Adele Vogue cover "controversy"

My disagreement with your first point plays a role in my agreement with your second: Vogue is selling to women. Women seemingly unanimously love Adele. Adele isn't skinny, and that has a role in why some women love her, though not as large a role as her music. (Aside: I haven't liked a pop star's music as much as I like Adele's since ... Mariah Carey's prime? "Rolling in the Deep" and "Someone Like You" and "Set Fire to the Rain" and all the others are really great songs.)

With the relentless airbrushing, not only have they mutated Adele into someone who is not the powerful young woman that so many young women love, but [/crossthread] they've made her unrecognizable from any distance or on any quick glance. How could that be good for sales based on the cover? They tried to make her look beautiful in the way that glamour magazine cover models are beautiful, a beauty Adele distinctly lacks.

 

Right. I'm not saying she's Kate Moss (who I really don't find attractive but others seemingly do). I think my argument is really with the fact that it's apparently being said in this "controversy" that in order to be on the cover of a fashion magazine or a magazine for women you have to be beautiful. That I wouldn't buy a magazine with Adele on it just to find out about her, or what she wears, or where she shops, or how she does her makeup ... unless they shoehorn her into their idea of beautiful.

And that's what pisses me off. Can't she be beautiful for her huge smile, for her talent, for her strength? Must she be willowy and pouty to be beautiful? Annoying.

 

How is "attractive human beings" in any way, shape or form quantifiable into any size of subset? Standards of "attractive" are so individual and often have nothing to do with looks or body, but with personality.

 

Oh, I dunno. Beauty standards change over the years, mostly because somebody decides on a standard and people don't fight it much. I don't think the editors of Vogue have any better "true" idea of beauty than anyone else does.

And many models are not what I or many people would consider great-looking without the hours of hair and makeup they enjoy that everyday folks don't.

 

This is an actual quote from Adele's 60 Minutes interview which aired the other night leading into the Grammys:

"I don't want to be some skinny mini with my tits sticking out. That's not me."

Riiiiiiight Adele. What a liar.

I'll just say it. I'm over Adele. Her and her music. I enjoy her songs once or twice, but I don't want to be depressed everytime I get in the car.

And I'd rather chew off my own hand than listen to KTU's bastardized dancemix of 'Someone Like You.'

 

Adele has that Christopher Cross thing going, where the look does not match the sound coming out of their mouth.

 

I'm floored by the people accepting 4-6% as the likely number of attractive women. Drop-dead gorgeous is a smaller group than beautiful, which is smaller than pretty, which is smaller than attractive. Practically, I think "attractive" means you'd be willing to sleep with her without the assistance of alcohol or paper bags. If you only feel that way about 4% of the female population, there's a reason you're not getting laid.

 

We've got a couple of Persnickety Peters on this board, watery.

I think the vast majority of men have a high 'attractive' percentage.

 

I'm a copy editor. I notice flaw in everything I see and sap the joy out of the room. I will never be happy. [/crossthread]

 

I'd guess only about 50-60 percent of the female population is between the ages of 18 and 50. You must be Versatile.

 

I wouldn't necessarily say vast majority, but at least some guys like to pretend their hand isn't the sexiest thing they fuck.

 

Nailed it.

A lot of people are listing percentages and not thinking about how broad the population is. They are talking about what percentage of the reasonably-aged members of the gender they find attractive they are attracted to.