Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: My Body... Finally.  (Read 5323 times)
WalterEG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1157


« Reply #20 on: August 20, 2012, 07:13:21 PM »
ReplyReply

Your post is more like a visual grenade. Huh

Seldom have been so sincerely flattered.  Thank you.

W
Logged
RFPhotography
Guest
« Reply #21 on: August 20, 2012, 08:25:37 PM »
ReplyReply

Ken, I'm familiar with those studies.  There are others that deal with what men find to be the most appealing body proportion in terms of things like waist/hip ratio.  The findings, it turns out, are related to breeding and whether one body type or another appears more fertile than another and whether one body type or other would have an easier time birthing a child.  The results of the studies would, I'd also venture, be different over time.  Marilyn Munroe wouldn't fit many of the studies either.  By today's standards of beauty she would be considered too fat. 

By those studies probably 99% or more of us aren't scientifically beautiful. 

Thing is, none of the types of models who are the Chanel girl or the girl in the Lauren jeans ad or who strut the runway for Versace would fit those 'scientific' studies of beauty either; particularly the ones dealing with body proportion. 

Logged
kencameron
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 669



WWW
« Reply #22 on: August 20, 2012, 09:31:08 PM »
ReplyReply

Ken, I'm familiar with those studies.  There are others that deal with what men find to be the most appealing body proportion in terms of things like waist/hip ratio.  The findings, it turns out, are related to breeding and whether one body type or another appears more fertile than another and whether one body type or other would have an easier time birthing a child.  The results of the studies would, I'd also venture, be different over time.  Marilyn Munroe wouldn't fit many of the studies either.  By today's standards of beauty she would be considered too fat. 

By those studies probably 99% or more of us aren't scientifically beautiful. 

Thing is, none of the types of models who are the Chanel girl or the girl in the Lauren jeans ad or who strut the runway for Versace would fit those 'scientific' studies of beauty either; particularly the ones dealing with body proportion. 
I would have some minor disagreements with various points there - there is constancy as well as variation over time, particularly in relation to symmetry, and I would say that what the studies show is that all of us are more, or less, beautiful, allowing for cultural and historical variations - they provide a metric that can be applied to all of us and that has predictive value as to how others will respond to us. As for the model girls, I  concede that the reasons I find them visually pleasing are only partially explained by the metrics. They also also have to look striking in a way which can't be measured - and I suspect, with reference to a point Rob made, that "inner beauty" may sometimes be part of that. My underlying point is that it helps to be clear about what we mean when we use the word "beauty" . There is a defensible sense of the word in which it could be applied to the image in Walter's posting, and another in which it could not.
Logged

Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #23 on: August 21, 2012, 04:34:35 AM »
ReplyReply

Marilyn Munroe (sic) aside; there’s a further mistaken idea pervading this thread: the looks of catwalk models and fashion magazine models are not the same as the ideas/ideals of sexual desire or appeal to men.

The women that grace the pages of Vogue are thin because of the need of garments in photographs to look good in order for them to whet the appetite of the prospective purchasers: women, not men. That ‘looking good’ is achieved by the perspective that a tall figure provides when compared with the same garment on a stocky figure. As HC-B said, it’s geometry, old chap, geometry.

Women in ‘glamour’ magazines are pneumatic because their function (in the magazine) is to excite the male gender (usually) into buying, and, hopefully, taking out a subscription. Given the option, I know of no man who would rather bed a thin one if the choice of a Marilyn one is available. It has nothing to do with fanciful notions of good 'childbearing hips'! Good Lord, at the dating stage, childbearing is the most feared part of the whole process, unless we introduce the little matter of AIDS.

The two types of model are worlds apart, blowing out of the water the forced notion (here) that there is this single, frightening, type of beauty or imagined beauty, to which all women pray and that they ultimately do this in order to feel attractive and ‘ensnare’ unsuspecting mates. As has already been noted here, but with a different perspective, bullshit! The one type of beauty does, in fact, conflict with the sexual allure of the other.

As I have suggested earlier, misogyny lurks below these righteous surfaces as well as a helluva lot of lack of any understanding of women. The biggest mistake about gender that can be made is the assumption that women are, as a rule, dumb.

Anything but; in gender values it’s usually the other way around.

Rob C
« Last Edit: August 21, 2012, 04:41:10 AM by Rob C » Logged

KLaban
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1712



WWW
« Reply #24 on: August 21, 2012, 04:48:44 AM »
ReplyReply

As I have suggested earlier, misogyny lurks below these righteous surfaces as well as a helluva lot of lack of any understanding of women. The biggest mistake about gender that can be made is the assumption that women are, as a rule, dumb.

...and that is just downright insulting.
Logged

RFPhotography
Guest
« Reply #25 on: August 21, 2012, 06:33:40 AM »
ReplyReply

Yes, sorry, Monroe. 

Rob, no one; not one fucking person, in this discussion has implied or intimated or hinted at or in any other way stated that women, in general, are dumb.  You seem to have this mistaken idea that anyone who doesn't believe the way you do toward women is a misogynist.  You seem to feel that no one else has experienced anything that you have.  Get your head out of you ass.

Ken, there is constancy as well as variation over time?  That's one of the more obtuse and obfuscating statements I've seen.  Putting aside the 'scientific' definition of beauty because, as we've already determined the models who are presented to women as the 'ideal' don't fit that definition, I'd suggest that it's very difficult to measure that 'inner beauty' from seeing someone on the cover of a magazine or in a cosmetics ad or on a runway or in a swimsuit ad. 
Logged
LoisWakeman
Guest
« Reply #26 on: August 21, 2012, 07:48:49 AM »
ReplyReply

I don't normally contribute to these somewhat acerbic exchanges as I don't especially want to be stirred up by any dismissive responses, but some assertions have been made about women and AFAIK none of us has replied so far.

Rob is right that anyone who's had girl and boy children cannot help but notice the difference, even at 2 or 3. I was a tomboy as a kid and as an adult am a geek unconcerned on the whole about my (plain) looks and (practical) clothing, although in my late teens and early 20s, there was some boyfriend-related angst on that front of course! I imposed no expectations on my kids, but as soon as he could crawl, my son used to push toy cars round making 'brrm brrm' noises, whilst my daughter did not - she preferred the farm set (not the tractor) and plush toys.

Secondly, it is unrealistic to expect that millions of years of evolution and tens of thousands of years of social development can easily overcome the wiring in our brains - one of the reasons that I feel some of the more extreme expectations of feminists will never be realised. Men and women are different (on a spectrum) and just believing otherwise won't change that. 

Thirdly, whatever our individual intelligence, not all women are influenced much by advertising - either to buy outlandish designer clothes or to feel the need to starve themselves to a size zero. Some are, and it causes a lot of angst and ill heath that is very regrettable. And the same is true of men of course.

(Perhaps I am lucky in living in a small rural village where there is much less pressure to look immaculate at all times than might be the case in the city - if you like, in a village, people can get to know your inner beauty and ignore the shabby welly and barbour jacket exterior?) I suspect I am way out on one shoulder of the bell curve of femininity however, and so perhaps my contribution here isn't very representative of what "typical" women feel.

Sorry - I'm rambling now and its time to stop. But please don't rush to be too offended on my behalf - I certainly don't take exception to what Rob says.
Logged
KLaban
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1712



WWW
« Reply #27 on: August 21, 2012, 08:10:17 AM »
ReplyReply

I certainly don't take exception to what Rob says.

Neither do I, at least for the most part.

I agree with much Rob had to say, but to suggest that those who have differing opinions are righteous misogynists who have no understanding of women isn’t going to help his argument.
Logged

Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #28 on: August 21, 2012, 10:12:08 AM »
ReplyReply

Two things, if I may.

