Tip jar

If you like CaB and wish to support it, you can use PayPal or KoFi. Thank you, and I hope you continue to enjoy the site - Neil.

Buy Me a Coffee at ko-fi.com

Support CaB

Recent

Welcome to Cook'd and Bomb'd. Please login or sign up.

March 28, 2024, 03:13:26 PM

Login with username, password and session length

"Clever Girls". Or boys if you'd rather.

Started by Joy Nktonga, October 23, 2004, 09:25:25 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Joy Nktonga

I was just watching "The Minoans" on C4 and I'm aware that I'm beginning to find the presenter, Bettany Hughes, really quite attractrive. Sexy, even. Now is it because she's "fucking phwoar, look at that" sexy, or becuase "well, the package is ok, but, my god, she's clever" sexy?

Looking at her, and I mean just looking, then I see someone ok looking, and nicely presented, not stand-out attractive, but listening to her as well just adds a new dimension. She seems incredibly knowledgeable about her subject, passionate as well, and enjoying talking about it too. Those things serve, to me at least, to make her a sexy woman. One I find attractive but in a way that far transcends other women who are the current crop of stereotypically sexy females.

Is that my defining "what type do you go for" answer: smart, clever, intelligent women whose size or shape or colour aren't the foremost of my "find a mate" instincts? Is that the norm amoung my peers, my friends, my gender in general? My "favourite female celebs - non-clebs if you prefer" who give me the RFH include more cerebral, but maybe less physically "attractive" types, or those that at least give the impression of it (Kate Winslet, Nina Hossain, as examples), rather than today's "fit birds" (Britney, Jordan? et el).

Am I alone in this? Is it the same for those who prefer the opposite sex (Paxman over Beckham)? Are we all different, and it's just as alright for me to like smartsexy as it is for you to like stereotypesexy? In addition, is that why I've always found indy/goth/rock/hippie-chicks to be my type; Y'know, they don't like R Kelly, Britney, Whitney, they're clever enough to like "deeper" music?

Um, rhetorical questions, but feel free to add your own opinions.

Edit to add:
I knew there was real question I was going to ask: Is there a psychological reason for this? If so, what are the different reasons for some liking smartsexy, and others liking stereotypesexy?

Vorderman, no; Buffy the Michelle-Gellar, yes. There's always exceptions to "prove the rule" (I've never understood that logic).

Krang

Sue Barker, shes gettin on a bit now, but i still think shes cute.

Smackhead Kangaroo

Bah another who do you fancy?

Surely you looked at her and thought instantly that it was a cynical ploy by the makers of the show to put someone who didn't fit the traditional musty old historian stereotype of history teachers? Standard stuff. While it's natural to lean towards favouring the more attractive, I think I'm still at the stage where I think this sort of thing is cynical and covertly offensive and patronising. What happened to the musty old historians? Actually who was that guy who did a series on ancient cultures and astrology recently- with Patrick Moore cameoing as various gods, and puppets and the whole hoohah. Gods in the sky?That was rather entertaining.

Joy Nktonga

I completely agree with that, SK. It certainly appeared to be a cynical move, but she wasn't exactly "fit, phwoar, hubba-hubba" though, was she? That's my point: She wasn't those things, but her intelligence is what made her sexy to me.

I hope this doesn't become a "who do you fancy" thread either, SK. I'm genuinely interested in why I'm a smartsexy guy and why someone else is a sexysexy person. What are the differences, not who. Possibly even why one person finds Miss X smartsexy, but another finds her sexysexy.

Claude the Racecar Driving Rockstar Super Sleuth

I've got to agree with the the scagged out marsupial. That Hughes woman was just part of a blatant attempt to sexify history shows. Her voice got on my nerves, with the way she tried to amke every point sound important by going all husky. I'm not going to weigh in with my opinion of the whole issue of dumbing down or anything because I didn't watch much of the show. Instead I went off and blew some shit up in Unreal Tournament. Hur hur hur. Car go boom.

Claude the Racecar Driving Rockstar Super Sleuth


thomasina

Quote from: "Joy Nktonga"
Vorderman, no; Buffy the Michelle-Gellar, yes. There's always exceptions to "prove the rule" (I've never understood that logic).

Vorderman's not intelligent, at all.  Academic attainments aren't a proof of intelligence, and she only got a 3rd anyway.  For that, at Cambridge, she would have had to do sums and spell the basic concepts correctly.  And anyone who's heard her say anything beyond 'one from the top, 2 from the middle'  can tell she's not that bright.  I've seen nothing to tell me whether Gellar's clever or not, but i know who i'd fancy.

