Quote:
Originally posted by duckznutz
Interesting points CSflim . . . . but were rubenesque female forms not once pretty desirable? A couple hundred years ago . . . being fat was seen as being affluent = good catch!
Nowadays the poorest sections of society are grossly overweight whilst the wealthy can afford fresh fruit and memberships to health clubs and gymnasia.
|
yes I agree. Being sucessful is seen as being attractive. It has been shown in animals. Fail to recall the names of the particular animals involved, so appologies if I'm a little vague:
A particular type of male bird, must build a home for the female. The bird with the best construction will "win" the female.
Many animals will collect food and make a store. This would be seen as a kind of wealth, and those wealthiest are seen as more desirable.
I would also poitn out another feature of humans: Tan. In the past, those with a tan were the poor manual laborers. Pale white skinned, was for people who stayed indoors, and were rich. Hence pale skin was seen as attractive. In fact many women accentuated this, with white make-up.
Now things are just the opposite. Tanned people are the rich people who can afford to fly to sunny holiday locations, and spend all day lieing in the sun. Tanned people are seen as more attractive, and hence the arrival of tanning beds and fake-tan lotion.
Quote:
|
you are right about the media and their gross distortion . . . but I think the media is not as influential as they would have us beleive . . . . i think that your natural instincts dominate . . and you will find someone attractive evn if their shap s not currently 'en vogue'.
|
I'm not really saying HOW much the media and society distorts our view, its a pretty difficult thing to measure. all I know is that there is definately social issues regarding to what we find attractive. This social/sexual interaction is not unique to humans, as I (badly!) demonstrated above.
I would say that people who are more open minded, and less susceptible to media manipulation tend to have a more natural idea of "what it is to be sexy". Which would lend support to the media influence, however I will admit that this is not a scientific argument, as it is soley from subjective personal observation. (I feel it is alway very important to make that disctinction)
Quote:
|
I recall an interesting tv programme whereby a fashion designer decided to use women from mens magazines as models instead of the usual stick insect clothes models . . . . .and he was raving about their curves and how they 'filled the clothes properly'. You only have to compare the women in top-shelf mens magazines with the women in Cosmopolitan or fashion magazines to realise they are COMPLETELY different . . . mens magazines know their target audience!
|
Sorry, fail to see the coherence of this argument. What does the fact that men's magazine models fit
designed clothes have to do with the argument?
Or is your argument simply that the two types of women are shaped different? I would be the of the opinion that that would be self evident, but that both shapes are socially decided, and hence subject to the same scrutiny as everything else. But please clarify this point.