Not This Time Britney (FHM)

Member Name: (Switch)

Product:	FHM
Date:	30/04/01 (363 review reads)
Rating:

Advantages: Nice women

Disadvantages: They're in the wrong order

The thing that most bothers me about this magazine is the yearly poll to decide who are the 100 most attractive women in the world.

Not because it is demeaning to women. No. It is because the results are always ridiculously distorted due to overexposure. Every year the top ten is filled NOT by the most deserving, fine looking women walking the earth today, but by those who have been most prominent in film or TV over the last couple of months. Examples of this are rife. There is no way that anyone can convince me that Sarah Michelle Gellar, or 'Buffy', to those of you in a vampire fighting fantasy world, was at any stage the most attractive woman in the world. Not by a long shot. Nor would Jennifer Lopez, Kelly Brook, Denise Van Outen or any of the other saturated images of average beauty, make my shortlist of top 5 candidates.

Look at Britney Spears. As if I had to ask you to. She is adored by millions of men-folk the world over and why? Not because of any great beauty or even talent. No, it's all due to the fact that you can't escape her image due to the massively financed publicity machine ramming her warbling down our throats. Not to mention the small matter that the world's first glimpse of the siren was when she tapped into the lowest common denominator of male infatuation: the scholl uniform.

Now, I would not be exaggerating if i were to say that practically any slim, mediocre looking girl can look attractive wearing the classic school outfit, and it horrifies me to think that so many people have been tricked into believing she is a figure worthy of their adulation just because of the manipulative forces at work behind the decision to put her in that uniform. Any of the women that end up in at number 96 would look a damn sight nicer than Spears and probably have a lot more talent too.

Just because somebody has been presenting a TV programme for a while does not make them worthy of anybody's affectio
n. I don't care if a woman has had 4 box office hits in the last year or not. If she is less attractive than a less famous woman then this should be presented in the poll.

Bottom line: I think there should be some sort of way to make sure these polls do not end up as a "who is the most average looking woman that has been seen a lot?" competition. It stands to reason that the voting should have an x-factor regarding the proportion of votes to fame. So, if four lazy puppets of propaganda think that an over-exposed pin-up like, say, Geri Halliwell, or Gail Porter is sex on a stick, then maybe if two people had identified the less well advertised, but more potent, beauty of someone less often seen, such as Claire Forlani (The Rock, Meet Joe Black), Natasha Henstridge (Species)or Patricia Arquette (True Romance, Stigmata) who aren't featured in tabloid escapades every other week, then the votes of the 2 would be equal to the votes of the 4 due to proportion. What do you think?

And by the way, why is it that so many non- members read this? Please leave some feedback.

Summary: