Those guys are smart enough to play down their looks for good comedic roles. I've seen both when they are not in character, and they look like leading men. I u

Those guys are smart enough to play down their looks for good comedic roles. I've seen both when they are not in character, and they look like leading men. I used to get paid to take portraits. I can guarantee some people just don't photograph well. They might be a 10 in person, but a 6 on film. I still haven't figured it out completely. I think current society puts too much importance in what a person looks like in a picture. In two psychology classes in college, I was told people end up with someone who is attractive as they are, but where I live--well let's just say if a fugley man makes a lot of money, or does someting society affirms him for, he can marry/mate way out of his league. Sit in Mill Valley, or Tiburon, CA on a weekend afternoon and try to figure out what that female saw in that guy. (I'm just speaking for myself. I'm probally wrong. If I offended you, I'm sorry. I will probally still get hammered though.) It seems to work in a contrarian way for women? I have seen women work so hard to have a powerful career, and money, and the guy is looking at the maid. I don't think it's fair, but I've seen it happen too often. (Don't beat me up over this last sentance--I'm probally wrong, and it's not the least bit politically correct.) I do see it changing a bit. Dependent attractive women are not as desirable as they once were, especially if they use their looks to get ahead, and the guy knows what she's doing. I gave found the whole mating process screwed up, and steps we get to marriage even worse. Using a one dimensional picture to weed out potential mates, seems almost as bad as bar hopping. At least with bar hopping, you could weed out the wrong ones pretty quick?