quote:

Originally posted by Xiao Bai:

quote:

Originally posted by The Lord of YARRR!:
<snip>
I know what I think makes girls hot; <snip>

I lack the personal experiance of what exactly makes a guy HOT or cute or attractive

Can I just ask you guys more about this? I've always found this weird that I (a straight woman) can give a genuine opinion of the attractiveness level of any particular man or woman, but many straight men really do seem to be unable to do this for both genders and can only do it about women, not other men. Why why why? I find that fascinating! Thx for any insights...

-Bai

thats easy. we dont understand women. When men think someone is attractive its pretty obvious what it is. While mens taste change from man to man(I personally, dont think angelina jolie is all that hot, but many others do) its pretty much always the same idea. With girls, its weird. Girls will say Brad Pit is hot, and then Fabio is hot, and then brad pit is hot again but fabio isnt anymore, and then all of a sudden bruce willis is hot and then harrison ford gets hotter as he gets older... and we dont see a common thread.

quote:

Originally posted by mestarrant:
Okay everybody is getting unnecessarily angry with phrases like "you're crazy" and so forth.

I don't know how many times I need to restate that I'm not here to say Neil is a homophobe. This is what happens on a person's fan page.. people just refuse to be objective. They just feel like they need to defend their hero. Believe me, I've done this before with actors or something, so I know how this is.

Chimeer, I'm not here to give him instructions, either.

Okay this needs another restatement for the Gaiman fanclub: I am NOT attacking this author!! All I am doing is trying to discuss a pattern that I have been noticing. No harm meant to ANYONE. I wrote up a definition of "homophobe" because someone wasn't clear on the connection I was making. I didn't write it up as a way to label this author.

Eldi, your first paragraph describes the way an author who has no variety writes. And who would want to read those books? As for your third paragraph, I completely agree. He really makes me hate some characters and like others (on purpose of course). But okay, are we then seeing a pattern that says all beautiful women are evil? Well no we're not, because there are plenty of good beautiful women as well. But hey hey.. women women everywhere! Where are the men?

As for the quote that has been requoted twice.. I agree, that is a very good point. In fact it's right on. But there is that pattern again.. the females are always the ones whose beauty is important to the story.

I dont know if its really a question of variety and if things will get to boring. One of the first things I noticed about neil is that his stories almost always have some sort of mythology behind them. To be honest, I am quite certain everything except some of the comics he did with dave mckean is nothing but mythology reclassified. This doesnt get boring because his charecters are intelligent and fun loving.

There are men in every story neil writes. Some are described as being attracted, some are not.

I think neil writes his girls who are NOT beautiful as being very warm and friendly and then later describes them again as being very beautiful and the man not having realized it. So your getting alot more descriptions.

I have a question though. What do you think is attractive? Alot of women say things that arent physical are what makes a man hot. Success, intelligence, sense of humor. what ever you.

Then the stuff that is physical isnt something you can just go on describing. Perfect teeth, the kind of squinty eyes that look busy behind the glasses they wear, the very trendy haircut.

quote:

Girls will say Brad Pit is hot, and then Fabio is hot, and then brad pit is hot again but fabio isnt anymore, and then all of a sudden bruce willis is hot and then harrison ford gets hotter as he gets older... and we dont see a common thread.

That's kinda cute. To be honest I also get confused sometimes about what I do find attractive or not in a guy. I don't see a common thread for myself either. So there you go.

One thing that seems to work in most cases and for both sides is self-confidence. Someone lacking it will have a hard time being attractive.

Well... there are some guys who are OBVIOUSLY attractive. There's a guy I game with who's tall and blonde and pretty and very gay and I KNOW he has no trouble getting boyfriends (even if he didn't tell me about it). There's another guy I game with who's short and pimply and creepy and bisexual and I KNOW has trouble getting guys (even if he didn't bitch about it).

But in the middle of the spectrum? I honestly have no idea. And then girls tell me that people like Tom Waits and (current) Bob Dylan are hot and I get confused... 'cause while i worship them, i dont' see how old wrinkly men are hot.

It also comes down partly to instinct and observational skill. I spend a lot of time (and I do mean a lot) just watching people interact in real life. It not only gives me a chance to get to know people better, but it gives me a chance to see how they interact. I've seen "plain" guys getting a lot of attention from girls, and then spent time finding out what kind of girl is giving the attention, and what kind of attention it was . . . enough to draw my own conclusions about what some people will tend to find attractive, and enough to learn that there are no set rules, only generalities.

Lovely thread.
Mestarrant: i can see where you're coming from, but as a lot of the regulars have allready told you: Try some other Gaiman books: you'll find it's not as "bad" as you might think.

Now in the sense of Women being mindbogglingly georgeous: i had the same problem in reading Tolkien. The women seem to have no part to play apart from sitting pretty. Personally i don't see it so much in Gaimans works (not even in the books you've named, maybe because you read them in sequence?) but in some Fantasy books, and especially some fantasy artwork, i can totaly see what you're on about.

