It's interesting that you thought that might be the reason. I wasn't in anything I said, and as I mentioned in a later post, I don't even know my own reasons (I mean the real, causal ones) for not liking Emma or her dancing.


There are a number of cases of people who seem to lack wit or warmth or whatever in public, yet are known to have plenty of it in more personal circumstances, contrary to mind-reading assumptions that you can, for example, just try listening to what the person says when you see them on tv.

And that people believe they have insight into their motivations doesn't mean they're actually able to correctly identify them. People are affected by a range of cognitive and other biases that they usually don't consider, for instance.

All this stuff about women hating/resenting beautiful women is just so much bs.

The problem is that even in this day and age showbiz (and therefore Strictly) is full of women who've got where they are pretty much solely on their looks and a modicum of competence and not because they have either admirable talent or charismatic personalities. You can't tell me that the likes of Rachel Stevens, Tess Daley, Kelly Brook, Lisa Snowdon, Emma Bunton, Penny Lancaster, Cherie Lunghi etc. would have the careers they have if they didn't look as good as they do.

The thing that most TV producers etc don't seem to have worked out yet though is that most heterosexual women are biologically programmed not to respond to female beauty. We are much more likely to be attracted by warm, charming, witty, charismatic personalities or by talents and intelligence that we can admire. Take away the looks of the women above and what you are left with is a bunch of people with not much talent, not much wit, not much charm and not much personality. The bigger mystery to me is why TV producers etc think other women would be attracted to these women in the first place.

The Aleshas, Jodies, Flavias and Lilias of this world are all stunning beautiful but attract female fans in droves because they are either vastly talented or have great personalities (or both). Women go beyond the looks and consider other parts of the package.

(Interestingly there are still very few men in the world who get where they are on looks alone. We will know that sexism is truly dead when a prime time Saturday night programme is presented by an 80 year old woman who was never very good-looking even in her youth, accompanied by a stunningly attractive male co-host who can just about read the autocue and who is young enough to be her grandson).

I think there are all sorts of factors to take into consideration - not least of all is what the producers want.

Series one was the unknown, but the guidelines seem to have been laid down and the dancing v entertainment scenario set up right from the start, and Natasha found the way to bridge the 2. A bit of romance never hurts, either.

Series 2 - Jill jived. The bar was raised and nothing any of the other dances could do could match that.

Series 3 was geared up for a male winner almost from the get go. The judges comments were along the 'it's harder for the men because they have to lead' line. It was the series that charted the rise of 'The Sportsman' coupled with 'The Journey', and the year the 'best' dancer gave way to the most improved.

Series 4 was always going to be Ramps, the only choice was who made it into the final with him. Louisa wasn't put out by the public. If the final 3 had been the viewers choice, rather than the daft first judges dance off then Emma would have gone. Lots of things not working in Emma's favour, she was overmarked (admitted by Bruno) to keep her safe, she was seen as needed to be kept in to promote the CIN single she was doing that year, and her dances did have the tendency to be samey, relying on a couple of the same moves in every dance. Perhaps if Louisa had been given the nod instead, it could have been a different final, but the winner would be the same. I remember Claudia, in desperatation on ITT saying the studio Christmas trees supported Matt - because all the guests when asked said Ramps to win.

Series 5, and getting a bit desperate now about Journeying Sportsmen. Alesha was the fan-who-made-it-onto-the show. Matt suffered from the overmarking - not just in the semi-final more so from the whole forgotten steps thing.

Series 6 - well, it would be nice for them to have 3 female/3 male winners - and it may even be nice to have a male winner who isn't a sportsman.

In my opinion, you can't look at the winners without looking at the whole picture - the series they were in and the story of that series. The pro-partners may make a difference - although not so much if this year is any indication.

Got it in one!

I would also add Kristina to your list above. In my opinion she is the most beautiful of all the women on SCD this year yet has a legion of female fans.

In my very humble opinion your post has come closest to the real reason some of the women are not popular. Nothing to do with jealousy at all.

And to answer someone else about not being able to warm to some of the contestants. I have said that myself about Cherie, Christine and also Austin. So it is not just reserved for female celebrities. What does it mean? It means they do not move me to support them. I don't dislike them, nor do I hate them. They simply do not appeal to whatever it is my emotional make-up that moved me the way John and Kristina did. Or Jodie and Ian, or Rachel and Vincent do.

My non emotional side wishes all of the remaining celebrities the very best of luck and I will not be sorry to see any of them win. They have worked bloody hard and entertained us all of a Saturday evening. There is no spite in my support of one couple over another, and despite my user name, no bitchiness towards any of the female celebrities or dancers. It is all jolly good fun. We are all so very very different people. Please allow us a choice without accusations of jealousy.

Your first paragraph contradicts your first sentence. First you say you/women in general don't resent beautiful women. And then you say that the number of women who are successful due to looks rather than talent is a "problem". Is it? Why? Why do you sound so angry about it?

I don't resent women who get famous for looks alone. And this is not a problem purely from this "day & age" - it's been with us since time began. Until, in the words of Jane Austen, "men are more philosophic as to the nature of women's charms" women will always get famous just for being beautiful.

What's interesting is you list unacceptable beauties - Kelly Rachel, Emma, Tess, Cherie etc who you claim are famous only because of their looks, & acceptable ones Alesha , Jodie, Flavia who you claim have got famous because of their talent.

Jodie was a supermodel. She got famous purely from her looks. She's a lovely girl - but what's her particular talent? Alesha - gorgeous & a fantastic dancer - while I love her & wish she was on telly more - I don't know that she's any better a singer than Rachel Stevens or Emma - tho' I prefer Alesha's style of music. Flavia & Lilia are good dancer's but then Cherie is a good actress.

So your claim that it's looks versus talent doesn't hold. You appear to have designated some beauties as safe & ok & others not.

The only way Rachel will win is if shes in the final with a Stick of Celery and a sack of spuds dancing against them.

And even then the Celery and Spuds would have more entertainment value and personality.

I think that Austin and Tom are too popular compared to the girls and therefore one of them will almost certainly win. My prediction is that for the next two weeks they will get enough votes to avoid the dance-offs leaving us with two all-girl dance-offs. Rachel will be the one the judges save and will make the semi-final with the two guys.

In the semi-final I expect that one of the guys will make it through to the final automatically and the judges will most likely put Rachel through in the dance-off, giving us a final where we're already pretty sure who will win before we even see the dancing. If this prediction comes true then the real final is between Austin and Tom in the semi-final. Probably the biggest threat to this scenario happening is Christine getting enough public support to put Tom or Austin in a dance-off.

I agree and think we`re heading for a Tom/Rachel final. All I hope is that we see the same scenario as DOI earlier this year when Suzanne was voted the winner over Chris

LMAO.

I've decided that the farce of having a dance off with three people and the impossibly of the person at the bottom getting through should be referred to as getting 'Gethin'd' so I think one of the guys, probably Tom, is going to get Gethin'd in the semi's.

Sorry, that's wrong. They reopened the phone lines for both, and Louisa had the lowest viewer votes. The judges had no say in it at all.

I honestly don't think Rachel will get further than the semis at most. She's been lucky enough to have two dances that really suit her, but I can't see that continuing... I say this with regret as her and Vincent are my favourites. I do want them to get to the semis though- just to see their Argentine Tango.

xx

I think people are getting confused because I think they did ask the judges who they thought should go.... I remember that part distinctly because my mouth dropped open when Bruno- after raving about Louisa week after week- said he'd prefer Emma to stay.... I don't think they decided the outcome- but they were definitely asked what the outcome should be.

xxx

Yup, I can only remember Arlene saying that she was torn between the two (without going back into my archive.)

However that week, Emma did the tango which was very good and Louisa did a rather weak AS so it wasn't a surprising result but obviously rather disappointing for those of us who were getting sick of the Bunton.

That was ridiculous last year. It was possible that Gethin topped the public vote and was still knocked out. He may not have been top, but even if he wasn't the fact remains that it is possible that the viewers choice will not make the final, although I expect the judges do not see a problem with that.

I think the dance off should go once the couples are performing two dances per week. A couple with two great dances could lose out to a couple with one great dance and one poor dance because they only perform their best dance in the dance off. The judges keep telling us that the reason for the dance off is to vote off the bad dancers. Now they're telling us that the bad dancers have all gone now, so surely there is no need for the dance off.

I have to admit I cried when Louisa and Vincent were knocked out! Just such a good partnership and some really wonderful dances as well- their tango and their paso being my highlights.... I just wish we'd have seen them doing the Argentine Tango.....

That was the thing that still beefs me. Sorry. I do think it should be the two most popular couples with the public who should make the final.


Aaaw, she was great. And Vince's AT would have been something.

I think it will be an Austin/ Rachel final. Judges will manipulate it that way.

IMO judges are saying to Tom "dance like that and you will be in the final" *coughs* exactly what they said to Gethin last year, so will be surprised if Tom makes it to the final at the expense of Austin. Judges will save Rachel at all costs.

I'd like to see a Tom/Austin final could be entertaining

I would put a lot of money on a Tom/Austin final.

The mere fact that this thread is here only re-inforces my view that it is a very bad idea to release the voting figures......if the figures are true then the element of surprise has now been lost......voting patterns may now change and move to where the money is in the betting markets(increasing the likelihood of scams) and Rachel and Lisa may as well do a JS and walk......and to think some posters actually believe it`s a good idea to release the figures.....bollocks

Cheers to that. I concur.

I don't see the contradiction at all and think it's indeed a problem when women are successful/celebrated only because of their looks. How many mediocre TV presenters, singers and actresses do we have to sit through who are there just because men find them attractive?

How many truly talented women do we not get to see/hear etc. because they don't meet a very high looks standard which is principally set by male producers? And it's not just in showbiz but basically for all women in the public eye. Do you think Sarah Palin would have got anywhere near running for vice president if she didn't look as she did? I just think it does women a huge disservice when, however, talented you are, it's very difficult to progress if you don't look a certain way.

You say it's always been like this and I agree. However, it's always been like this because it's been men making the decisions. My entire point is that, when left to their own devices, women don't choose based on looks, in the same way thay men don't choose their favourite male TV presenters etc. based on looks. Again you will really know that sexism is dead when women presenters look like Adrian Chiles or John Sergeant or Bruce Forsyth.

And yes it does make me angry when people like you say that if a woman doesn't like a beautiful woman it's because of 'jealousy' or feeling 'threatened'. Again, it's not. It's because if you take the looks of some of these women out of the equation there is nothing much else there which is likable or admirable.

You also completely misquote me. I said nothing before about Alesha/Jodie etc. etc. 'getting famous' because of their talent or personality. Of course they, like pretty much every other woman in the public eye, have got there because they are beautiful. What I did say is that these women have 'female fans in droves' and the reason for this is not their looks but because they also have winning personalities and/or talent and that is why women find them attractive. And yes, I would definitely add Kristina to this list.

No, I wouldn't say Natasha was humble at all - she just fell in love with dancing and it showed. Jill was just a very good dancer and she too was having a ball.

Given that three out of five SCD winners were women, that doesn't sound like the exception to the rule to me.

This discussion started after this post was posted...


...and I just don't see any evidence on here (or in the many other threads we've had on the subject) to really back up the threatened/jealousy theory making a big difference at all.

seems that this thread has fallen into a pointless, circular argument

why not just see what this week brings then re-visit - everything could change with the couples now having to learn two dances per week

anyone could crumble, or suddenly show unforeseen stamina and verve...

bucking the trend, i am female, love rachel and loved alesha and yet don't go for christine at all - analyse that!