TALENT OR LOOKS? THE LAWS OF HUMAN ATTRACTION...OR ARE THERE ANY?

An interesting exchange takes place between Antonio Salieri and Katarina Cavalieri in Milos Forman’s classic 1984 film “Amadeus”. Observe…

Katarina Cavalieri: What does he look like?

Antonio Salieri: Mozart? You might be disappointed.

Katarina Cavalieri: Why?

Antonio Salieri: Looks and talent don’t always go together, Katarina.

Katarina Cavalieri: Looks don’t concern me, maestro. Only talent interests a woman of taste.

Questions…

When discussing artistic talent, which is, for the sake of this particular exercise, the abiliy to create something beautiful, either musically or visually, is the attraction to such aesthetically-appealing ability any less shallow than being attracted to someone who is simply gifted with great physical pulchritude? In other words, is it so terrible to be attracted to physical beauty in the absence of artistic brilliance but perfectly appropriate to fall for someone who is physically bland (or even repulsive) but has a certain level of artistic prowess?

In today’s society, where creating great artwork is often seen as having the key to tremendous fame and fortune, is attraction to artistic talent perhaps really, in some deep-seated level, the attraction to fame and money…and is the pursuit of fame and money any less shallow than being attracted to physical beauty?

If artwork can be the celebration of physical beauty through sculpture, painting, what have you, can it be argued that “looks” should be more exciting than the simple ability to mimic, through artificial means, for “a person of taste”?

When a fashion model is photographed through the lens of a talented “artist”, why is it the model is perceived as being a talentless mannequin, whereas the shutterbug—who has simply pointed and shot at what he/she sees—is viewed as the person responsible for the creation of beauty?

In a world where beauty is converted into artwork and artwork is often sold for financial profit, has physical attractiveness (or at least a certain type of physical attractiveness) become less about visual appeal, more about some sort of social status or cultural elitism? My girlfriend/boyfriend is prettier than your girlfriend/boyfriend et cetera? The whole “trophy wife” (“trophy husband”?) phenomenon?

Comedy is art (or at least can be), so I put it to you, dear reader: is being attracted to a great comedian the purist form of “artistic attraction”? Given comedy is so personal, so individual, if two souls share the same sense of humour, is this not more important than looks, social status, money, fame, prowess in other areas of the arts, et cetera? Does this perhaps explain the Woody Allen-Mia Farrow Dynamic? Are physically attractive people sometimes passed over by “serious” artsy types, because they’re mistaken for being shallow and bereft of the ability for artistic appreciation? Do physically beautiful people who love ballet, opera, classic cinema, et cetera sometimes fail to find intellectual,cultural and comedic stimulation from those who may only be attracted to the person’s physical charms and not care for the individual beyond the visual?

In conclusion, am I the only one who related, at least on some level, to the plight of Antonio Salieri as he was portrayed in Milos Forman’s period piece? A virtuous fellow (at least originally, before giving in to murderous desires) who had a passion for arts, forced to watch as the puerile Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart fooled about with women and was considered one of society’s elite, simply because he composed great music? Is not being a genuinely pleasant person and doing good for others more important than simply composing music and painting great artworks? And I am not suggesting great artistry and decent humanity are mutually exclusive, but is it not true society generally fetishises the former and disregards the latter?

In case you haven’t noticed, many “artists” (either by description—amateurish hacks—or actuality—true masters) are not especially charming people away from the stage, easel or instrument. And I would say even many so-called greats are horribly insecure. Note the scene in “Amadeus” where Mozart feels the need to belittle Salieri (already perceived as artistically inferior to Mozart) with a crude physical parody as he plays Salieri’s music to an amused audience—why would Mozart do this if he himself were not concerned about his own standing? The only other reason might be because Mozart feels himself to be inferior to Salieri in other (non-musical) ways, hence takes the opportunity to humiliate his Italian colleague in public.

And even though Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart’s piercing cackle can be heard on the soundtrack as Antonio Salieri, self-beautified patron saint of mediocrities absolves his followers, ’twas Salieri, through F. Murray Abraham, who got the last laugh…

thank god our artists have women throwing themselves at them, regardless of behavior or looks.

