Biden is running again, but I am not sure he knows what he is running for.
aren’t you excited over redurbutution, sarc,
Great song by one of the great country songwriters Bobby Braddock (D-I-V-O-R-C-E, He Stopped Loving Her Today, etc.).
A new NBC news poll seems to indicate that Biden would lose 41% to 47% against an “eventual Republican nominee” among registered voters. But it also claims that a majority of people don’t want either Trump or Biden to run again, with 70% saying Biden shouldn’t run and 60% saying Trump shouldn’t run. Of course now we know both of them are running… so yeah. Make of all that what you will. It’s an NBC poll, so who knows?
well it was a janis joplin song I think, close enough,
So I was one of those who really only watched FNC at 8pm to watch Tucker and not necessarily for the entire show,but certainly for the monologue. I’m anxiously awaiting the ratings from last night.
For web news sites I usually go to FN, whatfinger, townhall for more right wing news, but am thinking of dropping the FN. Any suggestions on a replacement. I looked at The Blaze (Glenn Beck)..seems ok, but looking for a site that’s not far right, but a bit more right of center.
Marching on indeed…
Oblivion
“Willfully blind,” the paper said
and all the world knew it was true
though so many refused to acknowledge it
even to themselves
And so the once proud country
now caught in the gears of machinery dedicated to power and party
domination and debasement
slipped ever more closely
circling, spinning
toward the gaping maw of obliteration
“well it was a janis joplin song I think, close enough,”
I think you’re thinking of the band in which she became famous, Big Brother and the Holding Company.
physicsguy, Breitbart seems to have less entertainment news than Fox News on the websites. For me, that’s a plus.
Physicsguy,
I start my day at Instapundit. If something happens (including a worthwhile analytical piece), he/they will have a post about it. I next go to Powerline for their takes and the links they put at the top. If I have time, I’ll scroll through Lucianne to see the headlines posted. Generally, if something worth looking at is out there, one of those three will have a blurb and a link.
I have found that I get a decent feel of the news that way without having to actually endure the pain of watching a news broadcast. But note, for work I have one of the stock market/business channels on all day. So breaking news is there.
@physicsguy: I’m anxiously awaiting the ratings from last night.
Know who’s not? Anyone at Fox News. As long as you have cable, you’re paying them.
If you cancel your cable, and still getting your broadband through a cable provider, you’re STILL paying Fox News. Doesn’t matter if anyone watches.
“Doesn’t matter if anyone watches” …. until it does.
“How did you go bankrupt? Gradually, then suddenly.”
physicsguy. Try newsammo.com. (or is it news-ammo.com?). Only my browser knows for sure.) This non-commercial indy site lists the wide panoply of right-leaning and right-guided web sites headlines. It let’s you choose what you follow, eg, major stories or the off-beat.
It also re-arranges the listing, periodically, which helps defeat casual over-self-direction to the same sites.
Doesn’t matter if anyone watches.
Technically if Fox News viewership were to drop significantly enough it could be a problem for them when they renegpotialte their carriage fees with the various Cable systems. My understanding is that Fox News currently enjoys some of the highest carriage fees in the industry, which obviously they’re able to justify in their negotiations due to their viewership numbers.
And of course the advertising dollars are also dependent on viewership. Even though the carriage fees are a larger source of revenue for FNC, advertising does make up a sizeable chunk. My Point is it’s not entirely true to imply that the people at Fox News don’t care about viewership. Of course they would care if they lost viewership, it’s just that they’re perhaps a bit more insulated due to the nature of the business so they might not feel the pain as quickly as one might expect.
At any rate, while I’ve no doubt Fox will lose some viewers over the whole Tucker thing, I doubt it will hurt them too much… in the shorter term anyway. In the longer term, who knows? I do know that overall television viewership has been on the decline for years now and I expect that trend to continue. The audience for Cable News is only going to dwindle over the coming years anyway, not grow.
SHIREHOME says, “Biden is running again, but I am not sure he knows what he is running for.”
It’s hard for me to picture Brandon as “running” for anything: half the time he shuffles around in circles, and the other half, he stands with one foot planted firmly in his mouth.
