Against the LAW?

This is an interesting article which discusses "manliness" in Psychology Today in the US these days and how it seems to be changing.While it has some interesting information that supports both holme's viws AND my views, this paragraph caught my eye:

thought on other threads:http://EvC Forum: VOTE reform ... -->EvC Forum: VOTE reform ...
http://EvC Forum: Voting, Some thoughts on new methods for an old problem. -->EvC Forum: Voting, Some thoughts on new methods for an old problem.off topic here?

Actually men can have bubble butts and be attractive. For some reason round asses are generally appealing and flat are not, that goes for both sexes. What men cannot have is a large ass, which means broad or tall.That is different than women who are allowed a much greater range in hip size (from very thin to wide, with accompanying difference in ass size).Yes, women cannot have a lot of facial hair. Okay, so you have the likes of michelle rodriquez (tough fighting chick, tomboyish) to julia roberts (thin, feminine). Please give me the same example for men. You can give me thin guys with some slightly feminine facial features, but overtly feminine guys (as rodriquez is masculine) you are unlikely to find. If you haven't figured out who rodriquez is yet, you may choose linda hamilton (specifically in terminator 2), or sandra bergman (conan the barbarian). Wrong. They can have MM sized hips and not look like MM. I'm not sure what's so hard to understand about this. I already said lower weight has been a trend. That is everything that hangs all over the body, not just the hips. What the hell are very slightly broad shoulders? And what does your picture have anything to do with what I was discussing? That was a body builder with large muscle mass, which I think you would agree is outside the natural range of women's body shapes. I meant broad shoulders and a strong (read athletic strong, not overpumped strong) physique for women.Forget muscle mass for a moment, male sex symbols are not allowed the same variance in shoulder or hip size as women are. Female sex symbols can range from small shouldered wide hipped, to wide shouldered small hipped. Male sex symbols are invariably medium to wide shouldered, with narrow to medium hips... but cannot be medium shouldered medium hipped (which would give a flat slightly paunched rectangular shape).And I might add that some men do find pumped up women attractive. Since when did "huge" become part of the discussion? There were men on your list that were not "huge" sex symbols either. You name me a single guy that's a sex symbol, huge or not, that's big like Latifah.I will add that MM and Mae West are still considered sex symbols by men. That modern symbols coming out of Hollywood are not the same, does not change the fact that they are still iconic in those shapes. Not in the dictionary I use. The first definition is original pattern: prototype: A PERFECT EXAMPLE. That seems very odd to me since we have no idea what those figurines are for, and they hardly suggest independence.You have a point that Mae West was independent-minded, strongwilled, and not thin. You don't have to mention her because I did in an earlier post. The problem is that she is NOT usually advanced as a feminist archetype. Though strongwilled she was still considered subservient in being a focus of male sexual desire, she would flaunt her assets to use men but it was a trade-off (and sometimes she did give in to men). I mean I don't ever recall her wearing pants and trying to look masculine or take over other male roles.Crawford, Davis, and Hepburn are more usually advanced as examples. They wore pants and defied roles and still got ahead. At times they could be downright sexless (which to my thinking is why they are found appealing to feminists as opposed to MW). You need to find a spot and stick with it. Its hard to keep up. When the f*** was Orson Wells considered a sex symbol? And I will say he was somewhat thin to start with. Citizen Kane (which he made by the way, it was not a commercial picture where he was chosen for romantic lead) involved him growing older and they padded him. A later picture, The Stranger, had him as charismatic (though still not romantic lead) and he looks in pretty good shape.If you want an example of someone who does not fill the bill, this is a freebie to you, it is Robert Mitchum. Amazingly he (for a short time) was considered a sex symbol. He has medium shoulders and hips (resulting in the square paunched shape I told you about earlier) and an incredibly weak chin. He did have some good muscle tone however, and his lurching gate (found tough-guy sexy) he attributed to trying to walk while holding in his gut.I defy you to find anyone with small shoulders, or wide hips. There is one possibility with a whole lot of caveats, but that ain't a freebie. This makes little sense. If your father's beauty contests, and his father's beauty contests, shaped opinion then why have standards not remained the same? I don't see how you can say they don't have as much impact when you started by stating how important they were nationally during the 50s? How could they be more important back then but have less impact than today?I agree that there are many influences from all over society. That is in fact my main point regarding beauty contests (even pageant sized ones). Change in taste is constant and driven by many factors, sometimes just to have difference from what came before. They combine to drive what standards are held in a contest, rather than the other way around. You mean like Janis Joplin and Mama Cass? How about Bette Midler? I agree that with the advent of music videos its gotten harder for anyone of weight to do music, but traditionally if a person sings well their songs get played. I can't believe you are saying this after labelling some of the women on my list as thin. Okay not skinny, but what does skinny have to do with it? They are thin in the same vein as what you were just pointing to in Hollywood. As far as the IGirls go, I don't know what they look like in concert, but their material does not make them appear to be beyond average size, and one appears thin. How did you notice I stopped mentioning baldness and not notice my explanation regarding baldness? In direct response to your post I acknowledged that COMPLETELY bald does not carry a stigma. Now realistically that is more a modern phenomena as far as sex symbols go. I was hesitant to let a Telly Savalas reference slip by, but he was so cool as Kojak I'm not going to argue. I'd peg Yul Brenner to be one of the first.In any case, what said was that I accept that total baldness, or very well groomed partial baldness (normally with totally shaved top of head) is acceptable for a sex symbol. What is NOT acceptable is thinning hair, nor patterned baldness. It seems to be an all or nothing kind of thing.Yet most men do go through some sort of thinning and or patterned baldness. They do not make leads... without a hairjob of some kind.As far as age goes, I freely admit there is an ageism about sex symbols. Go figure that youth is considered sexy. And unfortunately that does work against women to a greater degree. That does not eliminate women from being sex symbols, or the focus of sexual attraction in a movie, but it is much rarer.Unfortunately this is because men generally age better than women. They become more distinguished looking, accentuation of existing features, where women don't. Women also have more outward features which can weaken (sagging) that men do not. Take it up with the people that shafted men by depriving them of the ability to have their own babies.

---

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

thanks for the links.

quote:

---

Okay, so you have the likes of michelle rodriquez (tough fighting chick, tomboyish) to julia roberts (thin, feminine)

---

Er, I don't think there's much difference between those two women. Both are very feminine looking; Rodriquez looks like a bikini model and Roberts is taller.You are right that these two women very nearly represent the extremes, although they can get thinner than Roberts and still be considered sexy.But if you really do think that there's less difference between Toby McGuire and Vin Diesel than between those two women, I don't think we will ever be able to even be in the same book, let alone on the same page.

quote:

---

Unfortunately this is because men generally age better than women. They become more distinguished looking, accentuation of existing features, where women don't. Women also have more outward features which can weaken (sagging) that men do not. Take it up with the people that shafted men by depriving them of the ability to have their own babies.

---

LOL! Wow, that is some cultural programming for you.Edited by schrafinator, : No reason given.

We were discussing sex symbols right? That photo you supplied appears to be an awards photo op, where she is made up to be feminine and in stark contrast to the butch sex imagery she is known for. While it shows that she is versatile and can be a model as well, that does not change the fact that her forte has been decidedly unfeminine looks and roles.Perhaps you could look at how she became popular, say images from Girlfight, Fast and the Furious, Resident Evil, or SWAT. Here are pics of Rodriquez playing masculine hot... Her role retrospective image is this: As far as her real life goes here's a more candid shot of MR not made up for the paparazzi... I wasn't even trying to suggest that Roqriquez or Roberts were the extreme for feminity/masculinity, but rather used them as some good examples of a range which cannot be seen in men. Neither was I discussing the full range of body shapes. If you think the two images you supplied represent any extremes then I don't hold much for your opinion, particularly when you chose an image of Rodriquez diametrically opposed to the look she became famous for.Yes, the range in masculinity/feminity that Rodriquez/Roberts represent (when using actual sex symbol imagery from their famous roles), is larger than the range in masculinity/feminity that Diesel/McGuire exhibit. I can choose other tough ladies if you want. How about pvt Vasquez from Aliens?Of course rather than looking for women, why not find an image of male that is a sex symbol based on his effeminate looks and roles. I'm sorry, which is the cultural programming? That only women can have babies, or that women's skin and features age differently/faster than men's and have more prominent features which can change in a more visible/dramatic way?Age is a factor in being a sex symbol. Women generally show age changes faster and more dramatically. If you cannot admit this, I'm not sure what else can be said.Edited by holmes, : photosEdited by holmes, : rewrite for clarity/brevity and some new photosEdited by holmes, : correct referenceEdited by holmes, : one day I will get this right

---

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

My point never had anything to do with the roles women play in film in the US, holmes.It has always been to do with the range of body types. Bodies, not roles, not personae, not anything other than their actual physical features.That's why I showed Ms. Rodriquez in red carpet attire. She looks very much, physically, like most other women in Hollywood.

quote:

---

Age is a factor in being a sex symbol. Women generally show age changes faster and more dramatically.

---

It is partially cultural. Older film actresses in France, for example, are given roles as romantic leads even though they have wrinkles and bags under their eyes, because older women are considered powerful, alluring and sexy in France.That is cultural conditioning, just as your attitude that "men become distinguished and women just get old" is influenced by culture.

