Most head designers are men, so yes, men are pushing for that look.BigNorseWolf [...] wasn't saying no man ever had a part in creating a situation - he's saying that if girls feel a constant need to be thinner, it's not because men are pressuring them into that.
Men are no more responsible for the situation than women are, because hey, some head designers are women, too. As a matter of fact, 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of men (and humans in general) are not head designers.
Why twist words?
While you are factually correct, it is more complex that than (which you do allude to.)
Yes, there are women lead designers (in advertising/cosmetics/fashion/etc). The catch is that those women have lived their left with the same influences that they are now promoting.
Worse, the advertising/cosmetics/fashion/etc leadership has a vested interest in promoting an "nearly" unattainable look so that women (and men) keep struggling (and therefore buying their product and/or service) in order to meet it.
My point is that it's very likely not the images of women that are to blame for anorexia. I have never seen any sort of conclusive study that speaks for this view, I don't even know how one would be conducted to possibly show this, yet it gets blathered out in droves in every discussion on the subject as if it's the Truth.
[Revising statement based on research]
Every documented case (of psychologically induced), psychological problems (always of other, darker, root causes then advertising) triggered the bad physiological response that resulted the anorexia.There is a huge movement that want everything to be simple psychology, and nothing biological or genetic. In everything but the popular press today, this has been resoundingly discredited.
This is true. Our brains our biological organs - This is why psychology long ago as moved away from Freudian psycho-analysis. Most treatments today are drug related (to regain control of hormones and other biochemical balances).
Excuse me... "psychologically induced"??? What do you mean by that term?
Excuse me... "psychologically induced"??? What do you mean by that term?
Person (usually female) suffers a trama (such as physical or sexual abuse), causing the reaction.
|
@Lord Fyre,
I wasn't really voicing an opinion there, I just reacted to what I perceived was an obvious twist of words from Jessica Price, and attempted to re-convey BigNorseWolves original point. While he was saying that much of the pressure to be thing that is exerted on women is exerted by other women, not necessarily by men, Jessica Price reacted by saying that some of those who shape fashion and create supermodels are men, hence men *do* apply pressure. Not really a valid point, and an obvious attempt to put words in BigNorseWolves' mouth.
It's more about society being a big machine that powers itself than about anyone being guilty, really. Fashion magazines shows edited, distorted versions of girls because that's what people are willing to pay money for. People are only willing to pay money for that because magazines got them used to that standard, etc.
Which means, in turn, that women are not necessarily having problems with their bodies because men in their surrounding expressed anything to hint that, or even because other women did. The source of the problem could easily be just looking at edited pictures, watching commercials, movies and TV, and then looking at the mirror and seeing something we've been trained to think of as inferior. All those commercials & TV shows? same number of women working on them as there are men. It's a "everyone oppress everyone" fiesta.
I'm reasonably sure that this is what BigNorseWolf was saying. What he was very clearly not saying was that no man ever had anything to do with creating the problematic state of affairs we found ourselves in in this regard.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While it is true that some react to sexual abuse and the like with a reaction that contains anorexia, this is very far from generally true. I find it sad that every step along the way, people try their darndest to ignore biology, again blaming it all on environment, or at least set environment as the most important factor, or at least the first part of the puzzle - anything but the pretty complex biopsychosocial puzzle it is. Some people will react to severe stress of various types with anorexia. Some won't, no matter what they are subjected to. Some develop anorexia even without any particular traumatic experiences. The difference lies within the individual, and biology underlies every facet of our existence.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Most head designers are men, so yes, men are pushing for that look.You do not speak on behalf of my Y chromosome.
Our patriarchal society's constant depiction of airbrushed women as the normWho's depicting them that way? Fashion designers that don't want to have to have their artistic vision of clothing ruined by being on an actual person (and are themselves.... not entirely in the Y chromosome set)
Guys are not pushing for that look.
Saying that some men are pushing for this look is one thing.
Saying that all men are pushing for this look (which your post implies) is a completely different thing and very untrue, as well as unfair to many men.
|
|
You do not speak on behalf of my Y chromosome.
Our patriarchal society's constant depiction of airbrushed women as the norm sets unrealistic expectations that do insurmountable damage to both men and women. These expectations are shown from birth and taught as we grow, as naturally as walking and talking. While you may not have personally engineered our societal perceptions, the market was made by men, for men, and the emergence of a market for women is still a comparatively new occurrence and still controlled by men.
