I was talking with a friend about this a week or so ago and he said I should post it because he'd be interested in what other people, particularly other guys, have to say. So, here you go, guys. This one's for you (not to exclude the ladies. You can respond too. In fact, I encourage it. In fact, I encourage everyone to respond.)
Here are the irrational questions that go through my head: Aren't there ANY men out there who want a woman with a figure?! Why is it that woman and old men think I'm gorgeous, but to any guy in my age bracket I am utterly forgettable?!
Here are the more logical thoughts that come from these questions as I really think about attraction and society as a whole:
A couple of years ago I watched a movie from the late 50s/early 60s at a friend's house. One of the side stories involved an affair that the boss was having with his voluptuous secretary. And I mean way voluptuous. Honestly, I think this woman was probably a size 16 at least. Big boobs, of course, tiny waist, very large hips and behind. The thing is, all the men in the office completely drooled over her. They envied the boss because she was with him.
So what was that, 40 years ago? Nowadays that actress would be the fat lady comic relief. Lately it seems like the new ideal is the super-athletic, minimal to no body fat, small-breasted woman.
Now I know there have been lots of articles written about how the media has molded our little brains into liking whatever it tells us to, but I am interested in the man on the street's perspective on this. Are most men turned off by what used to be considered attractive, or do little waists, wide hips, and more than A cup breasts still do it for them?
Speaking as a card-carrying member of the Chubby Girl Brigade, I recognize that my interest in this is not completely unbiased. But I am also interested in it from a sociological perspective. For thousands of years the .7 hip to waist ratio was the ideal, and the rounded, fertile-looking woman was considered the most attractive. In only 40-60 years that has changed dramatically (maybe a bit longer. The flapper may have started it all).
I also realize I'm asking for vast generalizations here, but I am interested in the individual male perspective.
(And if my friend who I was talking to about this thinks that I left anything out, please let me know)
6 comments:
Well, Kelly, being an expert on the subject, I'll go ahead and state the obvious: lots of guys think that curves are far more desireable than protruding bones.
But can your secretary "jump onto a swinging obelisk to smash a glass eye that holds the key to time? Or rappel around walls, smashing chandeliers and pistol-whipping bad guys in one fell swoop? Or can she hop on her motorbike, take a guy out sideways, and race off at 100 miles an hour?" (quoting heavily) Well, Laura Croft can do all that ... with ease. :-] Maybe Laura's form is the new paradigm of feminine beauty? (and I don't mean Angelina Jolie, I mean the *real* Laura Croft from the video game)
I didn't see the 1950s movie you talked about. But I can't help but suspect that part of the allure of the secretary was that *everyone else* (or at least the alpha worker) thought she was cute. Its like beanie babies or wall plasma TVs: wanting what you know the other guy wants too.
I am a bit old-school I guess; I have always appreciated the term 'voluptuous' and all it implies. I recall comments about Kate Winslett when she was in "Titanic" about her being a bit chubby for an actress. Please! She looked great! And, truth be told, perfect for the period of the film. I'm sorry, but the waif-like or, more accurately, boyish figure is just not feminine to me. Let’s hear it for androgyny? Not!
Here’s an excellent example of the changes in the desirable figure – at least in Hollywood’s view. During the 5th season of Deep Space Nine, they did an episode called “Trials and Tribble-ations” in which Sisko and his crew are sent over a century into the past (or thirty years in our time) to be involved in the famous “Trouble with Tribbles” episode of the original Star Trek series. The episode was a tour-de-force technologically-speaking, as the current actors were skillfully blended into scenes from the original episode. A delightful experience for any ST fan. The most surprising difference between the two series, however, is seen in the physical attributes of the actresses. Most the women in the original series have the classic .7 (or better) ratio you mentioned, whereas the visitor from the future series – Dax played by Terry Ferrell – was markedly slimmer. The scenes in which she was inserted with original crew women – there was a corridor scene in particular – the difference is quite glaring.
So I don’t get it. The focus on skinny is ‘way out of hand here in the U.S. I say that because this seems to be a local phenomenon. I watch shows on BBC America and the Brits seem to have no trouble casting leading women with the .7 ratio. Let’s face it, they certainly look more real. I look around where I live and work and don’t see any 5’-10” size 3’s walking around. I do know the focus on the perceived “perfect” body is messing up the heads of millions of American women and girls who can’t possibly look like Cameron Diaz and so spend their lives with a dysfunctional relationship with food. On the flip side, it’s messing up the heads of millions of American men and boys who think they’re 'supposed' to be looking for Cameron as well. It’s sad.
Just as an aside on this topic, I haven’t looked at a Playboy magazine in several years, but the last time I did, the photo spreads were not of women who played a lot of beach volleyball. I just wonder if that’s still the case? If so, then that would explain the drop in sales!
So, to all of you, male and female: be happy; be healthy; be sane.
Did my DAD just mention Playboy?! La la la, I can't hear you. :)
I thought Kate Winslet was gorgeous in Titanic and wanted to beat up James Cameron when I heard he called her Kate Weighs-a-lot. The granddaughter from the movie who he dated was grossly skinny, in my opinion.
My friend who I was discussing this with originally said that recently he really feels like there is more commercial pressure on men to be physically perfect as well. Now while I have seen more of that, I just think {gross generalization to follow} that women when really thinking about a man as a potential partner don't weigh physical appearance as heavily as men. I have a theory that women can grow to be attracted to men, while a man figures out within the first 30 seconds or so if he is attracted to a woman, and if he's not, he never will be (and I wouldn't say this out loud, except I've mentioned it to about 10 different guys and they all say I'm pretty much right).
However, I am also of the belief that men and women are different, that it's not all socialization. So maybe evolutionarily looks have meant more to men.
And yes, I know women can shred a guy for his looks, but overall I don't think in the grand scheme of things, it is so very vital when looking for a real relationship.
I loved the trouble with tribbles episode! That was classic! And it is an excellent illustration of the way the popularized female body type has changed over the years. The actresses' body types weren't the only attributes to change, though. Can you imagine a leading lady having as passive and helpless a role as the communications officer Lt. Ohura (or Bones' medical assistant) today? Even in the new Star Trek, the empath Diana Troy was totally a throwback to that era, body type and all.
Which leads me back to my original question: is the reason why the ideal body type changed because in the past the ideal woman was a buxom, empathic, sympathetic, motherly type, but today they are athletic, butt-kicking superheroes? I ask only half in jest.
As for the "know it in 30-seconds" thing ... I couldn't disagree more. And in any event, someone's smile and personality weigh far more heavily in the determination of attractiveness. I think the whole thing actually often works in reverse: when you like someone, no matter their physical features they can become attractive. And if you deplore someone, no matter how perfect their body, their flaws-- real or imagined-- become unbearable.
D
I find this subject very interesting being a not quite yet CGB member and a girl.
I have read (if not in Survival of the Prettiest: The Science of Beauty, then elsewhere but too lazy to find where) that although the Miss America contestants have become 20 - 30 pounds lighter in the past 50 years, that the waist to hip ratio hasn't changed from the .65 ideal. And that Twiggy still had that ratio being a 90 pound model.
Not that Miss Americas and Twiggy are mainstream models of beauty today, but I think that women in magazines are simply getting skinnier and the boyish-no-hips look hasn't taken hold as the ideal. And won't. At least not as long as attractiveness is part of the driving reproductive desire.
Survival of the Prettiest really is a great read and says more on this subject with far more clarity than I can muster at the moment.
:)
Well this is nice posting anonymously. Yep your young and HOT !!! Just from the picture on the site. see ya...
he he
Post a Comment