1. Lois; you are no exception regarding the effects or otherwise of advertising on women. My wife worked along with me on some of my fashion shoots, and I discovered that spring/summer and autumn/winter were always going to be expensive times for me: we ended up buying quite a lot of the merchandise that I shot! However, Ann always stated that she was absolutely not moved, interested in, nor influenced by advertising. She knew what we could afford; she knew that we were not in the world where buying a 2000€ shirt made sense to her, so fashion magazines at home were about professional trends in photography. She bought Chanel No 5 all her adult life, and we were both happy about that; she never felt a need to buy any other brand, despite knowing pretty much all there is to know about available brands – we couldn’t avoid it in our professional life. She bought magazines for a while until she realised that all women’s magazine fare is on an endless annual rhythm of engagements, weddings and babies. House ‘n’ Home magazines were also of little interest because über residences were always going to be beyond us and neither fancied debt. In the same way, realising the futility, I stopped buying car magazines.

Like you, she only ‘tarted up’ when she had to go to a party or something similar; she was happiest at home, on the terrace, dishing out her just-made paella whilst wearing the bare minimum to avoid scaring the neighbours or the gardeners. It had nothing to do with trying to look sexy; it had everything to do with enjoying summer and feeling the freedom.

2. Keith;

"I agree with much Rob had to say, but to suggest that those who have differing opinions are righteous misogynists who have no understanding of women isn’t going to help his argument."

Close, but not quite. I’m saying that there are those here who probably do understand my point of view – I state it unambiguously enough - but prefer to misrepresent it. I simply give up wasting my time trying to handle that.

However, by what I read in some replies, it goes further: I also realise that a sort of masculine ‘superior’ attitude creeps into the tone; it’s almost as it the posts are saying outright: “poor little woman, she’s too dumb to understand what the world’s about, that she’s being conned by those capitalist bastards running the fashion world. I shall help her to get it right; I’ll help her fix her poor little head!” To me, that’s patronising and as close to an insult to the female gender as it gets. Anyone who holds that attitude towards women does have little experience or has been very unfortunate in his associations in life. Or, he’s just basically a misogynist after all, and despite his experience. Can’t win with that situation.

For me, that’s where the video starts from and never departs. It’s never going to be difficult for people in the media to find other people who will be happy to get in front of the camera and play ball. Putting those people into situations where they look bad isn’t smart, it isn’t compassionate and it is exploitative, in my opinion, humble or otherwise.

Rob C

Logged

KLaban
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1712



WWW
« Reply #29 on: August 21, 2012, 10:21:26 AM »
ReplyReply

Rob, I think you must be reading a different thread.
Logged

Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #30 on: August 21, 2012, 10:57:48 AM »
ReplyReply

Rob, I think you must be reading a different thread.


God, don't tell me there are two like this!

;-)

Rob C
Logged

KLaban
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1712



WWW
« Reply #31 on: August 21, 2012, 11:44:17 AM »
ReplyReply

Coffee Corner?

Hell, this place is more like a crack den!
« Last Edit: August 21, 2012, 11:45:54 AM by KLaban » Logged

RSL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6522



WWW
« Reply #32 on: August 21, 2012, 11:58:35 AM »
ReplyReply

This is one of the most hilarious thread's I've ever seen on the web.
Logged

RSL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6522



WWW
« Reply #33 on: August 21, 2012, 12:38:33 PM »
ReplyReply

Damn right!

It is high time that humanity gets rid of its thousand years adoration of beauty. Time to correct historical injustice towards ugly people. Perhaps even reparations are in order for all the pain and suffering they endured. I urge you to write to your congressman and demand that ugliness be included into the list of protected species, together with race, gender, etc.

