Concerning Physical Attractiveness
(Note: This article refers to women specifically)
We have all seen, in our time, people wearing outfits that don’t seem right for them. This is mostly caused by women mistakenly dressing in a category that is inappropriate for them. Essentially, the levels of female attractiveness can be classified as such:
Hot vs. Beautiful
Hotness and beauty are often confused with each other. Beauty is about elegance, being picturesque and generally appealing to the eye. Hotness is about sex, inspiring lust and most likely showing off skin and curvature. For example: an overweight woman can be beautiful, but she can never be hot. If a beautiful woman tries to appear hot, it can be very unsettling.
Aside from these two general categories there are subdivisions that also apply. Hotness can be comprised of Sexy, Flirtatious, Cute and Pure. A woman can be any of these, but never more than one at the same time. This is important. Sexiness and cuteness are very different things. Also, these definitions operate under the “you know when you see it” classification.
Digging deeper into each of the four examples:
Sexy - Sexiness is like Angelina Jolie. Even when she wears an elegant dress she still appears to be dripping of sexual appeal. You can tell because when she wears the dress it does not feel “wrong.” Now picture Britney Spears in an elegant dress. It just doesn’t work the same.
Flirtatious - This is exemplified by people like Paris Hilton. Say what you want about her, but she has this down. She is very skilled at the “eye fuck.” So much that she doesn’t seem to be able to make any other facial expression. The flirtatious woman makes men thinks she wants to fuck them, without trying very hard.
Cute - Ellen Page is cute. Snooki is cute (while you may find her repulsive, she still exists in this manner). Cuteness is reserved for women whose bodies usually lack pronounced sexual characteristics (i.e. big boobs, hips and ass). They are appealing, but still are not beautiful. Most importantly, cute women are unthreatening.
Pure - Do not confuse this with connotations you may have from your vernacular. This pureness is similar to “pure heroin.” It refers to rawness; it refers to being unfiltered. Think of magma or molten steel. In this way, someone like Lindsay Lohan is pure. Her hotness is unrefined and practically unappealing because it is SO pure. It’s similar to the way Ikea will purposely make glass with imperfections in it to make it more authentic.
Beauty is not as easy to classify, mostly because it’s rare to find someone who is truly beautiful, yet hotness is all around us, shoved down our throats by marketers. I’ve narrowed it down to the following: Timeless, Fine, and Sincere.
Timeless - Timeless beauty applies to any woman who is as beautiful now as she was X amount of years ago. Jennifer Connelly is the best example of this. The reason why she rarely appears in movies is because she is truly beautiful and Hollywood doesn’t know what to do with actual beauty. She’s beautiful in Requiem for a Dream and she is beautiful in The Day the Earth Stood Still. When she’s photographed in a bikini it seems odd, because she is not hot. That is not the appropriate venue for her looks.
Fine - Like it or not, Sarah Palin has fine beauty. She is probably the most beautiful female politician, ever. Viewed objectively (you know, without knowing the stupid shit she says/believes) one has to admit that she is beautiful. However, she is without question not hot. Put her in lingerie and you will get a disturbing image, but dressed in a smart skirt, blazer combo and she will be beautiful.
Sincere - Sincere beauty is the rarest. You can go your entire lifetime without meeting someone who is sincerely beautiful. Sincere beauty is unassisted by make-up, hairspray, etc. A sincerely beautiful person can roll out of bed, put on a burlap sack and still be wonderful to look at. There is a theory that sincere beauty does not actually even exist and that it is something created in the minds of lovers.
This may all seem like a bunch of bullshit, but I guarantee ANY woman can be classified by this system. I do not say this to marginalize women or say that each person is not a unique snowflake (that’s an argument for another time). All I’m saying is that female attractiveness CAN be classified, much in the same way that there are different types of cheese. (That last part may have been more harm than good.)
If you still don’t believe me, I’ll prove it:
Vanessa Hudgens - Cute
Lady Gaga - Pure
Eva Mendes - Sexy
Pamela Anderson - Pure
Uma Thurman - Fine
Jessica Alba - Cute with a twist of Flirtatious
Halle Berry - Timeless
Blake Lively - Cute
Fergie - Pure
Beyonce - Sexy with an aftertaste of Pure
Rihanna - Cute and Sexy alternatively (rare)
Megan Fox - Pure
Alicia Keys - Timeless
Katie Holmes - Just kidding! She’s permanently tainted by Tom Cruise and Scientology!
Helen Mirren - Timeless
Now you try some:
Britney Spears = ????
Cameron Diaz = ????
Jennifer Lopez = ????
Lucy Liu = ????
