Clinton a Sex Symbol
http://www.foxnews.com/images/54899/...on_chelsea.jpg
LONDON — It's a long road from gawky adolescent to twenty-something sex symbol, but Vanity Fair magazine says Chelsea Clinton has made the transition. OK, somebody's inhaling. :eek: |
riiiiight...
since when does 'sex symbol' mean 'freakish'? i might be missing something. i simply cannot believe they would take a picture that looks like that, and call the subject a sex symbol. i dont like to keep up on the latest images of the clinton girl, so maybe im just ignorant. but if shes a sex symbol there must be better photos to put forth as evidence. ~james |
Here's a good one.
http://www.thehollandsentinel.net/im...01/CHELSEA.jpg
Being a sex symbol ain't what it's cracked up to be. http://www.kodice.com/descargas/fond...erson%2002.jpg |
She's still a kid...
I'm no big Clinton fan, but the press should just lay off of her. It wasn't her choice to be the daughter of a President, and it's got to be fucked up to have your every move watched, just when you want to spread your wings!
As far as her babe potential, this is the closest approximation to what she will look like in the future: <img src="http://www.senate.gov/~budget/republican/about/clinton.jpg"> I will give her a 10 (on the 100 point scale, that is!) :D - 03# |
Anyone else read that hilarious article that has been circling about It being bill that introduced america's youth to blowjobs?
Pissed myself reading that. |
Re: Clinton a Sex Symbol
Quote:
|
Re: Clinton a Sex Symbol
Quote:
|
If her skin didn't look like it had been subject to some really horrible lossy image compression (all hail PNG), the second picture of Chelsea _might_ look good.
|
Quote:
|
I'd forgotten that Pam Anderson wasn't always hideous, a little foresite and she could've been an absolutely stunning middle-aged woman but I guess thats not the Hollywood way.
Its suprising what passes for sexy... Are women still attracted to Bill C now that he has no political power? |
Bear in mind that both pictures of Chelsea are unposed, using random available light. The other photo, of Pamela Anderson, is a studio shot, by a professional fashion photographer, under perfectly controlled lighting, after a lengthy make-up session by someone who makes up stars for photo shoots for a living. Of course Pam looks better.
And take a look at this: Beautiful People with, and without, makeup and studio lighting. Is Pam really prettier than Chelsea? Under the same conditions? Yes, probably, she's a very pretty woman. Chelsea's bone structure is out of fashion; round faces aren't considered exceptionally beautiful nowadays, although they were a hundred years ago. Look at illustrations in Dickens and Thackeray, for example. The fashion changed. It will change again. But even so, it's unfair to compare posed, exquisitely lit and made-up stars to random women surprised by the paparazzi. I would guess that 9 out of 10 young women, if professionally photographed using all the tricks of the trade, would look damned good to most men. |
Political Star Power not to be confused with Sex Symbols
Quote:
The juxtaposition of these photos in the post above was preceded by my note: Quote:
It is really unfair of the media to "label" Chelsea a "sex symbol" when she obviously is not a sex symbol by the standards of the very media which put that on her. My original post in this thread was to illustrate how ridiculous the media is to put that label on her. It's not Chelsea's fault how she looks, and I'm no sex symbol myself, so I'm sympathetic to anyone hung out like that. It's really about "political star power" in America not about being a sex symbol. Ironically, Bill Clinton has blurred the distinction. Vanity Fair confuses hanging out with sex symbols with being a sex symbol. |
Quote:
radio just said Chelsea and mop headed boy friend are shopping around for a wedding venue, sorry guys she's off the market ;) |
Quote:
|
Quote:
But the Cher, Hawn, and Jackson shots are dead on, I'll bet! (well, except the compression in the Cher shot) |
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:19 PM. |
Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.