On a very small level, I wrote a few short stories in magazines, put my email in my bio, and had women offering to hook up with me.

It’s part of the reason I still write everyday (you cannot tell me Phillip Roth doesn’t write for the ladies sometimes or Bukowski didn’t) and those guys were gargoyles.

Many of those questions weave around and I think there are only specific points that you’re actually trying to get at that you do so in a more elaborate and roundabout way (is it good to be attracted to a man of talent when he’s an utter douche, as opposed to a man of good looks when he’s an utter douche? No, it’s better to be attracted to a man who is not an utter douche, but some women are attracted to variants of all three). I really only want to respond to this:

“When a fashion model is photographed through the lens of a talented “artist”, why is it the model is perceived as being a talentless mannequin, whereas the shutterbug—who has simply pointed and shot at what he/she sees—is viewed as the person responsible for the creation of beauty?”

Whereas the shutterbug has not simply “pointed and shot at what he/she sees” (there’s more work and skill involved than that), it is true that models get known a little too stereotypically as the “fashion model”, advertisers of high end clothing related to a recongizably vapid and consumerist industry. However, again I feel the need to speak up for a couple of friends of mine, Harmony and Cree. Both of these friends are models and make good livings off of it; Cree is also a painter, Harmony I only reconnected to recently but she has been working with a couple of photographers I know as they plan and work out a shoot—yes, together, and because she was the one who invited them along because, and I quote, “I have some new ideas!” It is a collaboration, and models, costume designers, makeup artists, and photographers all often work together for the purpose of creating art. There is an engagement there that gets lost as people see magazines and fashion shows and thus assume that all women standing in front of a camera are just too stupid and uneducated to know how to do anything but take their clothes off. This is not the case.

My coworker’s girlfriend is a makeup artist and she has to hire photographers and models on occassion to show off her makeup work, so that she can use it for a portfolio to get jobs doing makeup work for shows. In this case, the model and photographer are less the artistic visionary behind the creation than the makeup artist! Though collaborating in the same means a photographer may be using a model or a model using a photographer for the creation of art for various reasons (in this case networking), makeup artists and costumers sometimes could be considered the “director” of a shoot.

I know this is not what your intentions with this thread are and you are looking for a completely different conversation, but that is what I feel is more important to realize. There is more behind the industry of looks than just the industry of looks.

—PolarisDiB

“thank god our artists have women throwing themselves at them, regardless of behavior or looks.”

That’s quite sexist, even if it’s meant to be ironic, however…are you implying that the artist = primarily a male?

no female artists have people throwing themselves at them too.

“There is an engagement there that gets lost as people see magazines and fashion shows and thus assume that all women standing in front of a camera are just too stupid and uneducated to know how to do anything but take their clothes off. This is not the case.”

all women? no. most though? possibly. I mean, even models that make money off business have a whole team of accountants, advisers etc to push them in the right direction. that’s why it annoys me when people say ‘oh Elle is so smart! she runs a fashion line etc’, but seriously, how difficult would it be for a hugely successful model to run a popular fashion line? If she put her money into some kind of technological development, then yes, i’d give her more credit, otherwise, no.

DIMITRIS: most sucessful artists are men. you know this. bum artists don’t get no tail, unless they are really good looking or great manipulators ;-)

Joks:

I’m confused. Are you talking about a fashion model, one who “runs a fashion line” (i.e., business person/marketer), or even maybe hinting towards a fashion designer? I separated models from the fashion industry early on in my statement. Are we talking models, fashion models, or fashion industry businesspeople?

—PolarisDiB

“. Are you talking about a fashion model, one who “runs a fashion line” (i.e., business person/marketer), "

this.

Okay. So…. I guess we agree then. Or something.

(Sometimes this board confuses me. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe the conversation that just happened was something along the lines of:

Mark: “Could there be something vapid and superficial about liking people just for their talent the way it is vapid and superficial to like someone for their looks? For instance, why do we give credit to the photographer instead of the fashion model?”

