Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Against the LAW?
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 106 of 130 (357887)
10-21-2006 5:20 AM
Reply to: Message 101 by nator
10-20-2006 6:53 PM


OK, so why are you bringing up comb overs and being overwieght in a discussion of hollywood stars, anyway. By definition, those people considered sexy in Hollywood, male or female, will not be overweight.
There are larger women who are found sexually exciting. They may not be at the top, but they are in there. That is not true for men. As far as combovers go, I was pointing out that there are definite looks issues with regard to the natural range of hair for men.
And it doesn't even have to be a combover, the thinning or graphic pattern baldness is not acceptable though that is the state of MAN. That's generally why you see guys just straight out shave their head, once it starts to thin or develop weak areas.
I aM saying that they are more strict for women, and that a greater range of body type is allowed to be considered sexy in men compared to what is allowed for women.
And I am saying that that is not necessarily true. I will grant you that there are less roles for women in hollywood in general. And there are even less roles for older women than older men. Both of those facts are changing, but are relatively true.
As far as range of body types required for star roles, particularly attractive star roles, there is much greater variety for women than there are for men. You can talk about weight all you want. Perhaps it is true that obese women are not placed as love interests, and generally thinner women are. The same holds true for men, PLUS men must be within a certain range of build that are not expected for women. Men cannot have wide waists, sloped shoulders, really weak chests, and there cannot be a paunch (that is a belly which extends outward that is not necessarily fat).
Your list was composed of a very narrow range of how men actually look, you just singled out a few different types of attractive qualities. That is why I prepared the list I did. They had the same ethnic difference range, plus had actual body morphology differences.
And I am still floored by the guys you called average looking facially.
The range of acceptable size for women is much smaller than it used to be.
You brought up a very interesting fact, but it plays as much into my hands as it does in yours. You are correct that in the 1950's, and indeed stretching further back in time as well, there were larger body types making the top female sex roles. There has been a trend away from that up through today.
The reason this cuts against your point is that by our own admission, beauty contests (of pageant size) were a major cultural phemonena during the 50s/60s and this was in a time of general male interest domination.
The trend toward thinness has come about since women began gaining power in both money as well as control of content. Your own examples are fantastic too. I can't think of more submissive woman than Marilyn Monroe. The powerful independent women, in real life as well as on screen, were thin like Kathryn Hepburn, Joan Crawford, Betty Davis. These were female archetypes of independence and feminism and they were thin.
Look at the Zigfield Follies, or bombshells like Mae West. Men liked 'em big. With the advent of feminism and increasing control by women of entertainment, we have a more routine standard of thinner women.
Now I am not going to go into models. They are generally tall and thin, though I suspect that has more to do with esthetics of drapping clothes on walking clothes hangers than anything else.
But as far as sex symbols go, women have varied greatly in shape especially at times when men most controlled media. This is even true today, though heftier women (really heavy) have to go to more niche markets. The contents of women's lifestyle mags are the choice of women, and so if they are hard on women (harder than in the 50s) one has to ask what the role may be of what WOMEN want to see in women, rather than men.
On the flipside, you show me the heavy set male sex symbol... ever. Rudolph Valentino looks just about the same as the stars today. Strong jaw, Strong shoulders, No wide hips, No hair problems, well arranged facial features that are not too unique, no gut.
I might also add that in the porn world, which has been predominately male fantasy oriented, body types have also varied with the likes of Candy Samples and greater on the large end. One can point to many thin girls in porn, but that would not indicate the full range of girl's body types in porn, even at the top... hence showing the more broad array of male interests.
Now that video and internet allow for more amateur productions, this has only become more prominent. Patently average looking women who are sexual, as well as somewhat classically unattractive women who are sexual and intelligent have gained venues and are succeeding. This was not available when commercial interests could not take as many risks due to costs.
On the flipside, you show me where women are opening up sites (they certainly have that ability) dedicated to average to classically ugly looking guys so that they can finally ogle them as opposed to societal standards in movies. Intriguingly, you know what I have seen when I read feminist critique of porn? How ugly the guys are.
There's a double standard at play here... as far as I can tell, women are at the wheel.
Edited by holmes, : clarity
Edited by holmes, : removed male
Edited by holmes, : something else
Edited by holmes, : how many changes till it looks good?

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by nator, posted 10-20-2006 6:53 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by nator, posted 10-21-2006 5:57 AM Silent H has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 107 of 130 (357892)
10-21-2006 5:50 AM
Reply to: Message 105 by Damouse
10-20-2006 10:19 PM


Re: A response to beauty
quote:
multiple body types or groups are accepted.
I never said that only one type of body is accepted.
I DID say that the RANGE of acceptable body sizes and types is SMALLER for women than it is for men.
Why is everyone having so much difficulty with this?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Damouse, posted 10-20-2006 10:19 PM Damouse has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 108 of 130 (357896)
10-21-2006 5:57 AM
Reply to: Message 106 by Silent H
10-21-2006 5:20 AM


quote:
There are larger women who are found sexually exciting. They may not be at the top, but they are in there. That is not true for men.
But men can be skinny and wiry and be sexy, they can be short and be sexy, and they can be of medium build and height and be sexy, they can be tall and be sexy, they can be bald and be sexy, and they can be thick and muscular and be sexy. They can even be old and be sexy.
In fact, they can be any of these things and be a hugely popular leading man.
Where is this range in leading females? You get slim (but normal weight) women on down to very, very thin as hugely popular leading women.
I'm sorry, I just don't see the range in leading females compared to leading men.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Silent H, posted 10-21-2006 5:20 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by Silent H, posted 10-21-2006 7:30 AM nator has replied
 Message 110 by Silent H, posted 10-21-2006 8:46 AM nator has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 109 of 130 (357908)
10-21-2006 7:30 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by nator
10-21-2006 5:57 AM


In fact, they can be any of these things and be a hugely popular leading man.
Women can be all those things too... even bald... and be sexy. I am not sure why you keep bringing up height. Women can be short and sexy. Specific contests and models may generally be tall, but that does not limit sex symbols in general.
What women can be but men cannot, is have wider hips, smaller shoulders, bigger asses (there is no J-Lo or Latifa equivalent in men), a paunch of any kind, nor show poor muscle tone.
About the only thing you have brought up which might be arguably true is weight range for women sex symbols.
You have shown how women could be chunkier and be sex symbols in the past, more so than today. Even if I accept that trend as true to the degree you make out, you have not addressed the facts surrounding that trend, particularly with regard to male domination of social ideals and such things as beauty contests.
Can you please explain why, if men are driving this unhealthy ideal of women, that the trend DID NOT BEGIN until women gained more control in media and a greater role in shaping culture? Can you explain why women's magazines, which are not for men's consumption and so driven by women's interests, perpetuate these same trends?
Why are classic feminist archetypes in visual formats, overtly thin? Why do women not themselves advance feminist leaders like Dworkin as examples of what should be found attractive?
I'm sorry, I just don't see the range in leading females compared to leading men.
That says everything. When you point to the small variation in men's body shapes that you did and suggest that is larger variety than what I pointed to (and it could be broader if we go back in time) then I can only say you have a limited view of what men actually do look like.
But putting that aside, can you explain why we find essentially no men of average weight (that is fat not muscles) as sex symbols at any time? Unlike for women, the sex stars of today have about the same body shape as Rudolph Valentino. About the only change for male expectations are an increase in muscle mass.
Why has porn, which is generally male fantasy directed, contained a variety of body types (more so than mass media), and has only grown more so as means for production/distribution have improved?
In contrast, why have women, as they have come into controlling porn, generally restricted male body types even tighter than those in the media? Why does feminist critique of porn involve ridiculing the looks of men in "man dominated porn" as being ugly, or average, rather than better looking?
These facts tend to argue that men have far more lenient standards regarding women, than women do for women and men. This undercuts the concept that women are being programmed to believe anything in specific, especially from male expectations.
This is not to mention that all of this discussion of trends undercuts the theory that contests drive opinion, rather than opinion driving contests.
Edited by holmes, : valentino

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by nator, posted 10-21-2006 5:57 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by nator, posted 10-21-2006 4:29 PM Silent H has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 110 of 130 (357919)
10-21-2006 8:46 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by nator
10-21-2006 5:57 AM


additional gumble
This is less important than my previous post, but I thought I should add it in. You mention that short guys can be sex symbols. While technically true, that is not quite accurate.
Women do not get to see how short male stars are, except in person. They become famous through media which distorts the height of actors so that they appear taller. This is done using camera setups as well as basic tricks as having them stand on something higher, or having the other actors/actresses stand on something lower.
This is almost invariably done for short lead males, but is never done (as far as I have ever heard) for females.
I've given this anecdote to you before, but it bears repeating.
A movie was being shot around a building next to mine. I found a crowd of people standing there and new people approaching the crowd would yell out who's in it, and the reply was "Mel Gibson", after which the large number of women in the crowd would add in a very disappointed chorus "he's short". Some guys would show disinterest and walk away, while most women would stick around to watch.
I stuck around to watch and sure enough up popped Gibson... he kept going in and out of a subway for the scene. His IMDB stat claims he is 5'10" but I think that is BS. I was not that far away from him and he definitely appeared shorter than me.
In any case, I stood there for quite a bit. I wish I had had a video camera. As he would appear a huge moan would come from the women, followed by "he's so short". Some would walk away and others would stay just to watch. Then as I had said before more people came up, who's in it? Mel Gibson! (additional grumble from women) He's short. Mel Gibson pops up and the women moan. He's so short. etc etc.
Not one woman said anything like "who cares", or "I think he's cute like that", or even "well I think he's hot anyway".
No, short men do not really get to be sex symbol status, unless they are cheated to look average to tall with respect to height. The only exception may be Elijah Wood being cheated to look like a Hobbit.

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by nator, posted 10-21-2006 5:57 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by nator, posted 10-21-2006 4:48 PM Silent H has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 111 of 130 (357977)
10-21-2006 4:29 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by Silent H
10-21-2006 7:30 AM


quote:
What women can be but men cannot, is have wider hips, smaller shoulders, bigger asses (there is no J-Lo or Latifa equivalent in men), a paunch of any kind, nor show poor muscle tone.
Yeah, and women can't have facial hair and hairy chests and still be considered sexy.
What you are describing are feminine characteristics, holmes.
To address your list...
Women can't have particularly wide hips for women in Hollywood. There are really no Marilyns, remember?
Women can't have particularly broad shoulders.
Women can't have big asses, and I don't count J-Lo as having a big ass.
Women can't have much extra flesh, even healthy, normal female levels of body fat, except in rare cases.
And of course women can have poor muscle tone and still be considered sexy. They don't have to have muscles at all. Ever see some of the upper arms on those VS models? Like sticks.
I mean really, look at all of those really beautiful sexy young starlets like Christina Ricci and Lindsay Lohan and Nicole Ritchie. They were wildly popular and considered incredibly hot when they were 15, but then when they hit 18 or 20 or so they go completely Auschwitz.
Kate Winslet was our one shining beacon of a normal sized successful woman in Hollywood for a while but now she's slimmed down to be thinner than she was when she was younger and she was only a size 4 when she did Titanic. Remember all of that talk of how "curvy" and even "fat" she was in that film? Size 4!
quote:
About the only thing you have brought up which might be arguably true is weight range for women sex symbols.
Well, thank you, but I obviously think it's more than that.
quote:
You have shown how women could be chunkier and be sex symbols in the past, more so than today. Even if I accept that trend as true to the degree you make out, you have not addressed the facts surrounding that trend, particularly with regard to male domination of social ideals and such things as beauty contests.
Where did I say anything about male domination of social trends? And why is any of that relevent to if my claim is true or not?
quote:
Can you please explain why, if men are driving this unhealthy ideal of women, that the trend DID NOT BEGIN until women gained more control in media and a greater role in shaping culture?
I don't claim that men alone are driving this unhealthy ideal.
quote:
Can you explain why women's magazines, which are not for men's consumption and so driven by women's interests, perpetuate these same trends?
Magazines exist to make money. They will do what works to make money. And it works so well that men's magazines are starting to copy them.
quote:
Why are classic feminist archetypes in visual formats, overtly thin?
Are they? Earth Mother depictions are not especially thin.
quote:
Why do women not themselves advance feminist leaders like Dworkin as examples of what should be found attractive?
I think that most women in the US don't have any idea who the hell Dworking is. And, she is has extreme views that most women probably wouldn't agree with.
quote:
When you point to the small variation in men's body shapes that you did and suggest that is larger variety than what I pointed to (and it could be broader if we go back in time) then I can only say you have a limited view of what men actually do look like.
I work in retail. I have a better idea of the range of human body forms than you do, probably.
Hollywood, holmes, we were talking about idealized cultural notions of what is beautiful in men and women like in Hollywood.
Edited by schrafinator, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Silent H, posted 10-21-2006 7:30 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by Silent H, posted 10-22-2006 5:27 AM nator has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 112 of 130 (357983)
10-21-2006 4:48 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by Silent H
10-21-2006 8:46 AM