Fox is reportedly suffering losses on its digital platform, Fox Nation. That is not tied to its cable carriage fees.
I dubbed him shambling,
Time has marched on for Harry Belafonte, who was 96.
Here’s the “Banana Boat Song” (“Day-O”), which he first performed in 1956:
TV has become a vast wasteland. There isn’t really much that’s worth watching for me. Of course, I’m a member of the Silent Generation and my tastes in entertainments are far different than the average TV viewer of today.
At this point in my life, I want some light comedy, some realistic adventure, and something that makes me think. Not easy to find on today’s TTV fare. So, I have to watch You Tube or streaming to get what I like.
Fox Nation has some good videos. Some of Tucker’s interviews has been great. The nature series is only four episodes but are well done. The series on Yellowstone is excellent. There’s a lot more that I haven’t explored but will probably get around to.
Gutfeld’s show is alright, and I like Laura Ingraham’s show. I’ll still watch those. I’m sorry to see that Fox is moving left. We need more voices on the right, not less.
I agree with Stan, regarding instapundit, but for a pure, U.S. (and world) news source I find the Wall Street Journal quite good. You should be able to get access with your local library card. I do from the St. John’s County Library system. You are probably in Duval, which is an even better system. You might be able to get it on-line there. If not, spending an hour at the local library branch is a nice addition to one’s day.
JJ,
Pluto TV is available for free streaming almost anywhere. I imagine you can even just watch it with your browser. My wife and I often watch “Frasier,” “Wings” and “Cheers” there, as well as decades old broadcasts of “Jeopardy” (I know a lot about the ’80s!). We also watch “Carol Burnett” and “Johnny Carson.”
There are ads, but it’s nice to watch the old classics, even with ads. They also have quite a few news channels, including NewsMax, America 1st, Blaze… Believe it or not, Bill O’Reilly still does a nightly news show on America 1st.
Yesterday huxley mentioned Veronica Lake which sent me to wikipedia to read about her. A lot of sadness in her life. She admitted she neglected her children.
Which got me to thinking; why would men evolve to find unstable women attractive? It seems like a common trait in many in the male species. Veronica Lake, Marilyn Monroe, Mia Farrow, Elizabeth Taylor, Zsa Zsa Gabor, Madonna, Amy Winehouse… I could go on for quite awhile. Women that don’t/didn’t appear to hide their instability at all, but had no problem finding suitors.
And it seems like the more power and money a man has the more likely he is to attempt to pair with a highly unstable woman.
Jeff Bezos’ current flame seems like a firecracker compared to his very stable (and intelligent and attractive) first wife. Elon Musk’s most recent flame and mother of two of his children is a singer named “Grimes.” John Lennon and Yoko Ono…. I could go on for quite awhile.
What’s going on here? Seems counterintuitive.
For ‘news’… updated constantly no advertisements, can post comments (some items), can leave notice for webmaster [Kane, FYI (a stray news item he may have missed)]
why would men evolve to find unstable women attractive?
Rufus T. Firefly:
One theory I have is that it’s the other way around — being attractive, especially movie star attractive, makes women unstable.
Imagine everyone falling all over themselves, since you were a young girl, to do things for you. Such power! Men go nuts for that level of beauty.
How do you maintain your sanity and keep your ego somewhat in check? The rest of us discover early our limits, that others count and we can’t get our way all the time.
But it’s different for beautiful women as long as they remain beautiful. It’s not a bad problem, but it is a problem.
I do admire the beautiful — and handsome — who manage to develop character in spite of their attractiveness.
Of course, I’m sure there are other explanations as well.
I remember the veronica lake reference in la confidential, (a decent noir) re kim basinger, I saw one film which was sort of be witched with robert benchley, as the father figure and frederick march as the governor who is the descendant of witch burners,
huxley; Rufus T. Firefly:
I think the reason many people – men AND women – find unstable people attractive, is that they seem to offer a sense of excitement and surprise, as well as being hard-to-get, which makes people want to rise to the challenge. Not boring, not predictable, not easily won and not easily kept.
Thank you, Rufus T. Sounds like my wife and I would love their selections. I will check it out.
neo,
What you write seems accurate regarding the reasons people would give for pursuing such a person*, I was speculating purely on the evolutionary part. What you write also implies less success in surviving to maturity and raising children who will survive to maturity; i.e. going against Darwinism.
And so many people who marry when they don’t have wealth and power; Frank Sinatra and John Lennon as two examples, leave stable, attractive spouses who are very good partners for head cases like Ava Gardner (or Mia Farrow) or Yoko Ono when they get money and power.
Maybe it’s kind-of like Springboks leaping when pursued by lions. Men want to show they have so much power they can partner with someone unstable and still continue to succeed?
*And I get it. Except for the hard-to-get and not easily kept part, your description fits aspects of my wife’s nature and it is fun.
Rufus, neo:
With agreement to some extent…
However, I submit that while Beautiful and Unstable is a workable, even intoxicating, combination, Ugly and Unstable is not. Especially for women.
Therefore, I would argue that Beauty is the irreducible element of the observed behavior.
Rufus, Huxley, Neo:
With people, it’s never just one thing, but I’d add this:
Crazy, beautiful women are status goods. They’re like buying a Tesla or playing polo. These are things or activities that are meant for display, not for utility. The message is that only a high-status–not always wealthy–man could have such things. If we’re looking for an evolutionary explanation, then we have to ask why the quest for male status has an evolutionary benefit.
huxley, Rufus, Cornflour:
Nope, don’t think so. Beauty just accentuates the behavior’s enticing qualities. It is not necessary. You offer only two categories: beautiful and ugly. But the vast majority of people fall in neither category (male or female, for males it’s “handsome”). Ugly tends not to attract people whether the ugly person is unstable or stable. Beautiful tends to attract a lot of people. But in-between there’s a huge spectrum of attractiveness, and in this middle ground there are plenty of somewhat-attractive-but-not-beautiful people who posses that je ne sais quoi, that frisson of danger and excitement that enhances whatever degree of attractiveness they possess.
I have observed this many many times. It’s one of the reasons women are famous for liking “bad boys.”
And to huxley, because I know you are interested in the French language: I just noticed it’s kind of weird that French seems to be a good language to describe some of this.
…French seems to be a good language to describe some of this.
neo:
For French students the acronym BAGS — Beauty, Age, Goodness, Size — is used as a rule of thumb for noun/adjective word order.
BAGS adjectives precede the noun; non-BAGS adjectives follow the noun.
Thus, the French say:
la jolie femme heureuse — the pretty woman happy
When I learned BAGS I had the thought that BAGS describes the typical human priorities for assessing a lover.
The French!
huxley:
🙂
I would come down primarily on huxley’s side. I don’t think attraction between the sexes is necessarily symmetric. Yes, many women like bad boys. Much less so in the reverse, IMO. I think it is extraordinarily difficult for a girl to become very beautiful at age 12 or 15 (or younger I suppose) and make it into her 30’s without becoming at least moderately screwed up.
To extent that many men go after beautiful women who are unstable, it is mostly that they don’t see or don’t care about the instability.
TommyJay:
I’ve certainly seen men go after unstable women who aren’t beautiful but are at least somewhat attractive. They are often perceived as more exciting, and more of a challenge. The fact that they are unstable doesn’t necessarily come up at first; the person is just seen as more unpredictable, more fun, more impulsive, more daring.
OK, you got me with the “more impulsive, more daring.” True enough.
Somewhat attractive is still attractive, unstable or not. For us visual guys, sorry to say, there is a hard cut-off in there and being “exciting” doesn’t help.
This strikes me as a degrees-of-difference debate which doesn’t get settled.
________________
Returning to Veronica Lake and “I Married a Witch” (1942), I found the whole shebang in decent resolution free on YouTube:
From this film I realized that Dick York had based his role as the pop-eyed, exasperated husband in the “Bewitched” TV show on Fredric March in Rene Clair’s film.
