Sunday, September 18, 2011

Beauty-Haters on the Attack

The Telegraph's

A few weeks ago, I interviewed the number-one female tennis player, Caroline Wozniacki, and a friend said to me that the strange thing about women’s tennis is that it’s being taken over by beautiful women.

Well, I said, it’s certainly true that Wozniacki is beautiful, or at least gorgeous; I’d been to Denmark to interview her, and noticed the local version of Heat magazine, Se Og Hør, had featured her in a photo shoot that made her look like a pop star or an actress, with her long blonde hair and short black dress. But that, I said, was just one player.
No, said the friend, there’s more to it. At least half of the top female tennis players are beautiful these days. “Ten, 15 years ago, it was just one,” he said.
“Remember Anna Kournikova? She used to be the exception.” And he listed some of the current female tennis players who are beautiful: Ana Ivanovic, Maria Sharapova, Sabine Lisicki, Vera Zvonareva, Lucie Safarova… and there were more. That was just off the top of his head...

Some of the higher-ranked but less attractive players were relegated to the outer courts. But then the mystery was solved; it was all to do with ratings.

A BBC spokesman said that, even though the decision was in the hands of Wimbledon officials, “Our preference would always be a Brit or a babe, as this always delivers high viewing figures.”
Yup, that's it. Ugly people are manipulated away from wining tennis matches. Puhleeze. The fact of the matter is the early years of championship professional tennis were dominated by lesbians (Billie Jean King, Martina Navratilova, Renae Stubbs, Virginia Wade), who tended to have a more severe look (Think Rosie O'Donell, Ellen DeGeneres and Rachel Maddow). Because the sport is now more mainstream, probably, curiously enough, because of the Williams' sisters influence, you have young, athletic, healthy looking women, without the severe lesbian look, winning championships.

But this doesn't stop Leith with his maniac theory, he takes it a step further and, yup, discusses government payments for the "ugly". He trots out Daniel Hamermesh :
What happens if you’re not attractive in this new world? In a chapter titled “Legal Protection for the Ugly”, Hamermesh argues there could be a case for some kind of affirmative action – after all, unattractive people, like those from racial minorities, are being denied opportunities.
“Bad looks,” writes Hamermesh, “can generate an earnings disadvantage of perhaps $140,000 over a lifetime compared to the earnings of an average-looking worker.” And the ways in which an unattractive person is disadvantaged are similar to the ways others – black people, say – are disadvantaged.
He goes on: “The causes of mistreatment of the bad-looking, and their results – inferior outcomes in a large variety of areas – seem little different either qualitatively or quantitatively from the mistreatment of other groups.”
The fact of the matter is that beauty is, indeed, in the eye of the beholder. I have seen plenty of severe looking lesbians walking the streets of San Francisco arm and arm---they obviously see something attractive in each other. But more than that, while the severe lesbian look may not be the general population's idea of beauty, these women tend to be extremely successful, despite their supposed lack of beauty. It would take a long period of head scratching to come up with female television hosts more successful than the lesbians O'Donell, DeGeneres and Maddow---and I shudder to think what these women look like without their television make-up on. (Note: I am keeping Oprah out of this discussion, but there are plenty of rumors in Chicago about Oprah and her friend Gale).

Bottom line, beauty is one way to make a living and there is nothing wrong with that, but talented people who don't fit the mainstream idea of beauty can have successful careers if they have a skill or talent, the severe looking among the lesbians are proving this everyday.


  1. "The fact of the matter is that beauty is, indeed, in the eye of the beholder."

    Actually physical beauty is scientific and mathematical. It can be measured and studied. So you are completely wrong here. It is one of the greatest gits of nature. We should treasure it as such.

  2. Physically beauty is purely subjective what you saying? I find Tyra Banks unattractive. Lots of men find her attractive. There is no way to quantify beauty. Any "math" that proves person A is pretty then person B is pure nonsense and not math at all. It cant be measured like a gallon of water.

    Jeez haven't you ever seen the twilight episode "eye of the beholder" with the pig face doctors?

  3. How long before we see calls for subsidized cosmetic surgery?

  4. Isn't "envy-ridden" synonymous with "British"?

    They are the most envy-ridden people I ever come across...Worse than American Public School Liberals.

  5. Correct...Beauty is science and math based just like physical style. There is only poor taste and good taste when it comes to beauty. Ignorance vs Rational. Psychotic vs Symmetrical.

  6. Sure it can. That's why I made the comment. Just because you don't know of the science involved doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Your "personal" observations and anecdotes aren't science, they are just your opinion.

