Oof. Those Laetitia Casta supermodel types do zilch for me. They're empty, cold, and boring; they're just sieves. They contain nothing. Back in the 90s, when Guess jeans were still the rage, you had all these statuesque supermodels sauntering around as if they owned the place, like Linda Evangelista and Cindy Crawford and Naomi Campbell. But the porn star Jenna Jameson was more beautiful than those freaks of perfection, precisely because beauty has to contain some amount of imperfection (on which we agree). It can't be too haughty. It has to contain an element of tawdriness and sleaze, and Jenna Jameson was the luscious bottle-blonde hair-metal girl from the Nevada trailer park. Amber Heard has this quality, too. She's from Texas. Beauty is what gets the girl out of the fly-over state and into Moz Angeles, even if the fly-over state never quite leaves the girl. Perhaps this is a cultural, American thing. But I think it's analogous to the way some gay (and, um, humasexual) British men like Edward Carpenter and Morrissey had a predilection for coarse, strapping youths from the working class. Carpenter liked coal miners; Morrissey likes boxers and toughs. Amber Heard actually isn't perfect or generic. She's a little long in the face. If nature had tweaked things by just a degree or two, her bullies in high school might've given her the nickname Horsey.
oy, where to begin. if i didnt know any better i'd think you were trolling. and since i know you have a good sense of humour--since, after all, you did rightly say that my interjections in wild turkeys dumb thread were funny--im tempted to think you were only joking when you suggested that not only might jenna jameson be beautiful, but that she might actually be more beautiful than the supers. because that IS funny!! (HUH?!?! she doesnt even have bone structure?!?!?!)
okay, FIRST of all!! laetitia casta is not a "type". she does not and never has epitomized the supermodel "type". she has always been divergent from whatever era of supermodel (spanning from the 90s grunge era to the brazillian invasion of the late nighties, early 2000's) she found herself in, being shorter and more voluptuous than other models (causing someone to remark once that on the catwalk--a type of work she didnt do a lot of--she looked like an alien species next to the other girls). and as far as empty, cold and boring--maybe if you're talking about claudia schiffer or rebecca romijn, then sure. but laetitia casta is the complete opposite of empty, cold, and boring: she is the dictionary definition of vibrant, warm, earthy and sensual. she is also quite idiosyncatic, with a very unique headshape/hairline and quirky little ears and more angles than a geometry class, and im sorry but if you dont experience some sort of primitive yearning when looking at the below picture of her, then perhaps it is is you who are empty and cold!!
secondly beauty does NOT have to contain some imperfection. beauty CAN contain imperfection or it cannot. the thing about beauty is that it refuses all conditions you try to place on it. the important point is that beauty can dwell with imperfection, and be the more interesting, appealing or endearing for it, without that imperfection diminishing the beauty (while it would absolutely diminish the appeal of someone who is merely pretty). but imperfection is absolutely not a condition of beauty. because you have to think: what is meant by imperfection? well, on paper, a big nose might be seen as imperfect. okay, so natalia vodianova has a big nose. but it's a beautiful nose and it perfectly suits her face. if she had a smaller nose it would look disproportionate. she wouldnt be as beautiful. so is the size of her nose really imperfect? however if you DO want what one might call imperfection if one were so inclined, you need not look to porn stars, but instead look to the early 2000's which, with the dutch invasion, was the jolie laide era of the supermodel (see: roos von bosstraeten, elise crombez, an oost, querelle jansen, hannelore knuts, et al)
third, YES, beauty can be haughty, and it is. it does NOT have to contain tawdriness and sleaze, where on earth did you get that?!?! like god, beauty does not condescend or stoop to our level (what is this current day obsession with things being readily understood and accessible to the masses, like god having to be your "homey"??). like god, like art, like everything of value, it expects you to rise to it's level and, in return, you will be changed and enriched for having been able to do so. it's meant to inspire reverence and awe, it should be nutritive to the soul, it should fill you with homesickness for the realm of ideal forms, and should very much leave you with the sense that you've witnessed something divine, otherwise what is the point of it? it is nothing less than a rope slung between (the aforementioned) primitive yearning and idealistic aspirations,and to quote emerson: 'Things are pretty, graceful, rich, elegant, handsome, but, until they speak to the imagination, not yet beautiful.' beauty must speak to the imagination. when i see a picture of laetitia casta i think of idyllic afternoons in pastoral settings, with the sun pouring down like honey, and streams lined with wildflowers, and creme fraiche and strawberries and handsome lusty tom jones type farmboys. even if i were to only ever see her in tawdry, sleazy environs, i would still have this vision of her in my head. whereas if something makes you think of tawdriness and sleaze, it's probably not beautiful.
fourth, why are you talking about carpenters and what moz gets off on? what does that have to do with beauty???
fifth, there's nothing wrong with a horse face. some of the most beautiful people in the world--gisele, jerry hall, carre otis--have horse faces.
now i recommend you lock yourself in your house and sit and stare at a picture of elise crombez or karen elson and dont stop until you've had an epiphany that has radically reshaped your opinion. it will happen and it will alter everything when it does. this is how I know what beauty is because i have HAD such a revelation, and i promise you, it would not happen if you sat there staring at a picture of jenna jameson or amber heard. you would get precisely NOWHERE staring at a picture of jenna jameson or amber heard.
let me know if you have any further questions!!