DiB: “That may be an interesting question but on your topic of fashion models being artistic, I just want to clarify the issue by stating that not all models are fashion models in the sense of being breathing mannequins for the industry, but are actually artistic and creative.”

Joks: “But DiB, fashion industry business people are still vapid and superficial.”

DiB: “Right, but are you calling models superficial, or business people?”

Joks: “Business people and their breathing mannequins.”

This post being me right now: “Right. That’s what I said.” (? What?))

^I could make that even more meta but I’ll leave it at that.

—PolarisDiB

Meanwhile, Dimitris and Dennis are talking about whether it’s sexist to desire to attract women.

—PolarisDiB

Dennis, your comment about your writing and the favourable female response you got made me laugh out loud and applaud…and I’ve just had a miserable evening surrounded by a bunch of self-important arseholes with less culture than a petri dish experiment. (Joks, I was at the closing night of something that happens in Melbourne every spring and rhymes with “minge”…guess which one?) So kudos to you, Dennis, for being a ray of sunshine with your comment. Oh yeah, and my valuables (cards, camera case, luckily without the camera) are still missing…think any of those kind souls made me feel better?

Well, Dennis, in your case, I don’t blame the women wanting to write you. Really, you can tell a lot about someone from their writing. People who simply strum a gee-tar, recite someone else’s music on a piano, stand still for a fashion photographer, twirl a baton, dance really well…I mean, you don’t really KNOW much about a person from these things, do you? So, a piano teacher shares your passion for classical music? Wrong: I know of at least one piano teacher who HATES classical music!

Dennis, was the writing fictional or a documentation of news, or something to do with film? In any event, the women probably found themselves relating to themes expressed in your stories.

Notice I said…in regards to artists often being not-so-lovely away from…

“…stage, easel or instrument.”

But not typewriter: I think you really can tell a lot about an artist who WRITES rather well. Could that person still be a total douchebag? Perhaps. However, speaking generally, one writes what one feels. And if the writing is personal enough, you get a very quick portrait of the real McCoy (as opposed to an actor or actress, whose character could be largely an illusion).

Polaris, I understand the collaborative effort there is behind shooting fashion photos. That said, it’s not exactly rocket science, especially if they’ve been doing it for a long time.

And no, Elle McWhatshername (do we still care at all about her?) is not a clever business woman. She was merely fortunate to grow to be six feet tall and poses for UV sunscreen back in the 1980s, then (as Joks said) hired a bunch of people to guide her career. And anyone can put his/her name to a line of clothing. That’s not business-savvy, that’s called getting other people to do all the thinking for you.

Mark to answer your question they were sort of sexy stories.

To add to it, I also once impressed an out of my league girl to go out with me because I had a letter written by her hero (Allen Ginsberg) at my house

the lure of writers, wow

@dennis b -
“the lure of writers, wow”

I imagined Christopher Walken saying that. Hahahaha!

HAHAHA

“Meanwhile, Dimitris and Dennis are talking about whether it’s sexist to desire to attract women.”

it’s sexist to talk about this all the time, it’s time for women to annihilate men and rule them. Ehrenstein’s always right about this: we live in a fucking male-dominated / straight society. No free space for sexual equality.

Dworkin said a similar thing in very intriguing ways. I did most of my college coursework on her.

The thing I realized is as long as you are open and honest about your intentions, you are not promoting sexism.

