what attracts you first?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OrphanPip

That depends on whom you're defining as poor. Are they crack heads or are they lower working class? Because most of the people I grew up around had good teeth and weren't particularly unattractive. Then again, dental care for people on welfare and children is free in Quebec.

---

Yeah, I don't think rural Alberta even has poor people who aren't crack heads, or otherwise ****ed up. There's really only one class of people here, it's really very different from the cities. Aside from the punk crowd, there's very little variation here. In terms of fashion, all you see in GC is big expensive trucks, black hoodies when not wearing bright orange or blue overalls, and toques... toques everywhere...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paradoxical

I wonder if you're not actually working class yourself but trying to come across as some upper crust scion who stands to inherit a small fortune when Mummy and Daddy are gone.

---

No, he really is a fancy partyboy Oxford student as he appears to be, I facebook stalked him once.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexander III

I have good new for you, there is a huge reversal going on right now. For instance at university we have plenty of funny scenarios were in most lectures the lecturers and dressed in jeans and a polo shirt and sneakers and plenty of the student are in blazers and slacks and nice shoes. There is a rise in elegance, just as in the 60's there was a clothing rebellion against the standard order of conformity, now there is the same thing happening again, except the uniform of conformity is now t-shirt, jeans, and sneakers.

---

We saw the same thing in the US during the 1980's with the whole preppy look. It was lame then and it's lame now. It's certainly not rebellion, but rather the very definition of conformity. Dressing conservatively with neat short hair and showing your support of the status quo is the easiest thing to do. It sounds like the professors at your school are way cooler then the students and are probably ordinary, everyday people that others can relate to. I wonder how they view you and your rich friends?

Quote:

---

I didn't think I was going to spark up a debate, because it seemed obvious to me. Besides considering me and emil were talking not about facial features but about manners of dress and cleanliness and hair, it is obvious that I was talking about beauty in that sense. A man who can barley reach the end of the month and have enough money left for food is not going to have beautiful clothes for him and his children, he is not going to take them to salons to get their hair cut, he is not going to give a **** about many affectations which people with more money and more leisure time devote themselves too.

---

Working people sacrifice to dress their kids properly and do whatever they can to give their children every advantage and compete with those who have already had everything handed to them in life. You know full well that you were referring to facial features and you knew that you would spark a debate and derail the thread like you have done in the past. It's your attitude and the way that you say things. It gets under peoples skin.

Quote:

---

Surely one must have a very distorted perception of reality to assume that the poor are just as beautiful as the middle and higher classes. The latter have leisure time and money to devote themselves to pursuing beauty, and higher standards are expected of them socially, while for the poor there are no high social expectations, it is normal being obese and having Walmart clothes.

---

I think it is you who has a very distorted perception of reality. Beauty is found among the poor just as often, if not more often, as the wealthy. You can dress an upper class sociopath up in the finest clothes, give him or her spa treatments and $100 haircuts, etc, but they are still a heartless, narcissistic individual who is very ugly on the inside. We see a lot of that in America.

Quote:

---

Free health care in normal in every civilized nation except the US and now Greece. Besides statistically poverty=obesity in the first world. Also I was not talking about beauty of facial features which one is born with. A bum can have amazing facial features.

---

Other nations are civilized besides First World nations. The so-called Third World countries often have a much older and developed civilization then the plastic, materialistic countries in the West. Why is everything you say so abrasive?

And like your comment about obesity and Wal-Mart clothes, the reason many impoverished people are obese has everything to do with the fact that they are impoverished and cannot afford anything else but high fat, unhealthy food. It is much more expensive to eat healthy compared to the dollar menu at a fast food restaurant. You really do have a lot to learn about the world.

Quote:

---

1) he meant the economic crash has a positive aspect of sobering us up, we in the west have been essentially living in a fantasy land for the last 60 years and the crash woke us up to reality.

---

What fantasy? Having to endure decades of conservative, right-wing economic policy forced on us by the kind of people you admire? That's what led to the crash and you seem to favor a return to the Gilded Age.

Quote:

---

2) Sure why not, I could be working class, I have several working class friends.

---

If that's true, then you need to stop acting like a total ****. And I doubt if you have any working class friends.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Varenne Rodin

In contrast, there are so many ugly wealthy people. All of the money in the world can't make them pretty. Donald Trump. Rush Limbaugh. Penny Marshall. Rosie O'Donnell.

This is obvious, right?

---

That was so good. I agree, many wealthy people do seem ugly. Trump and Rush Limbaugh are perfect examples. Not to mention the atrocious behavior of so many wealthy people. Rush getting caught trying to enter the Dominican Republic with a suitcase full of Viagra and condoms, for instance.

