MetaChat - The Most Beautiful New Yorkers?

Spotted at Bette by Yvonne Force Villareal (is a common citation)

posted by amberglow 11 August | 09:54

This chick is pretty hot. The rest of them look vaguely anemic.

posted by jonmc 11 August | 09:57

This girl is sexy as hell, too, I gotta admit.

*walks away singing "I'm too dumb for New York City, too ugly for LA"*

posted by jonmc 11 August | 10:02

What a collection of singularly unnatractive people.
≡ Click to see image ≡

posted by seanyboy 11 August | 10:03

Yeah, that dude looks kind of like Maurice Chevalier on chemo.

posted by jonmc 11 August | 10:05

all the people who aren't conventionally pretty look like elsewhere (or other eras), not NY, i find.

posted by amberglow 11 August | 10:10

This guy is pretty cute, but he looks like every second guy in my neighbourhood. The maitre d' would look better without that shirt on.

posted by gaspode 11 August | 10:16

The expression on his face is kind of off putting, too. I can almost hear him saying in a faux-french accent: "You unattractive noncelebrity, I'm sorry we have no tables tonight. It would be so much nicer if you weren't here.

In the neighborhood I work in, every second guy looks like Moby. In the neighborhood I live in every guy looks like either Stallone, Telly Salavas, or Apu.

posted by jonmc 11 August | 10:20

Well, it is Pastis.

posted by gaspode 11 August | 10:24

Pasties? are there g-strings, too?

posted by jonmc 11 August | 10:26

Neat idea for an article but it seems more like, "Best looking people we saw while walking around today." as so many of the "spotted ats" are the same. It was like each judge had 2 hours to find them--go!

posted by dobbs 11 August | 10:26

Yeah, you know, they asked me, but, uh. . . oh, look -- bunnies!

posted by papercake 11 August | 10:30

Carl Robinson.

posted by mcgraw 11 August | 11:02

Good-looking ain't got nothing to do with beautiful, baby. Sure, you're good-looking. But you're beautiful, too. You've got it all, and how. A beautiful, good-looking woman.

Looks equate to beauty only for the shallow.

posted by Hugh Janus 11 August | 11:02

Looks equate to beauty only for the shallow.

That's a relief

posted by jonmc 11 August | 11:07

Tom Wolfe had something to say about beautiful people.

"I meant to write to you before this and I hope you haven't been worried. I am in [San Francisco, Los Angelos, New York, Arizona, a Hopi Indian Reservation!!! New York, Ajijic, San miguel de Allende, mazatlan, Mexico!!!!] and it is really beautiful here. It is a beautiful scene. We've been here a week. I won't bore you with the whole thing, how it happened, but I really tried, because I know you wanted me to, but it just didn't work out with [school, college, my job, me and Danny] and so I have come here and it is a really beautiful scene. I don't want you to worry about me. I have met some BEAUTIFUL PEOPLE and ..."

posted by seanyboy 11 August | 11:21

New York's allright, if you like saxophones.

posted by Divine_Wino 11 August | 11:26

Looks equate to beauty only for the shallow.
I think you misspelled attractive there.
It's f.a.m.o.u.s. Not s.h.a.l.l.o.w.

That is to say, people who believe the "beauty is on the inside" myth generally don't work for magazines, fashionable New York eateries, Yves San Lauren, HBO, modelling agencies or cocaine barons.

It's just another empty phrase to satisfy those of us who are too poor or unattractive to register on the A-Class radar. i.e. those of us who actually pay for those mean spirited, ugly celebrities who swan around treating the world like shit.

And before you ask, I'm using ugly here in the sense of "ugly on the inside."

posted by seanyboy 11 August | 11:27

I said what I meant.

You're saying that what I believe is a myth? An empty phrase? Enjoy the ankle-deep, buddy.

Piss on your own day. Leave mine alone.

posted by Hugh Janus 11 August | 11:36

Piss on your own day. Leave mine alone.
Someone needs a hug!!!!

I wasn't disagreeing with you.
Well, I was, but it wasn't an insult aimed at you.
It was more just a riff against a plague of celebrity nonsense that is nicely represented by this article.
Nothing personal. You're great.

I'm not dismissing your belief system. You can have it. I love it. It's fantastic.
After all, this isn't metafilter.

posted by seanyboy 11 August | 11:49

The 90-year-old actress photo is great.

posted by kenko 11 August | 11:53

Sorry, seanyboy. I just got back from vacation, and I'm a little tender and cloudy.

I'm glad we agree, in the sense that this celebrity/money=beauty/attractiveness culture is a problem. And that we disagree, but only in approach.

