what I claim is more complicated than that.
Hey schraf, my own position is more complicated than what I wrote for myself. I boiled it down to a basic stance regarding the amount looks play into judgement of a person. If you are not claiming what I wrote when boiled down to that simple of a statement, I would greatly like to know what your position is.
If you play a funny man on TV, you can be fat and have a beautiful, thin, sexy wife or girlfriend on your show. The opposite is not the case.
Uh... that does not mean the guys are viewed as sexy. They are viewed as funny, usually highly fallible idiots. The reasons for pairing them with a more attractive partner can be many and does not change how the man is viewed.
In addition, there are plenty of actresses who are not slender to say the least and they get to play both serious and funny characters. They are generally allowed to play a broader range of parts, though I might have to admit not necessarily the sexy parts... just like the guys.
As far as your suggestion that bald is accepted, perhaps I should have said balding. Guys with thinning hair, and pattern baldness, and comb overs toupees etc are not sex symbols. I totally grant that guys with completely smooth or well groomed partially bald heads can.
Your thing on hair is bogus. Tom Selleck and Burt Reynolds (who I'm not sure has much body hair) have fantastic bodies. I'm talking about an average guy with an average body with body hair. Hairy backs, asses, and even too much on the face are definitely not sellable. Male models are often expected to remove armpit hair as well. Male body hair is a running gag on most sitcoms, and assumed turnoffs in most serious content as well, unless it is a lack of hair on the head.
by looking at the prevalence of the pressures and influences within the culture.
If that is how you measure pressure on people, then yours is a circular argument.
And those shows are quite novel, emerging in the last several years.
Revenge of the Nerds was not just a few years ago, and it was escapist fantasy playing directly on existing stereotypes regarding looks v brains. There have been more than just that.
You look at all of the men who are considered to be attractive to a representative sample of people and see how much variation there is in their height, body size and proportions, facial proportions, etc. You do the same with women, and then you compare.
Okay, and do you do this over time to see if this is static or there are trends? If there are trends what would this say? What can be said then about the nature of beauty?
If you have some credible examples of such research, then I want to see them.
That they shouldn't mind having their bodies on display, judged, measured against others, and rewards given to those judged to be superior. It's no wonder street harrasment is considered to be such a trivial thing by so many men.
If they voluntarily enter such a contest then they shouldn't mind. Outside of that they shouldn't be judged on any specific criteria should they? If they think they won't be judged as potential sexual partners by others (men AND WOMEN) based mainly on their looks then they are delusional. If they think they shouldn't be, they are being unrealistic and hypocritical (unless they are blind).
Women's lifestyle magazines rarely show any photos of men at all.
Well that's crap. I've seen some and they definitely have men. But let's say they rarely do just for sake of argument... are they good looking or what?
They aren't vastly different in body type? Toby McGuire and Vin Diesel could pass as twins, almost? Give me a break.
No, give me a break. None of the guys look like twins and I didn't say that. That does not mean they display a wide variation in how men actually look. NONE of those guys have wide hips, big asses, paunches, sloped shoulders, or (with the exception of Adrian Brody) unusual facial features. None of them, even the thin ones, are out of shape. They are all toned and not weak or flabby looking. Adrian Brody is probably the thinnest, but he is wiry, not emaciated or weak.
A wide variety of ethnic and basic body size attributes, does NOT argue that a wide variety of mens looks are considered attractive.
Your analysis of my own list was equally convenient. I'm not sure how many times you listed "classic face". There is an immense difference in facial features between Halle Berry and Daryl Hannah. Your concept, or knowledge, of their heights seems off. I should say I forgot Jada Pinkett, and Patricia Zellwegger.
There were also differences in hip size, shape of shoulder, muscularity, and breast size/shape. That is a range you do NOT see among male sex stars.
As far as Christina Ricci goes, she does seem to have a male following so I'm not sure where you get that she is not considered attractive. Same goes for Garfalo, that she does not play against Tom Cruise can be used for members of your own list. She was in a movie called Cats n Dogs where she played the "ugly" girl against Uma Thurman, posed as a significant difference in looks I might add. In that she does get the guy... the hot guy.
But the smaller pageants are what qualify you to compete at the larger contests, in many cases, so the standards are probably more standardized than you think.
The ones that allow you to compete for the larger contests, when added with those largest contests are still a small percentage of all beauty contests. They are usually fun side events that go on all over the place. Its a cheap and easy thing to run as well as attract attention.
Have you ever read how the Ms America pageant came about? That it grew into what it is, says something about marketing and public interest in watching that specific spectacle.
There are also many movie awards than just the major ones that get televised. Do I really have to believe that only those films that get awards on tv are of merit, or being judged on the only criteria film can, or should, be judged? I would say no. The MPAA has their own standards, just as every other competition has their own.
That a movie does not get a stamp or approval from the MPAA does not mean that it will not be, or has not been, hugely successful.
The only reason scholarships and "talent" were added was to make the pageants at least appear to be judging the whole woman.
Well we agree on one thing, but that only underscores my point. These contests are ultimately influenced by the demands of the public whose attention they want to capture and not the other way around.
I think the addition of the other categories, so as to not judge esthetics, is somewhat obscene. No woman's worth can be judged based on "talent" either. The suggestion they are even trying to judge a whole woman, by having some odd mix of arbitrary criteria, rather than run a beauty contest for fun, is a bit repulsive.
We learn from our culture what to consider beautiful, and pageants are a part of a very narrow definition for women.
You learn, in part, what to consider beautiful from your culture. There are many other ways, including internal desires and random experiences which will influence this. There is also the issue of changing tastes just to change for something different.
I personally wish prudish concepts that deride human interest in physical pleasure, including celebration of physical beauty, would go the way of the dinosaur.
I have a feeling both of our wishes will go unfulfilled.
holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)
™ Version 4.2