Claude the Racecar Driving Rockstar Super Sleuth

Sod Vorderman. I reckon that bird in dictionary corner would be much better in bed. It's always the quiet ones.

weekender

So, you watched a show about the Minoans - perhaps one of the most intriguing civilisations in the history of mankind and one which arguably was the beginning of Greek schools of thought (which in turn has greatly influenced society over the past two milennia)  - and your main thought on the programme is whether or not the presenter was fit?  Nice.

Joy Nktonga

Just to reiterate: I'm not talking about the obvious marketing ploy in the programme, I agree with that, it's more to do with the type of person I find appealing. Specifically (Thomasina, pay attention) ladies who are,  or appear to be/are marketed as, intelligent. Also, the psychological and inherrent reasons why that is and why others prefer the less-cerebral types, and what people think who find men attractive. Are we all looking for the same qualities, and if so/not why/why not? Do people who prefer men essentially go for physicality over intelligence and vice-versa, or is it more to do with the type of person each of us is, or believe ourselves to be?

No, Weekender, my main focus was the content of the programme, although as is usual with these things I managed to miss most of it because children require a certain level of attention themselves. My post was borne from a particular train of thought  ancilary to the subject matter. I'm not clever enough to start, maintain or join in a thread about the Minoans, whether I've just watched a programme about it of not, which is a little ironic considering the basis of my actual thread.

mayer


thomasina

Quote from: "Joy Nktonga"Just to reiterate: I'm not talking about the obvious marketing ploy in the programme, I agree with that, it's more to do with the type of person I find appealing. Specifically (Thomasina, pay attention) ladies who are,  or appear to be/are marketed as, intelligent. Also, the psychological and inherrent reasons why that is and why others prefer the less-cerebral types, and what people think who find men attractive. Are we all looking for the same qualities, and if so/not why/why not? Do people who prefer men essentially go for physicality over intelligence and vice-versa, or is it more to do with the type of person each of us is, or believe ourselves to be?

Sorry, got distracted, slagging off Vorderman.  But i always thought it was a given that women go more for the whole package in a man rather than whether he looks nice in in the nip? When i think of the range of famous men who are reputedly sexy, there seems a much bigger variety of physical types, indicating that physicality isn't the main thing for women.

Suttonpubcrawl

Quote from: "Joy Nktonga"Vorderman, no; Buffy the Michelle-Gellar, yes. There's always exceptions to "prove the rule" (I've never understood that logic).

The exception that proves the rule is an exception which, because it is an exception, demonstrates the existence of a rule for it to be an exception to. For example if there is a sign saying "No U turns allowed here" it indicates that the general rule elsewhere is that U turns are allowed, or if there is a sign saying "You will be allowed to buy booze up until 12:00AM tonight" (strangely worded sign!) it indicates that normally you aren't allowed to buy booze up until 12:00AM.

Edited slightly to clarify a couple of points.

Silver SurferGhost

Do you know whose cerebrum I fancy?

Some men are very threatened by intelligent women, but those men are usually rather unintelligent themselves, or stunted in some other way. I'd need an equal, myself.
That said, personally I find sense of humour and quickness of wit more attractive than any ephemeral measure of 'intelligence'. I like to be challenged, whether it's intellectually or just at churning out corny old gags, it doesn't half make me come over all unnecessary.

...still, that Professor Kathy Sykes though, phwoar.
.

thomasina

Quote from: "Suttonpubcrawl"
Quote from: "Joy Nktonga"Vorderman, no; Buffy the Michelle-Gellar, yes. There's always exceptions to "prove the rule" (I've never understood that logic).

The exception that proves the rule is an exception which, because it is an exception, demonstrates the existence of a rule for it to be an exception to. For example if there is a sign saying "No U turns allowed here" it indicates that the general rule elsewhere is that U turns are allowed, or if there is a sign saying "You will be allowed to buy booze up until 12:00AM tonight" (strangely worded sign!) it indicates that normally you aren't allowed to buy booze up until 12:00AM.

Edited slightly to clarify a couple of points.
Point is, the example given is NOT an exception. Vorderman's thick (challenge me), Buffy might be clever, for all anyone knows.  Buffy's a clever show, i think. She may be a dumb actress reading a clever script or she may have something off.  But the character is not dumb.

Ambient Sheep

I think it's a very interesting question.  As anyone who knows me has probably guessed, I definitely go for the smartsexy type myself and just can't see the attraction in all the plastic girls (smart or otherwise) that a lot of men do.  I think it's a shame that Joy's getting the amount of stick he is for starting this thread.

falafel

I reckon it all comes down to an unconscious supposition that stupid people are sexually unadventurous. One that I reckon is largely true.

Quote from: "Joy Nktonga"There's always exceptions to "prove the rule" (I've never understood that logic.

I think it's an archaic usage of 'prove', meaning 'test'.....see also the proof of the pudding. SM-Gellar is apparently very clever: "Here, Sarah did exceptionally well. Despite her extra-curricular activities, she maintained a Straight-A average, and became a competitive figure skater.", apparently - more interesting is: what made you assume she wasn't?

Pinball

Intelligence - what does it mean? Nothing if unaccompanied by action, which is why actual, practical achievement interests me more. Mycroft Holmes was brighter than Sherlock, but because he wouldn't leave his armchair he achieved little.

That's not to say I fancy Sherlock, mind. I'm not a poof, and, um, he's a fictional character.

thomasina

Quote from: "12 years, 11 months old"
Quote from: "Joy Nktonga"There's always exceptions to "prove the rule" (I've never understood that logic.

I think it's an archaic usage of 'prove', meaning 'test'.....see also the proof of the pudding. SM-Gellar is apparently very clever: "Here, Sarah did exceptionally well. Despite her extra-curricular activities, she maintained a Straight-A average, and became a competitive figure skater.", apparently - more interesting is: what made you assume she wasn't?
Well, yeah.  Does skinny body+ blonde hair=thick?  Why was SMG thought of as an example of an exception, when she might just as easily prove the rule?  Has anyone  seen positive proof that she's a thickie? I suspect not.  But she's pretty and skinny and young and blonde. Do you therefore have to accept that she's not so bright?

Joy Nktonga

I see what Thomasina and 12Y11M are getting at, and in the case of Vorderman, as I've said, it's the way she's marketed, to appear intelligent, and I do find SMG attractive, yet haven't seen enough of the "real" her or read enough about her to know one way or the other about her mental ability, but have fallen into the trap of seeing pretty blonde thing and assumed the worst. I notice nobody's picked up on my other examples. I apologise for ruffling feathers, but they were just two examples that seem to be the exceptions to "my" rule. More of an extra point of discussion, if you will, but not in the way they've become.

Thanks Sheepy for sticking up for me. This was intended to provoke a discussion about the relative merits of brains over looks for some and not others, and why that may be. I certainly didn't set out to upset anyone by suggesting some people are clever and some people aren't, because much like "beauty", but to a lesser degree, it could be considered subjective. From this point onwards please consider any mention of intelligence/cleverness/brains/etc or stupid/thick/not-quite-so-clever/etc to mean "implied", "suggested" or "perceived" mental capability.

MarmiteCarpenter

Quote from: "thomasina"Well, yeah.  Does skinny body+ blonde hair=thick?  Why was SMG thought of as an example of an exception, when she might just as easily prove the rule?  Has anyone  seen positive proof that she's a thickie? I suspect not.  But she's pretty and skinny and young and blonde. Do you therefore have to accept that she's not so bright?

I find girls who 'look' intelligent infinitely more attractive than girls who don't. But I'd never say looking intelligent had anything to do with being blonde or skinny or pretty. Its more about how people present themselves, like if I saw an otherwise very attractive girl wearing huge great earings and a couple inches of make-up (read: every girl in Bournemouth) then I'd assume she was less intelligent then the same girl with natural hair, not much makeup and dressed a bit better.

I just like girls with wierd hair and wierd clothes. People who are a bit different tend to be more intelligent than those who follow the herd I guess.

Hoogstraten'sSmilingUlcer

Bettany Hughes' intelligence does add a considerable dimension to her attractiveness, and I think she is stand-alone attractive. I think it might come down to the fact that she doesn't flaunt or sell herself, as the likes of Jordan do, or wear layers of makeup to appear beautiful. She comes across as having a natural (almost ethereal) beauty, which is infinitely more attractive than the plastic, contrived 'beauty' of Jordan. Hughes presents herself as a fully-rounded individual, with, like most people, a lot more than just her looks; Jordan et al present themselves as fuck-objects, with nothing more than their tits. It's probably that Hughes seems a bit harder to get than Jordan too. Hughes has a modest air of authority which is rather attractive. Personally, I find Jordan a sour-faced slapper because she seems to show off her stupidity and, er, media-savvy, and from what I've seen she has a pretty vile personality. As for her looks, I think she's very unattractive, and if she has any beauty, it's in  a cheap, lad's mag way (sorry I don't want to sound misogynistic, but I don't get why people find her so sexy).

Smackhead Kangaroo wrote:

QuoteSurely you looked at her and thought instantly that it was a cynical ploy by the makers of the show to put someone who didn't fit the traditional musty old historian stereotype of history teachers? Standard stuff. While it's natural to lean towards favouring the more attractive, I think I'm still at the stage where I think this sort of thing is cynical and covertly offensive and patronising.

Undoubtably it is a cynical ploy by Channel 4 to 'sex up' history, but Hughes is still a very good historian and presenter. Whilst I think that it is cynical, it's also fair to say that if she was just beauty and no brain,  they wouldn't have hired her to make a programme; she must have some talent as a historian. It's like saying what's the point of hiring Kirsty Wark for Newsnight or Kirsty on Five News; are they just there to add some glamour? I think obviously not, because they are good journalists and presenters. It would be patronising and offensive if the producers employed women just because they were good looking, ignoring their talent, but I don't think that's always the case. Perhaps I'm being tremendously naive.

falafel

And I think it's a bit unfair that just because there's suddenly an attractive woman on TV talking about history she's automatically dismissed as being pushed forward as little more than a token 'clever girl'.

[pseud]If you assume that her being on TV, historian or not, is down to the sexist attitudes of Channel 4, you effectively become complicit with the very attitude that you purport to undermine. She is reduced to a symptom of sexism.[/pseud]

But seriously, there is an interesting postfeminist slant to this...

Monkeyfucker

Ok, at the risk of appearing as thick, whats a Minoan? It sounds like a cocktail.

I see a lot of different points, and I wish I could concentrate more and take it in.

Erm, Im female and I dont go for the usual six footer rugby style, beckham hairdoed Gucci wearing bloke. I like Mr Average. I think a lot of people show here they do look beyond looks and see whats  behind the person.

Intelligence is an attractive quality and it makes people more appealing. Sounds cliched, but give me sense of humour any day over looks. I have a lot of male friends who have became more attractive to me as I got to know them - because of their intellect and sense of humour etc etcI

. I mean its all very nice having some arm jewellery, but if you cant hold a fucking intelligent conversation with them, its all going to go horribly wrong. You turn into one of those couples who nod at each other and sit in silence. I know theres a point im trying to make, but im not god damn sure what it is.

Yes , who is intelligent that I find attractive? Richard Whitely (no im kidding).
Well, Im struggling to think of someone intelligent, so Ill say billy connoly. Not much to look at , but hed have you pissing your pants. None of my friends are in relationships with "gorgeous" people.

Society says  that men will look for the typical Hollyoaks type chick, but fuck that. .  Go for something with a little spice.

And why is Carol Vorderman thick? Shes not that bad., She does all those conundrums.

Claude the Racecar Driving Rockstar Super Sleuth

She does the maths problems but I've never seen her get a conundrum. Sorry to be an anal git here but as a layabout bastard I watch a lot of Countdown.
Back to the topic at hand. I read somewhere once that we are generally attracted to people of similar intelligence to ourselves. I forget the reason why but it would seem to support a lot of the things said so far.
Personally I find it hard to say what would make my ideal of womanhood because ,as with so many things, love and/ or lust are where you find them and don't seem to conform so easily to some kind of checklist. I often think it's a little pretentious when people say with absolute certainty what characteristics they find attractive, as if they can't admit to fancying someone outside of a small predefined sphere of humanity.

Monkeyfucker

I see your point. Like "I like blondes". irritating.

Silver SurferGhost

Quotewhats a Minoan?
You want Minoans, I'll show you Minoans:http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~dee/MINOA/MINOANS.HTM (clickety-click)

Blimey, I'd assumed from your posts that you were a bloke, Monkeyfo', you seem to me to write in a blokey way. See, this is where not introducing yourself gets us, all sorts of spurious gender assumptions get made.

That probably fits in with the thread somehow, I'll let you lot work out how...


EDIT: "show you show you Minoans"? I don't think so.
.

Bogey

Quote from: "Claude the Lion Tamer"I read somewhere once that we are generally attracted to people of similar intelligence to ourselves.
Presumably because if they were substantially more intelligent there would be a risk of them taking advantage of you, and of course if they were a lot thicker than you then you'd have thick kids, and nobody wants that.

Monkeyfucker

Quote from: "Silver SurferGhost"
Quotewhats a Minoan?
You want Minoans, I'll show you Minoans:http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~dee/MINOA/MINOANS.HTM (clickety-click)

Blimey, I'd assumed from your posts that you were a bloke, Monkeyfo', you seem to me to write in a blokey way. See, this is where not introducing yourself gets us, all sorts of spurious gender assumptions get made.

That probably fits in with the thread somehow, I'll let you lot work out how...


EDIT: "show you show you Minoans"? I don't think so.
.

Ha ha , I write in a blokey way? Cool.   Yes I wasnt sure how to go about introductions and such things. Perhaps its my name gives that impression.

Im still thinking how this could relate to the thread.  Everyone seems to use loads of big words here. There seems to be a lot of intelligent people on this board.