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.
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.
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 ; )
The shape of the cleavage denotes catagorically that those are implants. Beautiful people accept their beauty and don't resort to augmentation.
"Beautiful people accept their beauty and don't resort to augmentation."
Get off your high horse, everyone alter their natural appearance in some way to augment themselves to comply as much as possible with the standards of beauty in their society. Clothes, bijouterie, hair management, dental work, tattoos, plastic surgery, etc - all are augmentations.
Individual and social mores dictate the attitude towards such augmentations. Breast implants are as pervasive here in Eastern Europe that one can hardly find a girl without them these days, especially if they have the income associated with an advanced education. By your definition I guess this would imply that most of the girls here have some sort of self esteem issues, which is absolutely not my impression.
PS: The girl looks very Eastern European, my guess would be of Polish/Lithuanian descent, and the picture looks like it's from the Adriatic or Aegean.
Some people of both sexes take pride in their control over their appearance and consider their body a canvas of sorts.
I personally love to see a well made-up girl. There's nothing wrong with it. It's an art when done well.
Would you apply that to dentistry as well? In other words, if someone has teeth which are healthy enough for eating but have other problems like unpleasant gaps or front teeth that overlap a bit, you'd hold it against them if they went about some repairs?
1) What turns you on about this girl? Pretty eyes.
2) What turns you off about this girl? The turn-offs are mostly the photo, not the girl. The photoshopping others have mentioned, for example. The duck-lips and the mammoplasty however are kind of repellent. Also, those bracelets! Ack, drop maybe 15 of them, woman!
3) Why is this girl considered beautiful? She isn't, to me at least. To others, hell if I know.
4)Is this girl beautiful? See #4
5)Does the notion of her breasts being covered make you more attracted because you know she is naked in the (NSFW) *Not Safe For Work*unaltered picture(NSFW) No
6)Did you click on the NSFW picture? Why or why not? Yes. Well, why not? I don't really like censorship of any kind, anyway.
7)Be honest if you clicked on it or not! I was.
And just for full disclosure, I'm gay though I suppose "bi-curious", but from a different direction than most who use that word.
@Cecelia I do not think that it is WORK to enjoy healthy food and enjoy moving my body at all.
Here's your pat on the head, but realize that you represent yourself and whatever slice of the pie feels the same way you do. I'm quite aware that there are many views, of which yours is but one.
Also, a person can maintain a "healthy" weight (whatever that means) and still not actually be healthy because they eat a crap diet, don't exercise, smoke etc
yet the fat person who adheres to a healthy lifestyle is judged (or pitied or fretted over) while the thinner person who adheres to a crap lifestyle gets a pass.
I don't think the majority of experts hold that a really healthy lifestyle can result in a healthy fat person in the majority of cases. If that were in fact the established science, it would be such good news it would be sung from the rooftops by fat people. I don't think that book you are touting represents the mainstream science. Whatever one believes (or wants to believe) it's always possible to find experts who hold the minority view. Look at the issue of global warming, for example.
Well, you also can't be healthy if you eat crap all the time and never exercise, regardless of your weight. Any doctor worth his or her salt will understand that being sedentary is in and of itself a risk factor for poor health outcomes. Maintaining a "normal" weight is not a "get out of jail free card."
I think you'd have to actually read "Health At Every Size" before you pass judgment on whether or not it "represents mainstream science." But that's just me. And if you can't do that you could at least read the New York Times article from the Sunday magazine (15th of January). http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/01/magazine/tara-parker-pope-fat-tra...
And as for fat people singing from the rooftops. First, no one actually wants to be fat*. Second, the weight loss industry is huge ($46 billion worth of huge) and depends on perpetuating the idea that fat = bad. So, even if the fat people were to sing from the rooftops the noise the industry puts out there would drown them out.
*And, unfortunately, we don't actually have a real standard for what that even means so the default is that someone is fat if they don't conform to the cultural ideal. I recently re-watched "Love Actually" and was so surprised that they kept referring to Hugh Grant's love interest as "chubby"!! And, "plus" size models on agency books are anywhere from a size 6 to a size 14 (size 6 = plus, seriously???)
Whenever someone who is taking a view contrary to the mainstream tells me to read a book, I know it's a book they discovered which affirms their deeply-held beliefs. Key word there, BELIEFS.
You can't be serious. Take a look at what you wrote and ask yourself: "Do I really want to advocate for never challenging mainstream beliefs? On an atheist website?" Seriously?