Marilyn Monroe and Real Women Never Wear Dresses

We'll agree to disagree◊

Personally I say give me Jennifer Parkin of Ayria over Megan Fox any day.

And because I'm bored A visual representation of a duck face.

It works better when you have bee-stung lips.

Of course, most people who make said face do not have such lips.

edited 25th Apr '11 6:06:11 PM by MrAHR

@AHR:

@kaschei: I have to say, maybe it's just because the shading made the second girl look like a zombie, but that first girl was SO MUCH hotter than the second one it's not even comparable.

Ah, I see. Not attractive, then. Rightio.

I realise that I'm about as far as you can get from the intended audience for Megan Fox, but she's always rather annoyed me. She seems so artificial.

That's kind of why I don't really find her all that attractive. She's like the Spam of hotness. Packaged hotness.

"I have to say, maybe it's just because the shading made the second girl look like a zombie, but that first girl was SO MUCH hotter than the second one it's not even comparable."

Sure, though, on the whole, I think Angelina is sexier; my point was that two vastly different body types can both be attractive, and that there's no shortage of fat and bony girls who can sell a movie as well as an "optimal" beauty can.

I find Megan Fox hot, but she's not optimal.

She's on the opposite side of optimal than most women, but that's still not optimal.

If a well-toned body with a low but healthy fat percentage isn't optimal, I'm not sure what is.

But her face is meh at best.

As fine as a body is, you can't stare at an ass, set of legs, or tits all the time. One finds that gets one lambasted.

I never seem to notice duck face.

The only major sex-symbol from the past ten years I'd legitimately call "generic" would be Jessica Alba.

This◊——This◊——Perfect—This◊—Most Women Continue On From Here

NB

edited 25th Apr '11 6:50:50 PM by BlackHumor

Depends where you live. Most women wouldn't continue from there if they followed anything resembling a reasonable diet. Also, I'd say both perfect and optimal are ranges rather than points, and that Megan Fox certainly fits into them.

edited 25th Apr '11 6:53:27 PM by kashchei

Perfect is by definition a point. I'm not saying it's a point where there are any actual people, but by the definition of perfect there's no lowered standards about it.

Also, it's statistically true that most women carry on from there. "Most" is the most important word in that sentence. In fact, maybe it should've been "a plurality of", but there's no elegant way to say that.

edited 25th Apr '11 6:57:08 PM by BlackHumor

"Perfect is by definition a point. I'm not saying it's a point where there are any actual people, but by the definition of perfect there's no lowered standards about it."

I disagree with that definition, but even if I were to take it at face value, I'd wager that 'perfect' is a different point for different people.

About the statistics (whose veracity I must doubt if what they say is that the average weight of an adult woman exceeds 170 lbs), as I've said, blame most of it on poor nutrition rather than genetic predisposition.

edited 25th Apr '11 7:08:09 PM by kashchei

Both of those are true, though I have to give the note here that most women people don't make that much money and healthy food is expensive.

Sure. It's a damn shame, too, that a non-shit sprayed vegetarian meal should be more money than a shit cheeseburger.

edited 25th Apr '11 7:36:47 PM by kashchei

@OP: I never realized that bashing Marilyn Monroe was a big part of the second wave of feminism; I always thought she would be considered inspiring, too. But I guess it's about reacting against the objectification of women by swinging the pendulum too far in the other direction. It's understandable, and in any case, the desexualization of women in feminism didn't last very long, what with the free love movement of the 60's.

About Megan Fox, I think the people that don't find her attractive might be talking about her face rather than her body. She just always has a vague, confused kind of look. I can't find purpose or intelligence in her eyes. I realize that's completely subjective and looks can be decieving, but in most pictures I saw her in, the expression on her face kind of turned me off. I agree that her body is attractive, though.

edited 25th Apr '11 7:48:22 PM by OnTheOtherHandle

Yeah put someone else's face on Fox's body and it'd be a fine woman, but Megan Fox's face is meh at best.

Yeah, Megan Fox always seems to have a "derp" look on her face. That, and she looks... boringly normal for Hollywood.

To me it always looks like she's artfully arranging her face to look sultry, with the mouth falling open a little. That's what bothers me, I think.

@ the OP quesion- wasn't Marilyn Monroe typically cast as characters who were stupid and if they had any cunning it was in the direction of manipulating men through sex appeal?

Doesn't sound like a good role model.

@Jordan: Her characters were unfortunately not good role models because it was the fifties and very difficult to get intelligent, non-objectified women on screen, but she herself was a pretty cool woman. She was indepdendent, worked hard, and was actually quite intelligent, surrounding herself with intellectuals, and being self-taught on a number of subjects.

Fair enough. I don't have a problem with the idea of person!Marilyn as a role model, but I'm figuring that the feminists the OP mentioned were probably more reacting to the characters she played unless I'm misreading.

And thinking about it, Monroe seems like a good choice to react to since she was typecast as stupid and had all these personal problems/was Driven to Suicide- not saying that she herself should be condemned but that she could be used as a good example if you were condemning society.

Edit- rereading the OP, since it's talking about the 50s, that would presumably be about people considering Monroe's persona as a role model for women (?)

edited 25th Apr '11 9:00:36 PM by Jordan