No wonder our idea of female beauty is distorted!

[Perd Hapley]

The pre-pubescent boy look every blonde in Hollywood seems to go for is gross. Blech.

  What are you talking about?  They may be going for an abnormally low percentage of body-fat, but implants in the breast, lips, and rear end do NOT make one look like a "pre-pubescent boy."  Oleg's examples, though...  Not especially attractive.

When I think of the actresses who were considered beautiful or sexy from years back--Sophia Loren, Jane Russell, Marilyn Monroe, etc--they were actually very large women compared to the starlets of today. Actually, "large" isn't even the right term. "Normal" is probably more appropriate.

  I think this has a lot to do with the popularity of slacks as feminine apparel.  Most women don't have the figure to pull it off, and even if they do, they keep asking, "Do these make me look fat?"  A dress or skirt on the other hand; usually much more flattering to the female form.  Just another way modern "feminism" has betrayed women by encouraging them to live up to male standards. 

I think the same argument can be made about our society's perception of what male attractiveness is. Six-pack abs, well-defined pecs, arms the size of canteloupes...there's no way that the average guy can look like that.

  Of course not.  Average has never been that exciting.

[280plus]

LOL, watching the old Partridge Family episodes I'm really shocked at how skinny and chestless David Cassidy was. Yet he was a major teen heart throb...

[Nightfall]

The pre-pubescent boy look every blonde in Hollywood seems to go for is gross. Blech.

  What are you talking about?  They may be going for an abnormally low percentage of body-fat, but implants in the breast, lips, and rear end do NOT make one look like a "pre-pubescent boy."  Oleg's examples, though...  Not especially attractive.

The almighty Google turned up an example for me right quick, here. That is what I'm talking about.

[Guest]

Yep, its feminism's fault that women feel the need to have plastic surgery on everything including their labias.

[Mannlicher]

fankly, I think the fashion world is geared to appeal to homosexual men and women.  Most guys pretty well know what they like, and super models are not always it.  Besides, the sexiest thing about any woman is her availability.

[Monkeyleg]

Oh, this thread has taken a twisted turn.

The old phrase, "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" may be hackneyed, but it's true.

There's a young(er) woman who works at the Kinko's nearest me. She doesn't have any of the characteristics that have been described in the posts above. She's not a clone. In fact, if I had to compare her to any celebrity I can recall, it would be Mick Jagger about 20 years ago, although more feminine.

But she exudes a sensuality that's hard to explain.

It's the same thing with Sandra Bullock. There's nothing about her that makes her a classic beauty. But she has sensuality, at least for me. (At least as long as she's not talking politics).

Fistful: "I think this has a lot to do with the popularity of slacks as feminine apparel.  Most women don't have the figure to pull it off, and even if they do, they keep asking, "Do these make me look fat?"  A dress or skirt on the other hand; usually much more flattering to the female form."

Dunno about that. Bette Davis wore slacks very well, as did Katherine Hepburn and others.

Me? I've always been skinny, and have no butt. People have always said jokingly, "where's your butt?" There's enough spare room in the backside of my pants for me to carry groceries.

The problem with current celebrities, and pop culture, is that it's now driven more intensely by the marketing people. Focus groups and analyitical software.

While the marketing end has controlled pop culture since the inception of movies, it's much more focused now than ever. And nobody wants to take a risk. If the results of analysis of male responses shows that Angelina Jolie is considered attractive, then only hire women who look like her.

These are marketing people who are afraid to make a real decision, and don't recognize opportunities.

The same sort of marketing people that drove Clint Eastwood to go to Italy in the late 1960's to prove that he could be a box office draw.

280Plus: "LOL, watching the old Partridge Family episodes I'm really shocked at how skinny and chestless David Cassidy was. Yet he was a major teen heart throb..."

Marketing "rock" idols to girls in their early teens has always been a different game. If you look at the successful ones like David Cassidy, you'll find that they were sexually  non-threatening. One common trait amongst those teen idols is that they were themselves a bit feminine. That's not to say that they were gay, but rather that they were styled and packaged to appeal to an age group that would not be ready for, say, a Jim Morrison.