You have your facts in reverse. In the vast majority of sexist societies I've heard of, the main purchasing power rests solely in the hands of the household's boss, ie the wife. This is so true that car sellers had to adapt their arguments when they realized that the decision to purchase a car was in the end made by the wife and not by the husband.
Also, you will note that most advertisements with this photoshoped pictures of impossible young women are in the women magazines and NOT in the men magazines.
Just because your peer group defines ugly women differently to the majority doesn't mean society as a whole allows women to look or dress how they please. The simple fact of the matter is that if you judge women based on appearance, be they coat rack or not, then you are contributing to the problem.
Since humans, as sight-focussed animals, base their judgement of a potential partner on how he/she looks, then we are all contributing to this kind of problem, for both women and men. And we cannot help ourselves, since it is completely instinct-driven. So trying to make men feel guilty about this is both unfair and useless.
I would add too that, in modern western society, women have far more leeway than men in how they look or dress. If you do not believe me, just try to walk the street, go to work or go out with buddies wearing a dress and some make up.
Most head designers are men, so yes, men are pushing for that look.You do not speak on behalf of my Y chromosome.
Our patriarchal society's constant depiction of airbrushed women as the normWho's depicting them that way? Fashion designers that don't want to have to have their artistic vision of clothing ruined by being on an actual person (and are themselves.... not entirely in the Y chromosome set)
Guys are not pushing for that look.
Saying that some men are pushing for this look is one thing.
Saying that all men are pushing for this look (which your post implies) is a completely different thing and very untrue, as well as unfair to many men.
Does Jess' post imply that all men are pushing for this look anymore than BNW's implies that all men aren't?
In my previous post I said I don't think banning (or voting to on an internet poll) photoshopped images is a very effective way of dealing with portrayals of beauty in the internet. That's still true, but hand in hand with that, I'm surprised that so many men can't discuss the subject without getting defensive and blaming the whole thing on women who by Cosmo and Vogue.
Most head designers are men, so yes, men are pushing for that look.
They're still more ...on your team than ours.
In my previous post I said I don't think banning (or voting to on an internet poll) photoshopped images is a very effective way of dealing with portrayals of beauty in the internet. That's still true, but hand in hand with that, I'm surprised that so many men can't discuss the subject without getting defensive and blaming the whole thing on women who by Cosmo and Vogue.
Kind of what I was saying also. We simply are not going to be able to change the entire Advertising Industry.
We can however work a little harder on recognizing the media's manipulation of our perceptions. (Those of us who are parents) can also then work a little harder on teaching their children to recognize an unrealistic image for what it is.
Sounds like a drop in the bucket, but change enough people's way of looking at things and the Ad agencies will not have much choice but to follow along.
In my previous post I said I don't think banning (or voting to on an internet poll) photoshopped images is a very effective way of dealing with portrayals of beauty in the internet. That's still true, but hand in hand with that, I'm surprised that so many men can't discuss the subject without getting defensive and blaming the whole thing on women who by Cosmo and Vogue.Kind of what I was saying also. We simply are not going to be able to change the entire Advertising Industry.
We can however work a little harder on recognizing the media's manipulation of our perceptions. (Those of us who are parents) can also then work a little harder on teaching their children to recognize an unrealistic image for what it is.
Sounds like a drop in the bucket, but change enough people's way of looking at things and the Ad agencies will not have much choice but to follow along.
I don't mean to say that it's just a drop in the bucket or that drops in buckets are necessarily useless ("Every little bit helps," the old woman said as she pissed in the sea) but the video loses its sense of revelatory outrage once you understand that, unless you're looking at a photograph that's been developed from a film negative in a darkroom, odds are the image you're viewing has been photoshopped to one degree or another. Which is not to say you can't manipulate film negatives, but I digress.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just a quick comment on psychology vs biology in anorexia and obesity.
Neither is 100% the "cause". Both play a part. And each affects the other in a vastly complex maelstrom of feedback loops that we have not even begun to untangle in any meaningful way.
To suggest that it is all biology is essentially to say that willpower is meaningless. To suggest that it is all a lack of willpower is to say that biology is meaningless.
