i see your point, veresae. i dont get much of what is considered to be "hawt" (why arent things or people called "beautiful" anymore?), too.
one of my key gripes is the current beauty ideal for women. its like you built a house of all the "fancy" lego bricks, ending up with a weird, disharmonic mishmash of castle, family house, space station and race car garage parts.
apparently, the "best" mixture is trim, trained legs, a brazilian-sized bubbly behind, a flat belly, gravity-defying breasts (of the sort that newton would have thought twice about formulating a theory), a certain hair color (usually plasticy hydrogen blonde) and a certain lip shape (the more the better). just, these things dont go together.
theres definitely something to a harmonic slim look, as well as to a rather athletic look or to a classic hourglass figure - but i dislike th ethinking that stirring the trademark parts of each together will result in teh überbeauty. blegh.
and one more thing i recently read in a column. its a point that settles right next to the b***h thing.
Quote:
Sex was uncomplicated. Girls didn't have to scrub my penis with a wire brush and some bleach before sex, and not once did one want me to put on a raincoat, and I'm not talking about prophylactics, either, but miniature yellow slickers with little galoshes for my balls and a yellow cap for the head of my penis. Yep, girls weren't so kinky back then.
the column was about the author wishing back the spirit of bodybuilding that was prevalent in the 70s and 80s instead of today, and he goes on about a lot more things that turned awry.
so, whats the thing with everyone collecting kinky traits like youd get bonus points for it? probably something to make up the lack of actual emotional content in relationships... still, one more example why more = better doesnt ring true in each and every instance.