Someone needs a hug!!!!

Yep. I'm too tan and relaxed to rejoin the grind just yet.

Let's have fun.

posted by Hugh Janus 11 August | 11:56

She is also attractive.

posted by kenko 11 August | 11:58

she's ok, but she looks snooty.

posted by jonmc 11 August | 12:00

Yay, Hugh's back! We missed you!

posted by Frisbee Girl 11 August | 12:31

I'm so totally smitten with Sara Harper.

posted by kmellis 11 August | 12:41

Awww, shucks.

I was in Maine, at Camden Hills and Vassalboro. Camping, canoeing, hiking, picking blueberries, did I mention eating lobster? Spending lazy days snoozing on the forest floor. I saw a wild turkey in the top of a tree (and in the bottom of a glass).

It was such great fun. I'm relaxed now.

posted by Hugh Janus 11 August | 12:50

kmellis, she's cute but she looks like everyother waitress/actress below 14th street.

posted by jonmc 11 August | 13:13

Well, hell. Can I live there?

posted by kmellis 11 August | 13:15

sure, but after dealing with one or two of them and their attitude, you'll turn into Travis Bickle (thus becoming a true New Yorker).

posted by jonmc 11 August | 13:17

"A classic ingenue, but not in an American way; she’s more European."
She's very pretty but that's the dumbest thing I've heard today.

"You can pick her out of a crowd; dazzling smile, perfect features, perfect jawline."
I thought the idea behind Rockettes was that you couldn't pick one out from the crowd.

posted by me3dia 11 August | 13:17

Well, I was sorta interested in buying a gun, anyway.

posted by kmellis 11 August | 13:23

≡ Click to see image ≡

I'm the ugliest guy on the Lower East Side, but I've got wheels and you wanna go for a ride.

posted by gigawhat? 11 August | 13:28

Does it reveal my age that I recognize the actor from Hill Street Blues and not NYPD Blue?

posted by kmellis 11 August | 13:39

where the hell are the latinas on that list?

posted by stynxno 11 August | 13:48

no kidding...where are the latinas?

but it is impossible to walk a city block in NY without seeing a drop-dead gorgeous person...i found my self intentionally walking slower so i could walk behind a beautiful behind just a bit longer...

*sigh*...around here everyone has meth mouth and votes red...

posted by Schyler523 11 August | 14:25

no kidding...where are the latinas?

Washington Heights. /rimshot.

Maybe the magazine editors didn't venture to far from midtown.

posted by jonmc 11 August | 14:29

I like the Magnetic Fields too, gigawhat?.

posted by Specklet 11 August | 14:29

The day is beautiful and so are you
My car is ugly but then I'm ugly too
I know you'd never give me a second glance
but when the weather's nice all the other guys don't stand a chance.

posted by safetyfork 11 August | 14:30

Who'd fall in love with a chicken with it's head cut off?

posted by Schyler523 11 August | 14:36

I gotta say, though, thin/fit/low-body-fat women should boycott Dove soap, as Dove apparently doesn't consider them "real," evidenced by Dove's current Manhattan marketing saturation.

posted by Hugh Janus 11 August | 15:10

(i like those ads, those are my kind of ladies)

posted by Schyler523 11 August | 15:16

(me too, the tall girl is totally scrumtious)

posted by jonmc 11 August | 15:22

I like 'em too, but I hate the implication that folks who were born with/work hard for thinner bodies somehow aren't as "real."

Why do people have to constantly "take back" things, especially things that weren't really gone in the first place?

It's as if you can't have self-esteem without breaking down others'. That's bullshit.

posted by Hugh Janus 11 August | 15:27

Julie, that's her name. Lindsey's pretty tasty, too.

posted by jonmc 11 August | 15:29

I'm kind of baffled by those ads Hugh. Do cute thick girls need their own soap or did some altruist/imp at Dove just decide to hit me off with PG-13 porno at billboard hight throughout the Apple?

(those ladies are in their underwears, yo!)

It's a marketing ploy for real, but for once, it benefits me.

posted by Divine_Wino 11 August | 15:57

maybe since most cosmetics ads focus on the wiafs, maybe dove thought there are more women that arent waify that would apppreciate an ad campaign directed to them...

maybe...

posted by Schyler523 11 August | 15:57

It's not the campaign that gets me, nor the advertiser's intentions. And I love seeing gorgeous girls in their undies; don't get me wrong. It's the word "real."

It's real offensive.

posted by Hugh Janus 11 August | 16:05

meh.

