I am absolutely here for the blunt honesty. I loved your post and it’s very interesting to understand the male mind. I know that not all men think the same but it interests me when I tell my husband that I think Madonna in her hey day was really attractive and he doesn’t get the fuss. I point out her bone structure and Italian good looks..he still doesn’t get it. That difference between what women see and what men see and how we label all these things is so interesting to me. Oh and you’re not a sexist!
Thank you. I know I am not but I guarantee some will call me it for this. No worries, though. I’ve had worse and my views get misrepresented as a matter of course almost daily at this point. I’m used to it by now… Water off a duck’s back.
I’d like to recommend Erin Byrd’s YouTube channel to you Pallavi. I think you’ll find her content interesting… She narrates her own academic essays to camera that critique the common fashionable nonsense that we see in Social Studies these days. I find her informative, well researched and just so wholesome, just like you. 😎 Here she is in case you want to listen to her… Take care and thank you again
And I meant to say before that I relate re the feedback on posts. It can be unfair to say the least. Has not put any of us off from writing though, thankfully.
Madonna was certainly attractive in her day. Her allure was more than just a pretty face though; in everything she did, she exuded sexiness like no other female singer at the time. She had it figured out.
Can't say I ever got the Madonna thing but then again I missed her during her initial cultural phenomenon period. When I became aware of her, she was already in her late thirties/early forties and had reinvented herself into something else.
As someone who has always been "pretty" but in no way "beautiful", I will absolve you of all accusations of sexism. I can be totally honest, as I am now a Granny, and state that "beautiful" is an aesthetic ideal, but "pretty" is, well, "f***able". I have been happily married for about a hundred years, but I have also had lots of male attention, despite having no classical looks at all. What was a curse at the age of 14 is mildly amusing at "ahem" years! I agree that youth, or more realistically fecundity, is a huge turn-on for men. No reason to be ashamed of it, as long as you don't push your luck!
I am not sure whether this distinction really holds up that well. I am not sure I could take pictures of random movie actresses and figure out which you’d categorize as “pretty,” and which would be “beautiful.” I’m guessing you’d say young Geena Davis was beautiful but not pretty, because she’s kind of strange looking and Sarah Michelle Gellar was pretty.
But in any case, the analysis is kind of flawed because you pick a bunch of women all of whom are conventionally in the top 99.9% of human females and then are made up and photographed to look good. In ordinary language, they are all quite beautiful. And pretty!
I wanted to find a reason to call you a sexist but was disappointed to find nothing on which to base such an accusation. Sigh. I do have some disagreements, though, as you may have expected!
Christina Ricci is a great example of someone with a really unique kind of attractiveness, I agree with you. And as a woman who isn't attracted to women like that, I can appreciate that, although like your wife, she wouldn't be someone who would stand out to me as exceptional, just *interesting-looking.*
When I was a teenager, I thought the most beautiful woman in the world was Catherine Zeta Jones. I wish you could post pictures in these comments, but her circa 2000ish was, to me, the epitome of aspirational beauty. Her and Bridget Fonda, the latter of whom people used to say I looked like all the time in the 90s/early 00s. Maybe I just like pointy faces and narrow eyes because I have them myself and I'm conceited or something, lol. But I've been thinking that type of beauty was the best kind since my teen years. I think that's interesting.
Along with your wife, I also fully agree that Kate Hudson is stunningly beautiful, and moreso than Eliza Dushku, who I think is conventionally attractive but has a bizarrely put-together face (hey, we're being superficial here). To me she's like the female version of the way I described Edward Norton in my male list, kind of. Like I think the way she moves her face makes her more attractive than even she is still. But Kate Hudson, to me, isn't just conventionally attractive, she is like, *drop-dead gorgeous*. Her eyes, especially. I would've put her in the Gorgeous female category, myself, even though you don't see much distinction between gorgeous and beautiful.
Fun post. I'm digging this ongoing analysis about different types of attractiveness.
