Having seen a lot of supermodels in magazines and watching too many episodes of "America's Next Top Model", and also having seen a number of Playboy playmates and actually going to a Playmate-type convention (Glamourcon), I think that the idea of who is more beautiful is highly relative. Physical beauty is only one of a number of criteria for being selected to be a supermodel, but photogenics is a much bigger reason. There are a number of extraordinarily gorgeous women who cannot ever hope to become supermodels because they don't translate well on film. Likewise, there are a number of marginally attractive women who literally become like goddesses in front of a camera because they know how to take great pictures. A lot of so-called fashion models are a little too thin for my tastes, and some of the Playboy/Penthouse/Maxim type models who look incredibly hot on camera look totally artificial in person. I remember seeing one particular Playboy/Penthouse type model at the Glamourcon event whose photos made me want to pleasure myself several times in the past, but when I saw her in person, while I thought her body was incredible, her facial features came across as a little plain to me. I thought that some of the other Playmates were gorgeous, but not necessarily more pretty than some women I've seen in clubs, but there were a few Playmate types who looked good but like a typical "girl next door" on camera but practically gave me an erection when I saw them in person because they were absolutely stunning. On top that, they were really nice and friendly too.

Having said that, beauty is only part of the puzzle. I had a girlfriend who had been in a number of beauty pageants who was a total drama queen. Likewise, that sexy girl next door may come from a drug-addicted family, and she may have inherited their traits. Then again, you may be best friends right now with a future supermodel or pop diva who may be the most ideal love mate you'll ever meet, but people ignore her because she hasn't bloomed into the stunning beauty she will become yet. So it's all relative.

Guy next door who looks like a model.

JustErin said:

It looks like it's your lucky day to get "VIOLATOR'd".

FarrahMoan said:

Why are you so antagonistic with me.

JustErin said:

Being nice didn't get me anywhere, eh. Eh, it's just in my nature. I don't know what yur hollerin' aboot, eh.

NDRU said:

ThreadBare said:

Coldest shit EVER I'mma go put on some of my big-ass shoes & CRY

CalhounSq said:

Besides, you were abandoning the point of the thread -- pick between 2 really cool people (one who isn't necessarily your aesthetic "type" and another who most certainly is).

ThreadBare said:

BACK OFF BUB Mine Mine Mine

Mach said:

no, no, no, no. ... I have it on good authority that she likes me better.





OK, so I just made that up, but still... I'm just sayin'... I can do the Canadian "ou" really, really well.

PANDURITO said:

retina said:

God! You are so logical all the damn time!!

I'm going to pick the normal looking guy.

First I don't like pretty boys. I like men that have more character in the looks department then just symmetry.

Secondly,I wouldn't want everyone staring at us where ever we went wondering what the hell is he doing with her, I want someone who is on my level if ya know what I mean.

Next, I don't trust super good looking people. Maybe it's not right for me to say this but I think that people with great looks are mostly just handed what they want. I think they have a sense of entitlement I don't care for.


Last, it would be way to hard to trust they wouldn't cheat. When a person is that goodlooking you know they are going to get chased around. The more oppertunities there are to stray, the chance they will give in to temptation is greater.

The girl next door. Hands down. Why? Because 9 times out of 10, she's going to have a better ass. I'm not into deathly thin girls. I like my women to have some meat on their bones. I like my women to look like women. Curvy and womanly and soft. Not women that have bodies that look like boys.

It this a trick question!?!?

If the two are COMPLETELY equal in all ways but looks -- intellect, personality, spirituality, capacity to love me, health, humility, etc., I think I'd be inclined toward the person with the more captivating look. I love conventionally attractive people, but I can get lost in a unique face.

Who, if everything else was equal, would pick the less physically attractive of the two?
[Edited 12/23/07 20:23pm]

Lammastide said:

You've struck upon the real question, amigo.

Who, indeed?

And, why? Sweeny explored it a little, but I would love to hear more.

ThreadBare said:

My tastes tend toward the unconventional. Most models aren't very attractive to me.

ThreadBare said:

I've read Sweeny's post. And I respect it. I wonder, though, given the strict parameters of your question (that is, aside from looks, the two people are absolutely on par), if the issues she addresses aren't the hang-ups of the person trying to choose between the two -- not the two people themselves. They are mostly suppositions, suspicions, etc.

No disrespect, Sweeny.
[Edited 12/23/07 20:37pm]

CarrieMpls said:

I like unconventional, too. But this raises an interesting point: Threadbare's original post draws a dichotomy between "conventional" looks and "model" looks. The implication being that the model, in fact, has the unconventional looks that better suit you. (Or am I getting this backwards, TB?)

So, Threads, what's your definition of "model" looks,I guess?
[Edited 12/23/07 20:39pm]

Lammastide said:

"Hollywood starlet" might be a better way to put it. Think Kirsten Dunst, Nicole Ari Parker, Gabrielle Union, Kerri Washington in the conventionally attractive category.

Girl next door? Think attractive but not necessarily as glamorous, statuesque, Hollywood. Still cute, but not necessarily stunning to the masses. .

Personally, the starlet type isn't my typical type, by any means. Girl next door usually gets me all twitterpated.

ThreadBare said:

Ohhhhh, I got it backwards. I assumed the "model" is the one with the unique look. If, in fact, the model is the cookie-cutter cover type and the girl next door has the more unique personal beauty, my inclination is toward the latter... based SOLELY on looks and barring other mitigating factors.
[Edited 12/23/07 20:56pm]

Lammastide said:

Although, I gotta say, the model/starlet does her thing very, very well.

This is a truly fucked up question

Janfriend said:

You have a talent for cutting through layers of civility. Expand.

I think this is a premise/question with only one obvious answer: The model.


Threadbare has estabilished that the women would be equal in every aspect except looks. That means, same intelligence, same level of kindness, etc. etc., except for one single factor...looks. So obviously the model is the choice for most folks whether they admit it or not.
He also took some pains to say he wasn't talking about a "bone thin" model like the herione fanatics we've seen grace to cover of magazines, but he uses the word 'model' in the sense that it's someone we ourselves would think is fine as hell (curves, bumps, whatever).
To me, given that setup, there is only one obvious answer: the better looking of the two.





Reality is of course that I don't think any of us have ever been given this choice between two people equal in ever single aspect except looks . I don't buy the theory that good looking people are just shallow and brainless drones, though. We have to remember that we are all here as a result of countless thousands of generations of ancestors who were good looking enough, powerful enough, or clever enough to survive and find a mate. Vanity is bred into all of us.
That being said, I find conventional model women to be absolutely beautful, except for one thing--they're not terribly fuckable looking . It's kind of like admire a best in show winner at a dog show--you wouldn't want to fuck it though. I mean, would hurt to see Versace draped over Vida Guerra's ass on a Paris runway once in a while? Please?




grammar edit
[Edited 12/23/07 21:22pm]

Janfriend said:

How so?

Lammastide said:

Oh, no I was just thinking how this question proves how shallow many of us are. I've been asked this question before and it's tough because most people wouldn't be able to "catch" the supermodel, so they settle for the girls/guys next door. Having known wannabe supermodels, they don't have much to say about anything where the person next door may be a little more well-rounded. This question was "all things being equal" hence the fucked up part about it because the people next door will be S.O.L.

Janfriend said:

Ahhh, so by your answer, the super-fine one would catch all the breaks, just to be won or kept. And, the person next door might receive less consideration because of her/his looks.

ThreadBare said:

Well, who doesn't want someone who's witty, intelligent, spiritual, philosophical, cultured AND gorgeous in their eyes?