Never understood why anyone thinks she looks like a woman. Big plastic fake tits, skinny as a corpse, tarantula lashes, Chula Vista painted eyebrows, plumped lips, and a complete moron to boot. Disgusting.
sharePeople like blonde hair, big boobs, big lips, and a petite frame.
I had the pleasure of meeting her in real life. She seemed to me to be very humble and soft spoken. Even in her 50s she is quite lovely and charming.
I wasn't a fan myself back in the day, but I was in awe of her presence.
We all have different tastes. I still thinks she looks good for a woman who has had a couple kids and is pushing sixty. Most would agree that she looked great in the nineties.
shareI know right. I never got it either. Back in her Baywatch days everyone had a boner 24/7 because of her. She seems like a super sweet lady but she looked so much better before any surgery/treatments.
https://imgix.ranker.com/user_node_img/50040/1000795007/original/young-pamela-anderson-in-white-jeans-and-halter-top-photo-u1?auto=format&q=60&fit=crop&fm=pjpg&dpr=2&w=375
If you look at the first photos the general public saw of her -- her pictorial as Miss February 1990 in Playboy -- she was legitimately smoking hot. She looked completely natural: real breasts, natural blond hair color, etc. Even her demeanor in the photographs was more beautiful -- it looked more genuine. As her career developed, she got more artificial in every way. She dyed her natural blonde hair a platinum blonde, got a boob job, etc. And in the glamour photos she took, instead of a smile, or a natural-looking, neutral expression, she would pose with eyes half closed, lips parted, clearly actively attempted to look sultry and seductive -- and therefore rather phony. In her debut, she looked like a real person; as she developed, she looked like someone playing a character.
shareJust out of curiosity, I looked at some of the Playboy pictures on the internet, and FYI that's not natural beauty... that's artificial beauty trying its best to look natural. Dyed hair, makeup from stem to stern, false eyelashes and overdrawn lip line, good possibility of some fake hair for volume, every inch of her body retouched by experts. Looks like natural boobs, though, but I bet that didn't last.
She was undoubtedly naturally beautiful under all the fakery, and by all accounts she's a sweet person, but Playboy doesn't publish actual natural beauty.
Every model who gets a picture published in any media -- magazines, commercials, fashion shows, TV, you name it -- wears makeup, eyeliner, false eyelashes, styles their hair, plucks their eyebrows, etc. Every magazine layout photo, and especially the cover, gets retouched: the eyes and teeth are whitened, blemishes in the skin are airbrushed/photoshopped out, imperfections are removed. It's not just Playboy. Cosmo, Vogue, Elle, Women's Health, Victoria's Secret catalogues, you name it, they all do this. By the standard you seem to be advocating, their isn't a model on earth with a truly natural look. No woman, no matter how beautiful, would get her photos published in such media without all those beauty aids.
Perhaps I should have qualified it and said "she looked natural for a professional model," but I thought there was no need, because that was understood. The more "natural" look that early Pamela Anderson, and other models had, isn't genuinely, no-makeup natural, but it's as close as professional models ever get.
Yeah, she looked... naturalistic. Well, on the naturalistic end of professional glamour modeling, as the Brits call it, but still modelling professionally.
So yeah, my nitpick was really about language. Anderson was probably a genuine natural beauty when she came into the studio in the morning, with her skin and hair clean and waiting for the stylists to do their thing, but there's nothing natural about the finished photos.
I agree completely.
Today's women love to act and look like SKANKS