It goes both ways...

posted by Schyler523 11 August | 16:18

Hugh, I think that the use of the word 'real' is more geared toward the use of Photoshop-type techniques used by the industry to create an image that is deceptive and intentionally misleading as opposed to targeting the models themselves.

posted by Frisbee Girl 11 August | 16:19

I think they're reassuring folks who don't have the tight-as-hell bodies we're used to seeing in advo by saying, "You're real; (they're not)."

I think it's a wonderful thing to include everyone in commercials -- good looks come in all sizes and shapes. It's really unfair, though, to brand a whole group of people as "not real" just because of genetics or hard work or personal preference. People don't have to spit on one another to feel good about themselves.

By the way, being told "meh" always feels like being spit on.

posted by Hugh Janus 11 August | 16:37

By the way, being told "meh" always feels like being spit on.

Eh, the results of my entire life have been one long "meh." It's quite liberating after awhile.

posted by jonmc 11 August | 16:39

What does it mean?

It is a sneer, isn't it?

posted by Hugh Janus 11 August | 16:46

more like a shrug.

posted by jonmc 11 August | 16:51

I don't think "meh" is a smear at all. For me, it's a I-could-take-it-or-leave-it noise.

posted by Specklet 11 August | 16:52

I hadn't seen that Dove campaign, it's pretty cool. Too bad the soap smells so nasty or I might even go buy some.

What Frisbee Girl said, Hugh. I have friends of all sizes & shapes & some of them are model gorgeous but even they don't look like a picture in a magazine most of the time. The models look like that for one split second, one exposure of hundreds, after hours of preparation, and then the photoshopping begins. But people start to feel that if they don't look like that all the time, they must not be valid. Actually, a good photographer can make anyone look great - which is why I want to fly DaShiv to the next Asheville meetup. So I don't think real/not real is necessarily a thin/not thin thing (whoa. say that fast!) but more of a rebellion against the unrealistic expectations of physical beauty that are created by our insane ~~culture~~ celebrity obsessed fashion magazines.

posted by mygothlaundry 11 August | 16:52

But those girls in the Dove ads are certainly cleaned up a bit in post-production. Like everybody in any poster advertising anything.

If it's about not being photoshopped, why aren't there any skinny girls in the Dove ads? They're real too, right?

posted by Hugh Janus 11 August | 16:57

I guess I get the "meh" thing. Still don't like it.

Why not say, "I could take it or leave it," or something to that effect? "Meh" is vague and certainly negative-sounding.

Being vague in writing is a good way to get someone else's back up.

Jeez, do I need another vacation already?

posted by Hugh Janus 11 August | 17:00

Hugh, I don't think the ads are implying that thin people are somehow less human, or authentic. Women get bombarded with the message that they need plastic surgery/breast implants/crazy diets just to look"normal". An ad campaign that can aknowlege that non-waif women are 'real' & 'normal' in thier natural state (and sexy, too) can't be all bad. And if you're thin and good-looking, chances are you're getting better treatment for the most superficial of reasons, so don't begrudge the size 10s their body acceptance.

posted by maryh 11 August | 17:02

And what mygothlaundry said, too.

posted by maryh 11 August | 17:04

I'm not begrudging them their body acceptance. I'm just not satisfied with the false dichotomy Dove is creating with their choice of words. They are trying to reassure the size 10s by denigrating the size 6s. As if either was a fault.

The answer to poison ivy's itch is not lotion or ointment. It is simply to ignore it. It's the only way to make poison ivy go away. The answer to the message women are bombarded with is the same.

If Dove is trying to set themselves apart from other advertisers, they could do a better job by being less divisive. And the word "real," used in this sense, is divisive.

God, I'm such a refresh-harpy. I'm gonna leave work now.

posted by Hugh Janus 11 August | 17:13

Hugh! Honestly! Ignore it? Look, thin women are the status quo in advertising, and unless there's some colossal shift in public opinion, always will be. Getting irked because Dove isn't including any "real' thin women in the ad campaign is just so misplaced. Join me in being irked over the dog poop girl- You'll have lots more company.

posted by maryh 11 August | 17:21

If it's about not being photoshopped, why aren't there any skinny girls in the Dove ads? They're real too, right?

