← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Avalanche
Thread ID: 4882 | Posts: 61 | Started: 2003-02-09
2003-02-09 06:55 | User Profile
From a newsletter I get, they surveyed folks and got the following. The total votes received numbered 2,009.
25 Most Beautiful Women 1. Gwyneth Paltrow 2. Catherine Zeta Jones 3. Jennifer Aniston 4. Jennifer Garner 5. Amanda Tapping 6. Halle Berry 7. Jennifer Connelly 8. Debra Messing 9. Julia Roberts 10. Renee Zellweger 11. Charlize Theron 12. Kate Winslet 13. Sandra Bullock 14. Meg Ryan 15. Liv Tyler 16. Nicole Kidman 17. Jennifer Lopez 18. Kate Hudson 19. Elizabeth Hurley 20. Helen Hunt 21. Julianne Moore 22. Faith Hill 23. Lara Flynn Boyle 24. Salma Hayek 25. Cate Blanchett
25 Most Handsome Men 1. Mel Gibson 2. Brad Pitt 3. Viggo Mortensen 4. Hugh Jackman 5. Orlando Bloom 6. Leonardo DiCaprio 7. Pierce Brosnan 8. George Clooney 9. Skeet Ulrich 10. Richard Gere 11. Keanu Reeves 12. Dominic Purcell 13. Karl Urban 14. Michael Shanks 15. George Eads 16. Tobey Maguire 17. Goran Visnjic 18. Eric McCormack 19. Tom Cruise 20. Denzel Washington 21. Richard Dean Anderson 22. Hugh Grant 23. Michael Vartan 24. Matthew McConaughey 25. TIE: Bradley Cooper Christopher Gorham
p.s., In case you missed it, think RACE! ;) Each name has a picture link at the site: [url=http://www.lowcarbluxury.com/newsletter/lclnewsvol04-no03-pg7.html]http://www.lowcarbluxury.com/newsletter/lc...4-no03-pg7.html[/url]
2003-02-09 09:58 | User Profile
I have never understood the attraction of Julia Roberts. The creature has the mouth of a jewfish. "J-Lo" (class) is just an ugly PR with a nice butt. And Salma Hayek is one of the most hideous creatures the zhids have ever attempted to palm off as leading lady material to moronic American moviegoers. I will admit, however, that she was the perfect choice to play that unibrowed commie tw-t Frida Kahlo. For my money, the prettiest ones on that list are Renee Zellweger & Julianne Moore.
But to me, none of 'em could ever hold a candle to Susan Hayward, Claudette Colbert, Merle Oberon, or my personal favorite, the adorable little British actress Felicity Kendal.
2003-02-09 10:00 | User Profile
Reading these lists, coincidentally padded with whoever the Ovitzim have committed to selling us this year, this week, this hour, I'm reminded of Jos Sobran's observation
"Our own age is so silly, so uncritical, that it ignores the most elementary distinctions of truth and logic. It exalts the recent and fashionable and assumes that everything old has been superseded like the Model T. One of the distinctive traits of the modern mind is its insuperable prejudice against the past. The very word modern has become a term of praise. The Old is Bad, the New is Good. We mustnââ¬â¢t listen to the Old; it has nothing to teach us."
You might think that's some heavy sledding just to dismiss a bit of cotton-candy journalism as disposable as this, but then these World's Most Beautiful fan-polls are kith and kin to the similar World's Most Evil polls held at similar intervals; the ones where Hitler is firmly at #1, and whoever the Jews have instructed you to loathe-on-demand this week miraculously pops up at #2 (Saddam in 91 and 03, Milosevic in the mid-90s, Qaddafi in his moment within the Semitic crosshairs, the prime minister(s) of France and/or Germany in 2-3 years' time, etc)
If beauty, poise, allure- or, conversely, the peak of youthful virility and animal vitality - are more than ephemeral qualities (they are and they aren't) it would stand to reason that at the very least the competition should be open to all men and women of whom photographic records exist. But there's no ready gelt nor strategic gain to be had in honoring or acknowledging yesterday's news....with one exception.
By the way, I'm familiar with the women but half the male names are complete unknowns to me [I suspect I have company on this] . Dominic Purcell? Skeet Ulrich? Michael Vartan? Karl Urban? Michael Shanks? Who are these people?
2003-02-09 10:10 | User Profile
I forgot Patti Ann Browne - the finest of the Faux News Babes, and the prettiest lady on the One-Eyed Jew, hands down.
2003-02-09 13:17 | User Profile
A British tabloid, THE SUN, posts a beauty every day on page 3.
These are not famous celeb's, and some are so poor they can't afford a full wardrobe (wink, wink).
See for yourselves.
[url=http://www.page3.com/gallery4/]http://www.page3.com/gallery4/[/url]
2003-02-09 18:07 | User Profile
> But to me, none of 'em could ever hold a candle to Susan Hayward, Claudette Colbert, Merle Oberon, or my personal favorite, the adorable little British actress Felicity Kendal.**
That top spot is Cate Blanchette's private property. Please see Lord of the Rings, Talented Mr. Ripley, etc. **
Susan Hayward was quite a comely lass, but I believe she was a Mexican with a name change. I remember hearing about how the studio execs of the day frantically sought to do something about her distinctly high mexican hairline so as to fool the white movie going public. As for Claudette Colbert, she was a kikess and not a particularly good looking one at that. Don't know about Miss Oberon, though.
And Cate Blanchette looks only slightly less cadaverous than Gwynneth Paltrow to say nothing of her Julia Roberts lookalike fishmouth.
The comment about the Boobs' deification of the recent over the timeless is trenchant even if, as admitted by the poster himself, applied a relatively trivial topic (the current one). Unfortunately, this principle governs all phases of the life of Boobus Americanus.