Just stopping the injustice is not enough. Time for some affirmative action:

- from now on, colleges should assign extra points for ugliness during admission
- beauty magazines should have at least 2/3 of ugly people on their covers
- the same for flight attendants (wait, scratch that... already implemented)
- Hollywood A-List as well (new Bond is a good start)

Beautiful people should be considered politically incorrect and denied roles and promotions until and unless they prove they can hide or permanently scar that beauty, or at least wear burkas in public.

Right, Slobodan, but in order to be sure ugly people are represented proportionately we'll have to create a new government bureau to count ugly people. Maybe we can use the census bureau to do that. I can see the question right there on the census form along with some of the other NOYDB questions already there: "Are you ugly?" But first the House, the Senate, and the President will have to agree on a legal definition of ugly. I can visualize an argument over the bill, perhaps even an argument as ugly as some of the arguments on the House floor back in the early 1800s. The solution might even have to wait until after the following election.
Logged

RFPhotography
Guest
« Reply #34 on: August 21, 2012, 01:32:21 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
However, by what I read in some replies, it goes further: I also realise that a sort of masculine ‘superior’ attitude creeps into the tone; it’s almost as it the posts are saying outright: “poor little woman, she’s too dumb to understand what the world’s about, that she’s being conned by those capitalist bastards running the fashion world. I shall help her to get it right; I’ll help her fix her poor little head!” To me, that’s patronising and as close to an insult to the female gender as it gets. Anyone who holds that attitude towards women does have little experience or has been very unfortunate in his associations in life. Or, he’s just basically a misogynist after all, and despite his experience. Can’t win with that situation.

If you're reading that into the replies that have been posted in this thread then that says far more about you than it does about anyone else.  Again, you come back to this flawed, fantastical notion that you are the only one who has any experience at all with women, with children, with fashion, with anything.  And that as a result of your exclusive experience you have all knowing, all seeing insight into womanhood.  That's certainly not misogyny.  But it is chauvinism of epic proportion.  And yes, of course, everyone is misrepresenting your comments (intended with dripping sarcasm).  But you're not misrepresenting anyone else's position at all?  No, of course not.  You're not reading misogyny into everything most anyone else says because it serves your purpose, whatever fantasy that may be.  No, not at all.  That would never happen.  Bloody hell.
Logged
KLaban
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1712



WWW
« Reply #35 on: August 21, 2012, 01:43:33 PM »
ReplyReply

Note to self, avoid Coffee Corner.

 Shocked
Logged

WalterEG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1157


« Reply #36 on: August 21, 2012, 05:35:17 PM »
ReplyReply

Penny for your thoughts Keith.

Logged
KLaban
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1712



WWW
« Reply #37 on: August 22, 2012, 03:38:04 AM »
ReplyReply

Walter, not sure what it is that you would like my thoughts on or whether they’re worth a penny, but I’ll have a go.

The beauty industry, beneficial and harmful. This thread, polarized opinions and little tolerance. The “grenade” comment on your image, I too would have been flattered. My opinion on your image, like the concept, not sure about the execution. The Coffee Corner, too many people with too much time on their hands. Me, a hypocrite.

Hope you are well and keeping busy.

Keith 
Logged

Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #38 on: August 22, 2012, 04:52:54 AM »
ReplyReply

Walter, Keith.

Nice to see you two guys roasting your nuts in the same fire again!

;-)

Rob C
Logged

Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #39 on: August 22, 2012, 05:05:06 AM »
ReplyReply

Russ, can you fix it for me to be on the Committee to decide the condition of Ugly?

Not being one (American), I couldn't be accused of Un-American activities, now could I? Or could I, in fact, not avoid that charge by dint of not being American? Think of the advantages it would offer you all! A calm, temperate, objective foreigner with no local political, social, religious or sexual axe to grind! I'd be an invaluable contribution to the State of the Nation. I'd even be relatively inexpensive compared with, say, the Beckhams. And there'd only be one of me. The advantages appear irresistible; where do I sign?

Rob C
Logged

Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad