Hot New Skool Babes

[you]

Indeed. IIRC, it was mostly concerned with the self perpetual dynamic, famous actresses get nose jobs, become more famous, become templates, so casters look for the previous aesthetic more and more, then they (the new generation of actresses casted for their paradigm adhering beauty) get surgery - and so on and so on...

I mean, I don't mean to be shallow on this point but looking around the magazines and internetz it is a little crazy that regularly great looking women like, katie holmes, scarlet johannsen, zooey deshcanel, chloe sevigny are considered to be quirky or alternative - that's their thing, but actually they are just regular stunners.

Some one ought to start a blog or something collating all the homogenised girls, like if you squint charlotte of sex in the city is also kate bekinsale who is also liz hurley.... first one to bring up the fibonacchi sequence gets a limited dissensus fountain pen...

 

[zhao]

there are two presuppositions here, to hope to outline the forces, by asking 'what' and to understand any phenomena as a linear history, a narration, is to presuppose that these set of intrinsically systematized perceptions can be comprehended, or threaded, as a narration and adheres to the system you wish to subvert in order to gain a sense of it's shapes and forms - to ask how are there forces, and why does one construct a historical lens of subjective argument is to begin to approach the area with greater capacity for less interiorized, less systemically augmented possibilities of thought.

how are there forces? there are ALWAYS forces.
why construct a historical narrative? because it might be useful or enlightening?

to be sure i'm not interested in biological explanations here, only cultural.

in my mind, a lot to do with colonialism and the subsequent (lucky for these particular colonialists this time around) rise of mass media in a world freshly shaped by colonialism.

i wonder about what was considered attractive when Moors ruled Europe, and during the dark ages when wealthy Europeans sent their children to be educated in Islamic Spain...

and then there are some ancient cultures which have always regarded (again, lucky for Europeans) lighter skin to be preferable, whiteness being a symbol of purity and cleanliness. such as India... i can only imagine the psychological impact of the first arrival of these light skinned people who pronounced themselves superior, and indeed wielding superior weapons...

edit/PS: what was that one hophop tune about liking light skinned girls? it includes a pretty funny skit of a brother saying something like "i am a victim of socio political conditioning"

 

[you]

edit/PS: what was that one hophop tune about liking light skinned girls? it includes a pretty funny skit of a brother saying something like "i am a victim of socio political conditioning"

 

[Mr. Tea]

I mean, I don't mean to be shallow on this point but looking around the magazines and internetz it is a little crazy that regularly great looking women like, katie holmes, scarlet johannsen, zooey deshcanel, chloe sevigny are considered to be quirky or alternative - that's their thing, but actually they are just regular stunners.

Really, you reckon? Johannsen is pretty much the stereotypical girl-you-fancied-in-highschool-but-never-got-near, isn't she? In fact she looks a good deal like the girl I really did fancy in highschool (but never got near).

Some one ought to start a blog or something collating all the homogenised girls, like if you squint charlotte of sex in the city is also kate bekinsale who is also liz hurley.... first one to bring up the fibonacchi sequence gets a limited dissensus fountain pen...

Ha, sounds like a job for...You!

(Incidentally, I think Liz H is quite distinctive-looking...plus she's about 45 now, so if younger slebs look like her it'll be because they're modelling themselves on her, she's been a big star for a long time now.)

And yes, I think it is actually just unfortunately true that women were hotter in the old days...

 

[pattycakes_]

holy moly, top left can play my bongos any day she wants

 

[Mr. Tea]

holy moly, top left can play my bongos any day she wants

She's called Blaze Starr. There are some HAAWWT videos of her 'dancing' (and I use the word in its loosest sense) on youtube.

 

[slowtrain]

Would also be interesting to compare it to fashion world, where (contrary to popular opinion) most of the models look kinda weird and odd.

 

[Mr. Tea]

Yeah, most models aren't attractive in the slightest.

 

[slowtrain]

Yeah, most models aren't attractive in the slightest.

Yeah, so am I weird for finding them incredibly attractive while I would be absolutely bored to death by scarlett johanssons of the world?

Is it a sex thing? I don't really know how that stuff works.

 

[zhao]

Yeah, so am I weird for finding them incredibly attractive while I would be absolutely bored to death by scarlett johanssons of the world?

Is it a sex thing? I don't really know how that stuff works.

style, beauty, and sex appeal sometimes overlap, but i think are ultimately different things. some beautiful women i simply have no desire to go near, much less you know what. some very boring looking ordinary women i find absolutely irresistible.

and fashion designers cast models with certain out-of-the-ordinary looks which has more to do with accentuating the out-of-the-ordinary style of the clothes than either of the above.

 

[Mr. Tea]

Yeah, so am I weird for finding them incredibly attractive while I would be absolutely bored to death by scarlett johanssons of the world?

Is it a sex thing? I don't really know how that stuff works.

Hmm, do you find the girls you posted above attractive? None of them do any thing for me at all, I have to say. Kelly Brook, on the other hand...

I don't think you're weird - taste is subjective. Johansson is beautiful, no doubt, but she's...I dunno, not the most interesting-looking woman in the world. That sounds like a strange thing to say or a veiled insult, it's not meant to be. I like Beyonce. I like Aishwarya Rai. I like Queen Rania. Like I said, I'm a sucker for 'obvious'.

Edit: zhao's right - supermodels have to beautiful, actual fashion models just have to be tall and thin and 'interesting-looking'. Lara Stone is meant to be the next big thing and her face looks like it has no flesh on it.

 

[slowtrain]

Hmm, do you find the girls you posted above attractive? None of them do any thing for me at all, I have to say. Kelly Brook, on the other hand...

I don't think you're weird - taste is subjective. Johansson is beautiful, no doubt, but she's...I dunno, not the most interesting-looking woman in the world. That sounds like a strange thing to say or a veiled insult, it's not meant to be. I like Beyonce. I like Aishwarya Rai. I like Queen Rania. Like I said, I'm a sucker for 'obvious'.

Edit: zhao's right - supermodels have to beautiful, actual fashion models just have to be tall and thin and 'interesting-looking'. Lara Stone is meant to be the next big thing and her face looks like it has no flesh on it.

Yeah, I do. And I think I would even if they weren't fashion models.

I just googled Kelly Brook, and... Yeah, nothing for me. Super boring.

I dunno, is it biological or something? I'm effectively asexual, so maybe that counts for my non-interest in biologically attractive women.

 

[zhao]

Edit: zhao's right - supermodels have to beautiful, actual fashion models just have to be tall and thin and 'interesting-looking'.

that's not exactly what i meant... the value judgements embedded in your statement is rather silly.

with not ready-to-wear collections, designers are trying to challenge or go beyond standard, canonical, current aesthetic boundaries, and that is why they look for more than merely pretty people in seeking out models whose look similarly challenge everyday, status quo notions of beauty.

 

[zhao]

right. always thought that opening skit was hilarious.

i do think it is important for all of us, and not just those whose looks have been marginalized by history, to remember that even things like our visual preferences for the opposite sex, what we look for in a significant other, is nothing but "neutral", and very much shaped by war, history, and subsequent political and cultural forces.

maybe especially these things which are so intimate and close to us, these things which we tend to take for granted, which we tend not to analyze and deconstruct, and attribute to some kind of "innate evolutionary biology", we need to look at closely and think about critically.

 

[wise]

now harbouring a massive crush for Esmé Patterson of Paper Birds. Looks good in boxing gloves? *tick*

Yeah me too, that song is terrible but she's super cute

 

[Mr. Tea]

"To all tha beanpole dames in tha magazines: you ain't it, Miss Thing..."

Hmm, the second to last one slowtrain posted, maaaybe...but even so, she's very think and flat-chested. The last girl looks clinically malnourished. I don't go in for waifs much. I like curves.

The girl in the top photo, and on the right in the middle one (it is the same girl, right?) actually scares me a bit. That's not a smile, that's a rictus.

I dunno, is it biological or something? I'm effectively asexual, so maybe that counts for my non-interest in biologically attractive women.

Really? Could be, I guess. Beauty and sexual attractiveness aren't exactly the same thing for, I suppose - Audrey Hepburn was very beautiful but doesn't do much for me on a carnal level for some reason, while there are there are women that turn me on who aren't classic beauties - but they do overlap to a very great extent.

that's not exactly what i meant... the value judgements embedded in your statement is rather silly.

What's silly about it? I acknowledged that taste is subjective, didn't I? And I'm a product of late 20th/21st century white Western culture just like those models are, so it's not like I don't find them attractive because I can't appreciate standards of beauty in, I dunno, Kenya, or Japan.

with not ready-to-wear collections, designers are trying to challenge or go beyond standard, canonical, current aesthetic boundaries, and that is why they look for more than merely pretty people in seeking out models whose look similarly challenge everyday, status quo notions of beauty.

But what's the difference between "not merely pretty" and straight-up "not pretty"? What do those girls have that the next not-obviously-beautiful woman, whom you might pass in the street without even noticing, doesn't have? Apart from very low BMIs and professional stylists, I mean. I'm not saying there isn't something - subjectivity, remember - just that I can't really see what it is. And whatever it is clearly doesn't have much to do with sexual attractiveness, because you don't see women who like that on the front of men's magazines (possibly some of the more hipsterish one, I don't know).

 

[slowtrain]

Yeah, I don't think Lara Stone is that great really.

I like the second one and the last ones especially.

Freja Erichson is possibly the most gorgeous girl alive though.

I would post some more pictures but our internet provider didn't send us the bill and then subsequently we are running on dial up speed while waiting to recieve the bill (fucked up shit)

 

[pattycakes_]

Freja Erichson is possibly the most gorgeous girl alive though.

really?

nsfw

 

[slowtrain]

Well, I just saved all those pictures.....

Maybe I'm just fucked up.

I don't find her sexually attractive (but I don't really find anyone sexually attractive) but aesthetically just... wowza.

Don't like the shoes though.

 

[Mr. Tea]

Shit, girl needs a cheeseburger, stat!