2003-02-09 18:21 | User Profile
NBF: I have never understood the attraction of Julia Roberts. The creature has the mouth of a jewfish. It's her little-girl-like delight, that big apparently guileless smiling (and it probably IS guileless -- doubt she's smart enough to be cunning!). We are genetically programmed for find neoteny attractive. She exhibits SO many 'little girl' traits, without seeming 'taint' of intention. Thatââ¬â¢s why people find her charming. (NOT sexy, you'll notice, not sultry; friendly and puppy-like, bubbly, CHILD-like!)
"J-Lo" (class) is just an ugly PR with a nice butt. And what has the jew-media been trying to sellsellsell? Those d@mned n|ggr b|tches shaking it and shaking it and shaking it (do you men actually find that attractive?!) How many of y'all were "butt-men" BEFORE the videos started pointing mainly at crotches and butts? Where have all the breast men and leg men gone?! (I realize ;) it's silly to expect y'all to want to approach women based on brains and personality... I don't LIKE it, but I realize it's genetic!)
Shall I embarrass Neo and point out that he blames the current male 'preference' for models with bodies that look like 12-yr-old boys (or lately, 12-yr-old boys with huge breasts glued on in front! :blink: ) with the fact that a HUGE proportion of the fashion industry is GAY males, who would naturally find a woman with breasts and HIPS less than esthetically pleasing, but who really really like that 12-yr-old boy look?!
Do any of you-all realize the Marilyn Monroe was a size SIXTEEN!!! Nowadays, thatââ¬â¢s HUGE and sheââ¬â¢d never get a job! When I was in my twenties, size 16 was the lowest end of ââ¬Ëlarge size clothes... Now, theyââ¬â¢s making size 10 the start of ââ¬Ëlargeââ¬â¢ size!
Who is teaching men to like gaunt, concentration-camp-like women, with ribs and shoulder blades sticking out from skin with no smoothness, no padding? Jeez, you could HURT yourself landing on those hipbones! Who is making ALL women resent menââ¬â¢s preferences and despair of ever looking ââ¬Ëacceptable?ââ¬â¢ What kinda of wedge is it that is driven between the sexes by leading men to want boyish, hard-muscled, no-waist, no-hips women? How many of you have looked at a Playboy from 20 years ago, and been astonished to find that your ââ¬Ëeyeââ¬â¢ has been warped into finding a woman with just a LITTLE bit of meat on her bones unacceptable?
And I throw this-all to you because Neo taught ME how warped my own eye had become! I look at Kate Winslette in Titanic and think ââ¬Ëwow, chunkyââ¬â¢ -- Neo looks and says, ââ¬Åsheââ¬â¢s ALMOST good looking, someone get her a milkshake!ââ¬Â Now that the movie world has hassled the HELL out of her and sheââ¬â¢s slimmed down some (not nearly as much as they want her to!), sheââ¬â¢s gaunt, and unpleasant to look at. (ââ¬ÅScrawnyââ¬Â Neo says disparagingly.) But I see the models and TV and movie women, and my eye tells me that, while surely Lara Flynn Boyle/Callista Flockhart are downright ILL, it doesnââ¬â¢t find most of them too thin (Buffy looks great, Trista, the girl on Alias... All no-hip women, but my eye has been warped to see that as womanly...)
How 'bout yorn?
2003-02-09 18:22 | User Profile
Don't know about Miss Oberon, though.
It was SCANDALOUS! SHE was part Indian -- Hindu! It was a horrible thing that they worked mightily to cover up, so she could continue to be a star!
2003-02-09 18:35 | User Profile
Maybe I'm dead, but the only name on either of these lists that I can put a face to is Mel Gibson. Is that what happens when the Televtz has been unplugged for years? Don't think I've been to a movie since drive-ins were big. After you've seen Ann Margret and Grace Kelly ....what is there?
2003-02-09 18:42 | User Profile
Kate Winslet in Smoke Signals was a much better image.
I hate to bring up the birth-rate thing again, but fat is all about having kiddies. The Pill comes along, we get Twiggy, and the televitz promotes stick girls who would die if they had to give birth.
2003-02-09 19:00 | User Profile
Jennifer Connelly....brbrbrbrbrbrbrrrrr (the sound of shivers down my nether-parts).
Stone-gorgeous (& Irish, to boot).
2003-02-09 19:54 | User Profile
Shall I embarrass Neo and point out that he blames the current male 'preference' for models with bodies that look like 12-yr-old boys (or lately, 12-yr-old boys with huge breasts glued on in front! ) with the fact that a HUGE proportion of the fashion industry is GAY males, who would naturally find a woman with breasts and HIPS less than esthetically pleasing, but who really really like that 12-yr-old boy look?!
Thank you and Meister NN for bringing up that point. The witless boobs have to be told what THEIR opinions and tastes are, as they seem to be constitutionally incapable of forming same on their own. With a disheartingly accelerating rate of frequency, I find myself in the company of men passionately descanting on what the Jwish porno industry has TOLD us gentile men is what we want - to sit around passively and watch while two skeletons with pendulous saline/silicone tits go tuna diving on one another while simultaneously giving the de rigeur raised eyebrow upward eye roll. When I rashly opine that the mental picture of two women finding me so physically distasteful as to prefer enaging in homosexual activity leaves me profoundly, well, unaroused, I am invariably met by slack jawed stares of disbelief reliably punctuated by this brilliant bit of thoughtful anaysis: "What are you, some kind of fcking homo?" I admit that the nature of the underlying syllogism is totally lost on me.
Even more disturbing, the boobs have also bought into the ALL men (secretly, at least) desire to copulate with underage girls bilge promulgated by the Jwish pornographers and the Jwish feminists (I know, I know, same fcking difference). I have never found 15 year old girls all that attractive, even when I was 15. I won't even mention prepubescent girls. But, being lemmings, all one has to do is authoritatively announce such nonsense repeatedly (the Classic Jw Big Lie technique) and the lemmings will happily comply with the desired self fulfilling scenario.
But, of course, it cuts both ways sister. How about the shameless way that goy women allow the eternal masters of the lie to TELL them what THEY find desirable in a man? Do you really find shemen like Leonardo Decrapio manly? Do you consider cave troll Adam Sandler to be funny/sexy? How about Boot Lipped action hero Wesley Snipes? Whats the angle of declivity on that troglodyte noggin there? 20 degrees? 10?
In a nutshell: "What's your opinion on XYZ?"
"I'll have to get back to you on that one. I didn't watch Television/Read the *ewspaper/listen to talk radio/NPR today, so I don't know what MY opinion is yet."
Kill that Televitz, White Man.
2003-02-09 19:59 | User Profile
ââ¬Å*Jennifer Connelly....brbrbrbrbrbrbrrrrr (the sound of shivers down my nether-parts).
Stone-gorgeous (& Irish, to boot*).ââ¬Â
Well, one boot:
ââ¬ÅGwyneth Paltrow is half Jewish but a full-time Oscar winner. Jennifer Connelly is half Jewish, too, and I'd like to put some more in her.ââ¬Â
From: ââ¬ÅChanukah Song 3," Adam Sandler
[url=http://www.suntimes.com/output/falsani/cst-nws-fals29.html]http://www.suntimes.com/output/falsani/cst...nws-fals29.html[/url]
2003-02-09 21:06 | User Profile
**Marcus Porcius Cato: But, of course, it cuts both ways sister. How about the shameless way that goy women allow the eternal masters of the lie to TELL them what THEY find desirable in a man? Do you really find shemen like Leonardo Decrapio manly? Do you consider cave troll Adam Sandler to be funny/sexy? How about Boot Lipped action hero Wesley Snipes? Whats the angle of declivity on that troglodyte noggin there? 20 degrees? 10?
In a nutshell: "What's your opinion on XYZ?"** OH! (shudder)! Leo-little-boy Decrapio (good spelling, by the way!) doesn't do ANYthing for me! He's the SAME as your prepubescent GIRLS! (And, I'd guess, most of the swooning over little Leo is BY 12-yr-old girls!!) He's not much on the cover of Cosmo (oh wait, that's always half-dressed women.... er, boys with breasts!?); well, he's not much on the cover of WOMEN's mags, but he seems (seemed?) to be a regular on Teen Beat and Seventeeny-type mags.
Adam Sandler is all the bad boy charactertistics (I DON'T mean 'bad boy' as in semi-dangerous man... I mean bad boy as in badly raised, rude, dirty 5-yr-old) rolled into one piece of really stinky crap! I also assume (or at least FERVENTLY HOPE!) that most of his audience IS little boys; not adult men! (Which, unfortunately, taints the little boys!) And I would NEVER allow a child of mine to see one of his movies.... and I DON'T understand why parents let theirs!
Wesley Snipes makes a good "blakploitation-type" action star. But he's still a black man and I do not find black men attractive! (And I am... disturbed... by my sister's black husband and mulatto child... shrug. No help for it.)
I saw The Patriot last night on network TV. I thought the white men seemed honorable and worth a second look. (And even the one "noble black" had honor and white mannerisms.) Even the Brits, who were BADLY caricatured (sp?), were worth a second look (they were, at least, fighting for their 'own'). And the men were MEN, not boys (well, except for the sons... and they were, and were treated as, children: half-grown, mostly-grown, or child!) Mel seems to have a really good grasp of what a man of (granted, religious) honor should be!
Most TV shows just don't have men in them (where's Magnum PI when you need him! And even HE was a lot child and a fair bit of man...) and DO have boys.
Anyway, I think a LOT of the "shameless way that goy women allow the eternal masters of the lie to TELL them what THEY find desirable in a man" is actually a result of the feminization of our men! ( :P ) -- "our" men have been turned into little boys, who want mommy to take care of them, and so our women have been pushed into a position of 'taking care of' little boys in grown-up bodies! And if you are being socialized to 'love' a boy-man, then obviously, the best looking "mates" <_< are going to be the good-looking little boys. (And thus, womenââ¬â¢s perennial disappointment when the men they dated or married turns out to be a boy and not a man!)
Think of George Clooney -- he's very much a man-looking man, and yet his persona is charming little BOY! If a woman wanted a MAN to take care of her, and thought his looks were a promise, she'd be disappointed! His looks ARE deceiving!
Mel Gibson is a man-looking man, AND 'boyishly' charming, but it's charming in what is clearly a MAN! He isn't superficial in the way Clooney appears to be!
2003-02-09 21:12 | User Profile
Originally posted by Avalanche@Feb 9 2003, 10:21 **Who is teaching men to like gaunt, concentration-camp-like women, with ribs and shoulder blades sticking out from skin with no smoothness, no padding?àJeez, you could HURT yourself landing on those hipbones! Who is making ALL women resent menââ¬â¢s preferences and despair of ever looking ââ¬Ëacceptable?ââ¬â¢Ã What kinda of wedge is it that is driven between the sexes by leading men to want boyish, hard-muscled, no-waist, no-hips women?àHow many of you have looked at a Playboy from 20 years ago, and been astonished to find that your ââ¬Ëeyeââ¬â¢ has been warped into finding a woman with just a LITTLE bit of meat on her bones unacceptable?à**
What makes you think men want this? These scarecrows are paraded out for women to oggle, not men. Who buys all the fashion magazines, all the celebrity rags?
By presenting women with an ideal that's impossible to meet these multi-billion dollar industries keep women in a perpetual state of dissatisfaction. That's why women max out their credit cards buying cosmetics, and fashion accessories, and diet formulas. This is all good for the economy don't ya know?
Most guys love the Marilyn Monroe look. I think she was incredibly sexy. And besides looks, Marilyn had another big attraction that most modern women haven't clued in to - she plainly liked men! Nowadays women call a woman like Marilyn a 'Bimbo'. Like men? bad, bad, bad...
2003-02-09 21:25 | User Profile
Leonardo is meant to be attractive to the teenie bopper crowd. Many tend to go for a bit of a feminine cast to their idols.