A lot of bloody questions here. Interesting though.
Q:“is the attraction to such aesthetically-appealing ability any less shallow than being attracted to someone who is simply gifted with great physical pulchritude?”
(proposed) A: Yes. The other one is more sexual. Hence more shallow.
Q:”is attraction to artistic talent perhaps really, in some deep-seated level, the attraction to fame and money?”
(proposed) A: Yep, I reckon. Boil all attraction down to its essence and it’s all only really about lapping up some kind of superiority, no matter how transcendental the ‘love’ feeling seems at the time.
Q: …and is the pursuit of fame and money any less shallow than being attracted to physical beauty?
(proposed) A: is shit dirtier than mud?
Q: If artwork can be the celebration of physical beauty through sculpture, painting, what have you, can it be argued that “looks” should be more exciting than the simple ability to mimic, through artificial means, for “a person of taste”?
(proposed) A: Sculpture and painting is not mimicking. Otherwise porn would be art. Just stare at any Degas long enough and no more explanation would be needed. True appreciation of the beauty of the human form requires much more than the desire to bend it over and hump it.
Q: When a fashion model is photographed through the lens of a talented “artist”, why is it the model is perceived as being a talentless mannequin, whereas the shutterbug—who has simply pointed and shot at what he/she sees—is viewed as the person responsible for the creation of beauty?
(proposed) A: Is the model really perceived in such a way? Assuming she/he is though – a photographer would certainly have a few things to say about this – their job is not at all as easy as you suggest.
Q: In a world where beauty is converted into artwork and artwork is often sold for financial profit, has physical attractiveness (or at least a certain type of physical attractiveness) become less about visual appeal, more about some sort of social status or cultural elitism?
(proposed) A: Not sure it’s got anything to do with “the world we live in,” this one – beauty has always carried a fundamental high-statusness to it. Look at Homer’s stuff for example. Beauty has a direct connection to healthiness, that’s the (boring) explanation.
Q: Comedy is art (or at least can be), so I put it to you, dear reader: is being attracted to a great comedian the purist form of “artistic attraction”?
(proposed) A: Is about superiority again – most modern cultures place emphasis on humour as a desirable quality, therefore it confers status and is, ipso facto, attractive. I noticed in Turkey how the funny guys didn’t get much attention from girls like they did in London – is plainly because Turkish girls put more onus on good character etc.
Q: Given comedy is so personal, so individual…
(proposed) A: Don’t agree with this at all – comedy is as socio-cultural as cookery.
Q: Are physically attractive people sometimes passed over by “serious” artsy types, because they’re mistaken for being shallow and bereft of the ability for artistic appreciation?
(proposed) A: Hell yes. Is almost beneficial to be ugly if you have other stuff to offer.
Q: Is not being a genuinely pleasant person and doing good for others more important than simply composing music and painting great artworks?
(proposed) A: I wouldn’t undervalue art so. It is not about entertainment – it’s about an artist’s quest to break through the great veil and show him/herself/us what’s beyond – in doing so I strongly believe he/she is naturally one of those who truly does care – without that goodness the auteur’s work is bound to be something quite inferior…something technically original perhaps but devoid of any true substance (ie Dali or Tarantino).

POLARIS: i agree wholeheartedly with your effort to distinguish models from the fashion industry, because they are definitely not one and the same. an ex of mine’s sister used to be an ‘artistic’ model, and posed nude for portraits, sculptures etc. Also participated in a bit of fine art photography too(fully clothed). She had a master’s in literature and last i heard, moved to Europe. Spain i think. Unfortunately she was never able to make a decent living out of it though.

as for your statement about the board, it confuses me too, but you especially confuse me and i don’t know why, especially since you generally describe things in such painstaking detail, which is theoretically meant to avoid confusion. I’ve noticed that whenever i question a point, i find out that we are, in fact, on the same page, but we just come at the issue from different angles. In other words, i’d say we would get along better in ‘real life’ than on here ;-)

DIMITRIS: maybe it’s like that in Greece, but in the Anglo world, men do not feel like they rule at all. in fact, there has been a backlash against it. I’m all for it too. supporting the man’s movement.

DENNIS: Dworkin was a fat cow who caused immeasurable damage between the sexes. i’m glad she is dead. And as a man you ought to be ashamed for supporting such blatant misandry.

joks I like you and I am not going to argue about Dworkin’s impact which affected change in the practices of unfair practices in porn, footbinding and female circumcision but I will say that refering to her first as a fat cow does not speak well of your debate skills on this manner.