  7. Thank you Anon 11:05am. My prior comment at 11:11am was in response to the second comment above at 10:49am. Mine is the first at 9:57am. This "moderation delay" is an annoyance and unnecessary.

  8. @Anon 11:11 AM,

    In order for something to be measurable, there must be an objective reference point. I don't know what pseudo-science you are referrring to, because there is no objective reference point for beauty.

    Now, there are evolutionary biology studies that show humans are predisposed to find different traits attractive, but those traits are not universal. This falls under the category of an observational study, which part science part interpretation.

  9. After a little research, it looks like Oprah probably IS lesbian... take a look at her very low 2d:4d digit ratio:

    It's not a guarantee, but lesbians are more likely to have a more masculine 2d:4d ratio - That is, a ring finger that's longer than their index finger... and as you see with Oprah's ring finger there, it's massively longer than the index. Mystery solved. lol

  10. Anon 11:11, if you're talking particle physics then just stop. We're talking about human beings. There isn't an experiment that unsubjectifies human beauty.

  11. David B., YOU don't have to know what science I'm referring to for it to exist. Or are you "all knowing" as well?...LOL

    It's mathematical symmetry. The same exact principle applies to flowers or other objects in nature that are considered "beautiful" by humans. These same mathematical principles apply to non-human animals, even insects. That's how they select mates and food sources, respectively. That is science and observational fact. It can and has been measured.

  12. Science involves a Hypothesis or Question. Then a test of the Hypothesis or Question. Then data and results. From there a conclusion is made.

    You cant prove to me Tyra banks is beauty. The program that measures face dimensions and skin complexion to determine beauty is programmed by some one or group of people who says that this distance=x, this distance=y, ect therefore she is beauty. The input all together is subjective.

    The whole idea of you introducing "opinion" is absurd. The programmers insert their opinion into the software that calculates beauty only based on what most people consider to be beauty.

    However I can prove to you Integration and derivatives.

    Integration and derivatives are operations in math. There are proofs for these operation.
    There is no subjective input into these proofs.

  13. "Correct...Beauty is science and math based just like physical style. There is only poor taste and good taste when it comes to beauty. Ignorance vs Rational. Psychotic vs Symmetrical"

    People with poor taste should get government payments. They are hindered in life and its decisions by their poor taste.

  14. "The whole idea of you introducing "opinion" is absurd. The programmers insert their opinion into the software that calculates beauty only based on what most people consider to be beauty."

    You're wrong of course. Why do I even bother? Though I shouldn't be surprised. Wenzel isn't exactly a towering intellect; he just has an excellent understanding in one area that we know of: economics (perhaps compared to Krugman he's a towering intellect...LOL) So what should I expect from those who peruse this blog?

    BELIEVE as you wish. It makes no difference to me and doesn't change provable fact that should already be obvious to anyone with any regard to empiricism and curiosity.

  15. Nissan Juke vs BMW X5.

    The undisciplined/lazy childish mind selects the Juke whilst the math and science rational select the X5. Beauty is not subjective at all.

  16. There is a website that had men vote on many pretty women 2 at a time and then combined the winners into the one most beautiful woman that all women will evovle toward. I am still trying to find the website. The final woman was in fact gorgeous. I remember that her eyes were wider apart than what is normal today.

    Beautiful women in tennis bring in bigger prize money. Anna Kournikova basically doubled woman's tennis viewership.

  17. "People with poor taste should get government payments"

    They already do...Thru the Federal National Endowment for the Arts.

  18. @Anonymous 12:19pm.
    For the record i actually am i scientist (physics and nuclear engineering). So trying to mock my intellect in the field of science is silly. Maybe you could enlighten me and the rest here as to why am I wrong. I'm very open minded. From what i know about the "science" of beauty that's what it is-algorithms measuring facial dimensions among other things. What are you referring too?

    I also noticed you failed to address the rest of my post and sort of pulled out the one thing i wrote about science of beauty.
    I am not claiming to be an expert.

    Or maybe you can post the proof and mathematically formula proving that Tyra banks is beauty or not beauty?

    I can post the mathematically proof for E=mc^2

    And one more thing. There are a lot of pseudo sciences out there. People attaching the word "science" to something without knowing what the word means or how it should be used.

  19. @Anon 1:06pm. I didn't need to address the rest of your post. (I was Anon 12:29pm, btw)

    So of course there isn't any scientific reason as to "what most people consider to be beauty" that mathematicians use to program information into algorithms; is that your argument? "What most people consider to be beauty" all just happens accidentally, I suppose?

    With this same reasoning, no human quality could be scientifically measured - not intelligence, aptitude, or logical reasoning, etc. You should consider informing psychologists, sociologists, anthropologists, and even neuroscientists as of late who use brain imaging techniques, that their entire life's work consists of mere subjectivity and statistical analysis based on that subjectivity. Good luck with that.

    Just so you know, I'm not a scientist. It only takes critical thinking, the ability to read, and the ability to comprehend in order to discuss these matters.

  20. Yes those things can't be quantified. That is my reasoning. You can't measure Intelect, logic reasoning ect. Albert einstein wasn't very good in school and grade. But his theories and proofs rewrote physics. But I noticed you did not quantify or express a proof for Tyra banks beauty. That proves my point. Until you do please don't bother reposting. Good day sir

  21. Since you have brought up Tyra Banks (for whatever reason) in each one of your posts, I have another question for you. If Tyra Banks was disfigured in an accident so that one eye was 1 to 2 inches above the other eye as measured on her face, would that make her more "beautiful" or less "beautiful"? Would the answer to that question be subjective or objective, and why?

    You reaction to this entire topic isn't objective or rational, it is emotional. That observation of mine isn't science, but I have a hypothesis for its cause nonetheless. You should examine yourself to determine why that may be the case. I would bid you good day, but I sincerely doubt that is possible at this point.

  22. Damn iPad. It reset my longer comment...oh well. It's still a BEAUTIFUL machine, or so I think.

    Beauty is subjective. Is a perfect rose more beautiful than a perfect orchid?

    Symmetry plays a role, but so do cultural norms. Melissa Mcarthy, the star of "Bridesmaids" and the sitcom "Mike & Molly" would've been considered the height of beauty 200 years ago- zaftig was in. I think Jon Hamm is hotter than Christina Hendrickson, but most men would choose a "plain" woman over the most beautiful man. Some men think a woman whose neck has been stretched via brass rings, or whose feet have been crushed by shoe torture, to be beautiful.

    Science cannot "prove" beauty, forget "the golden ratio" (Phi, or 1.610833988...and yes, like "pi" I've memorized it to ten digits) and accept that "it is in the eye of the beholder".

    Goddamn pedants and sophists...

    Dale Fitz

  23. "Beauty is subjective. Is a perfect rose more beautiful than a perfect orchid?"

    Are either of those more beautiful than a mound of dog feces?

    Nice try, though.

  24. Again you did not answer the question. You said beauty can be measured and quantified and there is a science to it. But now i say prove to us all that it is indeed a science and quantify her beauty with a number or whatever "beauty scientist" do and show a proof for it.

    But now here you are asking me another question because you cant hold the debate. You cant answer my question so you respond by saying I'm not rational and emotional but you completely ignored my question.

  25. When you come up with a decent question, I'll be happy to answer it. Anon 6:44pm got much closer to the truth than you. Follow that train of logic and you'll do much better.

  26. I think Anon's comparison of his argument to a pile of dogshit answers the question- he's painted himself into a corner, and can't admit what everyone else sees plainly- beauty is subjective, and he has no argument other than "but it's science!"

    Give it up, anon- you are obviously incapable of answering any of the questions posed, and comparing roses to shit just shows how moronic your argument is when examined.

    Dale Fitz

  27. A mound of dog feces is a beautiful thing. And if you hold the disadvantage of not being as beautiful as a mound of dog feces, you deserve a government handout.

  28. And if you get a government handout, and are inconvenienced that some people can direct deposit while you have to take your check to the bank in person, you deserve a second government handout.

  29. Seems like some of you here were born homely, or have someone in your life close to you that was born homely.

    Nature can be cruel.

  30. "Severe looking Lesbian" ? You have got to be kidding me. Lesbians, just like straight women, can run the spectrum of conventional "beauty". As far as your comment about lesbian couples in SF, "they obviously see something attractive in each other"...yup they sure do. And they don't give a flying fig if YOU find them attractive of not. And I don't either. Misogynistic bigots are not my preferred demographic.

  31. Dana, I don't think Bob is calling ALL lesbians severe (and I personally think Madddow has a real cuteness about her) and Ms Degeneres' wife is certainly one of "the beautiful people", merely pointing out some "severe" lesbians who haven't let their average looks hold them back from fame and fortune.

    I've been coming here over a year and never noticed homophobia- as a matter of fact, some commenters have been defensive with me for using "faggot" to describe a certain wannabe presidential husband- and my sexuality has never been an issue.

  32. "and can't admit what everyone else sees plainly-"

    No, actually just you ugly folks that can't admit the truth. LOL Mother hid it from you rather well...