From wiki I learned that Dick York had suffered a terrible, painful back injury in a 1959 film with Gary Cooper, which plagued him throughout his tenure on “Bewitched” and forced him to leave the show.
York was in pain or on the verge of pain throughout all his appearances on “Bewitched.”
Just goes to show, you never can tell.
I haven’t seen I Married a Witch, but I’ve seen This Gun For Hire, The Glass Key, and The Blue Dahlia. All good, but probably not superlative in my book.
The Glass Key was fun for me because the Coen bros. film Miller’s Crossing is sort of a re-make of it. Something I never knew about Miller’s Crossing.
TommyJay:
I’ve been meaning to get to “The Glass Key” and tonight I will do an inventory to see if I’ve already got it on some hard drive. I’m pretty sure I do.
As miguel cervantes mentioned, “L.A. Confidential” had Kim Basinger playing a Veronica Lake look-alike. She was great, though not quite as sexy as the real Veronica Lake as a witch in 1942.
I mostly thought of Veronica as a character in “Archie” comics. She was the stuck-up-brunette-rich-girl versus the All-American-girl-next-door-but-still-beautiful-blonde Betty.
Poor Archie!
huxley:
My point is that the phenomenon is hardly limited to the beautiful. Beautiful is rare, “somewhat attractive” is quite common. Strangely enough, many men are uncomfortable with very beautiful women and much prefer “somewhat attractive” – unstable or not.
Yep. I’ve got “The Glass Key,” but you fortunate souls may also view it gratis:
My point is that there is a visual floor to male attraction and all the excitement in the world won’t make the difference for the unattractive.
I can think of women who are somewhat attractive, though not beautiful, who can leverage their excitement, but ugly women have a really tough time and I can’t think of exceptions.
“Strangely enough, many men are uncomfortable with very beautiful women …”
I’ll confess to that trait. They tend to send my mind spinning. I certainly can control my actions; my mind not so much.
_____
Rereading neo’s 10:09pm comment suggests a breadth of possibilities. For example: A more impulsive and more daring woman could be, ahem, less of a challenge. Also exciting.
huxley:
Exceptions? Exhibit A: Lillian Hellman. See this as well as this. Exhibit B: George Sand. See this.
“Ugly” is a funny thing, though. Unless a person is truly deformed, I think there are very few people who are actually ugly. That includes those two ladies, who are somewhat homely but apparently had their charms.
huxley says, “I can think of women who are somewhat attractive, though not beautiful, who can leverage their excitement, but ugly women have a really tough time and I can’t think of exceptions.”
Here is your French lesson for the day: jolie laide, the French term for a woman who is attractive/ugly. It’s been used in several biographies of the Duchess of Windsor and a 2011 review of one such biography. The reviewer refers to the “the rigidly posed wedding photograph showing Wallis with her snake hips and heavy, jolie-laide features all shadows and angles, the epitome of art deco elegance.”
A good many people who knew Wallis personally could not understand what Edward VIII saw in her, as she was not only not a classic beauty but downright homely in her facial features and large mannish hands. One cousin of the royal family told Edward (the Queen’s youngest son) in a 1996 documentary that while almost any woman could get him aroused when he was a young man, Wallis had the opposite effect: “She was as ugly as an old boot.”
Closeups of Wallis on her wedding day in 1937 begin at 2:33 in this colorized film of the event; see especially 3:30 ff. Jolie laide is maybe the kindest thing you can say about her.
Biden is running again, but I am not sure he knows what he is running for.
aren’t you excited over redurbutution, sarc,
Great song by one of the great country songwriters Bobby Braddock (D-I-V-O-R-C-E, He Stopped Loving Her Today, etc.).
A new NBC news poll seems to indicate that Biden would lose 41% to 47% against an “eventual Republican nominee” among registered voters. But it also claims that a majority of people don’t want either Trump or Biden to run again, with 70% saying Biden shouldn’t run and 60% saying Trump shouldn’t run. Of course now we know both of them are running… so yeah. Make of all that what you will. It’s an NBC poll, so who knows?
https://justthenews.com/government/white-house/democratic-operative-tanden-whose-toxic-tweets-cost-her-omb-post-replace?utm_source=mux&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=tw
Big Brother and the thought police should be the name of a music group. Unfortunately, it’s the reality we live in. AOC is auditioning for a lead role.
https://freebeacon.com/democrats/watch-aoc-calls-for-government-crackdown-on-conservative-journalists/
lets just embiggen the problem
https://twitter.com/VickiMcKenna/status/1650893072484507650
well it was a janis joplin song I think, close enough,
So I was one of those who really only watched FNC at 8pm to watch Tucker and not necessarily for the entire show,but certainly for the monologue. I’m anxiously awaiting the ratings from last night.
For web news sites I usually go to FN, whatfinger, townhall for more right wing news, but am thinking of dropping the FN. Any suggestions on a replacement. I looked at The Blaze (Glenn Beck)..seems ok, but looking for a site that’s not far right, but a bit more right of center.
Marching on indeed…
Oblivion
“Willfully blind,” the paper said
and all the world knew it was true
though so many refused to acknowledge it
even to themselves
And so the once proud country
now caught in the gears of machinery dedicated to power and party
domination and debasement
slipped ever more closely
circling, spinning
toward the gaping maw of obliteration
“well it was a janis joplin song I think, close enough,”
I think you’re thinking of the band in which she became famous, Big Brother and the Holding Company.
physicsguy, Breitbart seems to have less entertainment news than Fox News on the websites. For me, that’s a plus.
Physicsguy,
I start my day at Instapundit. If something happens (including a worthwhile analytical piece), he/they will have a post about it. I next go to Powerline for their takes and the links they put at the top. If I have time, I’ll scroll through Lucianne to see the headlines posted. Generally, if something worth looking at is out there, one of those three will have a blurb and a link.
I have found that I get a decent feel of the news that way without having to actually endure the pain of watching a news broadcast. But note, for work I have one of the stock market/business channels on all day. So breaking news is there.
@physicsguy: I’m anxiously awaiting the ratings from last night.
Know who’s not? Anyone at Fox News. As long as you have cable, you’re paying them.
If you cancel your cable, and still getting your broadband through a cable provider, you’re STILL paying Fox News. Doesn’t matter if anyone watches.
This explains a lot.
See Jordan Peterson on low I.Q at https://www.youtube.com/shorts/mn1m2Q-LYkk
“Doesn’t matter if anyone watches” …. until it does.
“How did you go bankrupt? Gradually, then suddenly.”
physicsguy. Try newsammo.com. (or is it news-ammo.com?). Only my browser knows for sure.) This non-commercial indy site lists the wide panoply of right-leaning and right-guided web sites headlines. It let’s you choose what you follow, eg, major stories or the off-beat.
It also re-arranges the listing, periodically, which helps defeat casual over-self-direction to the same sites.
Doesn’t matter if anyone watches.
Technically if Fox News viewership were to drop significantly enough it could be a problem for them when they renegpotialte their carriage fees with the various Cable systems. My understanding is that Fox News currently enjoys some of the highest carriage fees in the industry, which obviously they’re able to justify in their negotiations due to their viewership numbers.
And of course the advertising dollars are also dependent on viewership. Even though the carriage fees are a larger source of revenue for FNC, advertising does make up a sizeable chunk. My Point is it’s not entirely true to imply that the people at Fox News don’t care about viewership. Of course they would care if they lost viewership, it’s just that they’re perhaps a bit more insulated due to the nature of the business so they might not feel the pain as quickly as one might expect.
At any rate, while I’ve no doubt Fox will lose some viewers over the whole Tucker thing, I doubt it will hurt them too much… in the shorter term anyway. In the longer term, who knows? I do know that overall television viewership has been on the decline for years now and I expect that trend to continue. The audience for Cable News is only going to dwindle over the coming years anyway, not grow.
SHIREHOME says, “Biden is running again, but I am not sure he knows what he is running for.”
It’s hard for me to picture Brandon as “running” for anything: half the time he shuffles around in circles, and the other half, he stands with one foot planted firmly in his mouth.
Fox is reportedly suffering losses on its digital platform, Fox Nation. That is not tied to its cable carriage fees.
I dubbed him shambling,
Time has marched on for Harry Belafonte, who was 96.
Here’s the “Banana Boat Song” (“Day-O”), which he first performed in 1956:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YO7M0Hx_1D8&ab_channel=HarryBelafonte-Topic
TV has become a vast wasteland. There isn’t really much that’s worth watching for me. Of course, I’m a member of the Silent Generation and my tastes in entertainments are far different than the average TV viewer of today.
At this point in my life, I want some light comedy, some realistic adventure, and something that makes me think. Not easy to find on today’s TTV fare. So, I have to watch You Tube or streaming to get what I like.
Fox Nation has some good videos. Some of Tucker’s interviews has been great. The nature series is only four episodes but are well done. The series on Yellowstone is excellent. There’s a lot more that I haven’t explored but will probably get around to.
Gutfeld’s show is alright, and I like Laura Ingraham’s show. I’ll still watch those. I’m sorry to see that Fox is moving left. We need more voices on the right, not less.
Yes, Democrat voters self-identify as evil.
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2023/04/the-daily-chart-authoritarian-democrats.php
physicsguy,
I agree with Stan, regarding instapundit, but for a pure, U.S. (and world) news source I find the Wall Street Journal quite good. You should be able to get access with your local library card. I do from the St. John’s County Library system. You are probably in Duval, which is an even better system. You might be able to get it on-line there. If not, spending an hour at the local library branch is a nice addition to one’s day.
JJ,
Pluto TV is available for free streaming almost anywhere. I imagine you can even just watch it with your browser. My wife and I often watch “Frasier,” “Wings” and “Cheers” there, as well as decades old broadcasts of “Jeopardy” (I know a lot about the ’80s!). We also watch “Carol Burnett” and “Johnny Carson.”
There are ads, but it’s nice to watch the old classics, even with ads. They also have quite a few news channels, including NewsMax, America 1st, Blaze… Believe it or not, Bill O’Reilly still does a nightly news show on America 1st.
It does look like you can get it through your browser: https://pluto.tv/en/live-tv/610c5f80f71f660007a2ad8e
Think I posted the previously – if you want to cut the cable:
TV is free, if get ‘disable ad block’ popup just reopen site. https://tv.ustvgo.live/
Yesterday huxley mentioned Veronica Lake which sent me to wikipedia to read about her. A lot of sadness in her life. She admitted she neglected her children.
Which got me to thinking; why would men evolve to find unstable women attractive? It seems like a common trait in many in the male species. Veronica Lake, Marilyn Monroe, Mia Farrow, Elizabeth Taylor, Zsa Zsa Gabor, Madonna, Amy Winehouse… I could go on for quite awhile. Women that don’t/didn’t appear to hide their instability at all, but had no problem finding suitors.
And it seems like the more power and money a man has the more likely he is to attempt to pair with a highly unstable woman.
Jeff Bezos’ current flame seems like a firecracker compared to his very stable (and intelligent and attractive) first wife. Elon Musk’s most recent flame and mother of two of his children is a singer named “Grimes.” John Lennon and Yoko Ono…. I could go on for quite awhile.
What’s going on here? Seems counterintuitive.
For ‘news’… updated constantly no advertisements, can post comments (some items), can leave notice for webmaster [Kane, FYI (a stray news item he may have missed)]
https://citizenfreepress.com/
why would men evolve to find unstable women attractive?
Rufus T. Firefly:
One theory I have is that it’s the other way around — being attractive, especially movie star attractive, makes women unstable.
Imagine everyone falling all over themselves, since you were a young girl, to do things for you. Such power! Men go nuts for that level of beauty.
How do you maintain your sanity and keep your ego somewhat in check? The rest of us discover early our limits, that others count and we can’t get our way all the time.
But it’s different for beautiful women as long as they remain beautiful. It’s not a bad problem, but it is a problem.
I do admire the beautiful — and handsome — who manage to develop character in spite of their attractiveness.
Of course, I’m sure there are other explanations as well.
