slammerkinbabe: (ursula is hott)
So this poll only took me ten years to do up. Holy shit, y'all. I thought no one was going to respond. I thought I was going to have to pad it out heavily with pictures of my own choosing. Yow.

THINGS I LEARNED FROM MAKING THIS POLL


  • No one seems to know exactly what "conventionally attractive" and "unconventionally attractive" mean.
  • A lot of you seem to think that if you find someone attractive, they're probably conventionally attractive to some extent. I think this demonstrates that you underestimate yourselves.
  • Guys have an easier time of it than girls do when it comes to conventional attractiveness, I think. Not that we didn't already know this. But it strikes me that while all the guys whose pictures were submitted are fascinating-looking and generally very hot, a lot of them do have a smaller-than-Brad-Pitt's-but-still-relatively-sizeable fan base that recognizes their attractiveness. That wasn't as common among the girls, particularly the older women. It seems like irregular or unusual features in a guy are often considered unique and appealing, whereas on a girl they're more likely to be considered ugly. This only really seems to break down for guys who are "wimpy" or "dorky" looking. Or fat. Oddly, I don't think that slender/fine-boned guys quite get classed as wimpy or dorky solely on account of their slenderness or fine bones, even though you'd expect those features to be identified as effeminate, and I think this is because of the Adonis archetype. Also, I'm making all of this up, but it's fun. Also also, not being a straight girl or a gay guy, I guess I can't really speak as authoritatively as one would like about what the conventional standards for guys are. So feel free to tell me if I'm totally wrong.
  • It's hard to find good-quality high-res photos of people who are not conventionally attractive on the Internet.
  • So I really really wish the version of Photoshop that I have at work had a Smart Sharpen feature.
  • This poll was neat to make because it actually did sort of refresh my mental palate and help me to fall into an alternate universe where fat and wrinkles and asymmetrical features &c. aren't hideous. Like, the first time I looked at the picture of that fat guy from Lost, I went "ew". Not admirable, but it was a visceral, unconsidered reaction. After looking at him for awhile, and then looking at the rest of the pictures for awhile, and then looking back at him? He's kinda sexy. Neat.
  • Alfre Woodard is OMFG SO FUCKING HOT. OMGDROOL. The hair put me over the top.
  • Opinions diverge wildly on what "conventionally attractive" means. I totally thought Alan Rickman was conventionally attractive, but at least one of you didn't, and seriously, I am so not the supreme arbiter of cultural standards of beauty. I would have done a separate question asking "which of these people, if any, do you think is conventionally attractive?" if it wouldn't have meant making a poll that contained 120 images omg.
  • Writers are hot.


I'm sure I learned other things of interest, but I can't think what they are now. To the poll!

[Poll #747968]

(Btw, my apologies to a couple of you - once again, I decided to keep the poll humans-only. I think [livejournal.com profile] kristenb615 was looking for nominations for a poll awhile back that was meant to be pictures of anything sexy, not just people...)

ETA: Yes, I did vote for damn near everybody in that poll. THEY'RE HOT.
ETA2: Btw, sorry about the weird appearance of that second-to-last guy. My computer was having some difficulty reading the grayscale info in the picture and it was very hard to distinguish him from the background, so I quickly upped the contrast between his head and the background - but I did it pretty sloppily. He doesn't really have those odd angles at the back of his skull, I promise.
slammerkinbabe: (aaaaah)
[Poll #742687]

Ahem.

* * *

Dearest Julie Andrews:

I love you, Julie. I really do. I love you, passionately. So please don't misunderstand me when I say that I feel there are a few things I should draw to your attention, for your own good. Like, okay, well, for starters. So, Julie, when you learn a song, you probably get some sheet music for it, right? Like, notes on a page. I'm not sure if anyone ever told you, but those notes on the page? They're the notes you're actually supposed to sing. You're not really supposed to start with the note just below the note on the page so that you can swoop up into the note, or the note just above the note on the page so you can scoop down to the note; not even the four notes below the note on the page so you can swoop up through *all* of them, or the two notes above so you can jitter down through both of them. Oh, and when you sing a note? You could stand to sing it, like, right away. Instead of all this wacky shit with the delayed gratification singing, where we get to wait an aeon or two before you decide to progress to the chord that the orchestra has been patiently holding for a measure and a half just for you. Rubato does not mean "singing like you got your feet stuck in a puddle of glue on the previous note".

I said it before, but I love you, Julie. You're beautiful and you have a gorgeous singing voice and you look really really hot in drag. And you've even been known to write a half-decent children's book or two. So why this nonsense with the scooping and the swooping and the waiting eight years to move from one note to the next? You're better than that, Julie. Please take note.

Don't make me vote for Bernadette Peters in my own poll.

Love,
Kylie

P.S. You could also stand to dial the vibrato down a notch or two, but we'll leave that for the moment.

P.P.S. Please stay gay for Carol Burnett, though.

P.P.P.S. I hope you got your voice back after that botched vocal-cord surgery, because otherwise this post makes me a total tool.
slammerkinbabe: (book whore)
But oo oo oo, I have a more interesting poll! That is to say, it's more interesting to me. That is to say... oh, hell with it.

It's the battle of the children's books! And Lord of the Rings. Um, so most of these are fantasy novels, but some are not; most are series, but some are not; most are at least somewhat specific (i.e., a specific novel or series) but sometimes it's a question about an author's general body of work. I don't know, do the best you can. It's not a perfect survey, as if one were to get nitpicky one could argue that it's hard to evaluate an author's body of work as if it were all of a piece, as it is often not. But none of you are going to get nitpicky, right? Because you love me. And because this is a stupid poll.

I never claimed to be... anything, really. In the last five minutes, anyway, and that's about the expiration date on any of my sentences, as I am flighty and whimsical and - damn! I just claimed to be flighty and whimsical.

Um, never mind? Vote in the poll? I'ma go hide now.

ETA: OMG how did I forget Madeleine L'Engle? I must go die of shame now. You can tell me which you prefer in the comments if you want.

[Poll #533240]

Profile

slammerkinbabe: (Default)
slammerkinbabe

April 2017

S M T W T F S
      1
2345678
910 1112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
30      

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jul. 20th, 2017 06:31 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios