You may or may not know this but I am 100% bi-sexual. Me and a girlfriend of mine got into a debate about what is pretty and what is not. So as I often say now, "OFF TO THINK ATHEIST INTERWEBS TO ASK RATIONAL PEOPLE!"
So here I am with a few questions:
I will be at work most of the day but I will be able to read most of your responses on my phone.
You can't change someone's taste with argumentation. Arguments won't change what someone finds attractive any more than an argument can make someone who doesn't like the taste of peas suddenly change their mind about the taste of peas.
1. I'm a little bit turned on by her healthy body. 2. I personally do not find her particularly attractive, as her face and skin has absolutely no detail whatsoever, and the picture is clearly shopped and/or she is wearing way too much makeup, making her look like a plastic doll. 3. I'm sure the picture is considered beautiful because her skin and face are totally consistent, without any noticeable flaws (probably because of the makeup/photoshop). 4. Maybe, underneath all of the makeup and fakeness. 5. Not really. 6. Yes, to see how differently I reacted to the versions of the picture. 7. Yes, I really did.
1-Tattoed eyebrows 2- Enhanced eye colour 3- Botox upper lip (naturally thin upper lip) 4- Real skin colour notice her hand 5- Water breast Implants 6- No waist line but toned body 7- Height 5'0-5'4 or shorter at the upper body 8- Natural uneven skin colour enhanced by photoshop 9- Thight photoshopped10- Photoshopped face to look symetric and highlight cheek bones, also fake hair line.
Average girl, enhanced by surgery, photoshop, make up, lightning and pose. Works out a lot but not femenine body shape.
1. Considering I am 16 and have hormones, 2 words (initiate immature horribly hormonal asshole side of me) She's Naked! (/asshole hormonal me off)
2. She is a fake, superficial, begging for attention woman.
3. She is considered beautiful because she is 1. naked 2. she is wearing a foot of makeup
4. To me? No, I am a chivalrous person and while the outside may be nice, to me the inside counts most. I am not a perverted asshole that just thinks about sex.
7. I solemnly swear I did not click it.
Just 16 - how astute you are - yep, she is fake, but most, not all, but most men's brains, then testiculs kick in. It is innate to have a look, if she is naked, every bloke would do a double take, and go into la la land. A bloke has to use his head brain to really evaluate women. My bloke thought she was yuck, but he knows just what extensive changes can be done - that is his head brain talking - still looks at gorgeous girls, no matter how old he is :)
Bear in mind, Seth, that when we were asked if we find this girl attractive, all we were given is a picture of her, so all we were asked, basically, is whether we find her PHYSICALLY attractive. It certainly could be that if we met her in person, we might find her shallow and bigoted. Worse, she might even be a CHRISTIAN! But when all you're given is looks, you base your analysis only on looks. Men in particular seem to be hard-wired to go with physical looks at least to start with, but a male's attitude isn't set in stone. Many times I've met an attractive female who had traits I learned to dislike, which changed her degree of attractiveness to me.
1) She is attractive superficially, her eyes are lovely and I like her hair.
2) Would I take notice of her if she walked into a room, sure. Would I want to be with her assuming she was remotely interested in me? NO. She is wearing a ton of makeup which is a pet hate for me, she has had a fair bit of work done which doesn't appeal to me either and she looks like high maintenence. I prefer natural women who don't need quite so much attention. Perhaps my insecurities are to blame for my last statement.
3) If I compare her to what people deem to be sexy in the media, Megan Fox for example, she pretty much ticks the blocks.
4) Yes, physically at least.
5) No, for me, if you're happy to be photographed nude in this fashion which has no artistic value then that for me is off putting.
7) I was.
First, look at the details of natural creasing and the color of her hand. Most people show their true age in their hands and that head does not connect properly with the hand which is touching it.
Next, I see her head is "detached" from her neck by intense Photoshop "Burning" which brings the head forward very un-naturally.
Her face overall has been BOTOXED and then Photoshopped until it is less human than my cat's behind. The cheek bones are not naturally lit, again Photoshop work, but this time the DODGE tool and some blurring. This is even more obvious when you consider her eyebrow is lifter and her hand is pushing up on that same eyebrow, yet there are NO wrinkles or sign of skin movement.
The hair extensions used as filler are way too obvious (note the clump on HER right - our left - below her shoulder)
The fact that the background is totally blurred and her torso and abdomen seem unnaturally trimmed inward so that she has no ribcage - that makes her all the more disgusting.
Overall, she probably does not look half bad in the original, untouched, pre-botox state. As she is here, the cleveage "burn" effect shading and the horrible face work make her gruesome and totally UNattractive.
Interesting bracelet though.
----------------- EDIT -----------------
In the "NSFW" photo, I am wondering whose leg that is that her arm is resting on, because it does not match in lighting or angle. Is she straddling someone who is laying below the frame of the photo with their leg up in front of her?
Also, while the "SFW" censored photo hides the obvious odd breasts and cleavage, her breasts are very "implanted" but have a 2-inch gap between them that makes her look disfigured.
Good eye! The hands do give a lot away.
I think you have wisely reminded people that a glamour photo can be more the work of the photographer than an accurate portrayal of the model.
Not as pretty as you Sophie ; )