I agree with you but only in the context of television programmes and movies. In real life we side with those we know and trust, irrespective of whether they are considered attractive or not.

A lot of TV programmes and films show the less pretty one as the most trustworthy. They are usually gorgeous anyway but just not 'as gorgeous' as the one that turns out to be a bitch.

I liked Rebecca before this programme. But now I really feel that she has been manipulated into playing victim card. Unfortunately, she now comes across as someone I would not trust at all. Whereas I think Amy is quite straightforward and I would find her easy to get on with.

It looks like you don't have a very good source for the "biggest factor" claim. In any case, it seems to be about what "separates the good from the great". The biggest factor in that difference could easily fail to be the biggest factor overall.

Do you really think that all Amy has to do to look like she does is "tidy her eyebrows and condition her hair"?

It's interesting that we're often told models have to starve themselves, spend frequent hours in the gym, etc, to get a look that isn't natural and gives girls an unrealistic view of what they should look like, yet now we're supposed to believe instead that it's almost completely effortless and they look that way naturally.


I would suggest that Rebecca's body may equip her for swimming in much the same way that height equips someone for basketball. And the role of luck would not stop there. She'd also be lucky in being the sort of person who would put in the "thousands of weary hours" (though I suspect she rather likes swimming and may not have found them so weary -- if so, she's lucky that's she's like that too). That is not the end of it either. She was also fortunate in having supportive parents, access to good facilities and training, and so on. She began swimming as a child and I suspect her talent was recognised and encouraged -- fortunately.

My question is how all of this debate can become so 'deep' after 5 minutes of footage?

So much of it is supposition and not fact.

People are clearly taking sides and making up their minds very quickly.

Why?

Is it because minds were already made up beforehand and just ready to pounce when given a chance to showcase their point of view?

I really can't believe that all these 'young'....and yes they are young women, are being denigrated to hell for appearing to be on one side or another when really probably neither fully understands the hell of the beauty industry and the market that underlies the real profit makers.

They and many of us are and still remain ignorant to this fact. But let's all argue about the semantics of a five minute edit.

I would suggest that Rebecca's body may equip her for swimming in much the same way that height equips someone for basketball. And the role of luck would not stop there. She'd also be lucky in being the sort of person who would put in the "thousands of weary hours" (though I suspect she rather likes swimming and may not have found them so weary -- if so, she's lucky that's she's like that too). That is not the end of it either. She was also fortunate in having supportive parents, access to good facilities and training, and so on. She began swimming as a child and I suspect her talent was recognised and encouraged -- fortunately.[/quote]

I totally agree. Rebecca is very fortunate in having all the right elements hit the spot. Now we are meant to feel sorry for her because she's not beautiful. I'm not saying she has done this, but the programme seems to be going along the lines of 'poor Rebecca'. It is not doing her any favours at all.

Amy has decided her 'beauty' is her commodity for however long it sustains her. She comes across as quite an intelligent girl. Make hay while the sun shines. I like her and I thought I would like Rebecca more than I do. Nothing to do with her looks folks. Just playing some kind of victim card and I just cannot abide it.

BIB1: Because she's a normal person? You say her looks have nothing to do with her achievement, which is true, but she is still the same as everyone else in that bad remarks about their looks will hurt.

BIB2: You're joking? As above - she's a normal girl who liked a boyband in her teens.

@bbnutnut

I agree with you when it comes to the sympathy card role. I lose respect for anyone who can't fight against the odds....whatever those odds may be.

In Rebecca's case, the demons seem to be her looks (her perception of herself).

Now I'm being honest when I say that I judge everyone on these shows as soon as they enter and could care less about their past.

But Rebecca has disappointed me in showing that she can't combat her biggest fear.........i.e. how she looks and comparing herself to others....in this case, namely Amy.

What a shame.

I want her to fight her fears in the jungle. And it's not spiders and other crawlies she needs to combat.