You agree with my partner completely about Hudson and Dushku, that's interesting. It's like another direct point of evidence for my thesis. I still don't notice Kate Hudson is attractive until someone points it out. I watched her in a film recently and essentially forgot she was even there, I barely notice her... Odd, right?
I completely agree with you about Cathrine Zeta Jones though... in Entrapment or Mask of Zorro she's breathtaking. Almost on the level of Liz Hurley in Bedazzled... (almost).
It could be said that if an actor/actress disappears that they are good at their job. They put the character they are playing before their own personality/appearance.
Well, I had once a conversation with a girl who was very "feminist" herself, and I pointed out that, if given the chance between Claudia Schiffer and one obese or very fat lady, most of the men would choose Claudia Schiffer. She told me that what I have said was very "chauvinist" and that she wouldn't believe I could have said that. And I answered that, if she was given the chance to choose between Brad Pitt and Danny De Vito, who would she choose? Evidently, she choose Brad Pitt. I think that there are women that are hypocritical: they want a very macho man or at least very masculine (I think we all want that if we are considering only the looks...), but, if that very manly type chooses another, then he is a very bad man. In reality both of them are just answering the call of nature and denying that is being stupid. But then they read 50 shades of grey, without understanding that he is precisely that type of man: powerful, millionaire etc. He is not a fat mailman or Butcher that lives in a caravan.
So, would I think this is sexist? Not at all. It's just nature. Women, we are "programmed" to act in a way and you're "programmed" to act in a different way. I really don't see the problem with it: I understand that "babyface" can make you want to save the maiden and that can be much more attractive for the male mind or processes than more mature women. I have never liked very young boys, even when I was a teenager: they seemed immature and stupid. Is that sexist? NO, it's just another perspective.
Great essay. There is something about pretty. The last group of four photos all have almost pixy type faces. Petite, proportional, pretty. The others are beautiful but in a different way. The main thing this entire conversation is underpinned on is that they are all HEALTHY. One reason why that little bit of fat is attractive is because it means they're healthy. Too skinny and too fat and there are issues evolutionarily. The bigger issue is that you've picked the best of the best to even compare because we all know there's a beauty quandary people like to pretend doesn't exist.
I was ridiculed my entire adolescence for preferring male celebrities in their 40s or older to the heartthrobs closer to my age. When I was 19, I worked at an ice cream shop, and there was a man who seemed 40s-ish who brought his two toddlers in a few times a week, and I could have died and gone to heaven when I saw him come through the door, but no one else was convinced. My husband, whom I met at 20, is about to turn 40 and is so much more devastatingly handsome to me, the more gray his temples get and crinkled the corners of his eyes get. (He was also the best looking 20-year-old -- probably because he looked like a *man* and not a boy. And I'm not at all biased.)
Point being, I've always thought there's the same dichotomy for women: there are pretty boys and handsome men. I don't have any theories about why I was the only one in my cohort to prefer the latter, but the dichotomy definitely exists. (Actually, I am intrigued by one semi-theory...I'm not sure if it's crackpot at this point, since I've only just heard of it...apparently, there's evidence that hormonal birth control can change a woman's preferences for what she finds attractive, leading her more toward what I would call pretty boys...? Has anyone else ever heard this? I was the only one of my friends not on birth control, so maybe that does offer an explanation.)
And why wouldn't this be so? Biologically, men want someone who will birth healthy offspring; women want someone who will protect that offspring. (I'm a Christian and believe in the soul, so obviously, I think there are also hundreds of other reasons for finding someone attractive or loving someone, but it's stupid to pretend those biological indicators aren't there or aren't meaningful.)
What we find attractive and why is fascinating to me. And not sexist!
Yes I have heard of the research into the birth control pill changing the innate attraction preferences in women loads. The British author Louise Perry talks about it in her book 'The Case Against the Sexual Revolution', in interviews and on her podcast 'Maiden, Mother, Matriarch'. She's on Substack here https://substack.com/@louiseperry
I've known about Perry and Harrington -- Harrington is actually the impetus for me biting the bullet and joining Substack (though our work is entirely different) -- but not Strike. Thanks for the recommendation!
"an uncomfortable truth about our evolutionary biology: Men are attracted to youth and beauty ..."
Youth = fertility
Beauty = reproductive fitness
Sexual attraction is about reproduction, mostly, and these are features that are predictors of healthy offspring. It would be weird if men were not attracted to them. If we weren't humanity would have lost the Darwinian race a long time ago.
The beauty v. pretty distinction may come down to personal taste. These women are all extreme outliers in terms of beauty.
I think the fact that buccal fat removal is controversial (men seem to hate it, women love it) points to a disagreement about what is attractive. Women seem to prefer the powerful, sharp, sculpted look and men are drawn to neoteny. That’s why Asian women are so popular on dating websites, or why apparently (again on dating websites), a woman peaks at 20. I wonder if they will peak younger if we allow minor girls on there, but I don’t want to find out.
Although I've *rated* women by appearance, both consciously and subconsciously, for many years, I don't think I know the exact criteria I use. However, here are some factors that I suspect are introducing bias to determining *facial* attractiveness:
• We have seen the body, not just the face
• Hair color and styling is hard to separate from the face. For example, I'm a child of the 1970s and I love longer hair and generally dislike shorter hair
• Seeing someone in movies or TV. Did we like their character or not? E.g. Farrah Fawcett in Charlie's Angels or in The Burning Bed?
Speaking of Charlie's Angels, I am astonished that Jaclyn Smith is seldom mentioned in lists of attractive women. Not only then, but she has, as they say, aged gracefully.
Women evaluate based on a checklist. They try to find anything disqualifying, and the women they find most attractive have the least subtractions. Whereas men have an additive evaluation. They look for features that they like, rather than ones that they don't like. Women will find one thing that's wrong, and then disqualify the whole package. Men will find one thing they love, and then ignore other aspects that might be lacking.
I don't understand the appeal of Emilia Clarke at all. It clashes: She has those big round eyes and baby fat like a young cartoon lady, but she has those deep marionette lines that make her look a bit like a chimp. It's too push-pull, like half her face is prematurely aged and half of it is prepubescent.
I've had a lifelong crush, on the other hand, on another Burton staple: His wife. I saw Helena Bonham-Carter in Hamlet and was half a lesbian forever.
You are onto something. Most men would rate pretty higher than beautiful. My preference is beauty over pretty. I was in high school and watched Gilmore Girls with my girlfriend. I was attracted to Lauren Graham (mom/Lorelai) much more.
I am interested in whether other men change their perspective as they age, or not? There is certainly something alluring about Scarlett Johansson from the moment I noticed her as a late teen early 20-something actress in The Island for instance. But I would argue she has aged into her beauty quite gracefully and i find her even more attractive now (as has many a beautiful woman, Monica Bellucci, Lena Headey, etc). Might just be a smaller group of men feel this way?
I truly am interested in the notion that men and women don't cruelly know.what the other finds attractive. My wife will surprises me with whose faces she finds attractive, as well.
And, Pallavi, my post college roommate was almost 20 years older than me and I didn't get Madonna's beauty until I met him.
Really interesting. True to the idea that you and I are on opposite sides of this, I feel my attraction to Scarlet Johansson has only decreased as she has aged. I preferred her in The Island, Iron-Man 2 & The Avengers when she was in her twenties to now.
Just stumbled on this one and am half a year late to the party, but...
I'm straight and male and when it comes to the GoT ladies, the answer is, "Meh, neither."
For Buffy, I actually found Emma Caulfield (recurring as Anya) to be possibly the most attractive actress on that show, especially in season 3-4. Normally someone changing their look as much as she did (seemingly every other episode, at times!) would kind of annoy me, but she pulled it off better than anyone I can think of.
