"I couldn't possibly fail to disagree with you less."
24 June 2007Bone thrownThis is England, land of presumed mismatches:
I don't know if you've noticed, but recently I've been seeing a lot of attractive, successful women out on the town, holding coquettishly onto the arm of some absolute minger. I'm not just talking short and round, I'm talking mirror-crackingly, baby-screaming sort of ugly. The question is always asked: "Why is she with him?" And I have to say the jury is still out on that one.
Even juries have limits to what they're willing to examine, I suppose.
Perhaps it's that we are lacking in men; all the good ones are taken and all the bad ones don't want to be tied down, and an ugly man is the safe bet. There are down sides to this, though, as one friend I have who chose the safe option is forever bemoaning her boyfriend's physical appearance. "He's lovely and we get on great," she says, "But there's just no phwoar ... and I miss that".
Nice to know that there exists a capacity for the superficial on the other side of the aisle. Beauty, after all, is a currency, a medium of exchange. If your assets are in some other coin, you're still in the marketplace, though window-shoppers may pass you by. (And there are those of us for whom the Book of Love stopped at Chapter 7.) Posted at 7:26 PM to Table for OneI think I read somewhere that most people end up settling instead of waiting for (or pursuing) better. (Although this makes me consider the inverse question: Do attractive men ever pair up with ugly women? Hm--probably not.) Posted by: sya at 8:35 PM on 24 June 2007One of the commenters at the site where I found this did bring up that question, and she expressed a similar sentiment: It chagrins me no end that a funny-looking guy is valued for his character and his achievements and is supposed to be able to hook up with an understanding supermodel, but a funny-looking woman is a failure no matter what she does. This, of course, follows the old rule of thumb: double standards suck twice as much. And really, are supermodels known for their understanding? Posted by: CGHill at 8:49 PM on 24 June 2007It's actually TRUE that sex is mostly between the ears. Which is why Maureen Dowd just does not work for me, no matter how high her do-me heels are. It's not a question of 'putting a paper bag over her head' (it's not that she's bad-looking, after all), you'd have to lop the whole thing off to improve the package. And that's just more trouble than it's worth. Posted by: Mister Snitch! at 8:11 PM on 28 June 2007Speaking of Dowd, this is hilarious. Obviously others have noticed that, while her columns say 'take me stud', there's 'you'll rue the day' in her eyes. Posted by: Mister Snitch! at 8:14 PM on 28 June 2007 |
