Yeah, Knip ... I agree that there's too much whining and patting on the back around here. But ... women don't get enough patting on the back, so when I see the opportunity, I do it. Lucy is a vital and amazing woman and she deserves a few pats, so I gave them.
Britney is Britney. She can go on being Britney. What shocks me is that women think she's some kind of ideal, when she's not. Gross.
I think so many women are full of life and energy and joy, but they get overlooked, because they're not Britney or one of her contemporaries.
Lucy deserves to be appreciated for what she is. You men need to learn to take a broader view -- spread your sexuality out a little bit -- what's wrong with that? Slim is not the only model for your fantasies. Not conforming to the Britney ideal is not something for a woman like Lucy to be ashamed of, not at all ...
Where have all the poets gone?
'us men' is a broad brush...how is that different than me painting 'you wome' with such a brush
why is britney big? it is half because young men think she's hot...but also because young women think she's hot and want to be like her...this isn't all men's fault...painting this as something that is done to appeal solely to men implies women are all idiots...if all men liked this shit it would be because all women supported it
in my own personal view, any other viewpoint is as sexist as sexist gets...men are not defining the world...men AND women are...
but i'm all for giving lucy her props...never said that wasn't valid...i've known her for a while and have patted her on the back one or two times myself
-
Doreen Peri
- Site Admin
- Posts: 14598
- Joined: July 10th, 2004, 3:30 pm
- Location: Virginia
- Contact:
who said she was an enemy?
we are women.
we're not smart enough to make enemies out of something so innocent.
she's an advertising tool.
the war on terrorism has many names..... it's the war for freedom.... freedom in advertising... freedom in speech... freedom to know the difference between deception laced with an arsenic trace of seductive rhetoric...
i never understood the beat worship thing.... i never understood the worship of the beatles or kerouac or jazz or anything worthy of recognition like maybe jesus or some semblance of who he was....
i really do love you, too...... and i told you you were handsome because i thought you were handsome, OK?
we are women.
we're not smart enough to make enemies out of something so innocent.
she's an advertising tool.
the war on terrorism has many names..... it's the war for freedom.... freedom in advertising... freedom in speech... freedom to know the difference between deception laced with an arsenic trace of seductive rhetoric...
i never understood the beat worship thing.... i never understood the worship of the beatles or kerouac or jazz or anything worthy of recognition like maybe jesus or some semblance of who he was....
i really do love you, too...... and i told you you were handsome because i thought you were handsome, OK?
Last edited by Doreen Peri on November 21st, 2004, 2:24 am, edited 1 time in total.
To clarify
To clarify, let me simply say that I am not against the women themselves (although I must admit that at times, their blatant attempt to attract others with their sexuality does bother me because, lets be honest here, its not just marketing, they like it too- which is fine except this image is what sells and then it becomes this standard for everybody) but those who feel they must pitch them as if they were an idea. Women and their body consciousness is not an idea that must be marketed.
Secondly, this idea of natural attraction, I can only agree with you halfway on this one; different cultures embrace different concepts of beauty- if ever you've read the Kama Sutra, you can clearly see the women were full figured and had bellies, something highly erotic and beautiful to the Indians and thoroughly rejected by Western ideology. Yes, there is this natural attraction to people that we can't deny, but I find it perturbing that many who claim they are about the mind find solace with those whom they can not entangle themselves intellectually (and they admit its only carnal and nothing more) which ultimately defeats what they are fighting against. Now don't get me wrong, everyone is entitled to their lust and fun, but it happens so often, that I no longer believe its just playful and has become a common trend.
Secondly, this idea of natural attraction, I can only agree with you halfway on this one; different cultures embrace different concepts of beauty- if ever you've read the Kama Sutra, you can clearly see the women were full figured and had bellies, something highly erotic and beautiful to the Indians and thoroughly rejected by Western ideology. Yes, there is this natural attraction to people that we can't deny, but I find it perturbing that many who claim they are about the mind find solace with those whom they can not entangle themselves intellectually (and they admit its only carnal and nothing more) which ultimately defeats what they are fighting against. Now don't get me wrong, everyone is entitled to their lust and fun, but it happens so often, that I no longer believe its just playful and has become a common trend.