Sorry Joks, I’m with Den here….Dworkin’s liberal persona does not negate her struggles against female submission and the theorization of the female’s integrity over man’s enforcing attitudes. To think she ‘damaged" the sexes would be the reverse of her philosophy…she actually tried to reverse the common notion of men being the utmost element of nature in the future production of humanity. She also argued on the effects common sexuality has which is usually for the benefits of man, I’m not even referring to the pornographic issue which is to each his / her own there…but I’m talking of a female domination of sexual liberation, something that never happened thus far and the notion of man’s superiority is as “fruitful” as the essence of specific religious “powers” that control this world.

“maybe it’s like that in Greece,”

Not exactly.

“but in the Anglo world, men do not feel like they rule at all.”

I highly doubt it, are you talking about family bullshit? If so, it depends on the relative notion of parental education, both parents that is. If you’re talking about judicial, political or sociological injustice, no way I can accept this “truth” because I don’t see any equality of any form in those areas of influence.

“in fact, there has been a backlash against it. I’m all for it too. supporting the man’s movement.”

It has been going on for thousands of years….chauvinistically…

Morris:

In reply to your first answer: people are sexual beings (Sir Cliff Richard being a famous exception). Okay, so you see someone physically attractive, you chat with said individual, you get frisky. There’s some electricity there. Surely this is more honest than lusting after someone because he/she has money/fame/status or talent that could be a key to these things…right?

That takes me to your second answer, which relates to the above. Yes, it’s often about lapping up superiority.

Shit? Mud? Eehh…that’s a very individual question.

Your fourth answer: well, is it not possible for erotica (or “pornography”) to be art? Yes, there is crude pornography (admittedly, an overwhelming amount), but one can also have crude comedy, drama, painting, sculptures, et cetera.

Many of the other answers have been covered several times here, but yes, I do agree it’s almost beneficial to be ugly in some circles. Joe Jackson noted this in song many years ago, and indeed I think many women date gorillas so they don’t appear so slovenly themselves (And I can talk: look at my photograph on my profile—and I do feel I must intimidate a lot of women—except for Japanese chicks, who dig the kimono. Also, I find most women are put off by true substance—believe me, very few women are attracted to a guy who sees film as something potentially more intelligent that “Sex and the City” or some equally horrible crud).

Dennis:

Well, sexy stories usually work…that’s pretty handy stuff right there!

Dimitris:

If you think women have a difficult ride, look at all the Affirmative Action laws in their favour, the fact women can now have women’s-only gymnasiums (and this gender segregation is normally due to religion, i.e. Islam, a foreign import from the “East”, if you like, Dimitris, harming what was for a little while a sexually equal culture in my country) et cetera.

Women can wear pants, go without cosmetics and wear moderately short hair without people questioning their sexuality. Not so with men, who are ridiculed for wearing non-bifercated clothing, long hair, et cetera.

Lesbian relationships are much more openly accepted than those between gay men. Don’t even try to compare the two. Another example of women getting away with something and having the easy road. Men have far less room for sexual expression than women.

But if you wish to pander to misandry and femi-nazis for the rest of your life…

“But if you wish to pander to misandry and femi-nazis for the rest of your life…”

Misogyny has been going on for a longer while than this femi-nazi you’ve all been calling. You’re all forgetting that until some centuries ago, women weren’t allowed to vote and couldn’t even choose a man of their liking. Freedom of women has been going on for a shorter timeline than the tyrannical output of men. (in reference to your wearing pants situation), what men haven’t understood yet is that it’s THEIR choice that has led society to be loosened up with those female attributes, it’s once again the Man’s choice to go beyond the kilt and freely allow their “kind” to indulge in any sexual, sociological, private performance they wish to. Women took the stance to grab liberties from the balls but it was men who said the “yes” in all this equality torture (for women that is) and submitted to the opposite sex’s demands (and rightful ones). I don’t give a fuck if women go for an eye for an eye for all those centuries of filth and treatment, we deserve it. (and I thought long hair was meant to be a sign of anarchy, not of ridicule? At least not in MY country) If you want to be ruled by men, fine…..I don’t see any improvement in the political department with our sex in the highest position.

“(and this gender segregation is normally due to religion, i.e. Islam, a foreign import from the “East”, if you like, Dimitris, harming what was for a little while a sexually equal culture in my country)”

Destroy religion and you’ll discover more liberties for all sexes, don’t you agree? I’ve said it many times, religion-state-military DESTROY NATIONS.

@mark: women’s-only gymnasiums-

i personally don’t have a problem with this. whatever gets people working out is good. i don’t really work out as much as i should. so if a person is self-conscious, has a poor body image and or an unhealthy relationship with food it would probably be positive to workout without worrying about guys leering or being distracted. i’m sure there are some guys who wouldn’t mind a guys only gym.

I’m with Dworkin.

Well, Dimitris, for all your ranting about the West and its so-called evils, you seem to agree religion has caused many problems for the world. And funnily enough, these religions generally originate from “Eastern” countries, but I digress.

Women have not always been downtrodden in society, otherwise you would never have seen female monarchs throughout history ruling empires and queendoms. And women have never been forced to go to war through the draft (otherwise facing jail time or hanging) like men have. Think about it: men could have ruled society and declared that only women fight wars (the same way only women carry children, if you like!), and men could very easily have pimped out their nation’s finest fighting women against another nation’s war-whores and MEN could have stayed at home as housemakers AND politcians. And they could have punished women with hanging if they refused to bear arms and go to war. There could have been a gentlemen’s agreement between nations with rules of war, much like the Geneva Convention, that only women are to be warriors, thus preserving a chauvinistic worldwide male dominance of a more effective variety.

But of course people forget FEMALE monarchs who were JUST as warmongering as their male counterparts. Let’s not forget female rulers who sold men into slavery and believed in capital punishment, and if you want a more recent example of female ineptitude/cruelty, look at Maggie Thatcher. Even in my country right now, Julia Gillard, the first female Prime Minister of Australia, STILL refuses to removes Australian troops from the Middle East! She is just a brainwashed stooge like the men in suits who surround her!

(Privileged Julia, demanding someone else risk his life so she can continue to “earn” more than $300,000 per year…and all the fish eggs she can gobble down her greedy gob).

Dimitris:

Turn on your television set, look at a magazine, watch a film: men with long hair are few and far between. I’m not saying these forms of media reflect reality, but rather, they SHOW YOU what Madison Avenue wants reality to become! And of course, this DOES have an impact upon people’s perceptions of manhood, so gradually, what is on the tube, the movie, magazines, et cetera DOES become reality because Madison Avenue has told everybody THIS IS THE WAY IT IS! These forms of media don’t reflect reality, they create it!

Scooter:

I have a major problem with women’s only gymnasiums because they represent the damning twin views that men can’t be trusted around women and that women can’t take care of themselves around men. Scooter, it’s a lot tougher to survive in a gym if you’re a skinny male rather than a dumpy looking woman. And any woman who looks like Oprah Winfrey after a truckload of Pringles isn’t going to be getting leering glances from men, anyway, so they should just shut the hell up and stay home with their Jane Fonda tapes if they are too shy to attend a co-gender gym.

I get cat-calls and even solid foreign objects thrown at me because of the way I dress, Scooter. May I please have my “hippy-only” train carriage and my “hippy-only” streets to walk in?

One more thing people like yourself (i.e. gender-conventional thinking) often overlook, Scooter: is it not true women’s only gyms would (logically and most likely) draw a relatively large number of lesbian patrons, and if so, would this NOT start the whole “unwelcome glances” problem all over again? And is it not true, percentage wise, there are more hetero-oriented women than there are sapphic-leaning people in this world, therefore the possibility of a woman feeling uncomfortable being leered at by lesbos would be greater than the possibility the same woman would feel uncomfortable being looked at by men?

Also, even if you had a roomful of lesbians in a gymnasium (sounds like the set-up for a joke…eh, I digress), are you telling me they would ALL find one another attractive? Are you saying it’s not possible for a lesbian to make unwelcome advances/looks/gestures towards another lesbian?

Uninvited attention will happen in any place, with any gender-combination…a women’s-only gymnasium is a patently stupid idea that just makes out men to be sex-starved stalkers and women to be helpless victims who need protection by a nanny-state.

Scooter, would you also argue for an “all-atheist” gymnasium, because certain people find religious discussions inappropriate? Should we bring back the colour line? Where does the BULLSHIT end, Scooter?

“And funnily enough, these religions generally originate from “Eastern” countries, but I digress.”

Christianity has become a Westernized trash-bag, at least from where I see it. My semi-East / semi-West country seems to appreciate it in spite of the removal of religious identity from IDs….Christianity here and in Russia too is a preeminent Order of Authority and funnily enough, it comes from the Judaic teachings, kind of like a rip-off, just like Islam is a Christian rip-off. I hate to discuss about religion though because I despise almost all religions and for the rest, I’m only 50-50 convinced of their positives, so there you go. But whoever thinks it’s an Eastern monopoly and only, just take a look at the British massacres or the Klan’s crimes.

“Turn on your television set, look at a magazine, watch a film: men with long hair are few and far between.”

Not in metal music ;)

@mark-

Its a gym – a place for fitness and health. I didn’t say that “Oh I think that they should make women’s only gyms and have the nation-state make any co-ed gym illegal.” If a business wants to cater to a certain market then maybe they should follow their niche. I was thinking of the several close friends in my life who have suffered with anorexia and bulimia and if there was any way to promote a healthy and sustainable lifestyle for them. Then I was thinking about my older aunt who goes to Curves. Then I did think about homosexuality and wondered how flawed my opinion was but I posted it anyway because i’m still don’t see why people would be against a business like curves. but then I was thinking well if you’re a gay man or woman with an eating disorder or a poor body image then what? Well that’s why people have businesses and clinics that cater to different clients needs. Because its a business not a government regulated or sanctioned institution. People are free to go wherever they want to workout but the genius of Curves is that it provides a service to a group of people. I guess you’re right you can’t please everyone. I’ve personally never been to Curves as I go to a co-ed gym through my school because its free for students. The success of most work out regimens is found in community and if a gym can help create an atmosphere of community then people will make working out a lifestyle over a once in a while jaunt.

“And any woman who looks like Oprah Winfrey after a truckload of Pringles isn’t going to be getting leering glances from men” -- That is so ignorant. And yes there are unwelcome advances no matter who you are, and attraction is a personal experience not a universal that can be applied as a some blind universal algorithm.

“One more thing people like yourself (i.e. gender-conventional thinking) often overlook….”

….

“And any woman who looks like Oprah Winfrey after a truckload of Pringles isn’t going to be getting leering glances from men” — That is so ignorant. And yes there are unwelcome advances no matter who you are, and attraction is a personal experience not a universal that can be applied as a some blind universal algorithm.”

Not really. There are certain ‘rules’ for attraction. not hard and fast rules, but rules nonetheless, even if those rules are not really rules at all and based entirely on social conditioning. It’s a FACT that really overweight women do not get the same attention from men as their thinner counterparts, all things being equal. There is no debate here. If you like overweight women, fine—i certainly don’t dislike them, within certain limits—but to say it’s just a personal experience only is a form of denial.

Humans may not agree on what’s attractive per se, but they generally agree on what’s unnattractive, or what’s less attractive, and there are a shitload of studies to prove it.

I just don’t think that Oprah is that grossly overweight. I’m not attracted to her but she isn’t disgusting and she’s struggled with having a healthy lifestyle. Isn’t she average for her age?

“Humans may not agree on what’s attractive per se, but they generally agree on what’s unnattractive, or what’s less attractive, and there are a shitload of studies to prove it.”

Yeah that’s true.

Its funny though… I somehow get blasted for coming across as having “gender-conventional thinking” meanwhile mark has established his ‘conventional’ bias that women of a certain size are not attractive.

eh… whatevs.