Outrageous Article

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-05-2004
Outrageous Article
13
Thu, 08-05-2004 - 3:25am
I just got through reading "How to find a boyfriend:15 Tips from Professionals".I was outraged to find that the first thing one of these so called experts was telling us is if we look like Roseanne Arnold we should give up all hope of ever finding ourselves a Tom Cruise. Be realistic is advised. As if to imply that any self respecting man with a fair ammount of charm and looks wouldn't dare talk to an "average" looking woman. I'm sorry if I am being overly dramatic, but this really bothers me. I am so tired of the media, and now iVillage, telling us that only the Tyra Banks' and Cindy Crawfords of the world have any chance at true happiness. I have always thought of iVillage to be a place where women could come to celebrate themselves as they are, but now I know I was wrong. It is this kind of crap that only perpetuates the unattainable images we see in magazines and on television, and it's just not right. Loving yourself above all other things is the first key to finding true happiness, wether you look like Roseanne Arnold, the elephant man, or Cameron Diaz. We all deserve a prince charming, no matter what he or we may look like.

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-14-2004
Thu, 08-05-2004 - 9:19am
After reading your post, I went on reading that article. I think the problem with that part of the article it's the bad constructed sentence. Because first says: "1. Be realistic. "If you look like Roseanne, don't fixate on finding a Tom Cruise look-alike," says Brooks.", but soon after says: "In the long run, the most priceless attributes you should want in a mate are not looks and/or money but a loving heart, dependable nature and commitment to you. " This is a little contradictory, isn't it? I believe that first sentence gives us a bad interpretation of the meaning, I guess, because that does not make any sense with the rest of the article (and with my opinion also!).

And of course a Roseanne can find a Tom Cruise look-alike who falls in love with her, if he sees her loving heart, like the article says at the end. This reminds me of movie "Shrek"!

I want to believe that sentence it's bas constructed, and the meaning it's another.

What the other posters think?

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-21-2004
Thu, 08-05-2004 - 10:21am
>We all deserve a prince charming, no matter what he or we may look like.

What I am getting from your post is, a very average looking person "deserves" and is entitled to any person that he/she wants. That is not a very mature viewpoint.

You can look any way you want, but you may not be able to have whoever you want. Perhaps he "should" look past the exterior, but the reality is, many men don't. Research really bears out the fact that men are first attracted to a woman's appearance: its biological. Average-looking people tend to date other average looking types. There are exceptions, of course.

It IS important to love yourself and have a good self-esteem. Its also important to know that you can't have any person that you set your sights on. There will be some who reject us, for whatever reason. We can talk all day long about how shallow they are, but this won't get us anywhere.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-15-2003
Thu, 08-05-2004 - 10:48am
,
iVillage Member
Registered: 06-18-2004
Thu, 08-05-2004 - 11:09am
Well, most articles I read on iVillage... and on the web in general... tend to be superficial for my taste. Sometimes, however, there are grains of truth... in this case, one idea I can take away is similar to what Sherry said, that the "average-looking" man has something to offer and that perhaps a woman would be better off not just setting her sights on the Tom Cruise look-alikes (btw, I never really liked him, but that's me).

Fortunately for me I do like the odd and unusual and stay away from what is considered by most to be ideal. I am attracted to the eccentric... drool.

Whenever I read anything, I drop what does not work for me and keep the rest. I don't care who wrote it. Just because it's there in black and white does not mean it's true for me.

A~

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-24-2004
Thu, 08-05-2004 - 11:25am
I agree with Alicemaychang, on this.. Initially we are ALL attracted to a persons appearance. But as you get to know someone that changes. You could meet a beautiful man, who is a rude, obnoxious jerk, and all of a sudden, hes kinds of ugly. Or you could meet someone with bad teeth, huge ears, who is 2 feet shorter than you.. but he might have the best heart, and sense of humor, and he might understand you like no one else does, and all of a sudden, hes a stud, in your eyes.

I think what the article is getting at is NOT that the average looking people dont deserve to be with someone who is fabulous. Its obviously talking about initial attraction. Think about it like this: if you are out with your girlfriends, dancing and having a good time, and a very large, pimply, akward, sweaty man grabs your hand and tries to dance with you, you will probably say no. But if he was muscular, and good looking, and maybe still sweaty (haha), you would say yes, and be flattered right?