Re: additional gumble
Well, I'll accept the truth of this about shorter leading men, holmes.
However, I will mention male fashion models have a greater range of acceptable height and body build than the females do. While no fashion model regardless of gender, can have any extra fat on them at all, at least the men don't have to stay unmuscular. IOW, a male model is likely to be much healthier because it is more normal for men to have the low levels of body fat demanded of both genders.
And I'll also say that even if shortness is seen as a shortcoming in a male actor, there are certainly plenty of male mega stars who are on the short side to it not to be considered completely devastating to a career.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by Silent H, posted 10-21-2006 8:46 AM Silent H has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 113 of 130 (358027)
10-21-2006 7:16 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by Silent H
10-19-2006 2:55 PM


Re: hurt is still hurt.
Unwilling participants? You'll have to explain that one. I throw a beauty contest in my back yard with some friends. Who are the unwilling participants?
We were talking about the Miss Universe pagent.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Silent H, posted 10-19-2006 2:55 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by Silent H, posted 10-22-2006 4:29 AM RAZD has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 114 of 130 (358063)
10-22-2006 4:29 AM
Reply to: Message 113 by RAZD
10-21-2006 7:16 PM


Re: hurt is still hurt.
We were talking about the Miss Universe pagent.
No we weren't just talking about Ms Universe. Your OP does not address that contest at all.
In my posts I have been emphasizing beauty contests in general and have admitted its always possible that any specific contest(s) within specific culture(s) may be handled in a way which do produce negative effects.
Your statements have always seemed generalized to assessments of physical beauty and not just one pageant. If that is what you meant, it was not clear to me. If all you meant was Ms Universe pageants have unwilling participants then my original point stands, as well as the logic of it which you stated you were trying to discredit.
Now, if we want to discuss that one in specific, what evidence do you have that the Ms Universe pageant does have unwilling participants?

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by RAZD, posted 10-21-2006 7:16 PM RAZD has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 115 of 130 (358066)
10-22-2006 5:27 AM
Reply to: Message 111 by nator
10-21-2006 4:29 PM