Now: about hot guys: My friend will have it that i always fall for guys "because they're fourty". But what i fall for in guys is something that sets them apart from the "pretty boys" and the "jocks". Same goes for girls: If they're too pretty, i don't think they're attractive.

Two things to say:

(1)
To be honest, the looks of a guy wear off pretty soon.
Tante Jolesch, a national literary heroine of advanced age says: "Whatever a man's prettier than an ape is luxury" (sorry, the dialect doesn't translate).

I met a guy once who was butt ugly.
But his character was kind of cute (shy and forward at the same time, like he kept giving himself a shove to talk to me), and he had interesting and funny and intelligent things to say and he was attracted by me in a rather obvious but not pushy way...and within a few days I'd completely forgotten about his looks and we were having lots of fun together. That was the fastest lead up into a relationship I ever had. One year after that ended, he married, so he obviously had no problems finding someone else either.
I mean, obviously I'd never mistake him for goodlooking, but it was just irrelevant. It wears off, the good looks and the bad ones.

(2)
Ever noticed how some people are photogenic and some aren't?
It's because it's not just our facial traits, it's what we do with them that makes them shine.
Some people are lively, their expression changes with their moods, they look at you straight and smile at you or pout in interesting ways.
And some just look dully ahead and their face is expressionless.
I'm not saying faces don't matter, I'm saying that you can mess up whatever your face has to offer by using it wrong. And you can make a plain face look attractive by what you do with it.

quote:

Originally posted by Xiao Bai:
Can I just ask you guys more about this? I've always found this weird that I (a straight woman) can give a genuine opinion of the attractiveness level of any particular man or woman, but many straight men really do seem to be unable to do this for both genders and can only do it about women, not other men. Why why why? I find that fascinating! Thx for any insights...

-Bai

thats easy. we dont understand women. When men think someone is attractive its pretty obvious what it is. While mens taste change from man to man(I personally, dont think angelina jolie is all that hot, but many others do) its pretty much always the same idea. With girls, its weird. Girls will say Brad Pit is hot, and then Fabio is hot, and then brad pit is hot again but fabio isnt anymore, and then all of a sudden bruce willis is hot and then harrison ford gets hotter as he gets older... and we dont see a common thread.

OK, I get what you mean. But I was more thinking of what is *your* opinion of what is hot, not what is considered hot by others. Like I can rattle off my own opinion of both men and women. Most of my boyfriends in the past have only been able to rattle off their opinions of women. When it came to men, they had no opinion and were trying to figure out what women thought, not what they themselves thought. Do you see what I mean, or am I still talking in circles?

-Bai

I get what your saying, but the thing is, when you say a girl is attractive you are sort of deciding that as a whole people would think shes pretty. Men are incapable, for the most part, to do that with other men. We just dont get it. Girls can say muscles are hot, so then we name a guy with muscles and they say thats gross. They say bad boys are hot so we think of the baddest boy and nope again, not it.

This girl at work told me the myth busters were hot. I dont get it.

Men who are into women are into things that are girly, we arent even sure where to start with men. we dont find them attractive so we try to kind of guess at it based on what girls say and that makes us more confused.

Yeah, that's the point I was making to begin with. It's most likely that Neil thinks like all of you guys and it somehow shows a bit in his stories. Maybe that's one of the things that make us women seem mysterious and hard to understand.

I have actually a sort of theory about it. Each of us has adapted over centuries to spot in other people what constitutes competition. For guys, it's mostly, is that guy stronger than me? For women, is that woman prettier than me?

I think this blog entry definitely shows that Neil not only is not homophobic, but he feels strongly about homosexuals being persecuted by religion and such.

Cool, I understand what you both are saying now. Thanks! (And I kind of like the Mythbusters too, ha ha! Not handsome but silly and smart. Me likes geeks.)

-Bai

I don't want to raise the discussion again, I have a somewhat related question. Just because you don't want to assume a certain identity for yourself, does that make you prejudiced against whatever that is? Like, let's say you dress in black but you make sure to tell people that you're not a goth. That doesn't mean you're goth-phobic, does it? It just means that the goth identity does not describe you well, it doesn't fit who you are. You may have nothing against goths.

The same with the gay identity. Just because someone doesn't want to appear as gay, doesn't make them homophobic, or does it?

