beauty is in the eye of the pocketbook

[anotheranon]

Pandagon's expansion on a post at Alley Rat about the sad state of men who so media-saturated that they can't find normal women attractive got me thinking about how much of human desire is our own, and how much is just overexposure to Photoshopped models. I know what constant visions of rail-thin women to do other women - makes us feel bad enough about how we look that we will shell out for the latest makeup/snake oil/gym membership to firm up/shave off/cover up where we think we're lacking or have too much. Even though I've seen models in person and know, definitely, that even they don't look like their photos, I have to admit it still sometimes gets to me that my skin isn't perfect or that my tummy isn't perfectly flat.

But I never considered the guy's perspective - there are some guys getting really bothered by the fact that they can't get turned on by normal sized/shaped women because all they've ever seen are models and actresses, and heavily Photoshopped ones at that. If the comments on these two posts are any indication, those who do fancy someone other than the advertising standards of young and thin are mocked by their male peers or considered fetishists for liking a woman of perfectly normal proportions.

I also have to wonder if this isn't affecting women too - after all, billboards aren't chock full of balding guys with beer guts. And much as Hugh Jackman's arms are a joy to behold, I DO know that there is an infinite variety of male beauty out there. At least, I hope I do.

IMHO this is a downright freakish state of affairs! I know that some of us have overcome Hollywood/Madison Avenue well enough to develop our own tastes; did we all stop watching tv? Personally I think it's helpful to see lots of ordinary people naked to get a more realistic idea of, well, reality, but somehow I don't think that most people will really go for nationally encouraged nudity :P

Yes, this is an incoherent rambling post, and the links above discuss the issues of media, body image, and selling stuff far better than I can here. Read & discuss amongst yourselves....

Comments

[ragdoll.livejournal.com]

It's a really interesting and telling article. I've been saying that for years -- even when I was younger (in my late teens and twenties), I was considered "ugly" because I wasn't a size two or blonde. I wish I was joking, I'm not. My breasts were either too big (when the standard was more flat chested tall blonde types like Jerry Hall or Cheryl Tiegs) or the only thing good about me (when it was busty tall blondes in vogue). I've known I was too old for men my age for at least 10 years -- most men in their 30s and 40s only wanted 20 year olds.

My ex was odd because he liked curvy women - so natural he was considered a chubby chaser. I felt uncomfortable with it because he seemed like me at 100 lbs overweight more than 30-40. I've often been told that I would've been considered beautiful in the Victorian/Edwardian era esp. cos I have an hour glass figure esp. when corseted but I'll never have really thin thighs or calves etc.

It's really sad the the current trend for beauty in the media is stick anorexic thin with silicon boobs stuck on. *shudders*

[tommdroid.livejournal.com]

I don't fully recognise this phenomena, though in large parts I surely do. I know a few who have younger girlfriends/wifes, but I also know a few women who have boyfriends/husbands who are significantly younger than temselves.

In discussions I sense there is a differance between fantasies/sex and love/sex. And the sexual charisma is known to be a mix of a beautiful body and a smashing personality. I have heard several men, younger and older, phraise a couple of Swedish actresses born in the 40s. When going out me and my lady friends are frequently asked to dance by younger men (and men our age but seldom older men...could it be the docs?) And I am chubby. Is this a Swedish thing?

But sure, I see your point, and the article was very"the thumb on the nail". Some people are hoplessly shallow...and I predict they will die alone.

Personally I have a thing for long, slim, sexy male legs (and androids!). I can't help it, my mind and my libido do not always get along through logic. Fortunately I have other turn-ons as well, lucky for me that is, I would detest being all that shallow. A big turn-off for me is all them Ken and Barbie like people, platic perfect and altered, only good for hanging clothes on.

Truly beautiful people on the other hand, I can never look enough on them. It is like looking at art but just like art it is clear they are fantasy, photoshop fantasy, makeup and hair fantasy. They are not for real sex, and if they stopped me from having real sex and real turn-ons I would see a shrink, a.s.a.p.

[nminusone.livejournal.com]

I hope this doesn't seem too angry. It's hard for me to write this in a happy happy tone of voice. For some reason.

> got me thinking about how much of human desire is our own, and how
> much is just overexposure to Photoshopped models.

The verb "eroticize" exists to describe an active process. If what's erotic was pre-programmed there would be no process, and no real need for that verb. The simple fact that advertising works makes the situation abundantly clear. The nasty part is that our subconscious can and will eroticize things all by itself, if we're negligent enough to let any random thing go in it. It's no different than neglecting what your dog eats while out for a walk, and having him get sick as a result.

> I also have to wonder if this isn't affecting women too - after all,
> billboards aren't chock full of balding guys with beer guts.

If women can see, and have any erotic response whatsoever based on appearance, then I can guarantee you that response can be programmed to some extent. If ducks can imprint ping pong balls, and giraffes can imprint jeeps, doesn't it seem likely there's some flexibility left in adult animals? The basis of all advertising, conditioned association, works as well in this area as any other.

A relevant quote comes to mind:

Hannibal Lecter: No, he covets. That's his nature. And how do we begin to covet, Clarice? Do we seek out things to covet? Make an effort to answer.

Clarice Starling: No. We just--

Hannibal Lecter: No. Precisely. We begin by coveting what we see every day. [...]

And if what we see every day is advertising... you do the math.

(Those who know me will understand my perverse delight in the fact that the words of one so insane are still so true.)

The process of eroticization is one we're each responsible for, whether we accept that responsibility, or ignore it and let it happen randomly. For this reason I have only partial sympathy for people whose standards of desire have been poisoned by unreal images. You control what your brain eats. Try to feed it something healthy, not whatever trash floats by. Even if you're exposed to trash all day long, it's still your choice whether to accept the value system it presents or reject it as the bullshit that it is.

airbrushing photos article in Glamour this month

[(Anonymous)]

In regards to this, thought you might be interested in checking out this month's Glamour (Jennifer Connelly cover) which has a brief but interesting article on airbrushing photos in the fashion biz, complete with before and afters. The actress who guested on Friends & then CSI (aisha tyler?? not sure) wrote it & it's a good commentary on how nothing we see nowadays in mags/papers/billboards is real in any sense of the word. A good eye-opener.
-Lyd.