You can go back to Ricky Nelson, or go forward to whoever it is these days who is being aimed at the 12 year-old girls, and I think you'll find the same marketing strategy.

[caseydog]

Besides, the sexiest thing about any woman is her availability.

Maybe to some, to me the most attractive thing is attitude...

Ray

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

But she exudes a sensuality that's hard to explain.

I think this is the key.  Beauty is one fifth physical appearance, and four fifths attitude.  Sensible use of cosmetics and wardrobe can take care of the physical side of things for nearly any woman.  The rest of the equation has to come from her, and NOT from her appearance.  She has to exude sensuality.  She has to be feminine.  The stylist takes care of the physical part.  The rest depends upon the woman being a woman, shamelessly.

Whoever said that the feminists have made women ugly was right.  By convincing women to be less female and feminine, the feminists have all but condemned an entire generation of women to borderline ugliness.

[Oleg Volk]

Oleg's examples, though...  Not especially attractive.

One of them, in particular, I always considered a hard person to photograph. Yet she commanded $5,000 to $20,000 (buyout) day rates as a model for about three years.

[Perd Hapley]

Dunno about that. Bette Davis wore slacks very well, as did Katherine Hepburn and others.

 Sure they did - a lot of women can.  Most cannot.  Even those that do, still feel fat.  Women tend to be hard on themselves.  

Yep, its feminism's fault that women feel the need to have plastic surgery on everything including their labias.

Pretty much.  Feminism* sold women a bill of goods about sex.  It tells them they can cat around like men do, and this will make them happier.  This meant that women spread themselves as thin as men do, and they continue to hurt themselves by doing so.  The biggest reason for the double standard about sex (the promiscuous man is a stud, the promiscuous woman is a slut) is due to the heavier consequences women pay.  Men can run away from pregnancy, and have a lower risk of STD's.  Men can enjoy sex as physical recreation, while women can't truly seperate sex from the other aspects of relationship (nor should they).  The point is that women really ought to know better - they are the ones that will get hurt.  Dressing immodestly is part of the whole phenomenon, hence the need for surgery.  Wearing pants is part of that, too.  A little bit of cellulite below the waist is easy to live with, if you hide it under a skirt or dress.  Pants just aren't that forgiving.  


*I'm not talking about the suffrage movement, or even the movement to encourage women to become educated, or to be accepted as equals in the workplace.  I'm talking about the NOW and NARAL brand of feminism that pretends that women aren't different from men, except that they just happen to be better in almost every way.  The brand that is correctly called feminism because it proposes that the feminine is superior to the masculine and ought to replace it, for men and women.  At the same time it is not true feminity, but a bastard child of the two.  

[Preacherman]

Mick Jagger about 20 years ago, although more feminine.

A feminine version of Mick Jagger??? 

AAAAAAAAAAARGH!

(Runs screaming from room looking for mind-wash)

 

[Antibubba]

With the pubescent girl as the standard for feminine beauty, why is anyone still surprised at acts of pedophilia?

[Guest]

By convincing women to be less female and feminine, the feminists have all but condemned an entire generation of women to borderline ugliness.

Now, which is it? Is feminism creating ugly women with grey hair and thick soled shoes, or forcing them to wear skimpy clothing to show their boobs? I can't keep up.

[280plus]

Bette Davis wore slacks very well, as did Katherine Hepburn and others.

Mary Tyler Moore and her capri pants... :sigh:

Is feminism creating ugly women with grey hair and thick soled shoes, or forcing them to wear skimpy clothing to show their boobs?

How 'bout because of feminism some grey haired old lady with thick soled shoes thinks it's ok to wear skimpy outfits and show off her boobs? 

[Perd Hapley]

By convincing women to be less female and feminine, the feminists have all but condemned an entire generation of women to borderline ugliness.

Now, which is it? Is feminism creating ugly women with grey hair and thick soled shoes, or forcing them to wear skimpy clothing to show their boobs? I can't keep up.