What are you referring to here? I'm not quite grasping this train of thought.frankly, i think we spend too much time around here patting each other on the back when really we should be challenging each other...i think we've settled into something so easy to us we are really no different than anyone else who settles into the comfortable (read britney, etc...)
hey lucy
i guess i'll start off by saying that women as a marketing tool is only so because people buy it...that makes the buyers the fools...except that's what they want...notwithstanding, reality will always trail business' ability to keep up with it...britney is the perfect example...i'm not sure she's done anything lately, so why should she win anything? but by the time someone else wins something, that person might be gone too
that's just the commercial side of young folk trying to figure out what they want...i personally don't know a single man who thinks britney is hot
as for the natural attraction thing, i think you're trying to put today's views into other eras...in those eras where women of bellies and full figures were deemed attractive, it wasn't because they had full figures and bellies, it was because that was what men deemed attractive...so if you are trying to say that in yesterday men found full-figured large-bellied women attractive therefore they were, what you are really saying is that attractiveness is defined by the tastes of the particular era...so why would this era in which we live not be subject to those rules?
let me get this straight...i am not a member of this supposed group...i am merely turning your arguments against you to make my originial point...folks will like what they like, and no amount of complaining is going to stop that, because it is a natural effect (albeit one which adjusts itself over time, as you so rightly pointed out)
ok...the patting on the back comment...that was merely trying to make the point that i think we tend to lose objectivity by being so supportive of each other...my original post was because i sensed a growing back-patting movement (and some measure of anti-male sentiment)...i thought objectivity was being pushed aside, so i chimed in with something else...other food for thought
i guess i'll start off by saying that women as a marketing tool is only so because people buy it...that makes the buyers the fools...except that's what they want...notwithstanding, reality will always trail business' ability to keep up with it...britney is the perfect example...i'm not sure she's done anything lately, so why should she win anything? but by the time someone else wins something, that person might be gone too
that's just the commercial side of young folk trying to figure out what they want...i personally don't know a single man who thinks britney is hot
as for the natural attraction thing, i think you're trying to put today's views into other eras...in those eras where women of bellies and full figures were deemed attractive, it wasn't because they had full figures and bellies, it was because that was what men deemed attractive...so if you are trying to say that in yesterday men found full-figured large-bellied women attractive therefore they were, what you are really saying is that attractiveness is defined by the tastes of the particular era...so why would this era in which we live not be subject to those rules?
let me get this straight...i am not a member of this supposed group...i am merely turning your arguments against you to make my originial point...folks will like what they like, and no amount of complaining is going to stop that, because it is a natural effect (albeit one which adjusts itself over time, as you so rightly pointed out)
ok...the patting on the back comment...that was merely trying to make the point that i think we tend to lose objectivity by being so supportive of each other...my original post was because i sensed a growing back-patting movement (and some measure of anti-male sentiment)...i thought objectivity was being pushed aside, so i chimed in with something else...other food for thought
furthermore
I wasn't aiming for anything, I wasn't out to get compliments, on the contrary, I was just remarking on the limited resources us young women are working with here. This was not intended on becoming an "I love Lucy" thread, please lets make sure this is clear.
here is the problem with the internet...in real life, one always knows (mostly) who is talking to who...eye contact and glances give that away
on the internet, to make these things requires effort...except one of the things that draws us to the internet is that we don't have to give that kind of effort, being relatively anonymous at all
if it sounded like i was harping at you, luce, i was not
on the internet, to make these things requires effort...except one of the things that draws us to the internet is that we don't have to give that kind of effort, being relatively anonymous at all
if it sounded like i was harping at you, luce, i was not
...
My claim is that too much importance is placed on superficiality, but hey, we are human and we have the tendency to be one dimensional.
My point is that what is marketable is not always the healthiest thing for society. There will always be outcasts and wallflowers who will edge around popular culture and this we know. I find that our perception of beauty is literary thinning into nothingness so that we don't always esteem the most important things in a human. Everyone has their own idea of what "important" is, but most of us regular folk have a similar sense of it.
About you being a man and not understanding-
At the risk of sounding elitist, yes, you can only understand to a degree because I doubt men have the slightest idea about women really endure mentally and emotionally during the course of their lives. Yes there is pressure on men too and I find all of these exercise fads in men disgusting and overwhelmingly unattractive. Yet women have had to bear the burden for centuries uncounted and no matter how much we have moved up in society, we will always be slapped with a label and our sexuality, prettiness and attractiveness will always be questioned and examined.
Do you walk down the street and get rated by construction workers? Have you been mentally unclothed by a dirty old man on a subway? Have you been humiliated by frat guys and called ugly or fat at a party? Have you been coerced into a sexual act with someone and later been called a dirty and a whore when it was the man's fault and not yours?
