Clinton a Sex Symbol

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

Being a sex symbol ain't what it's cracked up to be.

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.

Originally posted by Nic Name


OK, somebody's inhaling. :eek:

And holding it for all she's worth by the looks of that grin. What do you want to bet she doubled over gasping once the photographer was done?

Originally posted by Nic Name

It's a long road from gawky adolescent
to twenty-something sex symbol, but Vanity Fair magazine
says Chelsea Clinton has made the transition.

I'm attracted to looks that the majority of the hetero-male population would think unusual or un-attractive (short blonde or red hair - I mean short, couple of centimeters... now that's sexy) -but Chelsea Clinton ?!?! WTF is up with that grin ?!?!

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.

Originally posted by Torrere
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.

Well, mmm, errr, each to thier own I guess.

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.

Originally posted by Slithy_Tove

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.

True.

The juxtaposition of these photos in the post above was preceded by my note:

Being a sex symbol ain't what it's cracked up to be.

The point that I was trying to make was that, of those who might generally be recognized as sex symbols, and we all know who they are, non is more lauded than Pamela Anderson. The deliberate use of the expression "cracked up to be" was to infer that even sex symbols have been ravaged by drugs and hard living to such an extent that their original youthful beauty has all but vanished. We all have the pictures of sexpot Pam as the image of "sex symbol" so it was interesting to me to view the image of Pam at the beginnning of her career as a professional sex symbol by any American man's standard. (Even though she's a Canadian.)

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.

Originally posted by Slithy_Tove
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.

Easily. Its very rare that a woman doesn't have some aspect of beauty, if not physical then spiritual or intellectual.


radio just said Chelsea and mop headed boy friend are shopping around for a wedding venue, sorry guys she's off the market ;)

The Cellar: Hanging out here will make you popular and attractive

It won't make you a sex symbol. ;)

And take a look at this: Beautiful People with, and without, makeup and studio lighting.[/B]

Sorry, the "without" shots there are obviously tampered with. The Christina Applegate shot has been compressed horizontally. The Pam Anderson and Cameron Diaz shots (and most of the rest) show some serious JPEG artifacting, giving a 'bad complexion' effect. The Silverstone shot is EXPANDED horizontally.

But the Cher, Hawn, and Jackson shots are dead on, I'll bet! (well, except the compression in the Cher shot)

but when I saw this photo, all of sudden I remembered this link (with sound, so put your headphones on)

tandr: lol