Both.  Are you quite annoyed, yet?    I think feminism has more to do with the former than the latter, but there are different strands of feminist influence.  The surgery and immodesty is more related to a general leftist view of sex of which feminism is only a part. 

[Harold Tuttle]

MADRID, Spain (Reuters) -- The world's first ban on overly thin models at a top-level fashion show in Madrid has caused outrage among modeling agencies and raised the prospect of restrictions at other venues.

Madrid's fashion week has turned away underweight models after protests that girls and young women were trying to copy their rail-thin looks and developing eating disorders.

Organizers say they want to project an image of beauty and health, rather than a waif-like, or heroin chic look.

But Cathy Gould, of New York's Elite modeling agency, said the fashion industry was being used as a scapegoat for illnesses like anorexia and bulimia.

"I think its outrageous, I understand they want to set this tone of healthy beautiful women, but what about discrimination against the model and what about the freedom of the designer," said Gould, Elite's North America director, adding that the move could harm careers of naturally "gazelle-like" models.

Madrid's regional government, which sponsors the show and imposed restrictions, said it did not blame designers and models for anorexia. It said the fashion industry had a responsibility to portray healthy body images.

"Fashion is a mirror and many teenagers imitate what they see on the catwalk," said regional official Concha Guerra.

The mayor of Milan, Italy, Letizia Moratti, told an Italian newspaper this week she would seek a similar ban for her city's show unless it could find a solution to "sick" looking models.

Quality, not size

The Madrid show is using the body mass index or BMI -- based on weight and height -- to measure models. It has turned away 30 percent of women who took part in the previous event. Medics will be on hand at the September 18-22 show to check models.

"The restrictions could be quite a shock to the fashion world at the beginning, but I'm sure it's important as far as health is concerned," said Leonor Perez Pita, director of Madrid's show, also known as the Pasarela Cibeles.

A spokeswoman for the Association of Fashion Designers of Spain, which represents those at Madrid fashion week, said the group supported restrictions and its concern was the quality of collections, not the size of models.

Eating disorder activists said many Spanish model agencies and designers oppose the ban and they had doubts whether the new rules would be followed.

"If they don't go along with it the next step is to seek legislation, just like with tobacco," said Carmen Gonzalez of Spain's Association in Defense of Attention for Anorexia and Bulimia, which has campaigned for restrictions since the 1990s.

[Guest]

No, not annoyed. Amused.

Perhaps you should do some reading. So far your argument is that feminism has done something wrong but since you're not quite able to define what it is, you'll blame everything on it.

Until the last century, women's only power came from their looks, and their fertility, and maybe their ability to cook. Fortunately, things change. You may not like it, and that's fine, but I'm pretty darned happy with the fact that I can live life on my own terms and not as the gilded extention of another person.

As far as being unattractive or borderline ugly? Who cares? My purpose in life isn't to be sexy. It's to accomplish things, none of which currently involved Revlon products.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

And what, you think you can't accomplish any of these things while exhibiting any femininity?

It's a bizarre notion that the modern feminists are peddling.  It seems they think that a woman won't amount to anything unless she scrubs away all traces of womanhood.  Maybe they're right, I don't know.  But I happen to think that idea is absurd.  To each his own, I suppose.

I think the masculinization of women is a bad thing.  Likewise, the feminization of men is a bad thing.  It has nothing to do with "living your life on your own terms and not as a gilded extension of another person."  Anyone in present-day America can do that if he or she wishes (or not do that, if that's what he or she wishes).  This isn't the 1800's, and the modern crop of feminists had nothing to do with the progress made since then.

It's all about not denying who you are.  Too many women think they can't be happy unless they live their lives as if they were men. Then they wonder why they aren't happy.  Hmm...

[Guest]

So then why do you assume I'm not happy or that I look like or behave like a man? Neither of those are the case.

What I said is that I base my life on what is good for me and my loved ones, not to make people like me, and I choose my clothing based what is comfortable and/or practical. I'm a woman and failing to dye my hair and wear heels doesn't change that. What does change is your perception of me, which quite frankly, is your problem, not mine. I'm not here to make the general population happy. 

