A Victoria's secret society

[jweich]

I’d like to present a thought I had. Last night I was watching TV and saw that Victoria’s Secret commercial, with their new model I keep seeing who literally looks like she is 15. In fact, I heard once that she really is that young. Eek.

But this got me to thinking. I wonder sometimes if today the super skinny and super young look that girls are supposed to go for isn’t a kind of appeal to a developing perversion in men, society, and the way we look at women.

It used to be that what was attractive in a woman were the features that showed she could be fertile, which appeals to an evolutionary trait in men seeking to carry on the species. Instead, what society says is attractive are features - like looking young and really really skinny - that aren’t actually conducive to healthy motherhood.

Nowadays, I wonder if evolution has been hijacked in a sense, because the model for what women should look like today is not the one given to us by our genes, by biology, or by the natural desire for the propogation of the species. It seems that what men want (the typical, egocentric jerks who probably comprise 75% of all men in our society) is unmitigated satisfaction, and not to be bothered by the natural consequences of sex, a pregnancy. Modern women also often want their sex lives to be about pleasure - not about getting pregnant. On a subconsious level, this would mean that men would find relative infertility more desirable - hence looking for girls who are way too skinny. Signs of physical immaturity, and NOT being fertile, is what is most appealling nowadays. In our collective unconscious today, its not the “ideal” for women to be mothers, but for them to be objects for satisfaction without consequence.

Of course this is my interpretation. People talk about body image all the time, and how unhealthy is this bizarre standard for women, physically and psychologically. But I always wonder not just about how bad it is, how unhealthy it is, and how we can combat it - though these are important questions - but also, why is it? Where does this standard come from in the first place ? The media pushes it, but why do they even do that? They wouldn’t push it if people didn’t buy into it. It would be one thing if the ideal female form purported by society were one of some kind of human perfection. But really its not. The male ideal of having no extra body fat and lean, rippling muscles, is, while unattainable for most, at least in line with what our evolutionary role would have been, and conducive to long term physical health - barring steroid use or anything. What I find so weird about our expectation for women is that the superskinny ideal isn’t even healthy. It’s unnatural. It goes against our evolutionary instincts. From a biological perspective, girls like Paris Hilton are not desirable mates.

My thought is that the image is ultimately wrought by the sexual revolution, which decided that sex isn’t about a marriage bond or about children - its about physical pleasure without commitment or consequences. This reminds me of Freud, that atheist who I think got pretty much everything wrong except maybe this point - when he said the severing of the sexual act from the potential for procreation is at the root of all sexual perversion. I guess its no surprise that this perversion led to such mental sickness of today’s world, and the disastrous effects it is having on women, especially young women, and their health.

So long way round, there’s my thought: The superskinny ideal came about when sex, in our culture’s collective mindset, if you can say that, stopped being about parenthood. Only in part, of course; culture changes rarely have just one cause. But what do you think? Or is this way off?

 

[strngrnrth]

In 1918,a fashion amgazine ran a picture that caused an outcry. A young woman stood in a sheer sleeveless white dress with her arm over her head – and a hairless underarm. It had been thousands of years since the hairless body had been accepted in Western society. The dress was chosen deliberately to go with the alarming new look of skin; it was a baby dress, only bigger. In five years, showgirls imitated the look and even occasionally took it further. In twenty-five years, women gave in to a temptation to imitate the appearance of rich women with black-market nylons by shaving their legs with their brothers’ razors and painting their calves with shoe polish, finished off with a line of eyebrow pencil up the back to look like a seam. In another twelve years, it was simply fashion-savvy to remove the most visible hair from the underarms and legs in summertime, to look less like a mammal with skin, more like a mannequin with laquer and stain. Twelve years after that, the baby-doll look wrestled with the wild look. Either way, the message was youth, unreality, irresponsibility, and weakness.
Now we are considered primitive if we have any body hair showing at all. The fashions expose so much no one can miss the message of casual irresponsibility. For decades, models have looked emaciated, and many have been mere children. Many more have been drug addicts who look like corpses. Others have been mistakable for men. Talk shows have men in drag and women in the same sleazy outfits dare audiences to tell the shaven, scrawny, three-quarters naked men from the shaven, scrawny, three-quarters naked women. Most can’t tell. The look has passed pedophilia long ago and gone through necrophilia and androgyny all the way to a kind of plastic bestiality with traces of last season’s perversions clinging like the smell of shipping wrappers. Those who challenge the symbolism are treated like they are the freaks.

 

[BRB]

This reminds me of Freud, that atheist who I think got pretty much everything wrong except maybe this point - when he said the severing of the sexual act from the potential for procreation is at the root of all sexual perversion. I guess its no surprise that this perversion led to such mental sickness of today’s world, and the disastrous effects it is having on women, especially young women, and their health.