Its human nature, and I am SURE ivillage didnt mean that all average looking women will have to settle for Quasi motto, or grow old with 45 cats.
iVillage Member
Registered: 07-03-2004
Thu, 08-05-2004 - 11:38am
Amber, we think alike. I love those off-beat guys, don't you? Women should try them, they'll like them. They are interesting characters and they try hard! The good news is: the world is full of them!!! They are everywhere!!! Life is sweet.

I once fell for a beautiful guy and spent a weekend with him. He broke my heart, of course, but it mended quite quickly. What I realized is that he never once asked anything about me, we only talked about things that interested him.

Now, I am what you would call a plain jane. I've even been called cute. My success with men has been about them meeting me in person and falling for my personality, which can be described as lively, humerous, intelligent and subtly flirtatious. In other words, you have to see me to believe me!

A long-winded way of saying: it is dangerous concentrating on what one thinks is important to others because you are going to meet with as much rejection as acceptance. I concentrate on myself, what I have to bring to the table, and try to convey that to the men I am interested in (which are many!!!).

Hope this all made sense to everyone. It's early in the morning!

amjay45

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-18-2004
Thu, 08-05-2004 - 12:30pm
Yes, the more off-beat the better... although I have yet to date anyone with pink hair or nose rings, but I have not ruled that out!

I dated a dude that, on a looks basis, was ideal. I dated him for reasons besides looks, up to and including getting over a breakup. However, after only a month, I realized what a self-absorbed jerk he was. Jerk is a very mild term... there are other words I could use, but I'll let you all fill in the blanks.

The rest of my relationship history consisted of men who were quirky and at first, not physically attractive in some cases. I grew to love them and their quirks after I got to know them better.

I consider myself to be a hard shell to crack. Once I feel comfortable with someone, I can be lively and humorous and flirtatious and fun.

I agree totally in concentrating on what I have to bring to the table. It's wonderful to be with someone with whom I can share experiences and ideas and, well, myself. If I am an empty shell, what's the point of trying to connect with others?

I feel I have alot to offer. It saddens me when people don't see that, but those that do, watch out!

A~

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-14-2004
Thu, 08-05-2004 - 2:44pm
I think because human nature tend to focus first on looks, that's a solid reason for getting to know a man/woman well before jumping into a relationship or jumping to bed! Holding this two things makes us have a more objective and real look of what the other person is. I'm now 28 years old, when I was 21, 22, 23, I judge people a lot by looks. I got hurt by some bad boys because I fell head over heels with their looks, and thinked that if they look like that, they must be wonderful persons! Big mistake!!! Another mistake I did was to dump guys who haven't the "look", but probably were decent and interesting guys.

I remember meeting a guy at college who I think was very ugly, and decline to date him. He then started dating one my girlfriends. They then start in a serious relationship and very often he join the group in going out. I have then the oportunity to really know him, and I discovered the wonderful person he was... I felt very dumb at the time, but happy for my friend.

Yeah, I guess people grow up and learn to see behind first impressions and looks. Nowadays I don't decline a man because I don't like his look, neither I jump to bed and into a relationship with a man just because he's gorgeous. I give it time to know the person. Living and learning!


Edited 8/5/2004 2:47 pm ET ET by summerjamgirl

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-30-2004
Fri, 08-06-2004 - 6:28am
I think you got offended for no reason. this phrase only means, that you souldn't rule out dating average looking guys (& expect to only be happy with mr. perfect), just like guys don't rule out dating you, even if you do look like Roseanne Arnold. the article uses humor to demonstrate, how girls would sometimes set themselves up for being constantly alone, because their expectations arn't reasonable.

it doesn't mean that only beauty queens have a chance at true happiness, unless "true happines" to you only means being mrs. Tom Cruise ...

I think the article is on the spot, because so many women have this problem, & then they wonder why they're alone.

The advice is good, weather you choose to take it or not.

another thing is how it's written. maybe the humoristic style of it doesn't appeal to you... or maybe it just hit a nerve...
iVillage Member
Registered: 06-24-2004
Fri, 08-06-2004 - 11:44am
Could you guys imagine if Rosanne Arnold was reading this? what if she came across it one day and saw that women were comparing her to the epitome of average or not very physically appealing?

In a way, I think this is kind of mean. If I was famous and saw people talking about me this way, I would be devistated.

I think this discussion proves none of us are any less bent on appearances than the person who wrote the article in the first place.

oh the irony

huh.

Pages