I remember the veronica lake reference in la confidential, (a decent noir) re kim basinger, I saw one film which was sort of be witched with robert benchley, as the father figure and frederick march as the governor who is the descendant of witch burners,
huxley; Rufus T. Firefly:
I think the reason many people – men AND women – find unstable people attractive, is that they seem to offer a sense of excitement and surprise, as well as being hard-to-get, which makes people want to rise to the challenge. Not boring, not predictable, not easily won and not easily kept.
Thank you, Rufus T. Sounds like my wife and I would love their selections. I will check it out.
neo,
What you write seems accurate regarding the reasons people would give for pursuing such a person*, I was speculating purely on the evolutionary part. What you write also implies less success in surviving to maturity and raising children who will survive to maturity; i.e. going against Darwinism.
And so many people who marry when they don’t have wealth and power; Frank Sinatra and John Lennon as two examples, leave stable, attractive spouses who are very good partners for head cases like Ava Gardner (or Mia Farrow) or Yoko Ono when they get money and power.
Maybe it’s kind-of like Springboks leaping when pursued by lions. Men want to show they have so much power they can partner with someone unstable and still continue to succeed?
*And I get it. Except for the hard-to-get and not easily kept part, your description fits aspects of my wife’s nature and it is fun.
Rufus, neo:
With agreement to some extent…
However, I submit that while Beautiful and Unstable is a workable, even intoxicating, combination, Ugly and Unstable is not. Especially for women.
Therefore, I would argue that Beauty is the irreducible element of the observed behavior.
Rufus, Huxley, Neo:
With people, it’s never just one thing, but I’d add this:
Crazy, beautiful women are status goods. They’re like buying a Tesla or playing polo. These are things or activities that are meant for display, not for utility. The message is that only a high-status–not always wealthy–man could have such things. If we’re looking for an evolutionary explanation, then we have to ask why the quest for male status has an evolutionary benefit.
huxley, Rufus, Cornflour:
Nope, don’t think so. Beauty just accentuates the behavior’s enticing qualities. It is not necessary. You offer only two categories: beautiful and ugly. But the vast majority of people fall in neither category (male or female, for males it’s “handsome”). Ugly tends not to attract people whether the ugly person is unstable or stable. Beautiful tends to attract a lot of people. But in-between there’s a huge spectrum of attractiveness, and in this middle ground there are plenty of somewhat-attractive-but-not-beautiful people who posses that je ne sais quoi, that frisson of danger and excitement that enhances whatever degree of attractiveness they possess.
I have observed this many many times. It’s one of the reasons women are famous for liking “bad boys.”
And to huxley, because I know you are interested in the French language: I just noticed it’s kind of weird that French seems to be a good language to describe some of this.
…French seems to be a good language to describe some of this.
neo:
For French students the acronym BAGS — Beauty, Age, Goodness, Size — is used as a rule of thumb for noun/adjective word order.
BAGS adjectives precede the noun; non-BAGS adjectives follow the noun.
Thus, the French say:
la jolie femme heureuse — the pretty woman happy
When I learned BAGS I had the thought that BAGS describes the typical human priorities for assessing a lover.
The French!
huxley:
🙂
I would come down primarily on huxley’s side. I don’t think attraction between the sexes is necessarily symmetric. Yes, many women like bad boys. Much less so in the reverse, IMO. I think it is extraordinarily difficult for a girl to become very beautiful at age 12 or 15 (or younger I suppose) and make it into her 30’s without becoming at least moderately screwed up.
To extent that many men go after beautiful women who are unstable, it is mostly that they don’t see or don’t care about the instability.
TommyJay:
I’ve certainly seen men go after unstable women who aren’t beautiful but are at least somewhat attractive. They are often perceived as more exciting, and more of a challenge. The fact that they are unstable doesn’t necessarily come up at first; the person is just seen as more unpredictable, more fun, more impulsive, more daring.
OK, you got me with the “more impulsive, more daring.” True enough.
Somewhat attractive is still attractive, unstable or not. For us visual guys, sorry to say, there is a hard cut-off in there and being “exciting” doesn’t help.