2003-02-09 21:54 | User Profile
The "most beautiful" woman (or man) in the world is the one who you only caught a glimpse of for a second. She doesn't have a name because she only existed in your vision for barely a moment but in those precious few seconds she validated everything you've ever idealized & believed in deep in the most private recesses of your being. Beyond politics, beyond sociology, beyond race-theory and beyond rational discussion even (as this post proves!) because it is outside the purview of the mind. And hooray for those base physical longings, too.
As I get older, I'm struck by how aptly this was summed up in CITIZEN KANE, when the Bernstein character, now an old man in his dotage, recalls
"A fellow will remember a lot of things you wouldn't think he'd remember. You take me. One day, back in 1896, I was crossing over to Jersey on the ferry, and as we pulled out, there was another ferry pulling in, and on it there was a girl waiting to get off. A white dress she had on. She was carrying a white parasol. I only saw her for one second. She didn't see me at all, but I'll bet a month hasn't gone by since that I haven't thought of that girl."
The"most beautiful" women and men in this world are invariably the opposite of celebrities: we never even get to know their names.
2003-02-09 21:55 | User Profile
**DarkEddy: ...teenie bopper crowd. Many tend to go for a bit of a feminine cast to their idols. ** Speaking as a once-upon-a-time teenybopper... they're not going for feminine, they're going for (non-sexual) boys -- as a little girl should. MEN are scary and inappropriate to little girls.
Here's the perfect anecdote: When Star Wars came out, I was a teeny bopper -- and I LOVED Luke, he was so wonderful and conflicted and handsome (and pretty)! But, I also was beginning to recognize that Han Solo... the sexual adult male, was pretty interesting and attractive too... In a WHOLLY different way! And within a few years, Luke was just too young and callow and silly and self-focused to be interesting... HAN was the attraction of seeing the later movies and Luke was just a whiny little boy...
Leo decrapio is "designed" for those little girls.... We just saw him in Catch Me if You Can (pretty good, not great movie). He's still too boyish to be attractive (to me, anyway!) As I said to Neo when we were courtin' -- I want a SILVERBACK ADULT MALE, not some beardless boy! (I guess there ARE women who want the little boy, but then I'd ask: are they looking for a MATE or a son?!)
Wayland: What makes you think men want this? These scarecrows are paraded out for women to oggle, not men. Who buys all the fashion magazines, all the celebrity rags? Playboy, Hustler and that ilk? Maxim, FHM, Score, and that ilk? All the softcore porn in the video stores? (Our Georgia stores don't CARRY X videos! :P so I can't speak of the covers of X videos...)
I suppose it COULD be just the jews programming Hollywood that means ALL the stars are emaciated 12-yr-old boys with breasts, and NO American man actually finds them preferable to 'real' women with hips and some padding.... but I DON'T see any signs of that anywhere! (I said to Neo the other day (since HE tries to convince me he's not unusual in liking a woman with a woman's shape) -- I'd LOVE to see Playboy do an "old-time women" issue -- get women shaped like Marilyn and Jane Mansfield (and of the same weight. dimensions, and ... softness..) -- and just SEE if they make or lose money on that issue!! Betcha they'd lose!)
2003-02-09 22:00 | User Profile
Teenie boppers aren't 'little girls.' They are teenagers. A lot of them like sex.
2003-02-09 22:04 | User Profile
il ragno: The "most beautiful" woman (or man) in the world is the one who you only caught a glimpse of for a second. She doesn't have a name because she only existed in your vision for barely a moment but in those precious few seconds she validated everything you've ever idealized & believed in deep in the most private recesses of your being. Il ragno, I don't mean to demean your allusion -- it's a very nice one -- but I've never had it for a human. I have had it for a ceramic Fu dog I saw in an antique shop when I was, I dunno, 12-13? I STILL desperately wish I could have afforded it, it is the only one I have ever seen like it before or since; and I've looked EVER SINCE when I'm in an antique store, for one even CLOSE to as perfect, as beautiful, as permanantly "perfect" as that one. And I don't know what it was about that one, I don't know WHY it was perfect and no other one I've seen since was nearly so perfect... it was just.... Plato's "ideal form" of a Fu dog!
2003-02-09 22:13 | User Profile
**darkeddy: Teenie boppers aren't 'little girls.' They are teenagers. A lot of them like sex. **
Oh, sigh... They used to be. It USED to be an innocent (or, at least, slightly more innocent) world, and little girls -- even up to 15 or 16 were NOT sexualized, did NOT think blowjobs in the junior high bathroom were not just okay but in fact, less... intimate... than kissing (some actually SAY that! :blink: :angry: ). They didn't know, they didn't even THINK, the Beatles were screwing everything they could get to lie down: they thought the Beatles were nice polite boys, who would date you until you got married!
They mooned (NOT by dropping drawers <_< ; but by sighing and kissing pictures in magazines and taping pictures to their bedroom walls and talking avidly with their little girlfriends about every tidbit they learned or imagined about their stars! "His favorite color is BLUE!!") over musicians and TV/movie stars... They dreamed of the star coming and taking them to their proms, and then marrying them! They did NOT dream of getting back stage for a group-sex share-around... (They couldn't imagine a star would EVER treat a girl like that!)
Sh|t!! Nowadays even 6-yr-old girls aren't that protected... and it's a sad bad thing!
2003-02-09 22:19 | User Profile
**Il ragno, I don't mean to demean your allusion -- it's a very nice one -- but I've never had it for a human. **
Well, you ain't dead yet; there's still time.
Seriously, though, I can't honestly say I've ever watched, say, a Tuesday Weld movie with clinical detachment; she's too damn gorgeous. Ditto Hedy Lamarr, Suzy Parker, Barbara Eden, Thelma Todd, Christie Brinkley, and a few dozen others. But the most gorgeous of all God's creations was a girl I went to school with briefly, when I was an awkward lummox-boy of 14 and she was a womanly siren of 16 - the Impenetrable Two-Year Divide no man may cross (well, I couldn't, at least). I never even got to know her last name, and the only conversation I had with her was fleeting, impersonal and inconsequential. And I have every detail of her committed to memory still.
2003-02-09 22:28 | User Profile
I have a lot of trouble believing that 16 sixteen year old girls were once not seen as being sexual. Not seen by whom, might be the question?
It is also a fact that marriage at age 16 was once much more common than it is today.
2003-02-09 23:32 | User Profile
Originally posted by Avalanche@Feb 9 2003, 13:55 > Wayland:ÃÂ What makes you think men want this? These scarecrows are paraded out for women to oggle, not men. Who buys all the fashion magazines, all the celebrity rags? Playboy, Hustler and that ilk? Maxim, FHM, Score, and that ilk? All the softcore porn in the video stores? (Our Georgia stores don't CARRY X videos! :P so I can't speak of the covers of X videos...)
I'd be surprised if sales of all these men's magazines adds up to even ten percent of what women spend on their magazines. And I've seen more women then men reading Maxim and FHM, fwiw.
FOX TV didn't give the anorexic Calista Flockhart her own TV series for years just so men could admire her broom handle shape: they did it so Jenny Craig Inc. could show the mostly female audience an ad every ten minutes.
Women are responsible for 80% of discretionary spending in the marketplace and therefore most advertising is directed at them. Other than beer commercials with the (much-missed) Swedish bikini team and the occasional ad of the babe leaning over the new sports car, what men want doesn't matter all that much.
2003-02-10 00:14 | User Profile
Oh, I don't know, when even Playboy is featuring slimmer models than they did 25 years ago, something is definetly up. I think there is little doubt that men are bombarded with images of skinny women, and that this was not always so. I also think that the marketing has its effects on men. A lot of the more clues guys out there seem obsessed with the latest Abercrombie and Finch look for their next girlfriend--not to mention a sad propensity to go for bottled blondes (maybe Marilyn is to blame for that one).
Also, we have to consider the indirect effects on men via women. There are a lot of, um, fat girls whom I have know who I initially found attractive, but who seemed to have what I call 'fat psychosis.' Those with this disease of the heart have a tendency to put others down, be overly sarcastic, have a phobia about un-conventional male appearance or behavior (they don't want people thinking they are with someone weird just because they are fat), and to generally be annoying bitches. Thus men don't find them attractive. And things cycle onward. And fairly soon, you just find yourself avoiding fat girls.
2003-02-10 00:48 | User Profile
darkeddy I have a lot of trouble believing that 16 sixteen year old girls were once not seen as being sexual. Not seen by whom, might be the question? It is also a fact that marriage at age 16 was once much more common than it is today. First, I'd say, not seen by THEMSELVES! There was NOT the constant pushing of sexsexsex, and girls WERE innocent of being sexual objects -- and, of course, only 25-yr-old+ PERVERTS and losers thought it was okay to be dating a 16-yr-old girl. Now, it seems, 40-yr-old guys think it's cool to date a 16-yr-old!
However, you caught me out... I'm completely mired in (unconscious) boomer world view... Until you mentioned it -- I thought, without thinking, that ALL upbringings were white middle class in the 50s and 60s -- but that kind of innocence is preferable to MTV/rap/13-yr-old mothers!
I'm going by the milieu I grew up in, where MOST nice white girls were NOT sexualized, not aware of themselves as 'prey' for black animals, and older guys with loose boundaries, and would find a pass by an adult male to be totally ICKY, not 'proof they were sexy. (It wouldn't OCCUR to them that being sexy to an adult was a "good" thing!)
2003-02-10 01:00 | User Profile
Avalanche, I am not sure if you are just talking about your part of the country or what, but in the 50's, 16 year girls were often frickin' MARRYING 25 year olds.
Really, I don't know what your problem with this is. It is perfectly appropriate for an 18 year old to be having children, and it would be good to be married a few years before an 18-year old starts. And, of course, the husband had best be at least 25 is he is to adequately support a family.
As to your claim that 16-year old girls did not see themselves as sexual in the 50's or 60's--this just isn't true of all the girls that were out there. Yes, it wasn't 'sex sex sex', and things have gotten worse, but let's not obsure reality.
Today it is less acceptable for some over 18 to date a 16-year old (in the white community) than it was 50 years ago. This is particularly true in the US. Certainly, we don't see any approval of a 40-year old going out with a 16-year old (not to say it doesn't happen, covertly).
2003-02-10 01:13 | User Profile
To aid in placement of future whites-only communities:
Ages of Consent:
first number is for m-f sex 2n m-m 3rd f-f
United Kingdom England, Scotland & Wales Rev 06/2001 16 16 16
United Kingdom Northern Ireland
Rev 06/2001 17 17 17
USA Alabama Rev 06/2001 16 illegal illegal
USA Alaska Rev 08/2000 16 16 16
USA Arizona Rev 06/2001 18 Law Repealed Law Repealed
USA Arkansas Rev 03/2001 16 Law Invalidated Law Invalidated
USA California Rev 04/2001 18 18 18
USA Colorado Rev 04/2002 15/17 17 17
USA Connecticut
Rev 04/2001 16 16 16
USA D.C. Rev 08/2000 16 Law Repealed Law Repealed
USA Delaware Rev 03/2002 16/18 Law Repealed Law Repealed
USA Florida Rev 06/2001 16/18 Illegal Illegal
USA Georgia Rev 07/2002
MUST READ! 16 16 16
USA Hawaii Rev 03/2002 16 Law Repealed Law Repealed
USA Idaho Rev 04/2001 16/18 Illegal Illegal
USA Illinois 17 17 17
USA Indiana 16 16 16
USA Iowa Rev 03/2002 14/16 Law Repealed Law Repealed
USA Kansas Rev 06/2001 16 illegal illegal
USA Kentucky 16 Law Invalidated Law Invalidated
USA Louisiana Rev 03/2002 17 Illegal Illegal
USA Maine 16 16 16
USA Maryland Rev 04/2002 16 Law Invalidated Law Invalidated
USA Massachusetts
Rev 07/2002 16/18 READ -Law Invalidated READ -Law Invalidated
USA Michigan Rev 04/2001 16 Illegal Illegal
USA Minnesota Rev 03/2002 16 Law Invalidated Law Invalidated
USA Mississippi
Rev 03/2002 16 (laws passed June 1, 1998) Illegal Illegal
USA Missouri Rev 03/2002 14/17 Illegal Illegal
USA Montana Rev 10/99 16/18 18 18
USA Nebraska 17 Law Repealed Law Repealed
USA Nevada Rev 1/2000 16 18 18
USA New Hampshire
Rev 03/2002 16 18 18
USA New Jersey 16 16 16
USA New Mexico 17 13 13
USA New York Rev 03/2002 17 17 17
USA North Carolina
Rev 03/2002 16 Illegal Illegal
USA North Dakota 18 Law Repealed Law Repealed
USA Ohio Rev 11/2000 16 Law Repealed Law Repealed
USA Oklahoma Rev 03/2002 16 16 -illegal??? 16 -illegal???
USA Oregon 18 18 18
USA Pennsylvania 16 16 16
USA Rhode Island
Rev 06/2001 16 Law Repealed Law Repealed
USA South Carolina
Rev 03/2002 14/16-bill pending Illegal Illegal
USA South Dakota 16 Law Repealed 16 Law Repealed 16
USA Tennessee Rev 04/2001 18 Law Invalidated Law Invalidated
USA Texas Rev 03/2002 17 Illegal 03/2001 Illegal 03/2001
USA Utah Rev Rev 04/2001 16/18 Illegal Illegal
USA Vermont 16 Law Repealed Law Repealed
USA Virginia Rev 07/2000 18 illegal illegal
USA Washington
Rev 06/2001 16/18 16/18 16/18
USA West Virginia 16 18? 18?
USA Wisconsin Rev 03/2002 18 18 18
USA Wyoming Rev 12/99 16 / 18? Law Repealed Law Repealed
USA Military Rev 06/2001 16 illegal illegal
[url=http://www.ageofconsent.com/ageofconsent.htm]http://www.ageofconsent.com/ageofconsent.htm[/url]
2003-02-10 03:43 | User Profile
**Dark eddy: Leonardo is meant to be attractive to the teenie bopper crowd. Many tend to go for a bit of a feminine cast to their idols. ** I was trying to figure out how we got here... I think, maybe, we need to define our terms -- to ME, teeny-bopper is a 12-13-14 yr old girl. They ARE too young to be sexual. That may just be MY preference/feeling/belief, but it's not enough that they are 'capable' phyiscally, they are just NOT old enough!
As Lord Capulet said "too early made is too early marred!"
I suppose, because I grew up before and after the sexual revolution, that someone who has NOT lived before it has no conception of the non-sexuality of MUCH of life "back then" ( :( :lol: ) because now, every bit of society is tremendously sexualized.... I hate to seem a old fogey mourning the old days (I also ENJOYED living through the sexual revolution B) ), but I have some pretty high standards for what's acceptable for young girls... And surely a lot of what is wrong with our 'young folks' today is the casual and careless attitudes toward sex and makin' babies...
2003-02-10 04:23 | User Profile
**USA New Mexico 17 13 13 **
What the deal here? I guess faggot and dyke pederasts should head on down to New Mexico.
2003-02-10 05:09 | User Profile
Originally posted by Marcus Porcius Cato@Feb 9 2003, 22:23 ** > USA New Mexico** 17 13 13 **
What the deal here? I guess faggot and dyke pederasts should head on down to New Mexico. **
Question answered. Of course, it won't really be new Mexico until a drug lord can buy the 12 year old daughter of a farmer for $10 and a promise not to kill him [today].
2003-02-10 05:33 | User Profile
I would say teenie boppers go up till 15 or even 16. Some might be to young to be having sex, but this doesn't mean they aren't, and it also doesn't mean they don't like the sexual qualities of more feminie idols (whether they are having sex or not).
2003-02-10 05:36 | User Profile
Sometimes the numbers listed are for what teenagers can do to each other. You really need to check the site when numbers go 12/16, or seem strange for the homosexual columns. 12/16 means 16 is age of consent in general, but 12 is legal if the partner is, say, 13.
There are also a lot of states where it is only a misdemeanor to have sex with a minor if you are only a certain number of years older than the minor (usually, 1-3).
2003-02-10 16:00 | User Profile
Originally posted by Marcus Porcius Cato@Feb 9 2003, 18:07 ** Susan Hayward was quite a comely lass, but I believe she was a Mexican with a name change. I remember hearing about how the studio execs of the day frantically sought to do something about her distinctly high mexican hairline so as to fool the white movie going public. **
You're confusing Susan Hayward with Rita Hayworth.
Incidentally, I read last week that jew producer David Wolper is coming out with an autobiography in which he alleges that Rita's dancer father Eduardo screwed her when they were on the road with their show, telling everyone that she was his wife.
2003-02-10 17:30 | User Profile
Celebrity-wise, I always cottoned more to Texas-born Jaclyn Smith as an ideal classic beauty.
Most of the names on this list of women are just down-home ugly. Seriously, Roberts, Boyle, Paltrow, Zellweger, Tyler??? I don't think so. About the only true beauty on that list is Zeta-Jones, but I think she knows it if you know what I mean.
2003-02-10 18:56 | User Profile
Farah Fawcett was also a Texan, and an-exgirlfriend who met her said she was pleasant in person. However, I'm with you, TD -- Jaclyn Smith was easily the best of the bunch.
And I agree regarding the names on the list -- Helen Hunt? Gwyneth Paltrow? Are you kidding? I don't get the Zellweger thing either.
Of those whose face I can match with the name, Catherine Zeta-Jones is the only one who might qualify as beautiful.
It certainly doesn't bother me to see Gibson at the top of the list of men.
2003-02-10 23:00 | User Profile
You're confusing Susan Hayward with Rita Hayworth.
Sorry about that NB. But it could have been worse. I was about to add that it was Susan Hayward whose Mafioso lothario was gutted by her 14 year old daughter. I was, of course, thinking of Lana Turner. I hope SHE wasn't a mestiza bandida.
2003-02-14 15:24 | User Profile
Hall Berry and Jennifer Lopez obviously don't belong on the list and neither does Helen Hunt, Sandra Bullock, or Julia Roberts.
I don't know why anyone would pick any of those women.
Most major actors and actresses have some Jewish blood so it's pretty much a given that any list of famous actresses is going to contain a lot of women who are 1/4 Jewish. Obviously there are no full blooded Ashkenazi Jewesses because they are not attractive enough to be on tv.
I think Gillian Anderson ten years ago was about the most beautiful actress I can think of. She still looks good, but she's older now. Christina Applegate from Married with Children tops my list as well. The Blond girl from Two Towers tops my list also!
2003-02-14 17:00 | User Profile
Originally posted by heritagelost@Feb 14 2003, 09:24 Most major actors and actresses have some Jewish blood so it's pretty much a given that any list of famous actresses is going to contain a lot of women who are 1/4 Jewish. Obviously there are no full blooded Ashkenazi Jewesses because they are not attractive enough to be on tv.
I don't know about that; modern plastic surgery, makeup, and lighting technologies have made it possible for shiny princesses to realize their dreams of being on TV. Fran Drescher was pretty in The Nanny, but when I saw her on Leno with less makeup than usual, she looked... different.
If you ask me, beauty contests like this should be done with no makeup and standard lighting. The number of Hollywood actresses who would even qualify for "most beautiful" would be pared down to a manageable 5 or 6, instead of 50-100. Alas, t'would be bad for diversity...
2003-02-14 18:09 | User Profile
It was SCANDALOUS! SHE was part Indian -- Hindu! It was a horrible thing that they worked mightily to cover up, so she could continue to be a star!
OH NO! Now you'll get rban started about the superiority of Hindu's in the arts.
2003-02-14 18:30 | User Profile
Here's the German actress Nastassja Kinski, recently and about 20 years ago:
[img]http://www.film.de/images.parser/nastassjakinski_20362.jpg[/img]
[img]http://moj.hinet.hr/slikeArhiva/slikeVijesti/34187/34187_5.jpg[/img]
I will have to point out that she's had children by an Arab ex-husband and the black Quincy Jones.
2003-02-14 21:14 | User Profile
I forgot to mention the adorable Clara Bow. A&E had a bio about her last night. Beautiful, expressive eyes, a perfect little mouth....I think she just may have been the most gorgeous actress of all time.
It was a very interesting hour. They revealed her dealings with Hollywitz zhids, and it didn't put them in a flattering light, believe me. Her boss was a particularly noxious joo named Schulberg. He paid Clara $200 a week when she was bringing in ten times that. When he gave her a cheap purse one Christmas, the naive young girl (who had been beaten by her crazy mother & screwed by her father) praised him as the most generous man in the world. In the end he dumped her like so much goy trash.
They also told the story of her romance with Sam Jaffe, the jew who played Gunga Din. Schulberg's son recounted that Jaffe's "traditonal jewish family forbade him to marry a SHIKSA". Next they had Jaffe himself on. He said that she and her father asked him to marry her. Then the ancient jewboy smirked as he said "She wanted to marry me, but I didn't want to marry her. She wasn't the kind you marry."
2003-02-14 21:30 | User Profile
Many of these "most beautiful women" are too skinny. Some of them look plain goofy to me and remind me of golf balls on tees. Don't get me wrong, I have little tolerance for fat women.
I hope all you folk are properly feeling guilty because white women are far more attractive than black women.
2003-02-14 21:38 | User Profile
Incidentally, don't write off Clara as an exclusively-silent star. Fox attempted, in 32, to mount a talkie comeback for her (after a few lesser attempts to do so flopped) with a couple of big-budget vehicles well worth seeing: CALL HER SAVAGE and HOOPLA.
She got terrific notices, but the films lost money. Not particularly indicative of her popularity, as 31-33...being the most devastating years of the Depression....saw very few entertainment properties that made money. Still, it was a bad time for silent stars attempting to convert to sound....though it's interesting to note, now, that nearly every silent star who attempted sound acquitted themselves very well.
Sadder yet for Clara is that her talkies were made for Fox a few years before the famous merger that made them 20th-Century-Fox. There are very very few surviving Fox films from that era - most are lost/destroyed. As NewsCorp has never shown any particular love or affinity for preserving the past, that situation isn't likely to change. However, the Museum of Modern Art has painstakingly restored a composite print of CALL HER SAVAGE which is supposed to be released to VHS/DVD one of these days. Hopefully, Turner Classic Movies - who already show Bow's silent hit IT periodically -will get to broadcast it aswell.
2003-02-14 23:44 | User Profile
I hope all you folk are properly feeling guilty because white women are far more attractive than black women.
Speaking as a white woman? Not even slightly!! :) :lol: :lol: :D
2003-02-15 00:04 | User Profile
Originally posted by Avalanche@Feb 14 2003, 17:44 ** > I hope all you folk are properly feeling guilty because white women are far more attractive than black women.
Speaking as a white woman? Not even slightly!! :) :lol: :lol: :D **
Racist! Why should women of color be held down by the white woman? Now go ugly yourself up so the negresses can fairly compete with you!
2003-02-15 05:04 | User Profile
** Racist! **
100%
2003-02-16 06:13 | User Profile
A couple of pics of the adorable Miss Bow. Compare her to Hirsute Salma or Julia Jewfish, and you'll know just how far standards have fallen:
[img]http://www.clarabow.net/picturepage/gallery/13/07.JPG[/img]
[img]http://members.tripod.com/~theclarabowpage/jeffreyford/clarab9.jpg[/img]
2003-02-16 06:28 | User Profile
Here's a Merle Oberon for ya, NB:
[img]http://i.imdb.com/Photos/Mptv/1046/0957-1011.jpg[/img]
2003-02-16 08:17 | User Profile
Tasty.....
To see Merle at her cutest, catch her with Olivier & Ralph Richardson in The Divorce of Lady X.
2003-02-16 08:27 | User Profile
I said a couple of pics of Clara, dammit:
[img]http://www.clarabow.net/picturepage/gallery/1/07.JPG[/img]
2003-02-16 08:37 | User Profile
And one of sweet li'l Felicity Kendal - oh Lawd, he'p me.....
[img]http://www.brit-brat.com/felic_2.jpg[/img]
2003-02-20 06:17 | User Profile
Originally posted by il ragno@Feb 9 2003, 04:00 **Reading these lists, coincidentally padded with whoever the Ovitzim have committed to selling us this year, this week, this hour, I'm reminded of Jos Sobran's observation
"Our own age is so silly, so uncritical, that it ignores the most elementary distinctions of truth and logic. It exalts the recent and fashionable and assumes that everything old has been superseded like the Model T. One of the distinctive traits of the modern mind is its insuperable prejudice against the past. The very word modern has become a term of praise. The Old is Bad, the New is Good. We mustnââ¬â¢t listen to the Old; it has nothing to teach us."
You might think that's some heavy sledding just to dismiss a bit of cotton-candy journalism as disposable as this, but then these World's Most Beautiful fan-polls are kith and kin to the similar World's Most Evil polls held at similar intervals; the ones where Hitler is firmly at #1, and whoever the Jews have instructed you to loathe-on-demand this week miraculously pops up at #2 (Saddam in 91 and 03, Milosevic in the mid-90s, Qaddafi in his moment within the Semitic crosshairs, the prime minister(s) of France and/or Germany in 2-3 years' time, etc)
If beauty, poise, allure- or, conversely, the peak of youthful virility and animal vitality - are more than ephemeral qualities (they are and they aren't) it would stand to reason that at the very least the competition should be open to all men and women of whom photographic records exist. But there's no ready gelt nor strategic gain to be had in honoring or acknowledging yesterday's news....with one exception.
By the way, I'm familiar with the women but half the male names are complete unknowns to me [I suspect I have company on this] . Dominic Purcell? Skeet Ulrich? Michael Vartan? Karl Urban? Michael Shanks? Who are these people?**
Compare this list with a sounder one which might have been drafted before the great "Tikkuning", say 1947.
Could one dame on the list share lipstick with Carole Lombard? Could one of those contemporary mugs who veer tastelessly into the realm of the nancy-boy or the simian wax charismatic with Carole's main squeeze, Mr. Gable?
2003-02-20 07:07 | User Profile
Merle Oberon. OUCH!! :)
Clara Bow. woof-woof. :(
2003-02-20 14:09 | User Profile
Howard Campbell, Jr.: Could one dame on the list share lipstick with Carole Lombard? Could one of those contemporary mugs who veer tastelessly into the realm of the nancy-boy or the simian wax charismatic with Carole's main squeeze, Mr. Gable? Ah, but Carol Lombard was a FEMININE woman, and Clark a man's man (and a woman's man too!! pant pant B) ). There was nothing ambiguous about Clark's sexuality, and his willingness to step and do what was needful! He was NOT a controlled little boy.
Can't let those bad examples work against the destruction of American society, now can they!?
2003-02-20 14:14 | User Profile
15. Liv Tyler
[img]http://www.lowcarbluxury.com/newsletter/celebphotos/liv.jpg[/img]
She's a godess.
Walter
2003-02-20 14:43 | User Profile
Miranda Otto
[img]http://maidenfair.net/miranda/promo1.jpg[/img]
2003-02-20 21:18 | User Profile
[url=http://www.mrwellen.com/Grace%20Kelly%20Front.jpg]http://www.mrwellen.com/Grace%20Kelly%20Front.jpg[/url][img]http://www.mrwellen.com/Grace%20Kelly%20Front.jpg[/img]
2003-02-22 01:28 | User Profile
Grace Kelly was certainly a stunna, but, like Liz Taylor, it was a cold, classic kind of beauty - like a Greek statue. I prefer my ladies to be cute with it.
Grace actually looked better with age, to me anyway.
2003-03-06 00:11 | User Profile
Originally posted by Avalanche@Feb 9 2003, 16:13 ** > **darkeddy:ÃÂ Teenie boppers aren't 'little girls.' They are teenagers. A lot of them like sex. **
Oh, sigh... They used to be. It USED to be an innocent (or, at least, slightly more innocent) world, and little girls -- even up to 15 or 16 were NOT sexualized, did NOT think blowjobs in the junior high bathroom were not just okay but in fact, less... intimate... than kissing (some actually SAY that! :blink: :angry: ). They didn't know, they didn't even THINK, the Beatles were screwing everything they could get to lie down: they thought the Beatles were nice polite boys, who would date you until you got married!
They mooned (NOT by dropping drawers <_< ; but by sighing and kissing pictures in magazines and taping pictures to their bedroom walls and talking avidly with their little girlfriends about every tidbit they learned or imagined about their stars! "His favorite color is BLUE!!") over musicians and TV/movie stars... They dreamed of the star coming and taking them to their proms, and then marrying them! They did NOT dream of getting back stage for a group-sex share-around... (They couldn't imagine a star would EVER treat a girl like that!)
Sh|t!! Nowadays even 6-yr-old girls aren't that protected... and it's a sad bad thing! **
Keep in mind that according to government statistic the percentage of teenagers that had engaged vaginal intercourse by the time they graduated high school peaked in 1989 and has since declined for all races. We have to avoid falling into this trap of thinking that everything is always getting worse all the time. This is one of the first steps on the road to crankdom.
2003-03-06 01:46 | User Profile
An astonishingly frank account of Clara Bow's horrible childhood in her own words:
[url=http://members.tripod.com/~theclarabowpage/clarabowlifestory/clarabowlifestory.html]http://members.tripod.com/~theclarabowpage...wlifestory.html[/url]