My point is that what is marketable is not always the healthiest thing for society. There will always be outcasts and wallflowers who will edge around popular culture and this we know. I find that our perception of beauty is literary thinning into nothingness so that we don't always esteem the most important things in a human. Everyone has their own idea of what "important" is, but most of us regular folk have a similar sense of it.
About you being a man and not understanding-
At the risk of sounding elitist, yes, you can only understand to a degree because I doubt men have the slightest idea about women really endure mentally and emotionally during the course of their lives. Yes there is pressure on men too and I find all of these exercise fads in men disgusting and overwhelmingly unattractive. Yet women have had to bear the burden for centuries uncounted and no matter how much we have moved up in society, we will always be slapped with a label and our sexuality, prettiness and attractiveness will always be questioned and examined.
Do you walk down the street and get rated by construction workers? Have you been mentally unclothed by a dirty old man on a subway? Have you been humiliated by frat guys and called ugly or fat at a party? Have you been coerced into a sexual act with someone and later been called a dirty and a whore when it was the man's fault and not yours?
it doesn't matter what is found attractive in a culture...that which is not is always on the periphery...if today's norms are changed then tomorrow merely has different folks on the periphery
yes, it is true to say that i, as a man, cannot fully understand what women endure mentally and emotionally...just as you cannot understand what i, as a man, do
all those years being unsure of myself sexually, lacking self-confidence, escaping reality through various means because i couldn't fit in the world of the day, from an emotional viewpoint...i guess all of that was just me, then, and had nothing to do with being a square peg trying to fit into a world with round holes?
life is a struggle, and it isn't gender-specific...there are certain things about life that make it suck for women who are square pegs, just as it is for men in the same boat...
yes, it is true to say that i, as a man, cannot fully understand what women endure mentally and emotionally...just as you cannot understand what i, as a man, do
all those years being unsure of myself sexually, lacking self-confidence, escaping reality through various means because i couldn't fit in the world of the day, from an emotional viewpoint...i guess all of that was just me, then, and had nothing to do with being a square peg trying to fit into a world with round holes?
life is a struggle, and it isn't gender-specific...there are certain things about life that make it suck for women who are square pegs, just as it is for men in the same boat...
indeed
we all must fight a battle (or twenty) in our lives
whether we come out victorious or not, well- I have battle wounds I often don't mean to show
I can never understand your struggle and nor can you mine and so we are steering the same boat side by side, with sunglasses on.
whether we come out victorious or not, well- I have battle wounds I often don't mean to show
I can never understand your struggle and nor can you mine and so we are steering the same boat side by side, with sunglasses on.
I don't generally take it upon myself to monitor who runs after who.
People and interpersonal dealings are either real and lasting, or they are artificial and fleeting. The difference is generally apparent. There is probably a place for both types of interactions. Myself, I would mostly prefer to spend time with people who are real, and have a degree of "depth", if possible. To me, spending money or energy to try and get an attractive, "plastic" woman would be a colossal waste of my time. But that's my perspective. Others have their own ideas, which of course change over time.
But I will say that I don't have much time for hypocrites, in general. If you see repeatedly that someone claims to to be one thing, but their actions say something else, then who needs 'em anyway? That's my attitude, at least.
Just some thoughts I had after reading through this thread.
People and interpersonal dealings are either real and lasting, or they are artificial and fleeting. The difference is generally apparent. There is probably a place for both types of interactions. Myself, I would mostly prefer to spend time with people who are real, and have a degree of "depth", if possible. To me, spending money or energy to try and get an attractive, "plastic" woman would be a colossal waste of my time. But that's my perspective. Others have their own ideas, which of course change over time.
But I will say that I don't have much time for hypocrites, in general. If you see repeatedly that someone claims to to be one thing, but their actions say something else, then who needs 'em anyway? That's my attitude, at least.
Just some thoughts I had after reading through this thread.
-
judih
- Site Admin
- Posts: 13399
- Joined: August 17th, 2004, 7:38 am
- Location: kibbutz nir oz, israel
- Contact:
As for me, i watch MTV videos and see everyone using sexuality to sell their music. Along with that there is fine photography and dynamic direction.
Musically, though, i was a little bewildered when such great talents as Anastasia and Alicia Keyes come in after Brittney S.
But then, commercial taste is commercial taste. Sales speak for the masses' tastes.
