Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:She has the most spectacular rack I've ever seen . They are mesmerizing.
Yes, but outside of porn and strip shows, the actor’s face matters. Hers is not pretty enough to really make it in Hollywood.
Have you ever seen Gilda Radner?
I have and I think her face is much more interesting and prettier than Sydney Sweeney’s. (This sounds so mean, but Sydney Sweeney’s face makes me think of fetal alcohol syndrome.) Plus, Gilda was a stand up comic. That’s different.
She is broadly regarded as one of the hottest actresses by Gen Z. And in fact, that bonked in the head look is considered a positive. Gen Z goes nuts for that sleepy eyed look.
But that is part of attractiveness. She has a great figure. No, her face, unadorned with makeup, is not the greatest. BUT that reminds me of women who say things like, "There are no great male movie stars around anymore like Clark Gable."
Me: "So, you don't think Tom Hanks is a great actor and star?"
Them: "Oh, he's not attractive."
Me: "Aw, so we're not talking about acting but looks."
But, yes. Ignore the body and just look at the face, unadorned by any makeup, and Sweeney isn't super attractive- just like half the star actresses and super models in history.
Well clearly Gen Z has bad taste. Thankfully, the generation below, the little kids, seem to have had enough of ugly and weird (and in the case of Sydney Sweeney, congenitally impaired). My 6 and 8 year olds are legitimately afraid to go inside a Target, even for the toys, because of the ugly models on the walls. My 8 year old goes nuts about how ugly they are and asks, “Is that even a boy or a girl because I can’t tell. Whatever it is, why are they so ugly? Aren’t models supposed to look nice?” And aren’t Hollywood stars supposed to also? Sydney Sweeney does not.