Sexiest people in their 40s rules

Continuing the discussion from Sexiest people in their 40s:

I think there are some issues with these rules. I feel that rule #3 is an inaccurate representation of peoples personal attitudes regarding being considered sexy and the type of job that they do. While appearance and/or sexiness may be a necessary qualification of some professions it is rarely the only qualification and certainly one which is found in any publicly prominent profession. Plenty of businesspeople, athletes, authors and many other categories of people would like to be considered sexy no matter what it may have to do with their job, and most people would want to be known for something else even if they work in the entertainment business. There is an implication in this rule that people in general do not want to be considered sexy, which is not an accurate reflection of reality.

In an effort to fight misogyny, the 4 rules above roughly reflect the joint opinions of the mod staff is my understanding. While, you’re not wrong about #3, it is the closest they could come to a fair compromise. Most actors and models (though not all by any means) have appearance as a serious part of their job and career.

While athletes can be very attractive, it is their athletic ability and skills that define their careers. It falls into creepy and sexist very quickly with most professions. If a senior executive is also very attractive, the hints or out-right statements they got their position for reasons other than merit is a good example of why #3 was listed.

It isn’t perfect, but basically, it is felt it is OK to talk about the most beautiful model or handsomest actor but not really appropriate to talk about most attractive politician or author.

This was a decision that was a decade in the making if I understand correctly. As usual there are any hard and fast rules. But creepy falls under “Don’t be a Jerk” pretty easily.

Where that gets complicated is that many, mostly female, politicians and athletes and other celebrities who are not in fields which are based on attractiveness, nonetheless go out and do “glamorous” photo-shoots for magazines specializing in such things, obviously intending to have people admire their appearance. So the line can be very very fuzzy.

Yet it is okay to hint or outright state that actors get their positions for reasons other than merit? And do you actually think that athletes do not deliberately market themselves based on sexiness in order to make money? Which is exactly what senior executives do?

If you want to ban this type of thread outright than do so, but this is not a compromise, it is an attitude that assumes that being considered sexy is degrading, but only for certain sorts of people.

I don’t think the rule is complicated at all. Male politicians and athletes do that as well – GQ covers, Sports Illustrated poses. So what? The rule for that thread seems very simple to me.

Seems simple to me also. We are only allowed to discuss the characteristics of one vaguely defined class of people, but not to do so for anyone else who behaves exactly the same way.

In the case of an actor, attractiveness is merit.

The male/female distinction is not really important (other than that the driving force here is females). The point is that the rationale for the rule was given as “It is not a job qualification for politicians, businesspeople, athletes, authors, or many other categories of well-known people, who would undoubtedly prefer to be known for their skills or accomplishments, rather than their appearance. So let’s stick to that first category.” This is not so simple when the politicians, businesspeople, athletes, authors" etc. deliberately put their looks on display as described.

Vaguely-defined being actors, models, and some other celebrities, right? Most other celebrities probably fall into the actor/model space anyway, at least at some point.

Whoo, yeah, that’s pretty vaguely defined.

I’m reporting what I know. I’m not debating the merits. Though it seems like a reasonable place to draw the line. I wasn’t a mod when this issue came to a head. I was just a poster and at the time I thought it seemed fair.

I will remind, that this thread is not an invite to make creepy remarks. Those will draw warnings and fast.

This doesn’t change whether they are athletes or actors, right?

ETA: Man, I’m so glad I’m not a moderator!

No idea what this is about.

[BTW, FWIW, I have not seen the thread under discussion, and don’t intend to at this time. My comments are about the rules as promulgated in this thread.]

You said, “This is not so simple when the politicians, businesspeople, athletes, authors” etc. deliberately put their looks on display as described."

I replied that it doesn’t change whether they are an athlete or an actor. If Tom Brady were to pose with his shirt off or whatever, it doesn’t change that he’s an athlete and would fall foul of the rules.

Do you have edge case you have in mind? Maybe LeBron James, since he had a pretty prominent acting role in Train Wreck (he’s not 40, of course).

OK, I understand what you were saying, but you apparently missed my point.

I wasn’t saying that the rule itself is hard to figure out, as you seem to have assumed.

I was saying that the stated rationale for the rule doesn’t always apply.

I’m not sure I follow. Are you saying that, once Serena Williams posed for, I don’t know, Sports Illustrated, then her looks became part of her job qualifications?

I don’t think you mean to imply this, but it sounds like a form of slut-shaming – “well, that CEO posed with a sexy dress, with her hair up and make-up, so now I can talk about how sexy she is.”

Anyway, none of this really matters – the rule is clear, so I don’t see what the problem is.

Not part of her job qualifications, but she herself has held her looks out for the public, so fair game for discussion.

I guess, among your buddies if you want. Not in that thread, and not on this message board, is my understanding.

BTW, that really does seem like slut-shaming to me, or some version close to that.

ISTM that whether or not discussions of sexiness are “slut-shaming” is not a universally held standard and opinions vary, but if you yourself are someone who looks at discussions of how sexy you are as slut-shaming, then you shouldn’t “pose with a sexy dress” etc.

Attractiveess has application in almost every field. In human factors there is a concept called the “Aesthetic-Usability Effect”. UIs that are aethetically pleasing but otherwise identical to an uglier UI are perceived as being better, and people actually learn to use them faster and easier and report higher levels of satisfaction.

In humans, this manifests as attractiveness bias, in which attractive people are comonly perceived as smarter, more intelligent, and even more moral. Even among people of the same sex. The classic example was Kennedy vs Nixon. Most political scientists agree that Nixon would have won if the campaign and the debates had not been covered on television, because Kennedy was handsome and tall, and Nixon… wasn’t.

The findings on this are pretty robust. Attractive children even get more attention from their mothers than their uglier siblings. Attractive people make more money for the same job than their uglier cohorts. Attractive people have a huge advantage in hiring. People learn faster when taught by attractive people. Attractive people are more successful in sales. It’s pretty deeply ingrained in us to want to pay more attention to attractive people.

Go look at some of the millions of commercial stock photos of people that are out there. If you find a photo that has been properly vetted for diversity you might see a team consisting of a black male, a white female, an Asian female, etc. But almost always, there’s one area where there is no diversity: There are no ugly people in the picture.

I think it’s perfectly positive for an athlete to be in a nude or partially nude photoshoot, as part of a drive for body-positivity, especially for women trying to be an example for young and teenage girls. So, I disagree with your premise, and I’ll let you have whatever last word you’d like, because none of this matters – the rule is clear, and if someone violates it, they deserve whatever note or warning they get.

That could be an interesting discussion, but I don’t see how it’s relevant to this thread or the other one.