Most artists know that popularity is not necessarily a sign of greatness or talent. Look at the long line of jazz musicians who died in utter despair because so few appreciated their music. Artists as well - poets, writers, ....you know the line-up.
Today, we see it in politics and in who shows up in school cliques.
The ones with mass appeal win, whether or not the inner content is my idea of 'worthy'.
So what. It's cool that some people get ahead because of a sellable outer shell, but when i look for someone to respect, it's based on inner value.
It's not the make-up, it's the stuff inside. And as i consistently discover, sometimes a sincere hug from heart to heart is enough to bring out that inner beauty.
judih
Musically, though, i was a little bewildered when such great talents as Anastasia and Alicia Keyes come in after Brittney S.
But then, commercial taste is commercial taste. Sales speak for the masses' tastes.
Most artists know that popularity is not necessarily a sign of greatness or talent. Look at the long line of jazz musicians who died in utter despair because so few appreciated their music. Artists as well - poets, writers, ....you know the line-up.
Today, we see it in politics and in who shows up in school cliques.
The ones with mass appeal win, whether or not the inner content is my idea of 'worthy'.
So what. It's cool that some people get ahead because of a sellable outer shell, but when i look for someone to respect, it's based on inner value.
It's not the make-up, it's the stuff inside. And as i consistently discover, sometimes a sincere hug from heart to heart is enough to bring out that inner beauty.
judih
-
Dave The Dov
- Posts: 2257
- Joined: September 3rd, 2004, 7:22 pm
- Location: Madison Wisconsin which is right here
- Contact:
But can the same be said about women and how they see men. Beefcake dreams and all that. As for what if women were in charge there wouldn't be a cap. soc.. I say not all women are a like. There would be those who would believe in it and keep it that way. So most men and women are not the same way. But I do see a balance coming out of it.
_________________
America's Next Top Model Forum
_________________
America's Next Top Model Forum
Last edited by Dave The Dov on March 3rd, 2009, 2:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
the poets?
the revolution?
mmmm... I think you feel attracted about what you feel attracted. It´s a contundent fact. Contundent facts are amazing and also cause fear. Then, you can ask yourself or the other why or why not you feel attracted to something or someone and so on (the reasons could be sociological or maybe a bit misterious).
But meanwhile you are interested or not in have an insight about it you don´t have the right to maltratar the other.
The problem is that inclusion-exclusion feelings are very strong ones and there are nowadays strong inclusion patterns that (I agree with Lucy) are not healthy. Ahhhhhh... and you can find the inclusion/exclusion contradition everywhere.
the revolution?
mmmm... I think you feel attracted about what you feel attracted. It´s a contundent fact. Contundent facts are amazing and also cause fear. Then, you can ask yourself or the other why or why not you feel attracted to something or someone and so on (the reasons could be sociological or maybe a bit misterious).
But meanwhile you are interested or not in have an insight about it you don´t have the right to maltratar the other.
The problem is that inclusion-exclusion feelings are very strong ones and there are nowadays strong inclusion patterns that (I agree with Lucy) are not healthy. Ahhhhhh... and you can find the inclusion/exclusion contradition everywhere.
-
abcrystcats
- Posts: 619
- Joined: August 20th, 2004, 9:37 pm
I have to pick up a question Knip asked in an earlier post:
"why would this era in which we live not be subject to those rules?"
I am sure that you are familiar with all the psychological theories behind the trend for thinner women. This is a culture that is threatened by the power and equality women have attained in the last century. Physical diminishment of the female form is a direct response to male feelings of threat. Size "0" is an actual size on the racks, or so I am told. There are women that diet and exercise themselves down to that goal, which I find incredible. Men feel aroused by women who are as tiny as possible. I once heard two men at my job discussing the relative attractiveness of a petite coworker. They did not think I was listening. They used the word "breakable" to describe the attractiveness of her body.
I am not saying "all men" here, or trying to unfairly generalize, but this is the social trend right now. I've noticed it isn't just thin that's popular, but SMALL is starting to become part of the feminine beauty requirement. By small, I mean short, small boned, petite,as opposed to tall, medium to large- boned women with model-like physiques. Small is definitely a sub-trend, right now, but it could get to be part of the beauty culture if women continue to be seen as threatening in their new roles.
It really wasn't that long ago that fuller-figured women were admired.