Yeah, and women can't have facial hair and hairy chests and still be considered sexy. What you are describing are feminine characteristics, holmes.
Though I understand what you are saying, those are typically more "feminine" characteristics, they are not wholly so.
Furthermore this points to directly what I am talking about. While females are allowed some degree of masculinity and remain sexual icons, males are not allowed the same degree of feminity and remain icons. The most feminity guys are generally allowed is in facial features, which perhaps less than coincidentally is what women are not allowed so much of masculine wise.
In actual body shape, men are not allowed the same range. That is in addition to traditionally male weakness such as thinning and pattern baldness as well as excessive body hair. Believe it or not there is a relatively healthy fetish niche in porn for hairy women, showing that is a male interest. There is no niche that I am aware of for hairy men... unless it is in a joke movie making fun of them.
You go on to repeat your assertions, in spite what has already been discussed.
1) Women actually are allowed to have hips, even marilyn sized hips. What they arguably are not allowed to have is that and extra weight which marliyn had. And this ignored the fact that Marilyn was a sex symbol and still remains a sex symbol. That the trend has been away from her body type only shows that so-called "ideals" are flexible over time. And for some reason her body type was dumped when women became more of a controlling force in media.
2) Women can have broad and strong shoulders. Several women have made careers on very strong physiques, which centered on broad shoulders. There are no male sex symbols with sloped or weak shoulders.
3) I already said J-Lo does not have a big ass. What she has is a ROUND ASS. It is not flat and sticks out like a shelf. That is hot. But actually women can have big asses and be popular. I already mentioned Latifa. More to the point in the past, when men dominated media, women did have larger asses. And in porn, which is still somewhat male fantasy oriented, women have big asses. Some top sex stars are known for their big asses. Males are not allowed to have big asses, period.
Where did I say anything about male domination of social trends? And why is any of that relevent to if my claim is true or not?
This ought to be interesting. We were discussing the commodification of women, and use of commercial media as well as things like pageants to reinforce unhealthy ideals regarding women. Right?
It has appeared you were discussing this as being a generally male driven ideal, rather than coming from women. Perhaps I would be going to far but I would also assume that to be true given your feminist line of arguments (of which these beauty contest arguments are classic).
In any case, what I am showing is twofold. First is that the ideals change over time. It is simplistic to describe the media as holding an upper hand in shaping or enforcing "ideals". Second is that the change toward thinness appears largely driven by women's interests and their entrance into the media market place.
Independent women, typical feminist archetypes, have been thin, very thin. Targets of male interest have largely been average, to perhaps slightly inflated. As women have entered a more controlling role and inventing their own publications, the trend went toward that same feminist archtype.
Perhaps as women relent on themselves the trend will swing back.
I don't claim that men alone are driving this unhealthy ideal.
I'm not going to get into one of these arguments. This appears in direct conflict with statements you have made in the past, particularly in discussions with respect to magazines like Playboy. But I will let that go...
The point I have been driving at is that it does not appear driven by men at all. Its not that men and women are equally to blame, it is that women are at the wheel in this driving trend. At some of the very periods YOU pointed out as beauty contests being so important to society, and men being in control during those times, the body ideal was within healthy body norms.
Magazines exist to make money. They will do what works to make money. And it works so well that men's magazines are starting to copy them.
That didn't answer my question. Why are women's magazines perpetuating the trend that you find unhealthy and unreal for women? Why do such magazines make money from women?
Are they? Earth Mother depictions are not especially thin.
I was discussing real women as archetypes, not vague imagery. And if you are referring to venus figures, that is a totally different issue.
As far as Dworkin goes, I was not saying her in specific. I was asking why women tend to hold up ultra thin independent women as feminist icons, and so visual ideals, rather than ones that look like Dworkin (classically overweight and unattractive)? For all the press that fat women can't get music careers because of looks issues, there have been quite a number of larger women that did in typically male dominated industries (like the blues). In lesbian and feminist circles, very thin musicians seem to be the norm, if not the entirety.
Its these kinds of inconsistencies that you need to think about, especially when you come back to discuss what are driving forces. Where are the expectations, or "ideals", coming from and why? It does not seem to be coming from your dad or grand dad's beauty contests.
I work in retail. I have a better idea of the range of human body forms than you do, probably.
That is the biggest bunch of... Uh, I have worked in retail, so what? But lets go deeper than that. I have been a man, and been around guys. I've been in showers with them as well as been around masses of them clothed and unclothed in all sorts of environments.
I have also been around women. Being a nudist I've seen rather a lot of them naked, as well as plenty of them clothed. Being into porn I have also seen a huge variety of what is being displayed as sexual ideals.
I am telling you, that the range of body types allowed for men is in fact much less varied than for that of women. Yes women today are not allowed to be as heavy as in the past. Men are NOT allowed to be heavy at all and never were, unless you mean muscle mass.
Hollywood, holmes, we were talking about idealized cultural notions of what is beautiful in men and women like in Hollywood.
I know exactly what we are talking about. You provided your list and I provided mine. That you seem to believe your list encompasses a wider range of looks that men have, compared to women, indeed that Vin Diesel has an average looking face, says something to me.
That you essentially ignored my listing of Latifa, downplayed Ricci and Garofalo (not to mention that the latter ended up getting paired with a hunk in a movie), as well as never addressing the rump-shaker fad in music videos, makes me shake my head.
Lead men in Hollywood, as sex symbols, have remained essentially unchanged over time and represent a small amount of variation that actual men exhibit in body morphology. That is not true for women as sex symbols.
As a final note, lets stay away from models. I totally admit that models and the modelling industry is centered in thin people, tall and thin. Models are not the sole focus for sexual symbols, and the reason for their body type selection seems more to do with how to display clothes rather than anything about general sexual ideals.

