<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>The Sexist &#187; James Franco</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/tag/james-franco/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist</link>
	<description>Sex and Gender in D.C.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 12 Mar 2010 21:00:01 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.1</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>Which Woman Is More Beautiful?</title>
		<link>http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2008/10/14/which-woman-is-more-beautiful/</link>
		<comments>http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2008/10/14/which-woman-is-more-beautiful/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 14 Oct 2008 15:08:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Amanda Hess</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[The Sexist]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[beautification]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Brigitte Bardot]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[female beauty]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[James Franco]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Michael Cera]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[New York Times]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Roissy in D.C.]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/?p=229</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[
The New York Times last week reported on a new “beautification engine,” a &#8220;computer program that uses a mathematical formula to alter the original form into a theoretically more attractive version.&#8221; The program runs on the idea that a common standard of beauty can be predicted across cultures, based on international surveys and the ratios [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img src="http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/10/09/fashion/09skin-600.jpg" alt="" width="420" height="245" /></p>
<p>The <em>New York Times</em> last week reported on a new “beautification engine,” a &#8220;computer program that uses a mathematical formula to alter the original form into a theoretically more attractive version.&#8221; The program runs on the idea that a common standard of beauty can be predicted across cultures, based on international surveys and the ratios of flower pedals or something. The<em> NYT</em> ran the above woman, <strong>Martina Eckstut</strong>, through the program to see how it would tweak her less-than-perfect features: The computer raised Eckstut&#8217;s forehead, shrunk her nose, rounded her face, and came out with a new, prettier Martina.</p>
<p>That&#8217;s the idea, anyway. But is the more symmetrical, standardized photo actually more attractive than the original? Local dude blogger <strong>Roissy in D.C. </strong><a href="http://roissy.wordpress.com/2008/10/13/beauty-is-not-mysterious/">seems to think so</a>. &#8220;If you are honest in your assessment and not trying to score dorm room debate points on your not-so-humble narrator, then I predict 95% of my readers, male and female, will agree that the girl on the right is more attractive.&#8221;</p>
<p>Count me in the five percent. Both women, I think, are undeniably beautiful. At the risk of racking up whatever &#8220;dorm room debate points&#8221; are, I&#8217;d say the human pretty face also connotes character, experience, and individuality, while the computer pretty face connotes promotional materials for the <em>CW</em>. Sure, computer android Eckstut&#8217;s a pretty girl, but she&#8217;s a bit of a bore.</p>
<p>When presented with her new look, Eckstut, 25, politely complimented the computer-generated image before declining the extreme makeover. &#8220;I would like to keep my original face,&#8221; she wrote.</p>
<p>The <em>NYT</em> also ran some celebrity faces through the pretty machine, ostensibly to provide guidelines for future plastic surgery. <strong>Brigitte Bardot</strong> looks like she was hit with the boring stick. <strong>Michael Cera</strong>&#8217;s<strong> </strong>darling face, when &#8220;prettified,&#8221; may produce tween girl nightmares. Only <a href="http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/citydesk/2008/04/25/attention-francophiles/">the inimitable</a> <strong>James Franco</strong> survives unscathed: &#8220;The before and after shots of the actor James Franco were almost indistinguishable,&#8221; notes <em>NYT</em>, &#8220;suggesting his classically handsome face is already pretty perfect.&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2008/10/14/which-woman-is-more-beautiful/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
