One could argue that she is more attractive at age 62 (yes, 62!) than she was in her 20's. She has been blessed...either by God or by a very good plastic surgeon.
On this day, I also happened upon a vixen from one of the most popular TV shows of the 70's, Dallas. Charlene Tilton made many a man feel like a pedophile whenever she sauntered (that's how she walked--with a spring in her step) across our screens. She was 20 years old when she started the role, but she looked much younger. At least her face did. This is her from back then:
And more recent photos of Charlene, who is now 53...
Bless her heart. And thanks for the memories, Charlene.
Click here to go to most recent posts.
Kinda wraps it up all nice and tidy, for some people:
ReplyDeleteGet plastic surgery and maintain your physical beauty and people will remember and desire you.
Grow old inherently, and face condolences as you become a fading memory.
I suppose it all depends on our ability to accept, or finance, our way through the 'shallow' end.
Either way, bless their hearts, indeed.
If one can afford to be or continue to be as attractive as they can, what's the problem? Is it any different from using good hygiene or grooming habits or wearing attractive clothing? Only possible issue I see is if one foregoes personal/spiritual development in favour of outward appearance. But, one does not preclude the other.
ReplyDeleteI see no problem with it, other than what you mentioned. In the case of Ms. Fairchild, she has little choice but to do all she can to maintain her appearance, it's her 'job'. Then again, one can only imagine that her need to be attractive has taken up the majority of her time, leaving little more to anything other than contemplating her next 'revision' (tho lately she has declared to she wants to be "taken seriously" and has begun to champion popular causes - coincidence?). Her 'personal development' (read: public acceptance) depends on it. Otherwise, she follows the path of Miss Chilton - "Bless her heart. She was so pretty once."
ReplyDeleteI'm sure Ms. Fairchild is well aware that no one cares about her personal/spiritual development. Under the right (or wrong) circumstances, one could very easily preclude the other.
I see no problem with wanting to be a pretty flower. I see a problem with the people who want you to remain one or be weeded out.
A little harsh, don't you think? Why is it Ms. Fairchild's job to do all she can to maintain her appearance and not Ms. Chilton's? (I mean for Ms. Chilton to maintain her own appearance, not maintain Ms. Fairchild's appearance.) ;)
ReplyDeleteIt doesn't take the majority of anyone's time to look attractive. Don't be so melodramatic.
I think Ms. Fairchild is taken seriously. She is a three year board member of the Screen Actors Guild and has served on several diverse committees, including co-chair Legislative Committee, National Executive Committee, SAG-AFTRA Relations Committee, Commercials Contracts Committee, Honors and Tributes Committee (HATS), and Guild Governance and Rules Committee. And here you thought looking pretty takes up all her time.
Finally, there's plenty of room for flowers and physicists in this world. Knowing full well that looks are important for those in the entertainment industry, if Ms. Tilton decided that her looks are totally unimportant, people shouldn't complain about her being "weeded out". She could have retrained for a teaching position at MIT. She chose her path. And M.F. chose hers.
If one aspires to be employed as a flower, one had best try to look pretty. If not, seek another occupation. Why is it alright to appreciate beauty in nature, such as real flowers, and rainbows, sunsets, etc., but not the beauty of female humans? Which, by the way, also happen to be a part of the natural world.
Lastly, if Charlene Tilton maintains any success in whatever way she views success, I couldn't be happier for her. My only purpose in posting this blog entry was to note the stark contrast. Perhaps, my flippant remark, though, was a little out of line. However, not nearly as much as your first comment was.
"If one aspires to be employed as a flower, one had best try to look pretty. "
ReplyDeleteExactly. And that is what Ms. Fairchild chose. Now, she has to maintain that beauty. I have no problems with that. She has done a wonderful job of it! Ms. Chilton's choice not to, can only be addressed by Ms. Chilton. Their circumstances and different, obviously.
As for Ms. Fairchild's long list of activities, all appear to be associated with her career. I'm sure there are numerous people in Hollywood and elsewhere who have such a list. However, it is admirable.
"Why is it alright to appreciate beauty in nature, such as real flowers, and rainbows, sunsets, etc., but not the beauty of female humans? Which, by the way, also happen to be a part of the natural world."
No one has said anything about not appreciating the beauty of female humans. I myself appreciate beauty of all kinds. And if it is natural beauty, even more so. (funny you used the word "natural" in this case).
My comments were not meant to cast any disparagement against either of these women. I was simply pointing out my disdain for those who would cast one aside for not being that "pretty flower" any longer. And at a society that, more often than not, does it so readily.
I also will take the stand that my first remarks were flippant and somewhat out of line- perhaps brought on by your own.
'Melodrama' over.
Do you harbour the same disdain for florists who toss faded flowers into the trash bin? Ms. Tilton chose (a) role(s) as a flower. When she chose not to keep her petals fresh and fragrant, what were casting agents to do? If she could actually act, there might have been other roles for her. You can't fault them any more than you could a lion for hunting prey.
ReplyDeleteIf, on the other hand, you imply that I and the general public tossed her aside, I/we had no say in the matter. When she fades from view, she fades from view. I don't go searching for lovely ladies any more than I do for plain ones. I just deal with whatever falls into my lap.