why do men get all the breaks?

[crazylegs]

ummm now fashionable to be out of shape for men-but women still held to the "must be thinner than Kate Moss to be considered attractive" standard.

look at the "sex symbols from the 60's-80's most of them have graceful curves, and quite a few have the "dreaded tummy pooch" now look at today's fashion models*-mostly very bony angles and protruding pelvic bones/rib cages

What fashionistas believe is fashionable is one thing, look at what men actually look at (I hate to say it, but glamour and porn) and the women still have curves, a chest and flesh on their bones. Porn directors know that the only way to make money is to sell their product, and to do that they need to have what men find attractive (generally speaking of course, there are groups that like either end of the scale, but I am talking about Joe Average here).

It amazes and apalls me that fashion magazines pedal this rubbish about how skinny women need to be when it is so obvious that men don't find it attractive...

[RecoveringKinkoid]

Heheheheheh.

They can say whatever they want to. I'm afraid all I have to say to the writer of that article is "nice try, Skippy."

[BlaqueKatt]

What fashionistas believe is fashionable is one thing, look at what men actually look at

um the "fashion model" link there that I could count at least 8 ribs and easily see her entire pelvic girdle is actress Megan Fox(hence my disclaimer)-I think tons of men "actually look at" her.

The standard keeps swinging.

My position on this particular thread? Non-issue. It's just the pendulum swinging again, so suck it up until it swings a bit further for the ladies.

it swings for men only-heck I get told I'm disgusting for the simple fact that I don't shave my legs-something that only came into fashion oh around 1940 when there was no silk or nylon for hosiery due to it being used for parachutes-it was part of the "war effort"

and don't get me started on the marketing campaign* that led to shaving underarm hair.

I do like this writer's take on it

So, when a women of 20 or 30 or so on, in order to appear more attractive, as our society defines attractiveness, shaves her legs, what age is she attempting to appear to be? She is NOT attempting to appear to be 18. She is not thinking about what age she is attempting to appear to be at all, but she is attempting to appear to be 13 or so.

As shaved legs became the standard of beauty in the USA, men became trained to find them attractive. As a result, men are no longer sexually attracted to the naturally hairy legs of mature women, but instead are attracted to a version of legs that are naturally found on underage girls. This doesn't excuse the actions of molesters, but it is one more small step in the wrong direction.

*yes it was marketing only due to sleeveless dresses coming into fashion-the razor companies saw an untapped market and started sending the message that underarmhair on women was somehow wrong and disgusting-they did the same later with leg hair. Interesting that this is only effective in countries where we are overly obsessed with what other's think.

[Nyoibo]

Not all women shave their legs and armpits, some of them are naturally almost hairless.

[Slytovhand]

BK, how many of those 'supermodels' are actually considered perv-able in comparison to the non-'supermodel' type? The skin and bone lot just don't make it into that club. Which makes perfect sense - if models have lost so much weight that you can see ribs, then they won't have a lot of breast or leg either.. and that's what most guys are looking at (when just perving).

But, in general, there is a theory that women seek to be more attractive to men to win a mate, but men tend not to do so (as much)... stereotyping, but that's what statistics and all are about. (I'm finding it interesting with this idea in my Linguistics... women of Upper-Middle class seem to be more pro-activing in using 'higher' standards of language... to 'better' themselves and move out of their class and into something higher... the men don't seem to care as much..)

[BlaqueKatt]

Not all women shave their legs and armpits, some of them are naturally almost hairless.

and your point is what exactly?

What does that have to do with people calling me "disgusting, Dirty, Dyke, hippie, or nasty" because I don't do something that has nothing to do with hygiene? And for something that hasn't even been done for more than 70 years(hasn't been widespread here for more than 50-60 years and not done at all in other countries).

I've been called all those and worse(by men and women) just for not shaving my legs(I do shave my underarms due to being athletic and bacteria breeds there in the sweat)nothing breeds on my legs-they don't smell bad and you have to be within kicking range to tell I don't shave(very fine hair).

[Cat]

I have Italian blood in me, so you know when I didn't shave....meh...I only shave when I'm gonna see the boy. Yeah, yeah, I should *have* too, but he appreciates it.

[BlaqueKatt]

I have Italian blood in me, so you know when I didn't shave....

I'm 50% Sicilian-first generation "off the boat"-still can barely tell I don't shave unless you're within 6 inches of my legs.

[Flyndaran]

Shaving pits started out as a hygiene issue for the same reasons why we evolved to keep that hair and lose most of the rest: hair holds stink.
Nowadays we are rich in water and can bathe daily. That wasn't always the case.
I find hairy women's bodies really nasty, but only partly because of my innate tastes. My love muffin is one of those woman that are naturally nearly hairless, even her eyebrows are tiny whisps of fluff. I even love her pot belly, because it's hers.

You are allowed to like your body however it looks, and I am allowed to dislike it for purely arbitrary reasons. Not everyone has to find every nice person attractive.