Odd how you keep finding male characteristics in all this, when all I see is common sense.

[AJ Dual]

Mick Jagger about 20 years ago, although more feminine.

A feminine version of Mick Jagger??? 

AAAAAAAAAAARGH!

(Runs screaming from room looking for mind-wash)

 

Count your blessings. At least he didn't say "A feminine version of Keith Richards"... 

[Guest]

Yikes!

[Perd Hapley]

Keep in mind, I am speaking of male and female characteristics in generalities.  Some men and women are odd-balls and that's OK.

Barbara,

Perhaps you should do some re-reading of my posts.  I have actually blamed general social liberalism for female immodesty more than I blamed feminism.  My specific charge that feminism encourages women to obssess over cellulite had to do with wearing pants.  The relegating of skirts and dresses to formal and professional wear means women are putting their own weight problems on display.  Men tend to store fat on our guts.  Women tend to store it in their stomachs, thighs and rear ends.  This makes pants a bad idea for most women.  Not because they should try to look pretty for me, but because women are more concerned about their looks than men are.  When you ladies think you look bad, you're not happy.  And that's your idea, not ours.  I also differentiated between different brands of feminism.  See below:

*I'm not talking about the suffrage movement, or even the movement to encourage women to become educated, or to be accepted as equals in the workplace.  I'm talking about the NOW and NARAL brand of feminism that pretends that women aren't different from men, except that they just happen to be better in almost every way.  The brand that is correctly called feminism because it proposes that the feminine is superior to the masculine and ought to replace it, for men and women.  At the same time it is not true feminity, but a bastard child of the two.  

I'm glad you can accept the fact that you, like most of us, are not one of the "perfect" physical specimens.  I wish more women could.  But the reality is that women put a lot of pressure on THEMSELVES.  Modern, left-wing feminism (MLWF) leads women to deal with this in one of two ways.  Either to deny this pressure (and pay no attention to their appearance) to the point that they actually are quite unhappy because they are denying themselves.  The other option is much more complicated.  

On the surface, MLWF opposes the "objectification" of women.  But in reality, it encourages it.  MLWF is not original-recipe feminism that sought freedom for women.  It errs in going beyond that to claim, in denial of evidence, that the differences between men and women are superficial.  It is another tentacle of the left-wing, which rejects the metaphysical aspects of sex, among other things.  Women, by nature, have always promoted the idea that sex is part of a relationship and should not be treated as something seperate.  MLWF, instead of bolstering this feminine (and correct) point of view, has told women they can be like men and enjoy being used for casual sex, the way men do.  

Neither option is truly feminine.

[Perd Hapley]

I base my life on what is good for me and my loved ones, not to make people like me, and I choose my clothing based what is comfortable and/or practical. I'm a woman and failing to dye my hair and wear heels doesn't change that. What does change is your perception of me, which quite frankly, is your problem, not mine. I'm not here to make the general population happy.

Good Barbara, I hope you are happy.  You have no obligation to pretty yourself up for my sake.  As long as you recognize that the comfort/practicality standard is typically male.  You are deviating from the usual feminine point of view in choosing it.  That is fine.  But most women don't.  Women, usually, are just as concerned about looks as comfort.  Most blow other people's perceptions out of proportion to its importance.  Again, this is a quality of the female mind, not some patriarchal notion impressed from above. 

[Guest]

I guess I must have missed that in my reading of feminist literature.  

Personally, the only problem I have with modern feminists is that most of them tend to be leftists, which to me means they're allowing transference of dependence. I tend to be a bit more radical about things than that.

[Guest]

[Again, this is a quality of the female mind, not some patriarchal notion impressed from above.  /quote]

I'd argue its what women have had to do to ensure they and their off spring survived for millennia, not necessarily a natural born quality.

You could even argue it was a good deal at the time, if you want, and I'm not sure I'd disagree. But its a game I have no interest in playing.

The idea that I'm manly or masculine or want to be a man is kind of funny, though. I'm a woman. What I do, by definition, is feminine.