Quote:
Originally posted by Slithy_Tove
But even so, it's unfair to compare posed, exquisitely lit and made-up stars to random women surprised by the paparazzi. I would guess that 9 out of 10 young women, if professionally photographed using all the tricks of the trade, would look damned good to most men.
|
True.
The juxtaposition of these photos in the post above was preceded by my note:
Quote:
|
Being a sex symbol ain't what it's cracked up to be.
|
The point that I was trying to make was that, of those who might generally be recognized as sex symbols, and we all know who they are, non is more lauded than Pamela Anderson. The deliberate use of the expression "cracked up to be" was to infer that even sex symbols have been ravaged by drugs and hard living to such an extent that their original youthful beauty has all but vanished. We all have the pictures of sexpot Pam as the image of "sex symbol" so it was interesting to me to view the image of Pam at the beginnning of her career as a professional sex symbol by any American man's standard. (Even though she's a Canadian.)
It is really unfair of the media to "label" Chelsea a "sex symbol" when she obviously is not a sex symbol by the standards of the very media which put that on her. My original post in this thread was to illustrate how ridiculous the media is to put that label on her. It's not Chelsea's fault how she looks, and I'm no sex symbol myself, so I'm sympathetic to anyone hung out like that. It's really about "political star power" in America not about being a sex symbol. Ironically, Bill Clinton has blurred the distinction.
Vanity Fair confuses
hanging out with sex symbols with
being a sex symbol.