QUOTE]

My fear is we have only seen the beginnings of how distorted sexual perversions may get … especially among adolescents.

Homosexual relations and virtual sex are being thrown in our faces daily by our culture … as the new norm. No possible procreation exists there.

So many of the young are now on medications for ADD, Anxiety, Depression as consequence of disordered societal stressors.
Sins of the fathers are being passed on the 2-3 generations via information technology, etc.

 

[vern_humphrey]

A neighbor lady (who I believe patronizes that business) tells me that Victoria’s Secret garments are actually a size larger than the are labeled so that “full figured” ladies can wear skinny garments.

I think the “secret” is out of the bag.

 

[jweich]

A nieghbor lady (who I believe patronizes that business) tells me that Victoria’s Secret garments are actually a size larger than the are labeled so that “full figured” ladies can wear skinny garments.

I think the “secret” is out of the bag.

Hah. I believe it.

Still the emphasis is on the skinny. And the super skinny is not just idealistic, its unnatural and contrary to biology.

In other words, the modern obsession skinny, physically immature and irresponsible looking woman is a sexual perversion in the mind, a spiritual sickness - not just a caving to weakness to the flesh.

 

[jweich]

In 1918,a fashion amgazine ran a picture that caused an outcry. A young woman stood in a sheer sleeveless white dress with her arm over her head – and a hairless underarm. It had been thousands of years since the hairless body had been accepted in Western society. The dress was chosen deliberately to go with the alarming new look of skin; it was a baby dress, only bigger. In five years, showgirls imitated the look and even occasionally took it further. In twenty-five years, women gave in to a temptation to imitate the appearance of rich women with black-market nylons by shaving their legs with their brothers’ razors and painting their calves with shoe polish, finished off with a line of eyebrow pencil up the back to look like a seam. In another twelve years, it was simply fashion-savvy to remove the most visible hair from the underarms and legs in summertime, to look less like a mammal with skin, more like a mannequin with laquer and stain. Twelve years after that, the baby-doll look wrestled with the wild look. Either way, the message was youth, unreality, irresponsibility, and weakness.
Now we are considered primitive if we have any body hair showing at all. The fashions expose so much no one can miss the message of casual irresponsibility. For decades, models have looked emaciated, and many have been mere children. Many more have been drug addicts who look like corpses. Others have been mistakable for men. Talk shows have men in drag and women in the same sleazy outfits dare audiences to tell the shaven, scrawny, three-quarters naked men from the shaven, scrawny, three-quarters naked women. Most can’t tell. The look has passed pedophilia long ago and gone through necrophilia and androgyny all the way to a kind of plastic bestiality with traces of last season’s perversions clinging like the smell of shipping wrappers. Those who challenge the symbolism are treated like they are the freaks.

All this I agree with. Our culture has come to deny what is normal, natural and beautiful in woman.

These styles you mention though, sound like they were somewhat fringe to me . Is it not more disturbing that this symbolism - of the 'standard of beauty being an unattainable, as well as being out of line with natural biological impulses - is now mainstream? I can’t open a web browser without an image of a woman who looks like she could not bear healthy children because she’s too skinny.

 

[strngrnrth]

Hah. I believe it.

Still the emphasis is on the skinny. And the super skinny is not just idealistic, its unnatural and contrary to biology.

In other words, the modern obsession skinny, physically immature and irresponsible looking woman is a sexual perversion in the mind, a spiritual sickness - not just a caving to weakness to the flesh.

Yes, and it’s happening just as sexy and socialy acceptable have become synonymous.
Men, as the feminist who write The Beauty Myth pointed out, are next. They are now learning that to be OK, they must remove body hair, oil skin, have blemishes, lines, even the epidermis itself, scraped away or tattooed over, get their lips shot full of gunk to make them shiny and wrinkle-free, stitch their eyelids up – now they’re getting the idea of how it feels not to be allowed to look like a human being.
It’s not conspiring companies or governments that do this to us. You know who it is? Besides ourselves, it’s the appearance enforcers. You may remember them from childhood. They torment anyone who doesn’t conform to what they agree is good-looking.
We dress in fear of these people. They are male and female, rich and poor, twelve and seventy-seven, but they all have a deep well of venom ready to shoot at anyone who stands out. The fashion industry caters to them, the ones who can make others wear what they wear, because a sale to one of them is like a sale to a thousand normal people. They like a cruel and perverse look. It meets their self-image perfectly. That’s part of the reason fashion always gets crueller and more twisted.

