'The View' Ladies Take On Vicki Larson's Hot Husbands Blog (VIDEO)

Friday morning, the ladies of "The View" weighed in on HuffPost blogger Vicki Larson's piece, "Hot or Not? Why Women Shouldn't Pick Attractive Husbands," which cited research that attractive men don't make the best husbands. In light of Anthony Weiner's recent scandal, Larson argued that the path to a successful marriage is best embarked upon with a less attractive, and thus more faithful, man.

Joy Behar agreed with Larson and referenced several political adulterers, joking, "John Edwards is exhibit A. He's a good looking guy, better to go Wolf Blitzer or Henry Kissinger."

Sherri Shepherd was also on team Larson, pointing out, "Isn't it if you're not as attractive, you have to use other skills?"

Elizabeth Hasselbeck seemed to feel differently, saying, "If [your husband] is attractive to other women, you just have to make sure that you are fulfilling whatever needs that [he] may have."

Larson and Matlack will continue the debate on the Post on Monday.

Watch the clip of "The View" below and tell us who you side with:

WATCH:

Comments

[Amadahy]

08:05 PM on 06/24/2011

There are men who are able to convince themselves that a woman's sexual parts aren't connected to a human being. There are also men who do no such thing.

I'll make no generalizations on a woman's desire or ability to discern between the former and the latter however.

[Edogg62]

04:02 PM on 06/21/2011

Sadly, I find that one party subjugating themselves to another is really the "key" to a "happy" marriage. More often than not anyway... and maybe it's only necessary to a small degree, but it's the truth. We can't ALL be "in charge." Back in the "good 'ol days," the woman subjugated HERself to her husband. Which then caused a reflexive, snap-back reaction apparently. Now we have the reverse that is all too common... some spineless, "yes-dear" husband who gladly accepts their neutered role and is gleeful and nearly masochistic in his acceptance of occasional charity sex. Please. It's called misandry and it's really quite prevalent actually... TV, movies, commercials etc... sort of like a reverse sexism.

[Edogg62]

03:52 PM on 06/21/2011

"Elizabeth Hasselbeck seemed to feel differently, saying, "If [your husband] is attractive to other women, you just have to make sure that you are fulfilling whatever needs that [he] may have."

I'm shocked... that perpetual idiot Elizabeth Hasselbeck actually said something intelligent... never mind that HER husband is nowhere NEAR as physically attractive as she is, but still... is this a sign of the Apocalypse?

[kloche]

08:37 AM on 06/20/2011

One of the biggest mistakes I have ever made was consciously lowering my standards and convincing myself to like ugly guy. And in return, he turned out to be a pathological liar, a fraud and an egotistical a$$hat. The lesson I learned a skunk is a skunk. Good looking or not. And when decent looking women lower their standards to be with some of these toads, these men delude themselves into thinking that they the end all and be all.

[LolaP]

06:54 AM on 06/20/2011

Hasselbeck's comment so typical coming from a conservative. Move to the 1950's why don't you.

[Edogg62]

03:57 PM on 06/21/2011

BOTH sexes need to address their respective spouses' needs. That's not "conservative," it's simply reality. We ALL, both men AND women (in MY experience) will eventually succumb to or search out what we're not getting... emotional support/intimacy, physical intimacy etc, etc. If you're thirsty you crave water. I've known all too many married women whose husbands don't give them the emotional support/intimacy THEY need, and guess what? Those same women started dipping their toe in the waters of adultery... prowling bars etc... perhaps only for an ego boost due to attention from strangers, but it's a dangerous game. We ALL need to address the needs of our spouses or we'll wind up wondering what happened... no one needs to fall on the sword for marriage if their spouse isn't going to be cognizant of and address their needs... be they emotional OR physical. Neither need is more or less valid... we need what we need. And if we don't get it? And we've had umpteen conversations about it? Well...

[D Pelletier]

02:37 PM on 06/19/2011

Some (I really want to say most but I will give some men the benefit of the doubt) will cheat or misbehave in some ways given the chance. Doesn't matter if they are attractive or not. An unattractive guy can always pay for services. It doesn't matter if their wives are beautiful, rich etc...case in point Tiger Woods, Sandra Bulluck's-ex and more. Guys have 2 heads and unfortunately many don't think with the one on their shoulders.

[sandskate]

05:28 PM on 06/19/2011

Thank you!!!!!!!!!!!!! I couldn't have said it better myself!!!

[Assumed Name]

11:15 PM on 06/19/2011

...yes. And women are more likely to "go with" an unattractive, older, out of shape and/or not so financially stable man than men are vis-a-vis women. (Beyond reason, but anecdotally true.)

[GlennWatson]

09:20 AM on 06/18/2011

I always tell my daughter not to make the same mistake her mother made. She married for looks.

[Amadahy]

07:58 PM on 06/24/2011

It sounds like you're unhappy. :/

[Rita Kothbauer]

01:49 AM on 06/18/2011

I'm not getting how Weiner is attractive. Obviously insecure, which is not an attractive trait. Or, maybe having an inflated opinion of his attractiveness, which is even worse. What woman would give him a second look on the street?

[ailblentyn]

06:43 PM on 06/18/2011

Thank you. I said the same thing in a comment on the original Huffpo piece, but was moderated out.
Weiner is a case study in how the opportunity that comes with a kind of celebrity is a temptation, not raw good looks.

[StrawHat]

12:15 AM on 06/20/2011

On a scale of one to ten, I'd say he's about a minus seven.

I don't see WHAT other women see in him. (shudder)

[makemesmile]

01:12 PM on 06/24/2011

Yes, he's a very unattractive man.