Does anyone have any insight on what exactly Emily saw in Bob? I could never figure it out myself.
shareI could not figure out what exactly Bob saw in Emily.
shareEmily was smart and sexy and I bet she was a circus in bed.
shareEmily is sexy, elegant, sensitive and just adores her husband. She doesn't take drugs, smoke or have tattoos like so many of the skanks passing themselves off as women today.
share[deleted]
what did emily see in bob? are you kidding??? he had all the qualities a real woman looks for--incredible sense of humor, brains and a reasonable amount of sensitivity. he also had a good job, providing security for their future, and he had friends she liked too. all of these things are so important. in fact, i was watching an episode recently that made me thing, wow, bob hartley truly is the perfect TV husband. i'm as in love with him as emily. (funny, that's my name too...)
shareGreat answer.
It saddens me to see all the twentysomething idiots here who still believe the old media drivel about attractive people "marrying in their league". Great rumor spread by those who don't want competition amongst the pretty girls.
Of course the inverse of that is the low value they attach to smart, funny, ambitious people who are "less attractive" than the "bimbos and himbos" they see on the reality shows.
People, the REAL WORLD has any option you want in life - stop living your life like the TV tells you to.
I disagree. People always wind up with someone on their level of attractiveness. The exceptions are TV sitcoms, commercials and real-life ugly rich guys with gold-diggers
shareI agree -- PLUS Bob may have had many good qualities but he was also a jerk -- laughing when Emily cried, always being condescending when they disagreed and he wanted to assert his point ("Sit down, Emily, let me tell you a story"), and being resentful of Emily's activities and how it affected HIM.
share'It saddens me to see all the twentysomething idiots here who still believe the old media drivel about attractive people "marrying in their league". Great rumor spread by those who don't want competition amongst the pretty girls.'
'Of course the inverse of that is the low value they attach to smart, funny, ambitious people who are "less attractive" than the "bimbos and himbos" they see on the reality shows.'
-------------------
That's not just a product of 'twentysomething idiots' . Human nature doesn't change in 40 yrs..or 400.
It's not about the "value" of people; to pretend that people are not attracted to each other for more carnal reasons is idealistic thinking.
//That's not just a product of 'twentysomething idiots' . Human nature doesn't change in 40 yrs..or 400.
It's not about the "value" of people; to pretend that people are not attracted to each other for more carnal reasons is idealistic thinking.//
Maybe so, but the point would seem to be that 'carnal reasons' aren't always as invariably dictated totally by a potential mate's adherence to media norms of physical beauty as the twentysomething's ideas would have it.
What goes into the making of even physical attractiveness consists, for many people, of a high admixture of qualities that can be only somewhat related to actual physical appearance (but which feed into the overall framework of physical desirability). And, believe it or not, not everyone is automatically attuned to or attracted to their culture's standardized norms of physical 'beauty', either.
After all--look at what were regarded as 'desirable or beautiful' physical types 400 years ago...or even 40. It's also in the realm of "idealistic thinking" to believe that human standards of physical attractiveness don't vary hugely from one era to another, and from one human group to another--not to mention from one individual person to another.
..'norms of physical beauty as the twentysomething's ideas would have it'.
--------------
Yes,thats true, but you are assuming that is only something non-twentysomethings know or feel.(I am not twentysomething,btw.)
Many 60somethings can be just older versions of their twentysomething-selves.
I don't think the topic is a science,or can be intellectualized.
Of course tastes vary, and as I mentioned on another thread, there's a difference between looks/sexiness.
And I'd say you're no doubt at all correct on that. 'Twentysomethings' is probably just a somewhat lazy shorthand for indicating the predjudices of a certain demographic; but be they Twenty-, Sixty-, or Centenarian-somethings doesn't alter the fact that there's a population group in this country that's been heavily propagandized through media into buying into the trope that 'attractiveness' per se consists only in the meeting of certain, unsubtle physical criteria.
And while I can agree that there's no exact science on this, I think ordinary, garden-variety observation goes a long way towards undermining that particular presuppositon, irrespective of the age of the supposer.
' been heavily propagandized through media into buying into the trope that 'attractiveness' per se consists only in the meeting of certain, unsubtle physical criteria.'
------------------
But what makes everybody think we don't have minds of our own and influenced to think /feel what we do?