I think it always depends on the specific person. I have a friend who dresses in leather, dyes her hair and isn´t a goth or a a "biker chick" (I don´t know how people in the US refer to those kind of girls). She´s actually a very sweet and kind person, not at all aggresive or depressive. She has goth friends, but she makes it perfectly clear, that she doen´t belong to any "tribe", she just likes those kind of clothes.
They are a lot of different reasons why people dress in a particular way or what music they hear or books they read. Perhaps, someone who doesn´t want to be placed in any kind of group, is trying to make people wonder and get the chance to know them.
Which must be the same thing we can do about some other people who are "complete goths" or any othe kind of "tribe".

quote:

Originally posted by chimeer:
I don't want to raise the discussion again, I have a somewhat related question. Just because you don't want to assume a certain identity for yourself, does that make you prejudiced against whatever that is? Like, let's say you dress in black but you make sure to tell people that you're not a goth. That doesn't mean you're goth-phobic, does it? It just means that the goth identity does not describe you well, it doesn't fit who you are. You may have nothing against goths.

The same with the gay identity. Just because someone doesn't want to appear as gay, doesn't make them homophobic, or does it?

Hmmm...
I make a point of saying "I'm indie, not emo", but thats partly due to prejudice against emos.
But when I say "I'm not gay", i don't mean that as homophobia. I mean that as "Despite having some stereotypically homosexual mannermisms, spending time with openly gay people and living in an area where homosexuality is tolerated I am primarilly attracted to girls"
This is often said while talking to a girl (er the mocking "no really, i'm straight", not the whole long thing)

I had to explain to someone that no, I am not a "rebel"(rebels, in the sense of james dean) at school one day.

I dressed like a pearl jam fan at the time. I dont know where they got "rebel" from.

Good lord, let the man be straight, will you? I completely agree with the idea that the reason he doesn't describe too many handsome men is just because he doesn't have the experience with what makes guys handsome.

Also, Neil's women are usually less "gorgeous" then they are attractive in quirky, unconventional ways. Door is always described as being tiny, scruffy, and generally odd looking. Rose Walker has her crazy multicolored hair. Thessaly has ginormous glasses. Sam Black Crow give the impression of being vaguely tomboyish. None of them are really Keira Knightley.

And speaking as a young female, I always thought of Tristran as sexy. More because it's default for the heroes of fairy tales to be handsome, and Neil always described Stardust as a fairy tale for adults. Richard is described as being handsome, for Pete's sake. So is Spider, to an almost disquieting extent.

And by the way, the gay sex scene with the djinn in Neverwhere is one of the best I've read.

I agree, wholeheartedly. I think we should hold Mr. Gaiman personally responsible for the shortage of obviously handsome men in not only his fictional world, but the real world in general. This is clearly to do a bad relationship he had with his mother, or father, or someone like that, and the only reasonable sentence is death by Walt Whitman readings.

Now then, that's settled.

I like chocolate chip cookies.

- S.

Just wante dto add (and sorry if it's been said already) that one of the reasons why women are described more than men, physically, is because in the books you mentioned the main character is male and we're seeing things from THEIR perspective.
The female sin Stardust, for example: the Star and the Witch are beautiful, obviously, in absolute terms. The Witch's beauty is important to describe coz it's important to HER. The Star's... actually, I don't think there's a description of her beauty (I read the illustrated version, so maybe in the non-illustrated one there is?). Victoria and tristran's mother aren't necessarily drop-dead gorgeous, but they are to the eyes of the two male characters, and it's their beauty what makes them do what they do. HOWEVER, what's important is that the mlae characters go beyond that. They don't stay with the beautiful girls just coz they love their looks -their looks seduce them, but, in the end, the move on beyond that and go for the girl they share important things with.
Also, Tristran is not supposed ot be good-looking -at first. He's kind of dorky, and awkward, and throughout the book (no descriptions as it's illustrated) he become stalles, more handsome (this is stated somewhere).
And the tavern owner is a good looking guy, and Neil says how the girls would daydream about him.


In Neverwhere, Door and Hunter are not described as gorgeous. Hunter is describe dphysically, as hers is a physical character, and I always pictured her having a beautiful body, yes, but I don't think the description of her body is necessarily a "sexual" or otherwise idolising one. It's just a fact. More than the look of her, the descriptions have more to do with the way she moves, the way she fights, which is the important thing.
Door is not pretty, but cute, and, I think, vulnerable (at first). I think Richard sees her more like a little sister, maybe ha sa wee crush on her at first. Jessica is beautiful, and Lamia, but, as ha sbeen pointed out, their beauty here is important to understand their character and motivations.
Richard is described at the beginning as cute. Again, we see the story through his eyes, so we don't get any more descriptions of him.
The Marquis would be the male equivalent of Hunter, in the sense that, by giving descriptions of how he moves and acts, we have the idea of this attractive, sexy character.

In American Gods, it is important not to know what Shadow looks like. However, in Anansi Boys it iss improtant ot know, so he describe sthem.

In Good Omens I didn't really think Crowley and Aziraphel were good looking... Maybe Crowley, there's a brief description of him, but Aziraphel? I always thought he'd look geeky and weird war is described, yes, so is Famine.

If you still think that way, read the Sandman -no descriptions, but Neil described to the utmost detail how he wanted his characters to look. You'll see the Sandman, Destruction, the Cluracan, the Corinthian... They're all atractive men.