I also liked what you said about Jewel and Michael J Fox. Many people don't realize what it's like to live in a place that has almost no social safety net. Almost anyone can go straight to the bottom if they don't have friends or family to help them out.

We saw the same thing in the US during the 1980's with the whole preppy look. It was lame then and it's lame now. It's certainly not rebellion, but rather the very definition of conformity. Dressing conservatively with neat short hair and showing your support of the status quo is the easiest thing to do. It sounds like the professors at your school are way cooler then the students and are probably ordinary, everyday people that others can relate to. I wonder how they view you and your rich friends?

There is no set permanent standard of "conservative dress". In all reality it is likely that the professors Alex speaks of are just as "conservative" as the students in that both are attempting to conform with the culture that they associate themselves with. Your assumption that the professors are everyday, ordinary people that one might easily relate to (as opposed to the students) is every bit as snobbish as Alex' assertion that the students have a greater sense of taste than their elders.

Working people sacrifice to dress their kids properly and do whatever they can to give their children every advantage and compete with those who have already had everything handed to them in life.

Is that a fact? You know this from experience with the working class... to say nothing of the "poor" who don't work? I have no doubt that many working class parents do indeed struggle to give their children every advantage... however, having spent some 15 years teaching children who live beneath the poverty-line I ca assure you that a good many of such parents are of the opposite mind. They use assistance money to pay for expensive hairstyles, manicures, pedicures, and cars while their children often wear clothes that haven't been washed in a week.

You know full well that you were referring to facial features and you knew that you would spark a debate and derail the thread like you have done in the past. It's your attitude and the way that you say things. It gets under peoples skin.

Alex has his moments, but I must say that again you are making some rather questionable assumptions about what he intended. Some time back Alex started a large (and often heated) thread touching upon the issue of fashion or dress and how it impacts our initial perceptions of another person. I must fully agree with him; the wealthy have the advantage of being able to purchase expensive clothing... and have these properly tailored to suit their body. They can afford the time and the expense of a gym, healthy food, top quality hair-stylists and cosmetics, etc... One need only think of the average Hollywood actor/actress or even the Playboy centerfold and imagine how much more "average" they would appear without all the advantages of proper cosmetics, clothing, etc... You must also consider the issue of education. How many of the working poor or those living in poverty are well-educated?

Beyond protection from the elements it should be obvious that one of the primary fictions of fashion is "illusion"... to create the "illusion" of wealth, or health, or taste, or the identification with a given social group. One need only think how one dresses when going out on a "big date" or a big job application as opposed to day to day dress.

I think it is you who has a very distorted perception of reality. Beauty is found among the poor just as often, if not more often, as the wealthy. You can dress an upper class sociopath up in the finest clothes, give him or her spa treatments and $100 haircuts, etc, but they are still a heartless, narcissistic individual who is very ugly on the inside. We see a lot of that in America.

I don't think Alex is in any way asserting a moral superiority of the wealthy. He is simply stating the fact that those with wealth have the advantage of the time and excess wealth needed to dress fine. That is reality. Honestly, your assumptions about the rich are just as snobbish as anything Alex has suggested.

Other nations are civilized besides First World nations. The so-called Third World countries often have a much older and developed civilization then the plastic, materialistic countries in the West. Why is everything you say so abrasive?

You have to be 19, right. It's only naive college kids reiterating everything that their Marxist professors have taught them that buy into this notion that the West is this great materialistic and spiritually bankrupt culture as opposed to who? China? India? Japan?

And like your comment about obesity and Wal-Mart clothes, the reason many impoverished people are obese has everything to do with the fact that they are impoverished and cannot afford anything else but high fat, unhealthy food. It is much more expensive to eat healthy compared to the dollar menu at a fast food restaurant. You really do have a lot to learn about the world.

I thought Alex had suggested as much when he stated: "A man who can barely reach the end of the month and have enough money left for food is not going to have beautiful clothes for him and his children, he is not going to take them to salons to get their hair cut, he is not going to give a **** about many affectations which people with more money and more leisure time devote themselves too."

What fantasy? Having to endure decades of conservative, right-wing economic policy forced on us by the kind of people you admire? That's what led to the crash and you seem to favor a return to the Gilded Age.

While I probably lean far further to the left than Alex... and certainly than Emil... I wouldn't lay this economic debacle solely upon Conservatives or Liberals... Republicans or Democrats. There's more than enough blame to go around to all parties concerned.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paradoxical

Rush getting caught trying to enter the Dominican Republic with a suitcase full of Viagra and condoms, for instance.

---

So the guy likes to have a good time on holiday.