That black girl from Bring it On (not the loud one, the tall one) = ????
We have all seen, in our time, people wearing outfits that don’t seem right for them. This is mostly caused by women mistakenly dressing in a category that is inappropriate for them. Essentially, the levels of female attractiveness can be classified as such:
Hot vs. Beautiful
Hotness and beauty are often confused with each other. Beauty is about elegance, being picturesque and generally appealing to the eye. Hotness is about sex, inspiring lust and most likely showing off skin and curvature. For example: an overweight woman can be beautiful, but she can never be hot. If a beautiful woman tries to appear hot, it can be very unsettling.
Aside from these two general categories there are subdivisions that also apply. Hotness can be comprised of Sexy, Flirtatious, Cute and Pure. A woman can be any of these, but never more than one at the same time. This is important. Sexiness and cuteness are very different things. Also, these definitions operate under the “you know when you see it” classification.
Digging deeper into each of the four examples:
Sexy - Sexiness is like Angelina Jolie. Even when she wears an elegant dress she still appears to be dripping of sexual appeal. You can tell because when she wears the dress it does not feel “wrong.” Now picture Britney Spears in an elegant dress. It just doesn’t work the same.
Flirtatious - This is exemplified by people like Paris Hilton. Say what you want about her, but she has this down. She is very skilled at the “eye fuck.” So much that she doesn’t seem to be able to make any other facial expression. The flirtatious woman makes men thinks she wants to fuck them, without trying very hard.
Cute - Ellen Page is cute. Snooki is cute (while you may find her repulsive, she still exists in this manner). Cuteness is reserved for women whose bodies usually lack pronounced sexual characteristics (i.e. big boobs, hips and ass). They are appealing, but still are not beautiful. Most importantly, cute women are unthreatening.
Pure - Do not confuse this with connotations you may have from your vernacular. This pureness is similar to “pure heroin.” It refers to rawness; it refers to being unfiltered. Think of magma or molten steel. In this way, someone like Lindsay Lohan is pure. Her hotness is unrefined and practically unappealing because it is SO pure. It’s similar to the way Ikea will purposely make glass with imperfections in it to make it more authentic.
Beauty is not as easy to classify, mostly because it’s rare to find someone who is truly beautiful, yet hotness is all around us, shoved down our throats by marketers. I’ve narrowed it down to the following: Timeless, Fine, and Sincere.
Timeless - Timeless beauty applies to any woman who is as beautiful now as she was X amount of years ago. Jennifer Connelly is the best example of this. The reason why she rarely appears in movies is because she is truly beautiful and Hollywood doesn’t know what to do with actual beauty. She’s beautiful in Requiem for a Dream and she is beautiful in The Day the Earth Stood Still. When she’s photographed in a bikini it seems odd, because she is not hot. That is not the appropriate venue for her looks.
Fine - Like it or not, Sarah Palin has fine beauty. She is probably the most beautiful female politician, ever. Viewed objectively (you know, without knowing the stupid shit she says/believes) one has to admit that she is beautiful. However, she is without question not hot. Put her in lingerie and you will get a disturbing image, but dressed in a smart skirt, blazer combo and she will be beautiful.
Sincere - Sincere beauty is the rarest. You can go your entire lifetime without meeting someone who is sincerely beautiful. Sincere beauty is unassisted by make-up, hairspray, etc. A sincerely beautiful person can roll out of bed, put on a burlap sack and still be wonderful to look at. There is a theory that sincere beauty does not actually even exist and that it is something created in the minds of lovers.
This may all seem like a bunch of bullshit, but I guarantee ANY woman can be classified by this system. I do not say this to marginalize women or say that each person is not a unique snowflake (that’s an argument for another time). All I’m saying is that female attractiveness CAN be classified, much in the same way that there are different types of cheese. (That last part may have been more harm than good.)
If you still don’t believe me, I’ll prove it:
Vanessa Hudgens - Cute
Lady Gaga - Pure
Eva Mendes - Sexy
Pamela Anderson - Pure
Uma Thurman - Fine
Jessica Alba - Cute with a twist of Flirtatious
Halle Berry - Timeless
Blake Lively - Cute
Fergie - Pure
Beyonce - Sexy with an aftertaste of Pure
Rihanna - Cute and Sexy alternatively (rare)
Megan Fox - Pure
Alicia Keys - Timeless
Katie Holmes - Just kidding! She’s permanently tainted by Tom Cruise and Scientology!
Helen Mirren - Timeless
Now you try some:
Britney Spears = ????
Cameron Diaz = ????
Jennifer Lopez = ????
Lucy Liu = ????
That black girl from Bring it On (not the loud one, the tall one) = ????