adma
Superstar
The woman on the left may look more natural and warm to you, but there are women who naturally might look more like the woman on the right, maybe having more symmetry, higher cheekbones, bigger lips, etc... If you didn't know what she looked like before, her face doesn't scream plastic like her chest does, or like some other famous facial upgrades have looked like. Aside from the dyed blonde hair, I think the woman on the right would be more attractive to more men, with or without make up.
Well, sort of like the subject matter of this thread--EIFS classicism being deemed more attractive than "grimy" "dated" old facades. All it proves is that too many men are tasteless, destructive douchebags--if I was a woman looking like the former and a guy insisted I alter myself to look like the latter, he'd be divorced of his testicles in no time.
Of course, Heidi's "before ugliness" wouldn't have been such a talking point were she not under the reality-TV spotlight; but honestly, in the egalitarian non-reality-TV real world, such looks (and I'm not talking about the person behind the looks) would be accepted, taken in stride. Or at least once would have, before commonplace plastic surgery and gossip snark sites aplenty skewed the picture. The latter, by comparison, may have the superficial attributes (much like EIFS classical detail is a "superficial attribute"); but it's a novocained and false application of said attributes. Really: give me the former.
"Novocained and false". EIFS = architectural Botox. And remember what I like to say: if you think the Sheraton Centre is a monumental concrete eyesore, imagine it "improved" through the Classicizing of the porte-cochere being carried throughout the whole exterior and you just might wind up feeling protective of its existing so-called concrete eyesoreness...