Marilyn Monroe was 36 26 38 on a GOOD day. I am told she was as heavy as 145 during her heyday. By today's standards, that is a lot of weight for a 5'6" woman, but she was a mega-star in the movies even when she weighed 145. She wasn't told to diet herself down to a weight more attractive to the camera. Now, I hear men saying that Marilyn was just "OK". I think this is weird.
IMHO, she was a flame of a woman, and a LOT of that had to do with her seductive personality and understated intelligence. Female movie stars today seem characterless in comparison with the old movie bombshells Marilyn Monroe and Elizabeth Taylor. These women had more than looks, they had well-rounded personalities that flew off the screen and seemed to be expressed in their every movement. But ... the movie stars of today, with their bland good looks, slim, boobless figures, and lackluster characters directly reflect what the American public wants to see! I find that astonishing!
You're right, Knip, it isn't just men doing this, in spite of my earlier comments. Women also encourage these trends. It's scary to me when I see a little girl who's never read Snow White or Cinderella because someone in her family thinks these stories are sexist, but who unabashedly admires Britney Spears or Beyonce, and tries to imitate them in dress and manners. We are not paying attention to what we are teaching our children, or allowing them to learn from the media.
Children should not be concerned with "weight" as an issue, but my little cousin at seven can already tell me what's fattening, and what she's been told to avoid eating or drinking. She's a little slip of a thing without a spare ounce, but she's concerned with "weight" a full seven years before boys should even be a part of her consciousness.
If you look at ANY time in this culture in the recent past, and almost any other culture, you will find that beauty centered around normal to full-figured women. The trend for thinness is pretty unique to this time and place in history. The only similar instance was in the 1920s, when women with boyish figures and haircuts were the "in" thing. That trend corresponded directly with women's increased emancipation, just as it does now.
"why would this era in which we live not be subject to those rules?"
I am sure that you are familiar with all the psychological theories behind the trend for thinner women. This is a culture that is threatened by the power and equality women have attained in the last century. Physical diminishment of the female form is a direct response to male feelings of threat. Size "0" is an actual size on the racks, or so I am told. There are women that diet and exercise themselves down to that goal, which I find incredible. Men feel aroused by women who are as tiny as possible. I once heard two men at my job discussing the relative attractiveness of a petite coworker. They did not think I was listening. They used the word "breakable" to describe the attractiveness of her body.
I am not saying "all men" here, or trying to unfairly generalize, but this is the social trend right now. I've noticed it isn't just thin that's popular, but SMALL is starting to become part of the feminine beauty requirement. By small, I mean short, small boned, petite,as opposed to tall, medium to large- boned women with model-like physiques. Small is definitely a sub-trend, right now, but it could get to be part of the beauty culture if women continue to be seen as threatening in their new roles.
It really wasn't that long ago that fuller-figured women were admired.
Marilyn Monroe was 36 26 38 on a GOOD day. I am told she was as heavy as 145 during her heyday. By today's standards, that is a lot of weight for a 5'6" woman, but she was a mega-star in the movies even when she weighed 145. She wasn't told to diet herself down to a weight more attractive to the camera. Now, I hear men saying that Marilyn was just "OK". I think this is weird.
IMHO, she was a flame of a woman, and a LOT of that had to do with her seductive personality and understated intelligence. Female movie stars today seem characterless in comparison with the old movie bombshells Marilyn Monroe and Elizabeth Taylor. These women had more than looks, they had well-rounded personalities that flew off the screen and seemed to be expressed in their every movement. But ... the movie stars of today, with their bland good looks, slim, boobless figures, and lackluster characters directly reflect what the American public wants to see! I find that astonishing!
You're right, Knip, it isn't just men doing this, in spite of my earlier comments. Women also encourage these trends. It's scary to me when I see a little girl who's never read Snow White or Cinderella because someone in her family thinks these stories are sexist, but who unabashedly admires Britney Spears or Beyonce, and tries to imitate them in dress and manners. We are not paying attention to what we are teaching our children, or allowing them to learn from the media.
Children should not be concerned with "weight" as an issue, but my little cousin at seven can already tell me what's fattening, and what she's been told to avoid eating or drinking. She's a little slip of a thing without a spare ounce, but she's concerned with "weight" a full seven years before boys should even be a part of her consciousness.
If you look at ANY time in this culture in the recent past, and almost any other culture, you will find that beauty centered around normal to full-figured women. The trend for thinness is pretty unique to this time and place in history. The only similar instance was in the 1920s, when women with boyish figures and haircuts were the "in" thing. That trend corresponded directly with women's increased emancipation, just as it does now.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests