» Fri Nov 18, 2011 10:38 pm
I use "pretty" to refer to even-featured, classic beauty. "Attractive" usually implies someone who is not necessarily pretty but has something about them that is appealing.
The difference would be that http://static2.stuff.co.nz/1233108507/724/251724.jpg was always pretty without being attractive (too fake), whereas http://ukesanity.org/BIOS/illeana-sm.JPG was the go-to girl in Hollywood when they wanted someone attractive who wasn't classically pretty. "Attractive" is like being "Hollywood Ugly" - the type who gets cast as the Plain Jane best friend who gets the guy in the end.
I'd say http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1e/ChristianBaleJun09.jpg/220px-ChristianBaleJun09.jpg is an example of an actor who is attractive without being good-looking, though I don't actually fancy him. I can certainly see why someone else would, though. The "opposite" would be http://topnews.in/light/files/ben-affleck11.jpg, who is the epitome of chisel-jawed classic male beauty, but perhaps the reason his career has stalled is that there's something faintly off-putting about him.
Attractiveness to me is a combination of good looks with intelligence, humour, talent, warmth, kindness and charm. The more of those things you have, the more attractive you become, and if any of those things are missing, the less attractive you are. So if you have everything except the good looks you can still be fairly attractive, but if you only have the good looks and none of the rest, you cannot possibly be attractive.