Now I realize everyone is different, but my perception of "hot" has changed a lot in recent years. It's even more sexist than it used to be, but also more objective.

I find girls to be hot when they're submissive, have child bearing hips, can cook, don't argue with me (submissive I guess) unless they catch some random mistake I make then I can give them one of those "oh boy, you just wait until you err!" smiles, major in something like Spanish, art, education, or psychology (fake science) instead of something like engineering, economics, math, or chemistry (two of which are mine) and the like. But this is the kind of person I'd want to marry, I'm not so interested in random flings anymore.

But I do agree that the human female is pretty great in the great cases. On that note though, I think the girls you labeled "beautiful" are attractive and the ones you labeled "hot" are not at all.

Edit: If you don't want to read all that, the most important thing to remember is: No fat chicks

iNcontroL

USA29055 Posts

March 26 2008 02:47 GMT

#23

Not sure if its fair to judge the type of woman they are based on a picture. One of the flat out hottest girls I have ever been with was also the most pure of heart/soul. I think generalizing like that is dangerous and unfair.

But the distinction between hot and beautiful is nice

I like that discussion. I've had it several times myself with friends that I feel misuse the term(s).

snowbird

Germany2044 Posts

March 26 2008 03:23 GMT

#24

you're comparing pictures, not people. most people in this world can look hot, beautiful, cute, ugly, disgusting - all depends on the picture (and PHOTOSHOP)

nA.Inky

United States794 Posts

March 26 2008 15:22 GMT

#25

I agree with your general idea here, OP. However, I don't really agree with your examples. Your first example of "beautiful" (naked woman hidden by a sheet) is great. But your other examples of beautiful strike me as very fake, therefore placing them in the "hot" and "less classy" category. The Benz, girl, for example, is heavily made up. I don't see the "plain" look you describe. I see tons of make up. In another example of "beautiful" I see a woman wearing a kinky, silly, stupid outfit that is more suited to porn than anything (not that this is bad, necessarily, but definitely not what I consider to be a look of pure, simple beauty.)

To be as clear as I can be without photo's, my idea of beautiful (in the sense that you use the word) requires the following:

- Healthy. Takes care of herself with a good diet and exercise. Not overweight or underweight.
- No makeup. At all!
- Simple clothes (or no clothes!) I hate high fashion. In general fancy clothes make people seem fake to me.
- Not girlish, stupid, or submissive (as in most porn, jap-anime, etc.) Women ought to come off as aware, active in their lives, and confident (not arrogant, haughty, etc.)

In general, an all natural and healthy look will tend towards beautiful. Many people would be beautiful if they could meet these two standards. Unfortunately, here in the states, over half our population is overweight, and no one is natural.

KizZBG

u gotta skate8152 Posts

March 26 2008 20:10 GMT

#26

Zooey Deschanel defines beautiful! (IMO :p)

Frits

11782 Posts

March 26 2008 20:23 GMT

#27

so you like milfs good for you

Infundibulum

United States2552 Posts

March 26 2008 21:20 GMT

#28

beauty is subjective

your judgements on the models in these photos are presumptuous, and i find it to be quite funny

MeriaDoKk

Chile1726 Posts

March 27 2008 00:50 GMT

#29

she defines beautiful............ i love her

Jibba

United States22883 Posts

March 27 2008 01:17 GMT

#30

It's pretty misleading to call anyone hot or beautiful from a professional photograph. What you see is not what you get.

Lemonwalrus

United States5465 Posts

March 27 2008 02:06 GMT

#31

I read the O.P., and agree to some extent, but I still take issue with it.

I just don't see the problem in enjoying the look of a 'hot' chick from time to time. Just because she isn't the sharpest tool in the shed personality wise doesn't detract from the fact that she is pleasing to look at. Idk, just my thoughts.

ZoDD

Canada309 Posts

March 28 2008 02:10 GMT

#32

should be hot vs beauty vs slutty to be even more accurate

Phyre

United States1288 Posts

March 28 2008 02:58 GMT

#33

Somehow something feels very wrong about judging each of these women's personality and lifestyle by a picture of them. Someone can look dumb as rocks but that doesn't necessarily mean that's an accurate gauge of their actual intelligence. I'd imagine most women would find it highly insulting that you are judging based entirely on appearance, not even in person at that.

Practically all the women in all of the OP's pictures most likely didn't have anything to do with choosing their pose, clothing, amounts of makeup, setting, or how the photo was finished in terms of photoshop editing. Any of the women listed as beautiful could probably just as easily be made to look like complete trashy sluts given the right conditions in an image. The same being true of the women deemed hot, I'm fairly confident that you could take any of them and make them look far more sophisticated and "beautiful" given the right photographer.

Unless you know any of these people, have heard them speak candidly about a variety of subjects, or at least read up a bit on these individuals I don't feel it's fair at all to judge them as people. You can judge the image all you want, perhaps you can draw some conclusions about the photographer, but a bit of a far stretch to make the kind of assumptions the OP is making.

Edit: An example of what I was talking about. The OP used Julie Benz as an example of a women with "class" but I'm of the mindset that this is more a product of the image he chose to post. This is the second result from google image search:

http://www.wallpaperbase.com/wallpapers/celebs/juliebenz/julie_benz_3.jpg

In my opinion, she doesn't look any classier in the above photo than the first picture the OP posted. Perhaps a little better since I would guess the photographer was of a bit higher quality.

Luddite

United States2315 Posts

March 28 2008 04:00 GMT

#34

OP is so wrong, in so many ways, it hurts. You're basically saying that a girl who is trying to look sexy must have a worse personality than a girl who is not trying to look sexy, and so she is in fact worse looking. First of all I don't see how you can infer personality from looks (especially the way a porn star looks in a photoshopped picture), and secondly I don't see how you can use the personality of a girl to judge her physical beauty.

It seems like all you're really saying is that you prefer "cute" girls to "sexy" girls. No problem with that, but you're not gonna convince me that sexy girls aren't sexy.

Chriscras

Korea (South)2812 Posts

August 29 2011 21:42 GMT

#35

Is this the Hot Girls thread that EvilTeletubby was referencing?

[image loading]

StorkHwaiting

United States3465 Posts

August 29 2011 21:51 GMT

#36

Yeah this thread is retarded. Plus, all you did was post blonde girls. AS if the words weren't biased enough.

Chef

10810 Posts

August 29 2011 22:00 GMT

#37

Haha for once I agree with you, Stork.

QuanticHawk

United States32161 Posts

August 29 2011 22:00 GMT

#38

On August 30 2011 06:51 StorkHwaiting wrote:
Yeah this thread is retarded. Plus, all you did was post blonde girls. AS if the words weren't biased enough.

You mean his arbitrary standards of beauty don't give with yours??

heavens no!!!!

Chef

10810 Posts

August 29 2011 23:08 GMT

#39

Well the part that gets me is that he asserts one is more wholesome than the other when they're both standing nude/halfnaked in front of a camera for the internet for the express purpose of fueling strangers' masturbation. There's nothing really classy about that. Then again, it was 3 years ago ^^ I suppose the difference is whether you're talking about what you think the actual girl is like (stupid) or if you're just basking in the illusion created by the picture (ignoring the fact that there's a camera there and a purpose to the shoot).