[BlaqueKatt]

Shaving pits started out as a hygiene issue for the same reasons why we evolved to keep that hair and lose most of the rest: hair holds stink.

nope I already linked to why that started-simple marketing and advertising-there was an articl in the journal of american culture written about it-and if that was truly the case why do only women do it when men are more active/sweat/stink more?

in case you missed it-from The straight dope by Cecil Adams

" Journal of American Culture - "Caucasian Female Body Hair and American Culture." by Christine Hope

The gist of the article is that U.S. women were browbeaten into shaving underarm hair by a sustained marketing assault that began in 1915. The aim of what Hope calls the Great Underarm Campaign was to inform American womanhood of a problem that till then it didn't know it had, namely unsightly underarm hair. A few ads mentioned hygiene as a motive for getting rid of hair, but most appealed strictly to the ancient yearning to be hip. "The Woman of Fashion says the underarm must be as smooth as the face," read a typical pitch.

I find hairy women's bodies really nasty, but only partly because of my innate tastes.

because you've been programmed by advertising to think that way. Remember American women have only been shaving for 60 years or so-it's not biological, it's learned much like intolerance for any other trait. Women in many other countries don't bother as theirs is not a consumer culture that believes it's advertising.

You are allowed to like your body however it looks, and I am allowed to dislike it for purely arbitrary reasons. Not everyone has to find every nice person attractive.

I understand that but why does that give someone the right to call me horrible names?

[Flyndaran]

...
The gist of the article is that U.S. women were browbeaten into shaving underarm hair by a sustained marketing assault that began in 1915. The aim of what Hope calls the Great Underarm Campaign was to inform American womanhood of a problem that till then it didn't know it had, namely unsightly underarm hair. A few ads mentioned hygiene as a motive for getting rid of hair, but most appealed strictly to the ancient yearning to be hip. "The Woman of Fashion says the underarm must be as smooth as the face," read a typical pitch.



because you've been programmed by advertising to think that way. Remember American women have only been shaving for 60 years or so-it's not biological, it's learned much like intolerance for any other trait. Women in many other countries don't bother as theirs is not a consumer culture that believes it's advertising.



I understand that but why does that give someone the right to call me horrible names?

Nothing gives anyone the right to call anyone nasty names period.

Ancient egyptians shaved pits, but I think it was both sexes and they often shaved their heads as well. Sweat and lice going together in olden times, you know.
Browbeaten seems a bit much. Do you call the soap industry's push with ther cleanliness is next to godliness sloagan browbeat everyone into daily baths? Or do you consider it a good thing?
I like many visual features of immaturity, so I doubt if I grew up in a land with hairy women that I wouldn't still prefer hairless women.
Women are naturally less hairy than men. The idea that some may like to exagerate such differences is not freakish or sexist.

[BlaqueKatt]

Browbeaten seems a bit much. Do you call the soap industry's push with ther cleanliness is next to godliness sloagan browbeat everyone into daily baths? Or do you consider it a good thing?

Apples to oranges or if you prefer:
Hygiene to fashion, as it was marketed as "fashionable" if it were for hygiene issues it would not have been sexistly targeted towards women-it would have been equal towards both-but it wasn't. And yes saying women have to shave but men don't is quite blatantly sexist.

Sexism-discrimination or devaluation based on a person's sex.

Meaning-"women are not as sexy if they don't shave their legs, while men don't have to."

[Flyndaran]

Apples to oranges or if you prefer:
Hygiene to fashion, as it was marketed as "fashionable" if it were for hygiene issues it would not have been sexistly targeted towards women-it would have been equal towards both-but it wasn't. And yes saying women have to shave but men don't is quite blatantly sexist.

Sexism-discrimination or devaluation based on a person's sex.

Meaning-"women are not as sexy if they don't shave their legs, while men don't have to."

It's no more sexist to suggest that women should exaggerate thier feminine features as it is for men. Men are pushed to get muscular etc.
Is biology really sexist? Or is it something that just is?

Men's scent doesn't have as much of an instinctive allure to most women as female scent does to men. Again, biology is suggesting women lose the stink and smell just like themselves while men don't need to do either.

Wanting a woman to look and smell like a woman does not make me sexist. It makes me a hetero male.
I once met a visually gorgeous yound lady. But because she smelled like a child I was instantly turned off.

[joe hx]

I'll just throw this in here:

http://www.shaveeverywhere.com/

It's a marketing campaign to get men to, well, shave everywhere.

[Nyoibo]

and if that was truly the case why do only women do it when men are more active/sweat/stink more?

They don't.

because you've been programmed by advertising to think that way.

I take exception to thatI've not been programmed by anything to think that way, I find body hair unattractive on men as much as I do on women, it's got nothing to do with advertising.

I understand that but why does that give someone the right to call me horrible names?

It doesn't.

http://www.shaveeverywhere.com/

There is actually a type of washing called monk style that entails completely shaveing the body and only using water, it's been around for centuries.