I realize that a large part of our discussion is about base physical features. However, it was in a context of ideals, as well as Hollywood sex symbolry. That involves much more than base physical feature, especially because in Hollywood the camera lies. The question is what do we see of a person to idealize?Masculine v feminine in specific... which is the particular case I was discussing... involves more than just base physical features, though there will be differences there as well. There is a difference in stature, muscle tone, and how one moves/holds oneself.In Hollywood, the sex symbol imagery it creates using rodriquez is different than roberts. It doesn't even have to be about specific dress or what the characters do. Look at the images I showed, are you telling me that rodriquez's body looks similar to roberts's?Not only does she have a more athletic physique, they cheat angles and clothing to accentuate masculine qualities so that the character she plays... that people see and idolize... look much more masculine than images of roberts's characters. That's the ideal, the symbolry people can look to compare/contrast themselves and others. People can be made up to look like anything for the camera. That is why I provided the images from her roles as well as a very candid shot of what she looks like in person. NONE of the other photos look anything close to the paparazzi image you posted. In fact I didn't even recognize the photo you posted.I mean how do you denounce the characters she is known for playing, the large body of images she has produced for idolization as not important, as NOT her body type... then choose an event photo as if that tells you what her actual body type is? Couldn't it be that the reason she is looking like other Hollywood ladies is because that's exactly what she's been crafted to look like, as well as best photo chosen to create that illusion.As it is, in the photos you provided there is no way you can tell there is a 5" difference in their height, nor that they have vastly different skin color and tone, not to mention muscularity. No. Older women per se are not considered that. Certain women that have powerful and alluring personalities are considered that.Didn't you just get done saying this has to do with body types? What is a powerful and alluring body type? Indeed what part of the aging process on a body makes it look more powerful and alluring in and of itself?I agree that youth is a basic quality of attractiveness that people look for. I thought you agreed on that point. If so, then my statement is directly in sync with that idea. My attitude? That was an observation. I happen to find many ladies quite attractive, regardless of their age difference to me.That does not change the fact that men's features tend to be highlighted by some of the changes, which thankfully (generally) appear more slowly and less dramatically, whereas women's features are not.That's not to say older women can't look sexy. Just as a general rule they do get socked with changes that more visibly reduce youthful appearance and so sexual appeal than men do.Edited by holmes, : apostrophectomy

---

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

Haven't seen anything that doesn't still show womaness, but that's a side issue.Surprised you haven't used Dark Angel, the show that made Jessica Alba box office material.More to your point though would be Boy's DOn't Cry - especially as it is based on a true story rather than pure hollywood fiction.But even this does not address the issue of superficiality in beauty standards.To look at this another way we have to look at what is done to conform to standards of beauty, especially things that may end up harming the people doing them.Steroids for men count as things done to enhance physical prowess, in boxing, baseball and bicycling as examples, but not to enhance their physical attractiveness.Breast implants for women do not accomplish anything but adherance to a superficial standard of beauty. They do not enhance the physical or mental ability of the person having the alterations done, but can cause severe health problems as well as interfere with natural uses (feeding infants). That is but the start of the cosmetic industry surgery for superficial reasons (excluding from discussion reconstructive surgery or surgery to correct deformations -- just ones that take a normal person and "enhance" them).The point is that women undergo these operations to conform to an external, superficial beauty standard.It's getting to the point where a woman can't be a beauty pagent winner or a movie star without "enhancement" in some form of alteration to their physical self.Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

I didn't claim there would be no "womaness". My point was the range of masculinity/feminity available to both sexes as sexual symbols (ideals). Have you seen any males as sex symbols showing the same degree of feminity that have been shown of masculinity in women?I didn't use Dark Angel as I never heard of it. But as I stated Roqriquez is not the only one or some extreme. Pvt Vaquez from Aliens and maybe even Hamilton from T2 showed more masculinity.I agree that the actress from Boys Don't Cry, and Million Dollar Baby (her name escapes me at the moment) shows some masculinity... but I'm not sure if she'd count as a sex symbol. I take it you didn't read schraf's citation? The same goes for men. And I will note that steroids are not just for enhanced physical prowess. While they certainly are used for that, that is not the extent. Body builders and regular ol' Joes at the gym use them to build body mass to artificial extremes.And I will challenge the above claim. Unless a person has internalized such standards they do not undergo such operations, and it is not like the internalization comes from set external standards. There are MANY standards out there.You bring up breast implants, yet super slim fashion models don't necessarily get implants. They succeed with very small breasts. Certainly both female stars of Resident Evil aren't huge breasted, and Milla Jovovich has made quite a career with a relatively flat chested look.Even the porn industry is not to be blamed for this craze. While many have gotten implants, whole sections of the industry are devoted to natural, and particularly to small, breasts.What you and schraf have failed to show is why it should be considered that these contests are wagging the populace, rather than the combined whimsies of the populace wagging any particular contest at any particular time.How long does a particular ideal, as represented by any specific contest, linger in the population due to that event? I don't think this claim is true. Especially if you are discussing breast implants.That people increasingly do engage in alteration, as technology advances and prices drop, does not suggest people are being forced to do so.I will agree that people are increasingly trying to find and reach ideals that they set for themselves, sometimes fantasy-oriented goals, rather than being satisfied with who they are. I don't believe this has anything to do with beauty contests. Many alterations would keep them out of many of the larger pageants.Piercings and tattoos are increasing in popularity and they are not within the beauty pageants. They are inherently causing damage to the body and do nothing to enhance mental or physical performance. So what should I make of that?I also remain unclear why I should think of appreciating beauty as somehow lesser as an activity than appreciating any other singular facet of an individual. I also find it somewhat ironic to deride it as superficial. There is a quality of physical-visual esthetics. It does not need support from some "inner quality" (beyond bone structure and bearing). Enthusiasm and confidence helps, but I don't think that's what you are referring to.

---

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