I have noticed girls from sink estates who would be beautiful but for a hardness in their face. It is like they are marked with poverty.

Idk, poor people can often pull off an appearance of authenticity that is, at least for me, far more appealing than the deliberately constructed pretensions of the upper classes.

I've mingled with the poor and rich from the worst public schools to one of the best private schools and Uni in the country, and I have to say there is very little to like about rich people, no matter how nice their clothes look, especially since the fashion is nothing more than a symbol of class inclusion.\

Edit: I should maybe amend that to be the "children of rich people."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OrphanPip

Idk, poor people can often pull off an appearance of authenticity that is, at least for me, far more appealing than the deliberately constructed pretensions of the upper classes.

I've mingled with the poor and rich from the worst public schools to one of the best private schools and Uni in the country, and I have to say there is very little to like about rich people, no matter how nice their clothes look, especially since the fashion is nothing more than a symbol of class inclusion.\

Edit: I should maybe amend that to be the "children of rich people."

---

This is a purely subjective opinion and that's fine, for it is usually better to rely on one's own observations, rather than those of statisticians. However, if it is based on a relatively short timeline and formed on observation of a very small population relative to the size of the country concerned, its value in relation to the original post is bound to be limited.

What does it matter if Pip would rather hang out with poor people than rich people? I agree with him. Rich people are often all around unpleasant company. The only reason they have company is because they have money, nine times out of ten.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Emil Miller

This is a purely subjective opinion and that's fine, for it is usually better to rely on one's own observations, rather than those of statisticians. However, if it is based on a relatively short timeline and formed on observation of a very small population relative to the size of the country concerned, its value in relation to the original post is bound to be limited.

---

What OrphanPip said is true. That's why it bothers you, and you know it. You can say that his opinion is purely subjective, but what about you and Alexander III? Are we to believe your views are based on objective data and not your own snobbish attitudes toward the poor? You act as though you have conducted sociological research when all you ever mention in the thread was being upset because people don't dress "appropriately" on the London Underground. And as far as its value in relation to the original post, the entire thread has already been completed derailed and no longer has anything to do with the original topic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf

Me, I love arrogance. Everyone else seems to hate conciet but I have no idea why. It's interesting, way more intersting than self-deprication.

---

Why, thankyou Juniper ;)

This poor/wealthy thing - I've been dirt poor (try 200 bucks beneath the poverty line and living in a tent for six months, not by choice), and I still managed to eat well and shower, though clothing was a matter of luck (if an opshop had something nice for a bargain price).

It seems a lot of this discussion seems to forget the luck element in a person's life - who they do and don't know, what their family is able to teach them, and so forth.

There are 'ugly' actors who are generally just normal people having a bit of fun and maybe a bit of earning. I remember one character actor who kept appearing as the bad guy in tv shows, his face badly acne scarred and the lighting always accentuated the bass-relief. I saw an interview with him once and his personality blew my misconceptions out of the water. He was side-splittingly hysterical as a person, and I doubt that it was a matter of compensation because there was nothing forced about it. He'd just dealt with the hand that was ah dealt to him. It must take a lot of self-confidence to try to enter the preserve of the so-called beautiful people. But again, perhaps he was initially plucked off the street to purpose play a villain, and just happened to be a natural at acting (which face it, isn't that difficult with the right director), but equally he may have gone through juliard thingy. I wish I knew his name to put up a photo - I'll do it if I remember

But maybe that's what it is - people respect self-confidence, and success stories forget that half of their success they owe to blind luck.

...poor people can often pull off an appearance of authenticity that is, at least for me, far more appealing than the deliberately constructed pretensions of the upper classes.

So you are trying to suggest that the ghetto "hood" look cultivated among rappers (and my students) and based upon the "style" of urban gangs is more "authentic" and less about aspiring to associate oneself with a certain social caste? You really believe that?

http://vinnykumar.com/wp-content/upl...8fae61bbfd.jpg

And it's far more "appealing" as well. No doubt this is an equally "appealing" fashion statement:

http://localism.com/image_store/uplo...3348256134.jpg

Or this:

http://www.metalrulesmagazine.com/pi...foto01_400.jpg

Unless an individual gives no thought to how he or she dresses... I would say that it doesn't matter whether one is poor or rich... fashion choices make a clear statement about the aspirations of the individual and which social groups he or she wishes to associate with.

I've mingled with the poor and rich from the worst public schools to one of the best private schools and Uni in the country, and I have to say there is very little to like about rich people, no matter how nice their clothes look, especially since the fashion is nothing more than a symbol of class inclusion.

C'mon Pip... fashion is a symbol of class inclusion regardless of class. Honestly, I have been around rich and poor and found an equal share of jerks in either class.

There are 'ugly' actors who are generally just normal people having a bit of fun and maybe a bit of earning. I remember one character actor who kept appearing as the bad guy in tv shows, his face badly acne scarred and the lighting always accentuated the bass-relief. I saw an interview with him once and his personality blew my misconceptions out of the water. He was side-splittingly hysterical as a person, and I doubt that it was a matter of compensation because there was nothing forced about it. He'd just dealt with the hand that was ah dealt to him.

C'mon.... Karl Malden was one of the greatest actors:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ss_trailer.jpg

Willem Dafoe?

http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV...0,214,314_.jpg

Vincent Schiavelli?

http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV...0,214,314_.jpg

Steve Buscemi? How's this for a high-school photo?

http://i2.listal.com/image/1532222/6...ve-buscemi.jpg

Ron Perlman?

http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV...0,214,314_.jpg

Danny Trejo?

http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV...0,214,314_.jpg

Bette Davis? Even the finest Hollywood makeup and camera-work could only go so far:

http://www.findadeath.com/Deceased/d...20portrait.jpg

And what about Ernest Borgnine?

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_bE7Mw-gkKG.../J2KTD00Z.jpeg

Tilda Swinton?

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/...winton-007.jpg

Kathy Kinney (ack!!!)

http://whatever.losito.net/images/mimi.jpg

My point has pretty much been made for me. Being rich doesn't make people beautiful. Being poor doesn't make them ugly. Poor choices and socio-cultural traditions? Sure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paradoxical

We saw the same thing in the US during the 1980's with the whole preppy look. It was lame then and it's lame now. It's certainly not rebellion, but rather the very definition of conformity.

---

Not really. It's more like a pendulum of reacting against one's parents. You can trace it through history, the 20th being a good example because it was most recent. Wild flappers, then prissy pinched-weist housewives, then dirty hippies, then upscale yuppies, then grunge, and now we're getting back to dressing fancy (polo shirts as far as the eye can see). Back and forth, from well-groomed and conservatively dressed to sloppy and scandalous. It doesn't have anything to do with "conformity," and it's all pretty predictable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paradoxical

It's your attitude and the way that you say things. It gets under peoples skin.

---

Alex has a brusque and honest way about him, not everyone can have the same personality (thankfully). If he gets under your skin that's your problem, you're going to get our thread closed if you start getting personal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paradoxical

Working people sacrifice to dress their kids properly and do whatever they can to give their children every advantage and compete with those who have already had everything handed to them in life.

---

Yes, those "working people" are sweethearts, aren't they? Why, I've never once met a labourer who was a sh*thead.

Oh wait, there are good people and sh*theads from every walk of life and making automatic judgements about people's moral values and work ethic based on their social class is ridiculous.

I come from a "working class" town, and I think there are some people in this thread operating under strong misconceptions who have very limited exposure to actual "working class" life. "Working class" doesn't mean "struggling." My town has 3200 people, all of whom are dependant on the oil patch, the coal mine, or the lumber mill - and we have four spas, two gyms and three high-end clothing stores where you can't buy a wristband for under $100. Having a job pulling minerals out of the ground or operating a machine doesn't exclude you from having manicured nails and a $400 trip to the hair salon every two weeks, or having a $200,000 home (the average in GC), or having two or more vehicles and going on out-of-country vacations. This is a description of what I've come to see as normal life in my location, so could we please stop talking about the "working class" like they're a bunch of underpriveledged, simpleton ditch diggers with good ol' down home country values? This isn't the ****ing Grapes of Wrath. They have the wiggle-room and resources available to afford and persue their own interests and develop individual personalities, like human beings and not like stock characters in a Dickens novel. *mom-ish fingerwag* You're stereotyping.

Mmm nice rant Juniper. Can I just say the following is an outrageous generalisation formed from limited contact with those I am about to praise and traduce. Also please remember this thread is about attraction, which is not a moral concept. I was brought up as one of seven children on Family Allowance, free school dinners and clothing coupons. BUT the home was stable loving and rural.

Rich girls, or well brought up girls, are open and entitled, they are used to getting what they want, they are confident of success and are prepared to work hard for it. they know what possibilities are out there. They expect to have their share. They can retain a youthful niavety for longer, they seem vibrant and attractive.

Those who have a bad upbringing in a poor souless place, expect to be kicked back, they grow up being given no respect and so don't expect any. They develop a shell, a defence mechanism of not caring, they may put on a front of aggression, they always seem guarded. They are said to have "attitude" (the bad sort.) It all shows in their faces. They are defeated before they start. I find them less attractive. but don't like myself for finding them so.