BF interested in Young girls?????

[BUENG1]

Uhm, you REALLY think I would call you out on your lack of credentials and true knowledge WITHOUT having some myself? Come on now

 

 

 

Really? Show me where I said that--i'm sure you'll have a hard time since that phrase was never typed by my hands. Men are programmed to want to have as many offsrping as possible--that's their reproductive strategy, plain and simple. As for introducing polygamy and monogamy, that's irrelevant and there's far too much detail in that area to use that as a fact for one's argument, especially since in the end it's not about poly versus mono--it's about reproductive STRATEGIES, and in this case, a man's strategy is to inseminate a female(s) as many times as possible. In other words--numbers...

 

 

 

Survey says??? WRONG!! But thanks for playing That's flawed logik and and a misconception on YOUR part about how evolutionary theory and how natural and sexual selection work. Whether or not she's 75% likely to deliver or 95%, it doesn't matter. She's still fertile and young and the younger she is the longer she has to produce offspring and the less time she's had to be impregnated by another male. Hence, the men who evolved to get 'em young so to speak were more likely to reproduce. It makes NO sense to wait. You're telling me that you not only understand that, but you DISAGREE with that fact backed by scientific research, evidence, and theory? I would hope not...

 

 

 

Are you kidding me? So, you're saying that humans are allowed no sexual diversity in this regard? That's like saying, "Well, all other mammals copulate at LEAST twice as much as humans in order to produce offspring, so this statistical difference CAN'T be the case because humans must fall lock step in line with other mammals!!" That's your principle, and it doesn't follow logik.

 

 

 

No, you don't, but you shouldn't be espousing your thoughts as truth trying to say that's how the world works when what your touting is simply your own thoughts on the subject--NOT fact.

 

And truth be told, it REALLY bothers me that you chose to IGNORE the fact that you judged and labeled the OP'S bf as having a screw or two loose without having the credentials to do that either. Why would you be so quick to judge someone, especially since that's her partner for over 6 years? Do you REALLY think that judgment will help her?

 

So what are your credentials?

[shadowplay]

Uhm, you REALLY think I would call you out on your lack of credentials and true knowledge WITHOUT having some myself? Come on now

 

 

 

Really? Show me where I said that--i'm sure you'll have a hard time since that phrase was never typed by my hands. Men are programmed to want to have as many offsrping as possible--that's their reproductive strategy, plain and simple. As for introducing polygamy and monogamy, that's irrelevant and there's far too much detail in that area to use that as a fact for one's argument, especially since in the end it's not about poly versus mono--it's about reproductive STRATEGIES, and in this case, a man's strategy is to inseminate a female(s) as many times as possible. In other words--numbers...

 

 

 

Survey says??? WRONG!! But thanks for playing That's flawed logik and and a misconception on YOUR part about how evolutionary theory and how natural and sexual selection work. Whether or not she's 75% likely to deliver or 95%, it doesn't matter. She's still fertile and young and the younger she is the longer she has to produce offspring and the less time she's had to be impregnated by another male. Hence, the men who evolved to get 'em young so to speak were more likely to reproduce. It makes NO sense to wait. You're telling me that you not only understand that, but you DISAGREE with that fact backed by scientific research, evidence, and theory? I would hope not...

 

 

 

Are you kidding me? So, you're saying that humans are allowed no sexual diversity in this regard? That's like saying, "Well, all other mammals copulate at LEAST twice as much as humans in order to produce offspring, so this statistical difference CAN'T be the case because humans must fall lock step in line with other mammals!!" That's your principle, and it doesn't follow logik.

 

 

 

No, you don't, but you shouldn't be espousing your thoughts as truth trying to say that's how the world works when what your touting is simply your own thoughts on the subject--NOT fact.

 

And truth be told, it REALLY bothers me that you chose to IGNORE the fact that you judged and labeled the OP'S bf as having a screw or two loose without having the credentials to do that either. Why would you be so quick to judge someone, especially since that's her partner for over 6 years? Do you REALLY think that judgment will help her?

 

And what are your credentials? Please list them in detail. While you're at it please link to some credible research to back up your claims that men naturally prefer teenagers to women in their early twenties.

 

Why would monogamy vs polygamy be irrelevant? If men are naturally polygamous it wouldn't matter how many children an individual woman could bear to one man before she reached the end of her fertility period.

 

"re you kidding me? So, you're saying that humans are allowed no sexual diversity in this regard? That's like saying, "Well, all other mammals copulate at LEAST twice as much as humans in order to produce offspring, so this statistical difference CAN'T be the case because humans must fall lock step in line with other mammals!!"

 

Right, so humans happen to deviate from all other mammals in this basic reproductive strategy for some inexplicable reason. Why would that be? This is where your credentials could come in handy to explain this strange deviation. I'm listening.

 

I maintain that you or any other adult male who prefers sixteen-year-old girls to fully developed women is not psychologically healthy. Stop trying to make rationalizations for your strange preferences.

[clv0116]

While you're at it please link to some credible research to back up your claims that men naturally prefer teenagers to women in their early twenties.

 

For the purposes of this discussion it should be enough to show men are naturally attracted to women when said women are sexually mature, which is trivial. Questions of "more", while interesting, are not even relevant to whether it's natural to be attracted to young sexually mature women.

 

 

 

Why would monogamy vs polygamy be irrelevant? If men are naturally polygamous it wouldn't matter how many children an individual woman could bear to one man before she reached the end of her fertility period.

 

People keep saying this as if monogamy and polygamy are terribly different strategies. From a reproductive view, they're really not, one is an extension of the other. Polygamy is not the same as promiscuity.

[Jersey Shortie]

JackJack:

Yes I think its more of a "control" kind of thing for some men who like or interested in "young girls."

 

Its likely its about some men, wanting to have that kind of power over someone so young, naive and inexperienced to make them feel more like a man, because for whatever reason they lack that.

 

Compleletly agree.

 

Has anyone ever seen the picture of a 16 year old girl to the same girl as a 20 year old woman and the changes she has undergone in that time frame? The truth is 16 year old girls are not fully developed. If you are attracted to girls this age, then you aren't attracted to full developed women. 9 year olds also get their period. Biologically speaking, they could have babies. Does that mean grown men should be attracted to them? Umm no. Just because a 16 year old girl as the ability to have babies, doesn't mean she is fully developed and grown.

[shadowplay]

Compleletly agree.

 

Has anyone ever seen the picture of a 16 year old girl to the same girl as a 20 year old woman and the changes she has undergone in that time frame? The truth is 16 year old girls are not fully developed. If you are attracted to girls this age, then you aren't attracted to full developed women. 9 year olds also get their period. Biologically speaking, they could have babies. Does that mean grown men should be attracted to them? Umm no. Just because a 16 year old girl as the ability to have babies, doesn't mean she is fully developed and grown.

 

Also, all of the women I know, including myself, were better looking at the age of 20 than 16. In fact, a lot of women peak even later. Most 16 year old girls are awkward looking and haven't come into their full beauty. Their bone structure is obscured by baby fat and their bodies aren't done developing. I can point to tons of actresses who fall into this mold. Here's Catherine Zeta Jones when she was about 20:

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/10/03/article-1066391-00D77A4D00000190-594_468x600.jpg

 

Here she is at 26-27:

http://www.elleuk.com/var/elleuk/storage/images/starstyle/special-features/celebrity-special-then-and-now/catherine-zeta-jones/1939159-2-eng-GB/catherine_zeta_jones_mode_large_qualite_uk.jpg

http://www.opelfreunde-obertuerken.com/upload/catherine-zeta-jones-201a-36532142006.jpg

 

It's a no-brainer which version is more attractive.

 

Here's Scarlett Johansson at the age of 17 (c/p if the link doesn't work):

http://www.allsexycelebs.com/pictures/scarlett_johansson/pm594_scarlett_johansson.jpg

http://www.allsexycelebs.com/pictures/scarlett_johansson/pm598_scarlett_johansson.jpg

 

vs. age of 22:

http://www.allsexycelebs.com/pictures/scarlett_johansson/S_Johansson-Scoop01-DL.jpg

 

Again a no-brainer.

 

I wish people would stop trying to justify their unusual preferences as biological facts of human nature. It's ridiculous.

Edited October 4, 2009 by shadowplay

[clv0116]

If you are attracted to girls this age, then you aren't attracted to full developed women.

 

That's just blatantly false, it's called a false dichotomy.

[shadowplay]

CV are you personally more attracted to sixteen year old girls than fully developed women? I'm not going to bite off you head if you are. I'm just trying to understand your perspective on this.

[Paragon]

And what are your credentials? Please list them in detail. While you're at it please link to some credible research to back up your claims that men naturally prefer teenagers to women in their early twenties.

 

Since ya can't PROVE degrees, (and since i'm sure 2 degrees and a license wouldn't be enough to satisfy you ) i'll quote you some studies. They aren't from yahoo or google scholar, they aren't from Joe's house of psych 101--they're from the APA, scholarly psych journals--in other words, you don't get more legit then this. Read on

 

1) This study tested a prediction derived from several lines of thought within evolutionary psychology, particularly the work of Buss and Schmitt (1993), that males would show an evolved predisposition to prefer a younger female for long-term mating and a brief sexual encounter. A sample of 148 male university students responded to preference items embedded within a cultural scenario designed to minimize social pressures to report age preferences in conformance with contemporary American social norms. For marriage, subjects preferred females with a mean age of 16.87 while 17.76 was the mean age selected for a brief sexual encounter (p < 0.01) supporting the prediction. (PsycINFO Database Record © 2009 APA, all rights reserved) (journal abstract)

 

Wow--interesting, don't you think? I cannot WAIT to read your response to abstract #1, because I know what it'll be and I have some GREAT explanations ready for you.

 

2) Men, more than women, sought cues to reproductive value (i.e., physical appearance and youth), whereas women, more than men, sought cues revealing an ability to acquire resources (i.e., actual and potential financial security and older men). Women also sought to ascertain a man's willingness to provide resources (in the form of time, emotions, money, and status) in a relationship. Both sexes offered those traits sought by the opposite sex. Men were more promiscuously inclined than women, favoring casual relationships and being more likely to be married, whereas women sought long-term monogamous relationships. These differences support evolutionary predictions based on concepts of sexual selection, parental investment, and reproductive capacities and confirm the use of personal advertisements as a valuable method of research. (PsycINFO Database Record © 2009 APA, all rights reserved)

 

Hm. No kiddin. I think I was trying to say this all along, but people disagreed. Bet you they still will try to find a way to argue though

 

3) Compared males' and females' desired ages for mates. 70 males and 67 females (aged 19–21, 29–31, 39–41, 49–51, and 59–61 yrs) completed questionnaires concerning optimal partner ages in relation to the 5 relationship involvement levels of marriage, serious relationship, falling in love, casual sex, and sexual fantasies. Results show that females preferred partners of their own age, regardless of their own age and regardless of the level of relationship involvement. In contrast, males, regardless of their own age, desired mates for short-term mating and for sexual fantasies who were in their reproductive years.

 

There's NUMEROUS people on this board who have objected to almost ALL of the above results--but, here they are, alive and well, 2009. When will people get it through their heads that it doesn't matter what they THINK, it matters what they RESPOND to.

 

I maintain that you or any other adult male who prefers sixteen-year-old girls to fully developed women is not psychologically healthy. Stop trying to make rationalizations for your strange preferences.

 

Well first of all, they're not MY preferences, but nice try to throw in an implicit red-herring to try and sneakily shift the focus of the discussion. Oh and also, you still didn't address my statements about how you're not QUALIFIED to make diagnoses on whether or not a preference is STRANGE. Who cares what YOU think? It's not strange--it's common. Read the results again.

 

I can back my assertions up with FACT. Can you?

[clv0116]

CV are you personally more attracted to sixteen year old girls than fully developed women?

 

I find women of all ages attractive, some women are more attractive at 16 than later and some bloom later. My preference is the 20s, inclusive. All but 3 of the women I've dated were over 20. I used to date older (when I was younger) because it was easier and I wasn't looking for a long term thing, but now I stay from 20 - 27 or so, mostly.

 

The fact that I date women in the 22-25 range doesn't mean I don't find other ranges attractive.

[Paragon]

Also, all of the women I know, including myself, were better looking at the age of 20 than 16. In fact, a lot of women peak even later. Most 16 year old girls are awkward looking and haven't come into their full beauty. Their bone structure is obscured by baby fat and their bodies aren't done developing. I can point to tons of actresses who fall into this mold. Here's Catherine Zeta Jones when she was about 20:

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/10/03/article-1066391-00D77A4D00000190-594_468x600.jpg

 

Here she is at 26-27:

http://www.elleuk.com/var/elleuk/storage/images/starstyle/special-features/celebrity-special-then-and-now/catherine-zeta-jones/1939159-2-eng-GB/catherine_zeta_jones_mode_large_qualite_uk.jpg

http://www.opelfreunde-obertuerken.com/upload/catherine-zeta-jones-201a-36532142006.jpg

 

It's a no-brainer which version is more attractive.

 

Here's Scarlett Johansson at the age of 17 (c/p if the link doesn't work):

http://www.allsexycelebs.com/pictures/scarlett_johansson/pm594_scarlett_johansson.jpg

http://www.allsexycelebs.com/pictures/scarlett_johansson/pm598_scarlett_johansson.jpg

 

vs. age of 22:

http://www.allsexycelebs.com/pictures/scarlett_johansson/S_Johansson-Scoop01-DL.jpg

 

Again a no-brainer.

 

I wish people would stop trying to justify their unusual preferences as biological facts of human nature. It's ridiculous.

 

So you're PROOF is links to celebrity pictures which have been photoshooped and altered, enhanced in every possible way, not to mention the effect that plastic surgery has?

 

And wait, even better yet--you're a WOMAN, who's trying to tell a MAN what a 'no brainer' is in regards to attraction? This is laughable.

 

And then, you say in bold above that 'most 16 year olds are awkward looking and haven't come into their full bone structure yet'. What about the ones whoaren't awkward looking but rather have the facial symmetry and facial beauty statistics and ratios that men prefer? Is it then natural to be attracted to them? Would they be exceptions to the rule? Would you say that there are SOME 16 year old girls that all men would find attractive?Would girls like Miley Cyrus fall into this category? Point and match.

[clv0116]

So you're PROOF is links to celebrity pictures which have been photoshooped and altered, enhanced in every possible way, not to mention the effect that plastic surgery has?

 

And wait, even better yet--you're a WOMAN, who's trying to tell a MAN what a 'no brainer' is in regards to attraction? This is laughable.

 

If, as a photographer, I look past the lighting, makeup, differences in surroundings, etc., I don't find either set of images "more attractive" by much and if anything, the "young Scarlett" is probably the hottest by a slim margin. But I wasn't even gonna touch it, the idea of using celeb photos to "prove" this is silly.

[shadowplay]

So you're PROOF is links to celebrity pictures which have been photoshooped and altered, enhanced in every possible way, not to mention the effect that plastic surgery has?

 

And wait, even better yet--you're a WOMAN, who's trying to tell a MAN what a 'no brainer' is in regards to attraction? This is laughable.

 

And then, you say in bold above that 'most 16 year olds are awkward looking and haven't come into their full bone structure yet'. What about the ones whoaren't awkward looking but rather have the facial symmetry and facial beauty statistics and ratios that men prefer? Is it then natural to be attracted to them? Would they be exceptions to the rule? Would you say that there are SOME 16 year old girls that all men would find attractive?Would girls like Miley Cyrus fall into this category? Point and match.

 

Yes, I would agree that there are SOME 16 year olds who most men would find attractive but that's because THEY LOOK OLDER THAN SIXTEEN. You're obviously not reading my posts carefully because I wrote most 16 year old girls are awkward looking compared to their twenty year old selves, not all. I will italicize my qualifiers form now on for your reading convenience. Given that women who look better at 16 than 20 are in the minority, it makes sense that adult men generally prefer women in their twenties to women who haven't finished puberty yet.

 

Miley Cyrus?? That's laughable if that's the best example you could come up with. I don't know a single grown man that finds her attractive. Because I know you'll reject my female bias, I beseech any guy reading this thread aside from you and CV to respond if you find fifteen-year-old Miley Cyrus sexually attractive.

 

I would also beseech the guys reading this thread to respond to whether they find the younger or older pictures I posted of Scarlett Johansson and CZJ more attractive.

 

If you're going to make this case, at least choose women who were genuinely beautiful in their teens like Brooke Shields or Nasstasja Kinski. There are girls who blossom young, but most women still look like kids at the age of 16.

[clv0116]

.... respond if you find fifteen-year-old Miley Cyrus sexually attractive.

 

I don't know who she is, sorry.

 

EDIT:

 

If this is who you're talking about, she looks fine to me.

Edited October 4, 2009 by clv0116

[shadowplay]

If, as a photographer, I look past the lighting, makeup, differences in surroundings, etc., I don't find either set of images "more attractive" by much and if anything, the "young Scarlett" is probably the hottest by a slim margin. But I wasn't even gonna touch it, the idea of using celeb photos to "prove" this is silly.

 

 

Scarlett Johansson

 

early twenties

http://slog.thestranger.com/files/2008/02/scarlett-johansson.jpg

 

Here's a side by side of Scarlett at the age of 15 vs. over twenty:

http://www.celebrityplasticsurgery.us/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/lips_nose_scarjo.jpg

 

Another before and after of Scarlett in her teens (top_ versus twenties (bottom):

http://www.imnotobsessed.com/image/nosescar.jpg

 

Another picture of her at 15: http://www.pollsb.com/photos/o/12446-scarlett_johansson_nose_job_no.jpg

 

You still prefer the younger version?

 

 

Another picture of young CZJ:

http://www.awfulplasticsurgery.com/images/czj_young.jpg

 

vs.

 

mid twenties version:

http://www.islandconnections.com/images/zeta-jones/zeta-jones2.jpg

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_HFvX7rMSguU/RpXn-3e3nxI/AAAAAAAAAJY/0lyQPy0aVL4/s320/22.jpg

 

Which version do you prefer?

 

Like a lot of women, she had too much baby fat when she was younger and her bone structure only emerged later.

 

Answer honestly.

 

I would also be curious to know what kind of photographer you are. Honestly, your profession doesn't surprise me.

[Paragon]

First of all, go back and respond to my post where I listed THREE studies PROVING you wrong, backing up my arguments with FACTS. Don't just try to ignore that

 

Yes, I would agree that there are SOME 16 year olds who most men would find attractive but that's because THEY LOOK OLDER THAN SIXTEEN. You're obviously not reading my posts carefully because I wrote most 16 year old girls are awkward looking compared to their twenty year old selves, not all.

 

Uhm, WRONG again. Look at my quote. I said MOST, and in fact that was the BASIS of my argument. Being that you said MOST, that implies there are SOME who do look very attractive. Henceforth, the rest of my argument. Please take the time to read and UNDERSTAND my argument before you jump to conclusions and waste your time responding to me.