Both come into play, and they come into play at different levels for different people. In some cases biology may be 95% of the issue, in others it may be 5%. That's why this is such a contentious area of debate.
They just did a study of men and women judging the likability of people. I can't remember who did the study, but the study involved tracking eye movement as the subjects of the study evaluated the people they were judging. What they found is that both men and women have a pronounced preference in "liking" women who have a traditional, Christina Hendriks style hourglass figure. It also found that men and women judge likability and attractiveness of women virtually the same way, in each case spending more time evaluating body shape, particularly breast, hip and butt size and shape, relying much less on facial factors
People who insist on the idea that men are the reason women have body shape issues need to explain if it is the fault of men, why do women judge women the same way men do?
If someone has a doctor tell her that "Keep this up, lose more weight, and you are going to die", and answers "I am healthy, and don't want to gain weight"... then seriously, willpower doesn't enter into the equation.
An excellent example of the next part of the strategy: If you can't push for environment and society to be the only, the most important, or the first cause, next up is "We can't know which is which at all, so it doesn't matter". Thank you for illustrating it so clearly, AD. And the reason so many do this, and it is such a contentious area, is because a very large segment of the population honestly thinks everyone is THE SAME in every relevant area, otherwise things would be unfair, and besides, if people truly were DIFFERENT, it would stand to reason that you'd need to treat some people very badly for belonging to certain groups, so good thing there are no differences, right? There is also a large segment of politicians, journalists, writers, talking heads, and so on who have their entire careers staked on "being good" because they hold these beliefs. Changing it (and it is changing) has been an enormous undertaking over decades, trying to get people to understand that yes, ALL people are different, in very complex ways, some extremely unfair, but guess what? You don't need to treat people badly because they aren't like you! The shock!
See, reading the first page, I noticed that blaming men didn't enter the conversation until BNW stepped forward to deny any responsibility whatsoever on behalf of "the Y chromosome set." There were posts saying that the image was obviously photoshopped, and that such images aren't the cause of anorexia, but that's about it. It seemed to me that the link itself was talking about the effect of media on female self-image, and didn't even mention men.
I don't think photoshoped models are the cause of "unatainable beauty", but rather a symptom.
After all, unatainable beauty standards are not a thing that just happened to show up in tha last few years.
If anything, what we crudely see in the video (a poor example, however. When we can clearly see it's photoshoped, I don't think it's going to really influence anyone. It's the ones we can't immediately identify as photoshoped that have a bigger effect, I believe) is just a modern version of makeup/corset/plastic surgery.
An excellent example of the next part of the strategy: If you can't push for environment and society to be the only, the most important, or the first cause, next up is "We can't know which is which at all, so it doesn't matter". Thank you for illustrating it so clearly, AD. And the reason so many do this, and it is such a contentious area, is because a very large segment of the population honestly thinks everyone is THE SAME in every relevant area, otherwise things would be unfair, and besides, if people truly were DIFFERENT, it would stand to reason that you'd need to treat some people very badly for belonging to certain groups, so good thing there are no differences, right? There is also a large segment of politicians, journalists, writers, talking heads, and so on who have their entire careers staked on "being good" because they hold these beliefs. Changing it (and it is changing) has been an enormous undertaking over decades, trying to get people to understand that yes, ALL people are different, in very complex ways, some extremely unfair, but guess what? You don't need to treat people badly because they aren't like you! The shock!
My point Sissyl is not that "it doesn't matter", my point is that BOTH matter and we have to address each situation carefully and individually after a serious look at the situation to do our best to come up with a way to address it for each person
Sissyl, just fyi, my step-sister has suffered anorexia and bulimia so this isn't an academic discussion for me, nor is it one that I "put the blame" on the sufferers.
I don't know Jeff, but I'd be willing to bet that at this point it's become a self-perpetuating stereotype, if you see what I mean.
That is, I wouldn't be surprised if gay men in the real world had trained themselves for, and entered, careers in fashion specifically because it was, stereotypically, a field where gay men were accepted. (I also don't think that gay men and straight women are definitionally on the same team just because they both prefer to have sex with "men", but these water are muddy enough.)
Wasn't there some movie about a guy pretending to be gay and as a result women were comfortable getting naked in his presence? Now replace "women" with "world famous supermodels"...
hmm.....