If you find sombody physically attractive,then you find them attractive; I don't need to be brainwashed or induced to feel something. What,am I a rarity? Or are you saying that people think they need to conform to what they are told is attractive so they won't feel embarassed in front of their freinds & family?
To be blunt, if my libido kicks in when I see/meet somebody, it's not due to propaganda.
Either way, it's simpleminded,isn't it?
To be blunt, my answer would be 'yes'; people, even when they think they're exercising their own minds and own, unbiased choices usually are displaying tastes that have been heavily influenced by what they've seen in the media--it's the reason why media spends billions in advertising and 'research'. To influence the viewer on a level so subtle as to believe he's simply displaying his own uninfluenced taste.
Young people often *do* tend to be more susceptible to this type of influence,a profound reason why programmers and advertisers skew so heavily to a youth demographic. But everyone in society who's exposed to media influence to any great extent (and that is to say practically *everyone*, period) is far more prone to react on the subtle cues being programmed into them daily as to what they find 'desireable' and what they do not than they may care to believe.
so, if there was no such thing as advertising, and a given person would be attracted to the same person anyway, then what would you conclude from that?
This isn't about what type of tight jeans to buy or finding Brad Pitt more handsome than he is, but one's innate-passion and physical attraction for somebody. I think we analyze things too much these days,no offense.
My point isn't that human attraction between people (or the same two people, to give a more precise answer to the question) wouldn't exist if not for advertising. My point is that the types we tend to be attracted to these days are often heavily influenced by what we see in the media. And we're so heavily immersed in constant media surround, coupled with the fact that the influencing is deliberately so subtle, we are often not aware of the very extreme extent to which we *have* been influenced.
shareBeauty is in the eye of the beholder. My mom, for one, thinks that Bob Newhart is very nice looking...she also thinks the same about Bill Murray and Joe Pesci. Who am I or anyone else to argue? Emily found Bob to be very attractive, inside and out, period. The heart wants what it wants. Bob dresses well, looks like he is in good physical shape, is well groomed...I mean, we're not talking about Frankenstein's monster, here.
shareAnd Bob Newhart and Suzanne Pleshette had great chemistry together. That means a lot on TV. The producer of the show was still in the process of casting "Emily" and he happened to see Bob and Suzanne on the Tonight Show with Johnny Carson. The producer thought they looked good together and acted kind of cute together, so he called Suzanne and asked her to audition. That's how she got the part. BTW, I think Bob is kind of cute.
shareHer already being a household name/movie-star had something to do with it(without or without chemistry)
shareBob Newhart also was a hosehold name. He'd been famous for over 10 years at time thesereis began.
He'd hada number of successful comedy albums (yes,vinyl)most notabnly
"The Buitton Down Mind of Bob Newhart" with his funny & famous "telephone conversation" routine.
He'd had an Emmy winning variety show that (for some stupid reason) got cancelled after one season anyway. He'd guest atarred on may other varietty shows as well & a couple of movies.
They were either equally famous or maybe,he just a bit more than she.
Lastly,The Hartley's married in 1969,in the 1960s (1964-1969 anyway) people were busting down the old ideals that you "had to" marry this type of person. A rich person marries a rich person,a black should marry a black or people of the ame gender should not marry ..and so on.
A woman like Emily could have had any man she wanted but she was too down to earth for that and she (and Bob) found love. They also posess the maturity to know how to work with the other in a relationship. 50/50. (It's not as hard as it sounds kids).
happipuppi13 *arf,man!*!
'They were either equally famous or maybe,he just a bit more than she'.
-------------------------
Not really
Pleshette was a Broadway performer replacing Anne Bancroft,twice, and made her film debut in 1962, working with Jerry Lewis,Hitchcock,and others. I am surprised she even decided to do a series.
'Lastly,The Hartley's married in 1969,in the 1960s (1964-1969 anyway) people were busting down the old ideals that you "had to" marry this type of person. A rich person marries a rich person,a black should marry a black or people of the ame gender should not marry ..and so on.'
------------------
But that is not related to the human nature aspect of mutual attraction which is timeless, not just a pre-1960's thing.
'(It's not as hard as it sounds kids).'
------------
which kids do you mean?
He was funny, but most importantly he made a lot of money. And he was okay looking. Maybe he was hung like a horse, too We'll never know.
share