« spending warm summer days indoors writing frightening verse to a buck-toothed girl in luxembourg | Main | I'm a sinner, but you're a dead person »

anna

Everybody wants to pluck them

by anna at 07:29 PM on November 12, 2003

They say a picture's worth a thousand words. That's a lot of words. Most pix are worth 2-300 words tops but that's neither here nor there. I'm here to talk about inner beauty again. To those who'd doubt it still exists in this jaded, youth-obsessed time, I'd submit: Rocker Bruce Springsteen jilted this to take up with her. They're happily married with kids. Tennis ace Andre Aggasi dumped this for marry this lady. They too are raising a family. Prince Charles preferred the frumpy Camilla to sleek Diana. But it's too frightening to even consider what those offspring might look like.

In purely physical terms, this is like abandoning a posh Manhattan penthouse to reside in a seedy tenement in Bed-Stuy.

My guess is these guys found their starter wives attractive but not so much so in the morning. Perhaps the princesses proved high maintenance, superficial or both. We do know that in two of these cases, there were shared interests. But for whatever the reason, all three felt more comfortable with homelier women.

The qualities that constitute inner beauty defy definition. But I don't think you'd get much argument that spunk, a touch of vulnerability, a warm smile and decent hygiene are definite pluses.

There was just such a girl in my high school. She was pint-sized like Linz, had stringy red hair, freckles and was perenially on crutches. Yet there are more candid shots of her than anyone else in my yearbook. All the guys came sniffing around her door but nobody ever scored with her. Maybe that was it, that aura of unavailability.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying beauty is in the eye of the beholder because it isn't. Poll a hundred people from disparate backgrounds and cultures and they'd all agree that this chick is attractive or at least doable. Yet to me, her allure is diminished by the knowledge that Charlie Sheen has done her. This cad kept Heidi Fleiss's brothel afloat by himself. His dick has been down more holes than the groundhog in Caddyshack.

It's like Elvis and Priscilla Presley. He banged her silly until Lisa Marie clawed her way out of mom's womb with that zombyish expression on her baby face. After that he wouldn't touch his wife unless it was a rape (per a TV movie I watched.) The King just didn't care for mothers.

Yet many people claim pregnant ladies exude a certain glow. Except when medical complications leave them bedridden, gals who are preggers walk around on cloud nine and it shows (no pun intended.)

I always laugh at those commercials that say, "women who are pregnant or who could become pregnant should not use this medication." Who does that exclude, aside from nuns, exclusive lesbians and gals who've undergone hysterectomies? And nuns or lesbians could conceivably become pregnant via rape or a drunken encounter with a dude.

Insert your own closing wittism here. Ideally it should relate to the original subject matter, unifying this whole meandering mess.

Or whatever. Never mind.

comments (10)

WTF? There are 53 of you on this site. You need to comment. Sorry about that link that doesn't seem to work. Bruce's second wife is named Patti Scialfa if you need to see what she looks like. But I wouldn't bother.

by anna at November 12, 2003 8:02 PM


Somehow this post made me think about the movie "Shallow Hal" and how much I hated the message behind it (even though the movie itself was good for a laugh). It contends that women are either goddess-like creatures with bitchy, slef-serving personalities or hideous people overflowing with "inner beauty". Obviously this irked my female friends too because we all like to think of ourselves as cute people with sweet personalities. It also reminded me of a spanish saying that goes "La suerte de la fea la bonita la desea" (roughly translated it means "The pretty girl wishes she had the ugly one's luck [in love]".

My comment doesn't have any more of a unifying end than does Anna's post but at least it (kinda) relates to the original subject, no?

by Lucy at November 13, 2003 11:41 PM


that's an interesting and beautiful saying lucy. i'll never forget it.

anna, you definetely had the misfortune here of commenting on the tails of linz's post about lecherous men. i think most everyone didn't have the steam to open that can of worms again. men vs. women...expectations and so on.

it's like when a young rolling stones opened up for some great pop band, and the crowd blew their wad on the stones set, and couldn't respond to the next guys.

all that mentioned...i had no idea that the boss' first wife was so pretty. maybe she could never do laundry properly (even though they shared the task....lest all you man-haters beat me to a silly pulp) and always made bruce's jockeys pink. that's grounds for divorce i think. maybe in canada. i'd ask chuck to be sure.

by lajo at November 14, 2003 1:17 AM


i'd also like to point out that there were 288 users online when i posted after you and not a comment yet. i don't mind really.....but if it puts things in perspective and makes you feel any better, well then i'd feel better.

by lajo at November 14, 2003 1:20 AM


No actually I am long since past the comment thing. But I do like Lucy's point. My sister the prom queen who stayed home on Friday nights has this theory: Most guys are intimidated by striking women and thus don't realize how easy it is to score with them.

by anna at November 14, 2003 7:48 AM


though it's not very insightful, 2 times out of 5 i read the word 'prom' as 'porn', so...you know.

i like lucy. she's sharp as a tack, and speaks spanish to boot.

by lajo at November 14, 2003 11:11 AM


i knew i recognized springsteen's first bride. she was from fletch lives...

by lajo at November 14, 2003 1:34 PM


The schism that is brain/personality vs. beauty/appearances has long perplexed even the very established of phsychotherapy professionals and or student counselors of the ages. When will there be a definative category to put each and every one of us into? Could such a categorical system even be affective?
In my own experiences and observations, summation goes like this: Men are on varying levels of maturity. During these stages/levels, each of us attract or repel a varrying assortment of women. Each of which are either visualy appealing to others or not.
I may be trying to score brownie points with the ladies when I conclude, but it's up to the woman to do the choosing. After a man uses up his charms with the visually appealing woman, and she takes him down a notch with her inpenatrable ego, he ventures off to the less visually appealing to "lick his wounds" When we allow the female to do the choosing, we get the best of both worlds. Try telling that to the average man.?!#$% Most of our ego's wont filter such nonsense.
This and other sad but trues---MAC...

by MAC... at November 14, 2003 4:00 PM


Lajo, when I typed that the first time I typed "porn queen." And no my sis ain't in porn. Mac, this is a complement of the highest degree: When I started reading your comment, I thought, "This is from The Chris."

by anna at November 14, 2003 6:26 PM


i dey here umu guys make una keeeep offffffffffffffffffffffffffffff

by dr mugu at May 6, 2004 9:19 AM



comments are closed