Courtney Cox's fake boobs - Page 3

Karizma · April 19th, 2006, 03:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WickedHo

^^ Hi, Gwynneth!

I don't know about Courtney's breasts, she is really thin but she could be like Angelina, thin with big breasts. On the other hand, Lisa's Kudrow breasts look really fake.

khaebs · April 19th, 2006, 11:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Karizma

I don't know about Courtney's breasts, she is really thin but she could be like Angelina, thin with big breasts. On the other hand, Lisa's Kudrow breasts look really fake.

I thought that too, about Lisa Kudrow. Or maybe she got a lift. Something just didn't look right about them

asina · April 20th, 2006, 01:54 AM

I don't like fake boobs at all....
They almost never look good.

Grimmlok · April 22nd, 2006, 08:02 AM

She looks like Margot Kidder before the crazy.

drdisaia · April 24th, 2006, 09:57 AM

If there is a debate, then they can't look too fake can they? They look fine to me. I met her years ago and at the time she was pretty flat up top.

Best Regards,

John Di Saia MD

ourmaninBusan · April 24th, 2006, 10:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grimmlok

She looks like Margot Kidder before the crazy.

Does this mean we're in for some crazy? That could be very
entertaining, especially if Aniston snaps at the same time.

asina · April 26th, 2006, 11:00 PM

Plastic surgery is part of the reason why REAL beauty is becoming a thing of the past....

khaebs · April 27th, 2006, 11:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by asina

Plastic surgery is part of the reason why REAL beauty is becoming a thing of the past....

Totally. It sets the standard of beauty to something that our children will never be able to attain without getting plastic surgery. I mean the whole point of being attracted to someone is so that you might pass on those good genes to your children. Plastic surgery goes against all that.

khaebs · April 27th, 2006, 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MonkeyMix

That's ok. I am sure they are working in plastic surgery in utero.

I know, right? Next thing you know we'll be getting DNA injections for blue eyes, blonde hair, and tan skin

cherub · April 28th, 2006, 02:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by khaebs

Totally. It sets the standard of beauty to something that our children will never be able to attain without getting plastic surgery. I mean the whole point of being attracted to someone is so that you might pass on those good genes to your children. Plastic surgery goes against all that.

I completely agree with the first part of this statment, but not the rest. I do think that the current standard of beauty is much too high these days and has become an ideal that few can live up to, with or without a surgeon. It has destroyed what we should think of as beautiful and we need to get back to that. However, I constantly see people on these forums who are propagating the worst of it. I'm really tired of perfectly attractive people (celebrities, models, etc, some of which have not had anything surgical done) being called "fugly" when they are not, or picking apart the natural features on a beautiful person as if they are seriously flawed. I wonder if the people who are saying these things could live up to there own standards. Maybe it's just me, but I don't care whether they are celebrities or not, I still think these comments are not only rude and callous, but not the least bit accurate most of the time. What kind of ridiculous standard is this?

As for the second part of the statement, procreation is certainly not the reason or "whole point" for my attraction to someone. In fact, it's not even in the equation. I can assure you that the last thing on my mind when I have feelings and an attraction to someone is passing on their genes to my children. In fact. some of us aren't even interested in having children. My interest in them is purely mine alone.

bella · April 28th, 2006, 04:38 AM

Well said Cherub, but I do understand the point khaebs was making too. I suppose our reason for existance is to pro-create and we're supposed to help the human race evolve, by producing the best 'specimens' possible, so on some unconcious level in theory attractiveness is what we look for with regards to extending our gene pool.

asina · April 28th, 2006, 04:50 AM

Am I the only one who has noticed that people often look WORSE after plastic surgery than they did before?
Unless you have some type of deformity, you should not get plastic surgery. A nose job will often just make your nose look sculpted and unnaturally slim; a boob job often just makes your tits look out of proportion and unnaturally shaped; collogen often just makes your lips look fat and unnaturally large.

And besides -- a person's "flaws" can often actually CONTRIBUTE to his or her beauty, in a weird way. I find a person with "perfect" features to be rather boring. There's got to be something a little distinctive about you.

Would Audrey Hepburn have been so beautiful with breast implants and lip injections? No, she would have been different. And yet, I'll bet that if she were in Hollywood today, those are the things they'd pressure her to get.

khaebs · April 28th, 2006, 11:10 AM

Cherub, I see what you are saying but let me explain my position. I am a scientist, and from a biological point of view, there is a reason why our genes are programmed to search for attractive mates and procreate. Trust me that is the reason your genes have survived for as long as they did. If there was no desire to mate with the "fittest" in the gene pool, then there would be no survival of genes. So whether you realize it or not, that is the reason people desire certain traits in other people. Now that said, survival of the fittest is the reason we are here today. And yes, plastic surgery goes against that. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, just that it isn't natural selection. It makes me wonder what the gene pool will be like in future generations.

cherub · April 29th, 2006, 07:43 PM

I understand your position. It is the reason I gave up my studies to become a biologist. I was never able to convince myself that everything could be reduced to a subconscious molecular or evolutionary perspective, so I chose a different path. I just hold a different position, that's all. But I do appreciate your explanation, even though I don't agree. The interesting thing is that we can be attracted to people who are not attractive (or who would generally not be considered the standard of attractive) because of their spirit. That is human nature at it's best. The other is human nature at it's worst. We are also all attracted to different things, so then how do we define or determine what is attractive and why are we allowing society to determine it for us? Perhaps what is attractive to one is extremely unappealing to another. So, you could say that unattractive people can be just as successful at procreating as attractive people. Look around. Often it is the most unattractive people who have the most children. Attractive people, being absorbed in their own lives, often are not interested in giving of themselves to a child. I personally would choose a man with a beautiful heart and loving nature, who is stable and trustworthy, if I was going to have children. Looks would be secondary if those were my intentions. I am also repulsed by men I find attractive physically but who have crude, self-centered, or ugly personalities. I wouldn't even get near them. There are many ways of looking at this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bella

Well said Cherub, but I do understand the point khaebs was making too. I suppose our reason for existance is to pro-create and we're supposed to help the human race evolve, by producing the best 'specimens' possible, so on some unconcious level in theory attractiveness is what we look for with regards to extending our gene pool.

Thanks bella. I just have a different viewpoint. I'm not sure how we should be defining "best specimens". How sad that we have been convinced we are specimens. In my opinion, humans are more than their genes, and we pass on more than genes. However, I am well aware that some do not agree and believe that everything we are, inside and out, is determined by our genes.

We seem to be getting way off subject here. I suppose this is a subject for another thread, but I'm not much for debates, so I think I'll end my opinion on this now.

BTW, I do not think Courtney looks anorexic in the least. I'm not sure how anyone sees that. She is toned and healthy looking. In fact, her thighs are quite full.

WickedHo · May 4th, 2006, 05:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cherub

I'm really tired of perfectly attractive people (celebrities, models, etc, some of which have not had anything surgical done) being called "fugly" when they are not, or picking apart the natural features on a beautiful person as if they are seriously flawed.

Well, aren't you sensitive!

FYI: Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. What I deem fugly, you may deem not fugly. It's hardly scientific.

And FYI again: Fugliness ain't just about physical appearance. It's also about character. That's why Kimberly Stewart is a fugly bitch waste-of-space. Chloe Sevigny, however, has been called fugly, but I don't think she is. Actually, I think she's quite cute. But, again, Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Besides, I'm sure there's somebody you think is fugly, cherub. Somebody.