However, I really refuse to hold out to a mug who won't fight their corner and realise their inner strength. Nor by the same margin be fooled by anyone using their attributes to take advantage over weaker people.

So to me, Rebecca needs to grow a backbone. And Amy needs to learn to be more humanitarian (not just act like one)

But in what way was Amy not humanitarian? Amy told Rebecca that she also gets hate stuff on her Twitter, stupid stuff that means absolutely nothing to her. They can call her names until they are blue in the face, means nothing.

If Rebecca chooses to let that kind of stuff get to her, it has absolutely nothing to do with Amy. It's all in the mindset.

I think those are good points. But there is a complication. Often, where the less good-looking have their looks attacked / criticised / mocked, the better looking are attacked in some other way (their looks not being so obvious a target), even when both are being judged largely by their looks.


It's not quite true that no one ever attacked Emma Bunton in the showbiz forum. Besides, she has been attacked in other forums, and attacking Lana Del Ray was a small industry for quite a while (including attacks on her looks). Portia di Rossi and her looks have attacked, with people thinking she turned weird looking, had botoxed the emotion out of her face, and so on. I could probably find attacks on the others too, if I looked.

In any case, I am suspicious of qualifications such as "have a decent professional reputation". That one's even a bit circular, since attacks can mean they don't have a decent enough professional rep.

Re "No one gets torn apart just for being beautiful", sure, there's usually something else that they're supposedly being attacked for (though it can be as trivial as hair-flicking), but their looks can be a significant causal reason for the attacks,


I think you are sometimes seeing an equivalence when all that's meant is an analogy or a relevant similarity.

ignore

Amy has nothing to apologise for.

Women are a strange breed sometimes.

I just don't get why someone like Rebecca Adlington, who has an OBE & an Olympic gold medal, or Lucy, who is an established actress would have an issue with Amy or the industry she is in.

In a decade from now, nobody will remember who Amy Willerton was, whereas Rebecca Adlington will be remembered for years thanks to her achievements.

I think you took the 'who wouldn't' too literally. Amy has natural beauty so she's using it to her advantage.

Of course beautiful people choose to do other things with their lives it would be stupid to think otherwise.

I wouldn't down on someone for whatever path they chose in life. It isn't my right to sit in judgement of what people chose for their career however much I may not agree with it.

BTW, I don't disagree with what Amy is doing. I do however, disagree with folk that think they are above another just because in their own opinion, their chosen profession is deemed superior by some.

One of the most telling quotes of the episode was IMO Laila's " You are worth far more then she is "
Why would that be ? Is a gold medal a measure of someones worth or how would Laila make a judgement about who is better than who .? Laila was IMO putting down the pretty girl and making an assumption .

To be fair, you don't know that since who knows what Amy'll be doing in 10 years time? You're making an assumption that her career will have ended and she'll have long fallen below the radar. She might eg. start a very successful business and become a Dragon on Dragon's Den or its equivalent for all you know. Just sayin'.

I still think that was just Mo comforting Rebecca and trying to make her feel better about herself, and not meant as a slur on Amy. JMO.

Exactly!

I had no clue who Rebecca was until she won her medals. Had she not have won them and then appeared on Celebrity, I would have had to google who she was. So it's a tad unfair to say Amy may not amount to much further down the line. No one knows what's in store in the future.

It still was a slur on Amy though and it made the assumption that Amy had deliberately set out to upset Rebecca. It's the sort of thing you would say to someone who HAD been bullied.

Veri I think you speak a lot of sense. I largely echo your thoughts re the above and indeed your comments in your other posts I've seen.

I agree, that's how it came across, but all I'm saying is that I don't think Mo meant it in that way and that it was just random spur-of-the-moment comfort talk to make Rebecca feel better.

I can't recall seeing Mo and Amy chatting so I've not idea how they get along but I also haven't seen anything that suggests that there's any ongoing antagonism there.

I guess we'll see as time goes on.