Rory's mom does absolutely nothing for me at all, wouldn't even call her beautiful. Her look just doesn't do it for me at all. If I got a little mean I'd say that I see just the slightest hint of horse-face. Not horribly so, but if you see it, you can't un-see it. And that's a look I just don't go for.
My understanding is that, at least at one point, Julia Roberts was the 'look' of a woman that women want(ed) men to be attracted to, but most of us weren't into her much, if at all.
For reference, the big celebrity crushes of my youth (around college) were Alicia Silverstone (pretty normal for a dude thanks to the Aerosmith videos), Sabrina Lloyd (from Sliders), and - try to figure this one out - Maura Tierney (NewsRadio). Although her character being a closet-Republican genius with a calculator-math brain might have had something to do with that. :P
The framing of the picture and the body pose says alot more than we think. The photo on the left is a close up focusing the viewer on her face and eyes. The photo on the right is a body shot focusing the viewer on her body position.
Most female pictures that men are drawn to focuses on the facial features or certain poses that accentuate. Turning the head of the model three quarters in a photo and using lighting and makeup can create allure and mystery.
I bet if you thought about most of your Lad magazines, there is a pattern in the framing and poses of the photos. The ones you saw the most probably sold the best.
Anyway, I am a graphic designer and had to take boring art history classes in college. The male gaze was discussed alot since it defined most western European art from medieval times to the Enlightenment.
I am absolutely here for the blunt honesty. I loved your post and it’s very interesting to understand the male mind. I know that not all men think the same but it interests me when I tell my husband that I think Madonna in her hey day was really attractive and he doesn’t get the fuss. I point out her bone structure and Italian good looks..he still doesn’t get it. That difference between what women see and what men see and how we label all these things is so interesting to me. Oh and you’re not a sexist!
Thank you. I know I am not but I guarantee some will call me it for this. No worries, though. I’ve had worse and my views get misrepresented as a matter of course almost daily at this point. I’m used to it by now… Water off a duck’s back.
I’d like to recommend Erin Byrd’s YouTube channel to you Pallavi. I think you’ll find her content interesting… She narrates her own academic essays to camera that critique the common fashionable nonsense that we see in Social Studies these days. I find her informative, well researched and just so wholesome, just like you. 😎 Here she is in case you want to listen to her… Take care and thank you again
https://www.youtube.com/@erinbyrd5377
And I meant to say before that I relate re the feedback on posts. It can be unfair to say the least. Has not put any of us off from writing though, thankfully.
Thank you. I believe I’ve heard of her and will check out the link.
Edit..Ah yes..seen her on YouTube ..have a feeling she will be great to listen to. Thanks again 👍 Take care also.
Madonna was certainly attractive in her day. Her allure was more than just a pretty face though; in everything she did, she exuded sexiness like no other female singer at the time. She had it figured out.
Can't say I ever got the Madonna thing but then again I missed her during her initial cultural phenomenon period. When I became aware of her, she was already in her late thirties/early forties and had reinvented herself into something else.
As someone who has always been "pretty" but in no way "beautiful", I will absolve you of all accusations of sexism. I can be totally honest, as I am now a Granny, and state that "beautiful" is an aesthetic ideal, but "pretty" is, well, "f***able". I have been happily married for about a hundred years, but I have also had lots of male attention, despite having no classical looks at all. What was a curse at the age of 14 is mildly amusing at "ahem" years! I agree that youth, or more realistically fecundity, is a huge turn-on for men. No reason to be ashamed of it, as long as you don't push your luck!
Thank you. Great comment… And just in case you are a sucker for flattery… I don’t think you seem a day over 25… 😉
I am not sure whether this distinction really holds up that well. I am not sure I could take pictures of random movie actresses and figure out which you’d categorize as “pretty,” and which would be “beautiful.” I’m guessing you’d say young Geena Davis was beautiful but not pretty, because she’s kind of strange looking and Sarah Michelle Gellar was pretty.
But in any case, the analysis is kind of flawed because you pick a bunch of women all of whom are conventionally in the top 99.9% of human females and then are made up and photographed to look good. In ordinary language, they are all quite beautiful. And pretty!
I wanted to find a reason to call you a sexist but was disappointed to find nothing on which to base such an accusation. Sigh. I do have some disagreements, though, as you may have expected!
Christina Ricci is a great example of someone with a really unique kind of attractiveness, I agree with you. And as a woman who isn't attracted to women like that, I can appreciate that, although like your wife, she wouldn't be someone who would stand out to me as exceptional, just *interesting-looking.*
When I was a teenager, I thought the most beautiful woman in the world was Catherine Zeta Jones. I wish you could post pictures in these comments, but her circa 2000ish was, to me, the epitome of aspirational beauty. Her and Bridget Fonda, the latter of whom people used to say I looked like all the time in the 90s/early 00s. Maybe I just like pointy faces and narrow eyes because I have them myself and I'm conceited or something, lol. But I've been thinking that type of beauty was the best kind since my teen years. I think that's interesting.
Along with your wife, I also fully agree that Kate Hudson is stunningly beautiful, and moreso than Eliza Dushku, who I think is conventionally attractive but has a bizarrely put-together face (hey, we're being superficial here). To me she's like the female version of the way I described Edward Norton in my male list, kind of. Like I think the way she moves her face makes her more attractive than even she is still. But Kate Hudson, to me, isn't just conventionally attractive, she is like, *drop-dead gorgeous*. Her eyes, especially. I would've put her in the Gorgeous female category, myself, even though you don't see much distinction between gorgeous and beautiful.
Fun post. I'm digging this ongoing analysis about different types of attractiveness.
You agree with my partner completely about Hudson and Dushku, that's interesting. It's like another direct point of evidence for my thesis. I still don't notice Kate Hudson is attractive until someone points it out. I watched her in a film recently and essentially forgot she was even there, I barely notice her... Odd, right?
I completely agree with you about Cathrine Zeta Jones though... in Entrapment or Mask of Zorro she's breathtaking. Almost on the level of Liz Hurley in Bedazzled... (almost).
It could be said that if an actor/actress disappears that they are good at their job. They put the character they are playing before their own personality/appearance.
Well, I had once a conversation with a girl who was very "feminist" herself, and I pointed out that, if given the chance between Claudia Schiffer and one obese or very fat lady, most of the men would choose Claudia Schiffer. She told me that what I have said was very "chauvinist" and that she wouldn't believe I could have said that. And I answered that, if she was given the chance to choose between Brad Pitt and Danny De Vito, who would she choose? Evidently, she choose Brad Pitt. I think that there are women that are hypocritical: they want a very macho man or at least very masculine (I think we all want that if we are considering only the looks...), but, if that very manly type chooses another, then he is a very bad man. In reality both of them are just answering the call of nature and denying that is being stupid. But then they read 50 shades of grey, without understanding that he is precisely that type of man: powerful, millionaire etc. He is not a fat mailman or Butcher that lives in a caravan.
So, would I think this is sexist? Not at all. It's just nature. Women, we are "programmed" to act in a way and you're "programmed" to act in a different way. I really don't see the problem with it: I understand that "babyface" can make you want to save the maiden and that can be much more attractive for the male mind or processes than more mature women. I have never liked very young boys, even when I was a teenager: they seemed immature and stupid. Is that sexist? NO, it's just another perspective.
What a fantastic comment. Thank you. I gives me faith that there is still common sense out there in this crazy world. Wonderful. Thank you...
Yeah.. but common sense is not very common and now it's mostly inconvenient... Hahahaha...
Sad but true…
Great essay. There is something about pretty. The last group of four photos all have almost pixy type faces. Petite, proportional, pretty. The others are beautiful but in a different way. The main thing this entire conversation is underpinned on is that they are all HEALTHY. One reason why that little bit of fat is attractive is because it means they're healthy. Too skinny and too fat and there are issues evolutionarily. The bigger issue is that you've picked the best of the best to even compare because we all know there's a beauty quandary people like to pretend doesn't exist.