So this girl's not skinny?

posted by Specklet 11 August | 17:22

Not skinny enough, apparently.

posted by maryh 11 August | 17:27

I thought you guys were talking about ads for Dove ice cream bars. Now that would be an interesting ad campaign.

posted by gigawhat? 11 August | 17:32

If skinny women want to buy products advertised by other skinny women they are spoilt for choice and have no reason to feel snubbed. On the other hand if any woman buys Dove simply because the women advertising it are larger than the average model then they are mugs. Dove are not putting larger women in their advertising campaigns to change the world, they're doing it to sell over priced soap (and to give jonmc something to think about when he locks himself in the bathroom with a box of kleenex and a jar of moisturiser).

posted by dodgygeezer 11 August | 17:32

It's not at all clear to me what is a "normal" woman's bodytype. Without any critical examination, I've just accepted the current conventional wisdom that what is considered "ideal" in the US is profoundly unnatural.

Nevertheless, I have a very strong sexual preference for waifish women. I don't know how I came by that preference and, as a matter of fact, I'd change it in a heartbeat if it were something I could voluntarily change. Only a few women I've been involved with could have been described as "waifish". Of course, since adulthood I've never selected partners on the primary basis of physical sexual attractiveness--partly from a sort of naive uptopian impulse, and partly from the extremely high importance I place on general companionship and intellectual compatibility.

This has probably been a mistake to a certain degree, as for the most part my sex life with these various partners has been disappointing to me because, quite simply, physically they've not really been my type.

There is some research indicating that it might be possible to recondition people to different sexual preferences, although of course this raises a good number of very delicate issues. I've sometimes wondered if I ought to to attempt to actively "reprogam" my preferences using porn and in how I choose my sex partners and how I sexually interact with them. I'd be very interested to know if anyone's done this. Anyway, if my strong sexual preference for unrealistically petite women is the result of a cultural brainwashing via things like advertising and media entertainment, I deeply resent it. But resenting it is not, sadly, sufficient in itself to make it not the case.

posted by kmellis 11 August | 17:38

You know, looking at all of the Dove women it strikes me that none of them are actually overweight. They're just, you know, average. Normal. Not skinny, not fat. I'm all for it - hell, they look like me. They look like the picture in last month's O (sorry, can't find it online) of all these average women, each of whom is convinced that she needs to lose 10 more pounds to be perfect. That's the real issue here - not that the skinny women are excluded as unreal or the fat women either, since they're not in that campaign - but that women seem to always feel that to be real involves losing more and more and more weight.

posted by mygothlaundry 11 August | 17:43

I don't care why Dove is doing it or what they're calling it. It's really nice to walk around this city and have some hot people who look like me up for once. So fuck everyone. It's for me and I like it.

posted by dame 11 August | 17:47

We're not real until we're validated by an advertising archetype, I suppose. In the future, perhaps we'll all be entitled to a minimal amount of self-esteem improvement via our narcissistic recognition of ourselves in the icons of mass media.

Or maybe not.

posted by kmellis 11 August | 17:52

hugh, i did not mean to insult you with my meh.

it really is like a shrug, i was tired of arguing, but i didn't intend to 'spit' on you.

i think that mygothlaundry and dame hit it right on the head...

posted by Schyler523 11 August | 17:57

oh and hugh, it is nice to see you back, sorry to get your hackles up...

posted by Schyler523 11 August | 18:02

Oh, don't be dumb, kmellis. Quibble with having an image saturated society if you want to, but don't act like it's so awful for anyone to enjoy feeling appreciated, something often conveyed by the image labelled beautiful. Because that's all it is. It doesn't mean you're a wonderful person; it doesn't mean your life is meaningful. It just lifts a little annoyance. Asshole.

posted by dame 11 August | 18:04

Well, the Dove ads caught people's attention because they're novel, not because the population has demanded validation. So Dove maybe sells some soap, and people like jonmc and dame have a pleasant image to look at on the way to work. I still don't get what the whole flap over "real" is...

posted by maryh 11 August | 18:10

I'm not sticking up for advertisers of any stripe here. Their manipulation of our self-images (female and male both) sucks, and is difficult to conquer. The only message they understand is when something doesn't work, and that's what I mean by "ignore it." Maybe "ignore it" isn't a message they get.

I honestly hadn't noticed the girl Specklet points out (don't think I was supposed to, either). I dunno what that says about me.

It ain't the pictures, it's the word "real." Every time it's used in these contexts, it imples fakery by someone else. Or whatever by someone else. In any case, it feeds this "us, them" shit that I hate. That's unfair and unnecessarily divisive, and that's all I'm trying to say. Nobody wins but Dove.

This is an interesting conversation, and while what I'm writing is doubtless offensive to some of you, I mean well -- I'm trying not to concentrate on the body image issue, but on the semantics of "real."

It's good to be back. I missed you all (in between naps on beds of balsam needles and bites of lobster and blueberry cobbler).

posted by Hugh Janus 11 August | 18:55

11 August 2005