The current viewpoint of the Psychological world is to see things from a Biopsychosocial standpoint. As such, all "disorders" are viewed as being products of both biology and the environment with a bit of an X factor thrown in for good measure.
Meh. According the the Unified Theory, all of this is predetermined since the Big Bang kicked off (or even before)... so do whatever you want, 'cause ya got no real free will anyway.
{puts Yellowdingo back in the Schroedinger Box and bombards him with radioactive mangoes, Bieber remixes, and nonstop reality television programming}
puts Yellowdingo back in the Schroedinger Box and bombards him with radioactive mangoes, Bieber remixes, and nonstop reality television programming
So we're all a radioactive mango away from being in Schroedinger's Box? Dang it!
When did this become about eating disorders anyway? The body image issues in question cover a large range of issues, psychological and societal, and are most definitely not limited to women.
As much as women AND men are fed the lines "This is how you should look, this is what defines attractive," at the same time both women AND men are being sold that "This is how THEY are supposed to look, this is what you should find attractive."
The worst part about the entire message is that it is able to be insidiously hidden away behind the veneer of the very real obesity problem in this country, and many of its proponents actually believe that they are doing people a favor by pressuring them to look a certain way.
It's ok everyone. I blamed Cosmo.
I'd like to thank Drunken Nomad for bringing this video to my attention in another thread.
[Shakes head in disapproval]
I'm still curious about this. It's a common stereotype that male fashion designers must be gay, but is it really ubiquitous?They're still more ...on your team than ours.Most head designers are men, so yes, men are pushing for that look.
Using the ultra scientific and completely unbiased and accurate information of a 10 minute google search for "is X gay" and the top ten male designers reveals...
Ralph Lauren (strait)
Armani: Gay
Patrizio Bertelli: Married to his wife, so no
Stefano Gabbana- Gay
Domenico Dolce- Gay
Valentino Garavani-Gay
Christian Candy- Wife and twin girls, so no.
Michael Kors- Gay (married to Lance)
Pierre Cardin- Can't find anything that says yes beyond the first entry... which assumes he's gay because he's a male fashion designer.
Calvin Klein- Gay. His boyrfiend just went strait.
So thats ~60%, compared with what, 2% to 10% of the general population?
Male exclusive homosexuality is around 3-5%, bisexual men around another %. AFAIK.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
puts Yellowdingo back in the Schroedinger Box and bombards him with radioactive mangoes, Bieber remixes, and nonstop reality television programmingSo we're all a radioactive mango away from being in Schroedinger's Box? Dang it!
We have to thank the professor for bring this video to our attention.
I'm still curious about this. It's a common stereotype that male fashion designers must be gay, but is it really ubiquitous?They're still more ...on your team than ours.Most head designers are men, so yes, men are pushing for that look.
Using the ultra scientific and completely unbiased and accurate information of a 10 minute google search for "is X gay" and the top ten male designers reveals...
Ralph Lauren (strait)
Armani: Gay
Patrizio Bertelli: Married to his wife, so no
Stefano Gabbana- Gay
Domenico Dolce- Gay
Valentino Garavani-Gay
Christian Candy- Wife and twin girls, so no.
Michael Kors- Gay (married to Lance)
Pierre Cardin- Can't find anything that says yes beyond the first entry... which assumes he's gay because he's a male fashion designer.
Calvin Klein- Gay. His boyrfiend just went strait.
So thats ~60%, compared with what, 2% to 10% of the general population?
its something my wife encountered when working at Macy's in the sleepwear department and in other departments as well as a buyer/clerical. Not that she had a problproblem with gay designers, mind, nor I, just some clothing that was designed for an affcionado of certain body parts and can lead to uncomfortable moments. Many michael kors cut pants display the crotch quite prominantly, my wife and I STILL laugh about that years later. Other designers are making things for guys with prominant chests, abs, etc. What a designer likes naturally shows up in their designs, regardless of sexuality, although sexuality can fuel a theme. I would rather say the larger problem in the field is that everyone worjks from the same handful of models/mannequins/clothes thingies, and few people match those proportions- male or female- unless you happen to be really short, really thin, or both. It comes down to using less fabric, which some designers(and the companies they work with) really like to see.
Also, someone can be married to a member of the opposite sex and still be gay. That's been going on for years, man!
I'm still curious about this. It's a common stereotype that male fashion designers must be gay, but is it really ubiquitous?They're still more ...on your team than ours.Most head designers are men, so yes, men are pushing for that look.
Using the ultra scientific and completely unbiased and accurate information of a 10 minute google search for "is X gay" and the top ten male designers reveals...
Ralph Lauren (strait)
Armani: Gay
Patrizio Bertelli: Married to his wife, so no
Stefano Gabbana- Gay
Domenico Dolce- Gay
Valentino Garavani-Gay
Christian Candy- Wife and twin girls, so no.
Michael Kors- Gay (married to Lance)
Pierre Cardin- Can't find anything that says yes beyond the first entry... which assumes he's gay because he's a male fashion designer.
Calvin Klein- Gay. His boyrfiend just went strait.So thats ~60%, compared with what, 2% to 10% of the general population?
At what point did gender orientation enter into this?
It is not even (directly) about objectification.This is about the damage caused Unrealistic and Impossible perceptions of beauty. And what we can do to minimize and resist that damage for ourselves and others.
I would rather say the larger problem in the field is that everyone worjks from the same handful of models/mannequins/clothes thingies, and few people match those proportions- male or female- unless you happen to be really short, really thin, or both.
Yes, exactly.
At what point did gender orientation enter into this?
I think it casts doubt on the usual paradigm of a cismale dominated society objectifying women for their sex appeal.
This is about the damage caused Unrealistic and Impossible perceptions of beauty. And what we can do to minimize and resist that damage for ourselves and others.
And where are those unrealistic and impossible perceptions coming from? If its from society at large you have to try to change the whole of society (and if its sex appeal in general you're fighting biology). If on the other hand that particular harmful image comes comes from a small subculture then you only have to try to change that subculture.
So... sexual orientation tests to be allowed to design clothes?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So... sexual orientation tests to be allowed to design clothes?
Or design clothes for people, not coat racks.
This is about the damage caused Unrealistic and Impossible perceptions of beauty. And what we can do to minimize and resist that damage for ourselves and others.And where are those unrealistic and impossible perceptions coming from? If its from society at large you have to try to change the whole of society (and if its sex appeal in general you're fighting biology).
BigNosrseWolf, if you are familiar with my post history, you should realize that I would be the last person to try to fight "sex appeal."
Now, changing the idea so it is more inclusive, that I would support.
If on the other hand that particular harmful image comes comes from a small subculture then you only have to try to change that subculture.
Kind of. But, no, I am not looking at unrealistic social engineering goals.
I was looking more to what we as people can do. Which is to better arm ourselves to recognize the silliness of these over-processed images.
Silly? No. I would say that awareness should be the goal.
Silly? No. I would say that awareness should be the goal.
Yes. Awareness it the goal. Explicitly so.
Just, I don't want to set the "victory condition" so high that we would be doomed to fail .
People denigrate photoshopped images, and some to most of the time, rightly so. It is often cheap stuff like making the girl taller, have bigger eyes and the like. But honestly, if you take photos of yourself aimed at showing to others, do you let the photos be untouched? Always? No brightening/darkening? No removal of red eyes? Would you retouch away a school photo day pimple? If you have forty photos from a shoot, would you include ALL of them for the sake of "honesty", even if you have one that is far better than the others? There are a million ways to "cheat", and most of us think nothing of it. Photoshopping, when you get down to it, is a matter of degree, not an absolute. A movie star gets four hours of makeup even for a "natural" look -take a look at the gala photos of them, and realize that they look drastically different from in the movies. And plastic surgery too, of course, should be discussed in this. In some ways, yes, it is more "honest", because it is in some ways the way someone looks, allowing a fifty-year old to look thirty. A very large portion of people consider it worth the time and effort, so we really have to consider... Do any of us have a duty to show ourselves "as we are" or "unimproved"? When did you last go on a date without paying attention to how you looked? The brutal truth is that we treat pretty people better, so it is worth something.
Letting kids try their hand at photoshop would be a good thing, methinks.
Now, changing the idea so it is more inclusive, that I would support.
The problem with "look your best" is the same problem as designing clothes for the non coat rack set: there is no one mass producible "you" to make things for. Everyone is different and one easily reproduced look won't do the job.
Kind of. But, no, I am not looking at unrealistic social engineering goals.
If it was society at large I would say that the social engineering would be unrealistic. I think a smaller group like the fashion industry might be doable though.
What might make customizable looks more viable in the near future is micro manufacturing. Its not that unimaginable to go from a personal 3d printer to a small business tailor that could scan someone and make the clothes for them.
I think it casts doubt on the usual paradigm of a cismale dominated society objectifying women for their sex appeal.
First off, there seems to be some confusion on your part as to what the word cisgender (cis) means. Someone is cisgender if they "have a match between the gender they were assigned at birth, their bodies, and their personal identity" (Schilt & Westbrook, 2009). It has roughly the opposite meaning as transgender. Cisgender is not synonymous with straight. Someone can be gay and cisgender.
That said, I agree that doubt should be cast on the idea that objectification of women stems solely from straight men looking for sex appeal. It's pretty clearly not the case. However, you shouldn't refer to that as "the usual paradigm", because it's not something widely believed (due to its obvious falseness). Marginalization and oppression of women is more complicated than just that.
The other reason I think doubt should be cast on that idea is that one doesn't have to be straight to participate in the objectification of women. (One doesn't even have to be a man!) Yolo Akili has a nice article where he talks about the forms misogyny takes among queer men. I think it's apropos to this thread, as it connects with the idea that gay men occupy a position of power with regard to women's fashion.
At a recent presentation, I asked all of the gay male students in the room to raise their hand if in the past week they touched a woman’s body without her consent. After a moment of hesitation, all of the hands of the gay men in the room went up. I then asked the same gay men to raise their hand if in the past week they offered a woman unsolicited advice about how to “improve” her body or her fashion. Once again, after a moment of hesitation, all of the hands in the room went up.
These questions came after a brief exploration of gay men’s relationship to American fashion and women’s bodies. That dialogue included recognizing that gay men in the United States are often hailed as the experts of women’s fashion and by proxy women’s bodies. In addition to this there is a dominant logic that suggests that because gay men have no conscious desire to be sexually intimate with women, our uninvited touching and groping (physical assault) is benign.
(Emphasis mine.) We live in a society where women are told that they must make their bodies presentable for public consumption, that they are obligated to meet a certain standard of beauty. This means all of us, not just straight men. As such, these ideas about women's bodies are something we are all liable to pick up. Internalizing these views can lead to different outcomes. Sometimes, it takes the form of thinking that women exist to be sexual objects. Other times, it takes the form of eating disorders ("my body is failing to meet societal beauty standards, which lessens my value as a woman, so I need to take drastic steps to correct this"). Other times, it takes the form of clothing being designed for a very narrow spectrum of bodies. The fashion industry's contribution to these views about women's bodies is not something that is limited to one sexuality.
I like what Akili says towards the end of his article:
The unique way our entitlement to women’s physical bodies plays itself out is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to gay cisgender men’s sexism and privilege. This privilege does not make one a bad person any more than straight privilege makes heterosexuals bad people. It does mean that gay men can sometimes be just as unthinkingly hurtful, and unthinkingly a part of a system that participates in the oppression of others, an experience most of us can relate to. Exploration of these dynamics can lead us to query institutional systems and policies that reflect this privilege, nuanced as it is by other identities and social locations.
(Again, emphasis mine.) The purpose of talking about this isn't to say that such a group are bad people. Rather, the purpose is to understand these dynamics so that we can resist and not continue to reproduce them.
References:
- K. Schilt & L. Westbrook, "Doing Gender, Doing Heteronormativity: 'Gender Normals,' Transgender People, and the Social Maintenance of Heterosexuality". Gender & Society 23 (4): 440–464, (August 2009).
First off, there seems to be some confusion on your part as to what the word cisgender (cis) means
Whoops, sorry.
Is there a better term for the Steretypical male?
I personally had never seen the term cisgender until I ran into it maybe a month or two ago on this forum.
Same.
I personally had never seen the term cisgender until I ran into it maybe a month or two ago on this forum.
Yes! That was July! I remember it, I think I was one of the people who brought it up!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I also think it is time we realized there is a world of difference between the terms "beautiful" and "attractive". It is quite possible to be either and not the other.