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by nator, posted 10-21-2006 4:29 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by Lithodid-Man, posted 10-22-2006 5:57 AM Silent H has replied
 Message 118 by nator, posted 10-22-2006 8:13 AM Silent H has replied

  
Lithodid-Man
Member (Idle past 2931 days)
Posts: 504
From: Juneau, Alaska, USA
Joined: 03-22-2004


Message 116 of 130 (358067)
10-22-2006 5:57 AM
Reply to: Message 115 by Silent H
10-22-2006 5:27 AM


Hairy Men
Holmes writes:
Believe it or not there is a relatively healthy fetish niche in porn for hairy women, showing that is a male interest. There is no niche that I am aware of for hairy men... unless it is in a joke movie making fun of them.
Probably not relevant to the general conversation, but I have to disagree with this statement. A number of gay men that I am friends with are into hairy men. They call them 'bears'. There is bear porn available. Bear websites, etc. As I understand it, there exists a fetish for very hairy, lumberjack type men. That is my 2 cents.

Doctor Bashir: "Of all the stories you told me, which were true and which weren't?"
Elim Garak: "My dear Doctor, they're all true"
Doctor Bashir: "Even the lies?"
Elim Garak: "Especially the lies"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Silent H, posted 10-22-2006 5:27 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by Silent H, posted 10-22-2006 7:18 AM Lithodid-Man has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 117 of 130 (358070)
10-22-2006 7:18 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by Lithodid-Man
10-22-2006 5:57 AM


Re: Hairy Men
Probably not relevant to the general conversation, but I have to disagree with this statement
Thank you for the correction, and it is relevant. Its hard discussing this without making a statement without enough caveats.
When I was discussing porn I was discussing hetero porn, and neither gay/lesbian markets. That's because I was trying to focus on general public sex symbol ideals. You are absolutely correct that bears are a male-male sex market. It is large enough that I almost wouldn't call it fetish or niche.
Bear not only encompasses hairy, but also wider hips and generally heavier (with a paunch that could be muscle or fat, preferably solid). Muscle tone does not have to be evident as long as arms are thickish. Indeed thick may be the best descriptor all around.
You also have twinks which may include guys who are not only thin but lack muscle tone, weak.
What you do NOT see are such body types being a focus in porn made by women, for women. In the much larger hetero market, such types are not considered sex symbol worthy, and feminist critics of porn often point them out as ugly... while hypocritically arguing men should be accepting of broader female body types.
This pretty much supports my running argument that men have more broad concepts of what is capable of being sexually attractive, than women.

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Lithodid-Man, posted 10-22-2006 5:57 AM Lithodid-Man has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by nator, posted 10-22-2006 8:21 AM Silent H has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 118 of 130 (358075)
10-22-2006 8:13 AM
Reply to: Message 115 by Silent H
10-22-2006 5:27 AM


quote:
Though I understand what you are saying, those are typically more "feminine" characteristics, they are not wholly so.
No, but that means that they are uncommon. Since we are talking about the already rarified atmosphere of Hollywood, it stands to reason that they would be even more uncommon there.
Yes, men can't have a big bubble butt and be a huge sex symbol, just as women can't have a lot of facial hair and be a huge sex symbol.
quote:
While females are allowed some degree of masculinity and remain sexual icons, males are not allowed the same degree of feminity and remain icons.
This is just an opinion and asserion.
quote:
Women actually are allowed to have hips, even marilyn sized hips. What they arguably are not allowed to have is that and extra weight which marliyn had.
LOL! Then they don't have Marilyn-sized hips, then, do they?
That's the point.
quote:
Women can have broad and strong shoulders. Several women have made careers on very strong physiques, which centered on broad shoulders.
No, women have had very slightly broad shoulers and only a little bit of muscle and been considered very sexy.
They haven't had really broad shoulders like a man, like this:
quote:
There are no male sex symbols with sloped or weak shoulders.
But they can have normal/average male shoulders. I thought that Tom Cruise's shoulders sloped down when I saw him in Top Gun, but that was a long time ago.
quote:
But actually women can have big asses and be popular. I already mentioned Latifa.
Latifah is not a huge sex symbol. And that's also only one. I think that Latifah can be big because she's Latifah, but I don't see a whole bunch of Latifah-sized asses on women leading ladies in Hollywood. She became an actress through her work in the rap and music business, so she is there in spite of the prevailing requirements, not because of them.
quote:
It has appeared you were discussing this as being a generally male driven ideal, rather than coming from women. Perhaps I would be going to far but I would also assume that to be true given your feminist line of arguments (of which these beauty contest arguments are classic).
This is another example of where, instead of responding to what I actually write, you attach a whole constellation of views to what I write and argue against those instead of to what I write.
Stop doing that, or this conversation is over.
Are they? Earth Mother depictions are not especially thin.
quote:
I was discussing real women as archetypes, not vague imagery.
Er, by definition, an "archetype" is not a real thing, but an idealized symbol.
quote:
And if you are referring to venus figures, that is a totally different issue.
Earth Mother/Goddess/Venus images are actually the first thing I think of when someone says "depictions of feminist archetypes".
But if you think that the only feminist or strong women in Hollywood were uberthin, I'll remind you of Mae West.
quote:
Yes women today are not allowed to be as heavy as in the past.
It's not just that. More importantly, it was the range that was greater.
It's that women were allowed to be willowy OR average weight OR very curvy.
quote:
Men are NOT allowed to be heavy at all and never were, unless you mean muscle mass.
Orson Wells was never thin, but he was much admired when he was young. Even in Citizen Kane he was chunky.
But I'll agree that men in Hollywood are, in general, not allowed to be fat, although they have always been allowed to be of average weight. One could be musclular or be thin and wiry and still be a leading man.
quote:
Its these kinds of inconsistencies that you need to think about, especially when you come back to discuss what are driving forces. Where are the expectations, or "ideals", coming from and why? It does not seem to be coming from your dad or grand dad's beauty contests.
Sure they are, just not as much today, probably, as they did when I was little. Also, there are many influences from all over society that teach different things in different ways. Sometimes they conflict. No surprise there.
quote:
For all the press that fat women can't get music careers because of looks issues, there have been quite a number of larger women that did in typically male dominated industries (like the blues).
Black culture has traditionally valeud fleshy women (and men). Hollywood is still largely a white culture.
Fat, or even just fleshy, white women, unless they sing opera, have a terrible time in the music business. It's not quite as bad for the men, but almost.
quote:
In lesbian and feminist circles, very thin musicians seem to be the norm, if not the entirety.
Maybe you follow the lesbian music scene, but I don't, so I really can't comment of this claim. I never thought Melissa Etheridge was terribly skinny, and I know for a fact that the two women comprising The Indigo Girls are not skinny at all, having seen them in concert.
I have noticed that you have stopped mentioning baldness, and haven't mentioned age at all wrt men and women in Hollywood. (AbE: yes, you did mention age briefly earlier, so I retract that absolute)
It's long been true that leading men can be much older, and look it, too, and still be considered very sexy and desireable, whereas older women (meaning over 35) had better look like they are much younger.
Edited by schrafinator, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Silent H, posted 10-22-2006 5:27 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by Silent H, posted 10-22-2006 3:30 PM nator has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 119 of 130 (358076)
10-22-2006 8:21 AM
Reply to: Message 117 by Silent H
10-22-2006 7:18 AM


Re: Hairy Men
quote:
This pretty much supports my running argument that men have more broad concepts of what is capable of being sexually attractive, than women.
I agree with this.
I absolutely agree that men have a broader range of what they find attractive in women than women do.
But my claim was not limited to what men think, but also was what society as a whole "thinks". That includes women, and that includes the media machines like the cosmetics industries and Hollywood and pageants.
Edited by schrafinator, : No reason given.
Edited by schrafinator, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by Silent H, posted 10-22-2006 7:18 AM Silent H has not replied

  
tsig
Member (Idle past 2909 days)
Posts: 738
From: USA
Joined: 04-09-2004


Message 120 of 130 (358086)
10-22-2006 9:37 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by RAZD
10-11-2006 9:40 PM


Leaders
Maybe it's about time that Homo sapiens started some system for chosing people to shape the world in a positive manner.
Yes! now how do we do it?
Just chosing between the lesser of two evils just means things will get more evil.
So

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by RAZD, posted 10-11-2006 9:40 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by RAZD, posted 10-22-2006 11:47 AM tsig has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024