You could post a shot of Frank N. Furter in drag (I’m not sure that ISN’T a photo of FNF in drag) and someone will protest that’s the glammed-up version of beauty.
I remember when the Suicide Girls were an internet thing and their site advertised them as not being conventionally beautiful. Except they were. Oh, they had tattoos and piercings, but pretty much every Suicide Girl was conventionally attractive.
I wonder if the issue here is with having an out of date idea of what an “ordinary” woman looks like?
I’m dating right now and on the dating sites my parameters are age 30-40. There are a lot of beautiful women of that age, in my local area, many of which clearly keep fit / go to the gym and, frankly, I personally find prettier than that photo of LGG.
Of course some of those women look a little older in person than in their photos, which is not a problem for me, and of course the same is likely true of LGG.
I don’t think she stands out, that’s all.
It definitely depends on the circles you run in.
I live near an area where condos start at multiple 7 figures and detached houses start at 8 figures. Most of these residences are second homes. It’s commonplace to sit a traffic light with more than one Rolls Royce or Lamborghini waiting with you.
The largish men driving those cars love big heavy gold jewelry, monstrous wristwatches, and glammed-up plastic women. “More is better” is the only motto they have. Whether the woman is age 35 or 70.
I’ve eaten many a meal surrounded by the ruling class and their LGG-lookalike playmates. The caricatures take on a sameness that the original women underneath all that armor probably didn’t display.
Really the most important thing as an actress is to be thin. If you are a thin, plain woman you can be made up to look gorgeous. Lady Gaga in my opinion (and I am a fan of hers) is not conventionally attractive for a superstar. She looks pretty good relative to most people, but celebrities don’t look like most people. I think a lot of her beauty comes from make-up and other effects. But she’s thin.
I don’t think many people realize how beautiful you can make an average person look with the right cosmetics.
I think it does. In some circles, I don’t think plastic surgery is about maintaining a more youthful appearance, it’s more about displaying your wealth and showing you belong.
The makeup’s not the point.
I’m in no way an expert at makeup styles; but even I have noticed that there were times when significant quantities of black mascara was indeed what women were conventionally expected to wear, and I remember my father complaining, when bluish lipstick was in style, that women wearing it looked dead and why did they want to look dead? They didn’t have his physician’s associations with that lip color, and it was in style, that’s why.
Gaga’s makeup is a stage makeup exaggeration, as is whatever she’s done to her lips if that’s not also a makeup effect. But it’s obviously placed on top of a conventionally attractive face and body.
I stay home a lot, but not that much. I know who I see at the street, at farmers’ market, at the grocery store. I know what people look like in pictures online of crowds in public and of people who’ve done something considered newsworthy.
And I’m sure that musical talent isn’t selecting for specific looks the way pictures on a dating site of people within a particular age range who were willing to post their pictures on that site are likely to be selected.
Most people who are conventionally attractive don’t stand out to me from each other, and I’m often puzzled why a particular person is considered to be more so than others. But I don’t think the issue is only whether one has to be in the tiny fraction of people considered to be astonishingly beautiful to do well as an actor or musician, but also whether one needs to be in the considerably larger group considered “conventionally attractive”. Many people outside that group are highly attractive in different ways, and the degree of musical talent and ability, or even the ability to project that in public, has nothing to do with looks at all.
It makes sense for an actor who’s playing a role of a character who, for reasons of the story, has a certain sort of looks to have those looks. It makes sense for a show about a group of models, or even a group of aspiring actors, to all or nearly all have the sort of looks expected for such people at the time and place of the setting. It makes, to me, no sense for a group of random townspeople, or farmers, or nurses, or teachers, or hunter-gatherers, or whatever, to all or nearly all have those looks; and it yanks me right out of the story if they do. And it’s probably causing us to miss a lot of great artists; especially if it’s applied to all the performance arts.
I’m thinking a whole lot of people in this thread are confusing “not conventionally attractive” with “not attractive to me personally.”
Well, what other standard can we use? The only reason I know Brad Pitt is conventionally attractive is that so many people have said so.
“I don’t find DeCaprio attractive, but a lot of other people do,” seems to be a perfect example of understanding the difference between the two concepts.
“Lady Gaga isn’t conventionally attractive because I don’t like the way she does her makeup,” is pretty much the opposite.
My family met the cast of Veronica Mars way back when, and every one of them was even better looking in person up close than onscreen. None had on heavy makeup.
I think what happens is that there is a fairly large set of people, and overrepresented among the rich and powerful, who don’t actually know what attractive people look like. They’ve heard descriptions, and so they extrapolate those descriptions to the extreme, without understanding that when you exaggerate attractive features to the extreme, they’re not attractive any more. But their social circles are all full of people with the same lack of understanding, so they impress each other by marrying trophy wives that all have the same over-exaggerated appearances.
And for the record, I never said that Lady Gaga was unattractive. I said that she was unattractive in that particular picture. With sane makeup and so on, she looks fine. She just doesn’t usually sport sane styles, because what’s important to her is being noticed. And her styles in that picture are certainly noticeable.
Yes, definitely. Lots of photos of her where she’s not made up garishly.
So based on recommendations from this board I bought and just finished a book of short stories by Ted Chiang (overall disappointing but with some interesting concepts and premises), one published 20 years ago that was premised on “lookism”: would you accept a reversible procedure that eliminated your ability to respond to people based on their “beauty” if you could? Would you want others to have the procedure? Is the media overwhelming us with supernormal stimuli of beauty?
I don’t know.
Supposedly people value beauty because facial symmetry is an indicator of biological fitness. So would your proposal backfire from an evolutionary standpoint? Would we be a kinder and more fair society, but also sicklier?
Supposedly. In a just so story way.
But no, there is no evidence of such in the modern world.
And reality is that relatively unattractive people manage to have large families without producing sickly offspring more than the beautiful people do.
If we’ve got genetech good enough to edit people so they don’t respond to physical beauty, we’re pretty well past the point where medical testing has surpassed, “Eh, they look okay,” as the best way of determining genetic fitness.
Also, if that really were a problem, we screwed ourselves over when we invented plastic surgery. Or maybe makeup.
FWIW, Lady Ga Ga can be found online sans makeup. In my opinion, she’s gorgeous.
I agree with you that there are a lot of women out there, in their 30s and 40s, that are stunning. And I think that you’ve hit on the key - they exercise and eat well, in addition to dressing well and prioritizing self care.
This, I believe, is what is skewed in Hollywood. We only see these type of people.
In typical America, there are a substantial proportion of people who do not take care of themselves- and so they are obese, or have chronic health conditions, or dress more for function than for looks. That, I believe, is what is missing from Hollywood, but which is common when you are out and about in the real world, and explains why Hollywood seems skewed towards beauty.
You’ll note that this was the kind of statement that I made about LGG – I don’t think she is considered particularly attractive to most men. This thread is the first time I think I’ve heard her mentioned in this way.
But of course ymmv
Eh, no, in Hollywood I’m guessing we have a much higher proportion of people with eating disorders going on fad diets and juice cleanses to maintain body weights that are unhealthy to maintain. I’d place bets you also have a much higher percentage with body dysmorphic disorder.
Thin /= healthy.