start to be deemed mediocre. For instance...an extremely pretty girl who has a a strong voice and can sing in tune might be perceived by many as a talentless bimbo if she isn't perceived as having suffered for her art. Gone through some kind of initiation of fire (playing rough clubs etc) to win her success.

 

If she was a little less pretty, and restricted her musical activities to her local pub, people who heard her sing would probably express amazement that she hadn't achieved fame and fortune ("but of course, it's always these talentless bimbos who sleep with the right people who get ahead isn't it?")

 

I think often when successful people talk about their weaknesses, they might simply be trying to correct popular assumptions that they've had it easy. That they've never had to struggle with private demons. Maybe they do it because honesty is extremely important to them, and they can't bear to be perceived as being "more" than they think they are. Or perhaps they do it in order to be more popularly perceived as human and therefore likeable (as you say). Or they might feel that their image is a little dull, and needs to be spiced up. Attention seeking, demonstrating that they too have suffered in the course of perfecting their craft.

 

I don't see how it's possible for anyone to be universally attractive. Some people are sufficiently committed to contrarianism that the widespread perception of a person as attractive or talented will be sufficient reason to dismiss them as being neither. Others, as you say, need to see some weakness before they'll deign to like a person. Still others fear or despise the concept of weakness so much that they would attack/reject rather than warm to anyone who admitted to weakness.

 

I kind of disagree with your first statement. Somebody can be successful in the entertainment industry simply because they're "exceptional" in the sense of fitting the bland tastes of the public. Take somebody like Hillary Duff who meets a list of basic requirements: 1) fairly good looking 2) passable acting 2) not absolutely horrific singer 4) decent, friendly personality.