This strikes me as a degrees-of-difference debate which doesn’t get settled.
________________
Returning to Veronica Lake and “I Married a Witch” (1942), I found the whole shebang in decent resolution free on YouTube:
–Rene Clair, “I Married A Witch (1942) Full Movie”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8_McCzDKP0
From this film I realized that Dick York had based his role as the pop-eyed, exasperated husband in the “Bewitched” TV show on Fredric March in Rene Clair’s film.
From wiki I learned that Dick York had suffered a terrible, painful back injury in a 1959 film with Gary Cooper, which plagued him throughout his tenure on “Bewitched” and forced him to leave the show.
York was in pain or on the verge of pain throughout all his appearances on “Bewitched.”
Just goes to show, you never can tell.
I haven’t seen I Married a Witch, but I’ve seen This Gun For Hire, The Glass Key, and The Blue Dahlia. All good, but probably not superlative in my book.
The Glass Key was fun for me because the Coen bros. film Miller’s Crossing is sort of a re-make of it. Something I never knew about Miller’s Crossing.
TommyJay:
I’ve been meaning to get to “The Glass Key” and tonight I will do an inventory to see if I’ve already got it on some hard drive. I’m pretty sure I do.
As miguel cervantes mentioned, “L.A. Confidential” had Kim Basinger playing a Veronica Lake look-alike. She was great, though not quite as sexy as the real Veronica Lake as a witch in 1942.
I mostly thought of Veronica as a character in “Archie” comics. She was the stuck-up-brunette-rich-girl versus the All-American-girl-next-door-but-still-beautiful-blonde Betty.
Poor Archie!
huxley:
My point is that the phenomenon is hardly limited to the beautiful. Beautiful is rare, “somewhat attractive” is quite common. Strangely enough, many men are uncomfortable with very beautiful women and much prefer “somewhat attractive” – unstable or not.
Yep. I’ve got “The Glass Key,” but you fortunate souls may also view it gratis:
https://archive.org/details/the-glass-key-1942
neo:
“Somewhat attractive” is still attractive.
My point is that there is a visual floor to male attraction and all the excitement in the world won’t make the difference for the unattractive.
I can think of women who are somewhat attractive, though not beautiful, who can leverage their excitement, but ugly women have a really tough time and I can’t think of exceptions.
“Strangely enough, many men are uncomfortable with very beautiful women …”
I’ll confess to that trait. They tend to send my mind spinning. I certainly can control my actions; my mind not so much.
_____
Rereading neo’s 10:09pm comment suggests a breadth of possibilities. For example: A more impulsive and more daring woman could be, ahem, less of a challenge. Also exciting.
huxley:
Exceptions? Exhibit A: Lillian Hellman. See this as well as this. Exhibit B: George Sand. See this.
“Ugly” is a funny thing, though. Unless a person is truly deformed, I think there are very few people who are actually ugly. That includes those two ladies, who are somewhat homely but apparently had their charms.
huxley says, “I can think of women who are somewhat attractive, though not beautiful, who can leverage their excitement, but ugly women have a really tough time and I can’t think of exceptions.”
Here is your French lesson for the day: jolie laide, the French term for a woman who is attractive/ugly. It’s been used in several biographies of the Duchess of Windsor and a 2011 review of one such biography. The reviewer refers to the “the rigidly posed wedding photograph showing Wallis with her snake hips and heavy, jolie-laide features all shadows and angles, the epitome of art deco elegance.”
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2011/may/08/untold-story-duchess-windsor-review
A good many people who knew Wallis personally could not understand what Edward VIII saw in her, as she was not only not a classic beauty but downright homely in her facial features and large mannish hands. One cousin of the royal family told Edward (the Queen’s youngest son) in a 1996 documentary that while almost any woman could get him aroused when he was a young man, Wallis had the opposite effect: “She was as ugly as an old boot.”
Closeups of Wallis on her wedding day in 1937 begin at 2:33 in this colorized film of the event; see especially 3:30 ff. Jolie laide is maybe the kindest thing you can say about her.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idd4AelNU3A&ab_channel=RicksFilmRestoration