What's hot, what's not

Roosh, who believes women exist primarily to provide men with boners, spends a lot of time thinking about which women meet his "boner" specifications and which do not.  Apparently, a woman's capacity to give him an erection on sight is his operational definition of "beauty."   (Asian women don't cause his penis to stir; therefore, they are not beautiful to him, contrary to the experience of millions of men around the world.)  Whenever he has nothing else to tweet, he'll post some random woman's picture with the caption "Would you bang or not?" 

It's caused me to think a bit about my own definitions of beauty and sexual appeal in both sexes.  A woman doesn't have to be bisexual, as I am, to enjoy looking at images of both men and women, of course, or to respond sexually to either gender.

Most of the women Roosh seems to find appealing are what the current "Hollywood" ideal deems "beautiful," and although I agree they meet the popular current criteria of "beauty," they are a bit plastic:  augmented breasts, big hair, lots of artful make up, etc.  I know that is what we are "taught" to like, but it's a shame how popular media divorces us from the beauty and richness of diversity.

I find that, at least for myself, sexual allure is quite a different thing than beauty.  Beauty is often a rather cold and sterile thing: "look but don't touch."  Perfect symmetry of features is cited as the universal standard of beauty, but it isn't interesting.  On the other hand, people who project the most sexual "heat" are often what the French call "jolie-laide" (pretty-ugly). 

Grace Kelly?
or
Anna Magnani?

Alain Delon?
or
Serge Gainsbourg?

I once had a boyfriend that was the essence of jolie-laide in masculine form.  He looked a little like Iggy Pop.  His mouth was too generous, his rugged facial features somewhat crowded on to a narrow face.  He was not handsome, and he was not photogenic..His frame was light and wiry, a combination of strength and delicacy. Although he was dominant sexually, he had slightly effeminate gestures.  He freely copped to the fact that his sexual promiscuity was his compensation for being ignored and bullied as a boy.  Yet, ever the bundle of contradictions, he was supremely self-confident.  I never got tired of looking at him (or fucking him).

I find some fat women incredibly appealing.  I have a serious girl crush on Queen Latifah: her intense, knowing eyes, her warm, authoritative voice.  Also Rebel Wilson (whom I fancy looks a bit like me, back in the day): that combination of soft, blonde prettiness and self-effacing wit is pretty irresistible.  And again, self-confidence.  I found the late Anna Nicole Smith, may she rest in peace, gorgeous -- both fat and thin, made up or natural. 

I am hard pressed to find any person "ugly" in terms of physical appearance.  Some folks are more stereotypically attractive due to symmetry or conformity to fashionable ideals.  Almost anyone who is willing to "work on" themselves can achieve a pleasing or socially acceptable appearance.  Even people who have been born with congenital "deformities" or have been disfigured in accidents can be gorgeous.  The "difference" seems to draw more attention to their physical assets, somehow, and makes them "POP."

Take J.R. Martinez, for example.  Hot and a hero.
or

Bree Walker.  Exquisite face, lovely figure, what a smile.
or

Peter Dinklage.  The eyes, the facial structure, the voice...

I feel sorry for people like Roosh, who have such narrow, rigid, and unimaginative ideas of what beauty is. They miss a lot of opportunities to be pleased and gratified by the endless array of interesting people to look at.  Can they even find the beauty in themselves?