Hot or Not? (Now with Bonus Slave Leia)

Judging by comment traffic and Rotten Chestnuts’ continuing unconscionable exclusion from those “best blogs” lists — 6 years and running! — all y’all are interested in is hot chicks and Fascism (probably in that order).  Let it never be said I’m too good to pander.  Without further ado, can someone among the Seven Readers please explain to me why this is supposed to be attractive?

downloadThat’s the Harry Potter chick showing some skin in Vanity Fair.  To say I’ve seen better is a real understatement.  Not the skin itself — though that’s subpar, too — but… is this gal really supposed to be attractive?  Note the similar jawline and stoner-with-a-concussion expression on Twilight’s Kristen Stewart, another girl I’m told is hot:

kristen-stewart-want-s-to-be-part-of-captain-americaNow, this is not some affected PUA thing, where I criticize some scorchingly hot babe for having “pointy elbows” or something.  Ms. Stewart and Ms. Watson are pretty enough, and wouldn’t lack for male attention at the company happy hour if they were a couple of office drones.  But they’re supposed to be jaw-droppingly gorgeous movie stars.  Sorry, I just don’t see it.

I suspect the Michelle Obama effect.  For political reasons, y’all will recall, the entire media insisted that the former First Lady was just gorgeous, and would pillory anyone who said otherwise.  My guess is that Watson and Stewart are, like Mrs. Obama, juuuust pretty enough to serve as aspirational figures for office workerettes everywhere.  This

7fe3c9a092fa4e6bd2fb890225d3c477is out of reach, but with a little work this

kristen-stewart-in-triangle-bikini-top-photo-u1is within reach.

Thoughts?

Oh, yeah…and, um, Nazis.

6 thoughts on “Hot or Not? (Now with Bonus Slave Leia)

  1. My suspicions with the Vanity Fair cover is that the media is currently trying to push/take advantage of the “genderless” phenomenon that liberal media alone is responsible for making “a thing.”

    As for Miss Stewart, she can’t act either. I long ago threw her in the discount bin of b-level actor/actresses.

  2. Two things, the girl w/in reach – I wonder what kind of boat she’s on and are those marijuana plant images on her boobs? I agree that she is the pick of the litter.

  3. Meh. I think it’s just the “Harry Potter” effect you see at political protests. If your history starts with Harry Potter, then the Harry Potter chick gets bonus points. So it goes…….

  4. Ms. Watson is actually quite fetching… or I should be more precise, she *can be* quite fetching, but Vanity Fair decided to make her up like a zombie mannequin, drain all color from their photos of her, and keep her from smiling. Alas, Ms. Stewart has never seemed capable of much else, even before she actually played an undead person in a movie. In fact, there’s a handy meme that made the rounds several years back comparing the two of them.

    One should note that Ms. Watson was probably mid-teens at the time, but prurient interests aside, which of these people seems more worth talking with? Who seems like someone you could get to know and not regret it later?

    I guarantee you and the other Five Regular Readers, VF and Emma did this on purpose, because beauty isn’t beautiful anymore – the whole point is to actively be anti-alluring, to ward off the Evil Male Gaze. That’s “feminism,” and the delicious schaedenfreudish nougat in this turd bar is that it wasn’t enough for the feministas, who promptly took Ms. Watson to task even though she thought she checked off all the required boxes to be considered Empowered for being unattractively nude in print. She was better off just being herself and being hated for something right, instead of for something insufficiently wrong.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *