Those four adjectives are many times used to describe the look of a woman.
Can someone give a scientific explanation of the differences?
Are they different?
Ex: My friend Karen is cute as a button but I wouldn’t say Beautiful?
Since these are not scientific terms, I think not. Moving to IMHO.
Colibri
General Questions Moderator
How about someone who is “pretty ugly”?
Don’t make me unlimber the peach pit gun.
The young woman who plays Alex on MODERN FAMILY is beautiful but not sexy.
The young woman who plays her older sister is merely cute.
Their onscreen mother, Julie Bowen I think, is both pretty and sexy.
The woman who plays Gloria, something Vega, is sexy but not cute.
Sofia Vergara. My … wife … Yeah, that’s it.
And what’s this about terms like sexy and cute having scientific definitions? Is that for real?
The definitive treatise on the subject.
Sometimes people who aren’t attractive have a ton of sex appeal. Mackenzie Phillips, when she’s sober, I think has a lot of sex appeal, but she’s not beautiful, or pretty, and she may have been cute when she was a child, but she was a gawky teenager.
Greta Garbo had classic beauty, and sex appeal as well, but cute is the last word you’d use to describe her, even when she was very young.
Lillian Gish was both pretty, and transcendingly beautiful when she was young, and depending on the role, also cute. By the time she was old (she lived to be 99), it was hard to describe her as pretty, but she remained beautiful to the very end. Beauty requires carriage and presence, but not youth. Pretty requires a certain amount of youth, albeit, not extreme youth: many middle-aged women are pretty.
On the other hand, some women who are not pretty acquire beauty as they age. Marlene Dietrich wasn’t pretty, but she was beautiful, and she was more beautiful in her 30s and 40s than she was in her 20s. That doesn’t mean some young women are not beautiful. Ingrid Bergman was beautiful when she was young. She managed to be cute, pretty and beautiful in her 20s. Bergman was somewhat sexy, but not extremely, like Dietrich. Dietrich was so sexy, she could turn people on by singing off-key. Gay men and straight women find her sexy.
So, in sum:
Cuteness is at least in part about having neoteneous features. People who mature early aren’t cute, while people who are very petite are sometimes cute for a very long time, but never pretty or beautiful.
Pretty is about having regular, pleasant, features, and is really mainly about what your face looks like, and has youth as a component.
Beauty is attractiveness that involves regular features, but also carriage, and presence. You know when someone beautiful enters a room. Youth is not necessary for beauty.
Sexy is also about presence. Homely people can be sexy. Your manner of speech, and the way you move are important for “sexy.” I don’t mean to say it’s about suggesting that you are slutty. Sometimes the opposite is true, as long as the “what if” seems like it would be great. Sexy people draw you toward them. You want to talk to them, sit near them-- they almost seem to be radiating something.
That’s the best I can do.
Well, that clears that up.
Great analysis RivkahChaya. The only part I don’t quite agree with is the point about beautiful having ‘regular features’. I think sometimes it is having atypical features that can make someone beautiful, for example Piper Perabo. Or should exotic beauty be a category of its own?
For me these four categories lead me to somewhat different primary objectives. For pretty and cute, my main desire would be to kiss them. For sexy, it is sex I want. And for a beautiful woman, I just want to stare, not touch.
Maybe it would help clarify the terms if we move beyond people and think of other things to which the terms are applied.
You could call a sunset beautiful. You could call a puppy cute. You could call a bikini sexy. But the terms don’t swap well.
I came in here to make sure that someone had posted that clip. 
Yep, like MikeS, I opened this Thread just to see who’d be the first to post it.
If anyone’s unfamiliar and does not wish to watch a YouTube video, I’ll post a transcript:
[ul]
[li]**Beth: **You’re pretty. You’re very pretty in fact. But cute? I don’t think so. [/li][li]**Lisa: **Well I wasn’t aware there was a difference.[/li][li]**Beth: **Well of course there’s a difference. Pretty means pretty. Cute means pretty but short and/or hyperactive - like me.[/li][li]**Lisa: **Uh huh. What is beautiful?[/li][li]**Beth: **Beautiful means pretty and tall. [/li][li]**Lisa: **Gorgeous? [/li][li]**Beth: **Pretty with great hair.[/li][li]**Lisa: **Striking? [/li][li]**Beth: **Pretty with a big nose.[/li][li]**Lisa: **OK, you’re making this up.[/li][li]**Beth: **That’s ridiculous, why would I make it up?[/li][li]**Lisa: **Voluptuous?[/li][li]**Beth: **Pretty and fat.[/li][li]**Lisa: **Sexy? [/li][li]**Beth: **Pretty and easy.[/li][li]**Lisa: **Exotic?[/li][li]**Beth: **Ugly.[/li][/ul]
I thought “Pretty with a big nose” was “Pretty for a Jewish girl.” I’ve been called that.
If the show were being honest and consistent, they would have gone with “exotic?” — “Pretty and not white.”
The stereotypically “pretty for a Jewish girl” face is outright gorgeous.
Truth.
No, the ugly line is much funnier. NEWS RADIO was a comedy, not social commentary.
Comedy only works when it’s truth. Ugly is just untrue.
It’s not funny if you’ve ever been complimented on your “exotic look”. But I can see how one would think it was funny if they’d never been described that way before.
I dunno–to be funny, there should be a grain of truth to it. I’ve heard “exotic” used as “pretty and not white,” but never as “ugly.” Saying it means “ugly” is like saying it means “microwaved”: it comes across as a non sequitur.