More on that here: https://www.polymathicbeing.com/p/the-beauty-quandary
I was ridiculed my entire adolescence for preferring male celebrities in their 40s or older to the heartthrobs closer to my age. When I was 19, I worked at an ice cream shop, and there was a man who seemed 40s-ish who brought his two toddlers in a few times a week, and I could have died and gone to heaven when I saw him come through the door, but no one else was convinced. My husband, whom I met at 20, is about to turn 40 and is so much more devastatingly handsome to me, the more gray his temples get and crinkled the corners of his eyes get. (He was also the best looking 20-year-old -- probably because he looked like a *man* and not a boy. And I'm not at all biased.)
Point being, I've always thought there's the same dichotomy for women: there are pretty boys and handsome men. I don't have any theories about why I was the only one in my cohort to prefer the latter, but the dichotomy definitely exists. (Actually, I am intrigued by one semi-theory...I'm not sure if it's crackpot at this point, since I've only just heard of it...apparently, there's evidence that hormonal birth control can change a woman's preferences for what she finds attractive, leading her more toward what I would call pretty boys...? Has anyone else ever heard this? I was the only one of my friends not on birth control, so maybe that does offer an explanation.)
And why wouldn't this be so? Biologically, men want someone who will birth healthy offspring; women want someone who will protect that offspring. (I'm a Christian and believe in the soul, so obviously, I think there are also hundreds of other reasons for finding someone attractive or loving someone, but it's stupid to pretend those biological indicators aren't there or aren't meaningful.)
What we find attractive and why is fascinating to me. And not sexist!
Thanks for the comment.
Yes I have heard of the research into the birth control pill changing the innate attraction preferences in women loads. The British author Louise Perry talks about it in her book 'The Case Against the Sexual Revolution', in interviews and on her podcast 'Maiden, Mother, Matriarch'. She's on Substack here https://substack.com/@louiseperry
Mary Harrington has also talked about 'The Pill' at length and she is also available here on Substack https://substack.com/@reactionaryfeminist
If you would like to read an interesting piece that looks at male faces in a similar way then I recommend another post from the wonderful Lirpa Strike whose post inspired mine in the first place... https://open.substack.com/pub/lirpa/p/four-categories-of-male-attractiveness?r=2wu590&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=false
Thanks again.
I've known about Perry and Harrington -- Harrington is actually the impetus for me biting the bullet and joining Substack (though our work is entirely different) -- but not Strike. Thanks for the recommendation!
"an uncomfortable truth about our evolutionary biology: Men are attracted to youth and beauty ..."
Youth = fertility
Beauty = reproductive fitness
Sexual attraction is about reproduction, mostly, and these are features that are predictors of healthy offspring. It would be weird if men were not attracted to them. If we weren't humanity would have lost the Darwinian race a long time ago.
The beauty v. pretty distinction may come down to personal taste. These women are all extreme outliers in terms of beauty.
I think the fact that buccal fat removal is controversial (men seem to hate it, women love it) points to a disagreement about what is attractive. Women seem to prefer the powerful, sharp, sculpted look and men are drawn to neoteny. That’s why Asian women are so popular on dating websites, or why apparently (again on dating websites), a woman peaks at 20. I wonder if they will peak younger if we allow minor girls on there, but I don’t want to find out.
Although I've *rated* women by appearance, both consciously and subconsciously, for many years, I don't think I know the exact criteria I use. However, here are some factors that I suspect are introducing bias to determining *facial* attractiveness:
• We have seen the body, not just the face
• Hair color and styling is hard to separate from the face. For example, I'm a child of the 1970s and I love longer hair and generally dislike shorter hair
• Seeing someone in movies or TV. Did we like their character or not? E.g. Farrah Fawcett in Charlie's Angels or in The Burning Bed?
Speaking of Charlie's Angels, I am astonished that Jaclyn Smith is seldom mentioned in lists of attractive women. Not only then, but she has, as they say, aged gracefully.
Women evaluate based on a checklist. They try to find anything disqualifying, and the women they find most attractive have the least subtractions. Whereas men have an additive evaluation. They look for features that they like, rather than ones that they don't like. Women will find one thing that's wrong, and then disqualify the whole package. Men will find one thing they love, and then ignore other aspects that might be lacking.
Human physical looks is one of the least superficial things in our lives. It is profoundly important and affects all of us deeply.
I don't understand the appeal of Emilia Clarke at all. It clashes: She has those big round eyes and baby fat like a young cartoon lady, but she has those deep marionette lines that make her look a bit like a chimp. It's too push-pull, like half her face is prematurely aged and half of it is prepubescent.
I've had a lifelong crush, on the other hand, on another Burton staple: His wife. I saw Helena Bonham-Carter in Hamlet and was half a lesbian forever.
Helena Bonham-Carter definitely has something about her that I have never been able to pin down.
I don't know what to tell you about Emilia Clarke. Especially as Daenerys... she's just captivating to me...
You are onto something. Most men would rate pretty higher than beautiful. My preference is beauty over pretty. I was in high school and watched Gilmore Girls with my girlfriend. I was attracted to Lauren Graham (mom/Lorelai) much more.
I am interested in whether other men change their perspective as they age, or not? There is certainly something alluring about Scarlett Johansson from the moment I noticed her as a late teen early 20-something actress in The Island for instance. But I would argue she has aged into her beauty quite gracefully and i find her even more attractive now (as has many a beautiful woman, Monica Bellucci, Lena Headey, etc). Might just be a smaller group of men feel this way?
I truly am interested in the notion that men and women don't cruelly know.what the other finds attractive. My wife will surprises me with whose faces she finds attractive, as well.
And, Pallavi, my post college roommate was almost 20 years older than me and I didn't get Madonna's beauty until I met him.
Great post!
Really interesting. True to the idea that you and I are on opposite sides of this, I feel my attraction to Scarlet Johansson has only decreased as she has aged. I preferred her in The Island, Iron-Man 2 & The Avengers when she was in her twenties to now.
Thanks for the comment…
Just stumbled on this one and am half a year late to the party, but...
I'm straight and male and when it comes to the GoT ladies, the answer is, "Meh, neither."
For Buffy, I actually found Emma Caulfield (recurring as Anya) to be possibly the most attractive actress on that show, especially in season 3-4. Normally someone changing their look as much as she did (seemingly every other episode, at times!) would kind of annoy me, but she pulled it off better than anyone I can think of.
Rory's mom does absolutely nothing for me at all, wouldn't even call her beautiful. Her look just doesn't do it for me at all. If I got a little mean I'd say that I see just the slightest hint of horse-face. Not horribly so, but if you see it, you can't un-see it. And that's a look I just don't go for.
My understanding is that, at least at one point, Julia Roberts was the 'look' of a woman that women want(ed) men to be attracted to, but most of us weren't into her much, if at all.
For reference, the big celebrity crushes of my youth (around college) were Alicia Silverstone (pretty normal for a dude thanks to the Aerosmith videos), Sabrina Lloyd (from Sliders), and - try to figure this one out - Maura Tierney (NewsRadio). Although her character being a closet-Republican genius with a calculator-math brain might have had something to do with that. :P
The framing of the picture and the body pose says alot more than we think. The photo on the left is a close up focusing the viewer on her face and eyes. The photo on the right is a body shot focusing the viewer on her body position.
Most female pictures that men are drawn to focuses on the facial features or certain poses that accentuate. Turning the head of the model three quarters in a photo and using lighting and makeup can create allure and mystery.
I bet if you thought about most of your Lad magazines, there is a pattern in the framing and poses of the photos. The ones you saw the most probably sold the best.
Anyway, I am a graphic designer and had to take boring art history classes in college. The male gaze was discussed alot since it defined most western European art from medieval times to the Enlightenment.