 

Miley Cyrus?? That's laughable if that's the best example you could come up with. I don't know a single grown man that finds her attractive. Because I know you'll reject my female bias, I beseech any guy reading this thread aside from you and CV to respond if you find fifteen-year-old Miley Cyrus sexually attractive.

 

Uhm, no again. Miley Cyrus was one of the girls the OP's bf was looking at, so she IS relevant. Anyhow, how about 16 year old britney spears? Underage Mandy Moore? Christina aguilera? Will these do? Are you going to tell me you don't know men who found these underage girls attractive? Please

 

I would also beseech the guys reading this thread to respond to whether they find the younger or older pictures I posted of Scarlett Johansson and CZJ more attractive.

 

Why are you ignoring my part about the DIGITAL enhancement of the photos, the computer editing, the air brushing, AND the plastic surgery? Your examples aren't relevant because there are too many CONFOUNDING variables.

 

Again, why did you FAIL to address the studies I listed where you called me out on my credentials and 'BESEECHED' me to post some studies? You can't tell me you're just going to IGNORE them, are you?

[shadowplay]

I don't know who she is, sorry.

 

EDIT:

 

If this is who you're talking about, she looks fine to me.

 

Yeah, she looks fine for a fifteen/sixteen year old. Any fully-grown man who would want to bed her needs his head checked. You honestly don't find her too young looking?

 

I'm also not sure why Paragon chose her as she's far from "universally" attractive, if such a thing exists.

[Jersey Shortie]

Also, all of the women I know, including myself, were better looking at the age of 20 than 16. In fact, a lot of women peak even later. Most 16 year old girls are awkward looking and haven't come into their full beauty. Their bone structure is obscured by baby fat and their bodies aren't done developing.

 

Absolutely. I can look at a young Scarlett and think she looks adorable but sexy? Um no. In her mid 20s she is gorgeous.

 

I wish people would stop trying to justify their unusual preferences as biological facts of human nature. It's ridiculous.

 

Agree.

[You'reasian]

All arguments set aside, people are attracted to younger counterparts. I could care less whether a woman is attracted to some young dude on the swim/dive team or vice versa. Should anything materialize - and if the persons are of the age of consent - so be it.

[clv0116]

Scarlett Johansson

 

Which version do you prefer?

 

They did a nice job on her nose, but looking past that there's not much different to me, the younger ones look fresher or something. Obviously some are much better lit and just better done, mostly as she got older. This seems pointless to me honestly, I think the best way to move this discussion forward would be or you to address the above cited studies rather than depend on my personal preferences as a data point, based on photos of celebrities taken in uncontrolled conditions. .

 

 

 

 

 

I would also be curious to know what kind of photographer you are. Honestly, your profession doesn't surprise me.

 

Hilarious. I'm an amateur photographer, I've been doing it as a hobby for nearly 30 years. I guess that means you're now surprised I'm not a professional photographer?

[shadowplay]

Why are you ignoring my part about the DIGITAL enhancement of the photos, the computer editing, the air brushing, AND the plastic surgery? Your examples aren't relevant because there are too many CONFOUNDING variables.

 

Again, why did you FAIL to address the studies I listed where you called me out on my credentials and 'BESEECHED' me to post some studies? You can't tell me you're just going to IGNORE them, are you?

 

Patience is a virtue. I will get to those studies after I address the responses to my posts about the actresses.

 

Here are links to FILM STILLS in which there have been no digital enhancements, in which you can see the actresses from many angles at different ages in different makeup.

 

Young CZJ:

http://web.ukonline.co.uk/jones.jsrpages/pics/2cjldbom02.jpg

http://web.ukonline.co.uk/jones.jsrpages/pics/2cjldbom03.jpg

 

Older CZJ:

http://web.ukonline.co.uk/jones.jsrpages/pics/2cjlp.jpg

http://web.ukonline.co.uk/jones.jsrpages/pics2/2cjlmoz.jpg

http://web.ukonline.co.uk/jones.jsrpages/high.jpg

 

I think the difference in her face is pretty apparent...

[shadowplay]

They did a nice job on her nose, but looking past that there's not much different to me, the younger ones look fresher or something. Obviously some are much better lit and just better done, mostly as she got older. This seems pointless to me honestly, I think the best way to move this discussion forward would be or you to address the above cited studies rather than depend on my personal preferences as a data point, based on photos of celebrities taken in uncontrolled conditions. .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hilarious. I'm an amateur photographer, I've been doing it as a hobby for nearly 30 years. I guess that means you're now surprised I'm not a professional photographer?

 

Yeah, fresher, in the way a child looks fresher.

 

You seriously find her more sexually attractive in the photos of her as a fifteen year old vs. 20? She looks like a kid. She's not even developed or sexual. I'm honestly surprised because I assumed you were playing devil's advocate and didn't really have a preference for young teenagers. But I guess everyone has their own preferences...

[clv0116]

Yeah, she looks fine for a fifteen/sixteen year old. Any fully-grown man who would want to bed her needs his head checked. You honestly don't find her too young looking?

 

Nope, some of the images I found looked too young but the older looking (and I would assume, most recent) images like the one I posted look young but OK. It's hard to judge from a few photos without knowing how recent they are, particularly.

 

For instance for all I know the one you just posted might be a year old, and at this age a year means a lot.

 

 

 

Here are links to FILM STILLS in which there have been no digital enhancements, in which you can see the actresses from many angles at different ages in different makeup.

 

Young CZJ:

http://web.ukonline.co.uk/jones.jsrpages/pics/2cjldbom03.jpg

 

I think the difference in her face is pretty apparent...

 

Wow, in the link I left she's really gorgeous.

[shadowplay]

Nope, some of the images I found looked too young but the older looking (and I would assume, most recent) images like the one I posted look young but OK. It's hard to judge from a few photos without knowing how recent they are, particularly.

 

For instance for all I know the one you just posted might be a year old, and at this age a year means a lot.

 

 

 

 

 

Wow, in the link I left she's really gorgeous.

 

If you really find those photos the most gorgeous, I'll just say you have "unusual" taste that doesn't conform to what is generally considered beautiful according to Hollywood.

[Paragon]

Patience is a virtue. I will get to those studies after I address the responses to my posts about the actresses.

 

Here are links to FILM STILLS in which there have been no digital enhancements, in which you can see the actresses from many angles at different ages in different makeup.

 

Young CZJ:

http://web.ukonline.co.uk/jones.jsrpages/pics/2cjldbom02.jpg

http://web.ukonline.co.uk/jones.jsrpages/pics/2cjldbom03.jpg

 

Older CZJ:

http://web.ukonline.co.uk/jones.jsrpages/pics/2cjlp.jpg

http://web.ukonline.co.uk/jones.jsrpages/pics2/2cjlmoz.jpg

http://web.ukonline.co.uk/jones.jsrpages/high.jpg

 

I think the difference in her face is pretty apparent...

 

Yea, i'll be waiting.

 

In the meantime, I think you should understand that using pictures of celebrities as comparisons is completely illogical.

 

What about underage Britney spears and the others I mentioned? You just going to ignore that too? You're going out of order in what should be addressed, but you'd rather hold onto you psuedoargument about what actresses YOU THINK men should be attracted to as opposed to addressing the FACTS about what men really prefer.............

[clv0116]

She's not even developed or sexual. I'm honestly surprised because I assumed you were playing devil's advocate and didn't really have a preference for young teenagers. But I guess everyone has their own preferences.

 

"She's not even developed or sexual."

 

She looks OK at 17 to me. The ones of her younger are just head shots. If you want a valid opinion post full body shots.

 

I think many female celebs are gonna fall into the early bloomer category simply due to the nature of the business.

 

 

I'm gonna mostly ignore the feeble shaming attempt.