 

[jweich]

Yes, and it’s happening just as sexy and socialy acceptable have become synonymous.
Men, as the feminist who write The Beauty Myth pointed out, are next. They are now learning that to be OK, they must remove body hair, oil skin, have blemishes, lines, even the epidermis itself, scraped away or tattooed over, get their lips shot full of gunk to make them shiny and wrinkle-free, stitch their eyelids up – now they’re getting the idea of how it feels not to be allowed to look like a human being.
It’s not conspiring companies or governments that do this to us. You know who it is? Besides ourselves, it’s the appearance enforcers. You may remember them from childhood. They torment anyone who doesn’t conform to what they agree is good-looking.
We dress in fear of these people. They are male and female, rich and poor, twelve and seventy-seven, but they all have a deep well of venom ready to shoot at anyone who stands out. The fashion industry caters to them, the ones who can make others wear what they wear, because a sale to one of them is like a sale to a thousand normal people. They like a cruel and perverse look. It meets their self-image perfectly. That’s part of the reason fashion always gets crueller and more twisted.

Well, here I hesitate. Not about the ‘look enforcers’ too much, because surely we acknowledge that among young people, especially in middle and high school, there is a deep desire to fit in, etc. I’m not sure I would describe that as venemous as much as a sad part of childhood, and a sad pattern generated from the segregation of generations and isolation of young people to be influenced by only their peers. But that’s kind of a different issue.

I hesitate about the men part, because although I recognize the trends in homosexuality and “metrosexuality” as part of the Fall, I think many men still gravitate toward the macho, muscular thing. Which, as materialistic and shallow as it can be, and as much as that might even have to do with male dominance, is at least biologically sound. I don’t know that the extremes you describe are that mainstream. What is mainstream are the models like in Victoria’s secret, Sports Illustrated swimsuit issues, and “men’s magazines.” Those women aren’t quite that bizarre. But they are too skinny for it to make sense, from a physiological or evolutionary standpoint, for them to be considered the most attractive among us.

I’m waffling. Really, the epitome of health and potential for reproduction, should, logically, be the most desirable. Does a woman like on the cover of Maxim represent that?

 

[ForwardProgress]

I’m waffling. Really, the epitome of health and potential for reproduction, should, logically, be the most desirable. Does a woman like on the cover of Maxim represent that?

I think because of our focus on the act of sex, society doesn’t want a woman that looks fertile; it just wants a woman who looks like she is eager to have sex A LOT.

 

[Mirdath]

The look has passed pedophilia long ago and gone through necrophilia and androgyny all the way to a kind of plastic bestiality with traces of last season’s perversions clinging like the smell of shipping wrappers. Those who challenge the symbolism are treated like they are the freaks.

That youth has been over-sexualized is unarguable, that androgyny is in is completely true (and something I’m all in favor of, but that’s neither here nor there), but where exactly did necrophilia and bestiality come into vogue?

 

[cam100]

It used to be that what was attractive in a woman were the features that showed she could be fertile, which appeals to an evolutionary trait in men seeking to carry on the species. Instead, what society says is attractive are features - like looking young and really really skinny - that aren’t actually conducive to healthy motherhood.

Actually, I’ve heard that men prefer young, thin women for this very reason - that they are more suited to be mothers and men instinctively know it. It does seem that younger, thinner women seem to have fewer problems with pregnancy than older and/or heavier women. I know that I have read medical journal articles that say that increases in age and weight are related to an increase in pregnancy problems.

 

[strngrnrth]

Actually, I’ve heard that men prefer young, thin women for this very reason - that they are more suited to be mothers and men instinctively know it. It does seem that younger, thinner women seem to have fewer problems with pregnancy than older and/or heavier women. I know that I have read medical journal articles that say that increases in age and weight are related to an increase in pregnancy problems.

A woman is most fertile when she is 24, when her hips are wide and her face is round and oily, her belly is compact but definitely rounded, her skin is thick and her head and body alike are hirsute, and her jaw is developed, making her eyes relatively small. That is the opposite of what is stylish nowadays. Little girls, young adolescents, middle-aged and elderly women are all less fertile than 24-ish healthy women, and they usually have narrower hips (except middle-aged women), dry, thin, bald skin, thin, fine hair on the head, eyes either big and round in a small face or deep-set and dark, in thinning skin. That is pretty much what’s in the magazines now. Infertility is in, sadly enough. The contrast wth older styles is clear. Looking healthy and fertile was once good. Now it’s considered unthinkable.

 

[strngrnrth]

Well, here I hesitate. Not about the ‘look enforcers’ too much, because surely we acknowledge that among young people, especially in middle and high school, there is a deep desire to fit in, etc. I’m not sure I would describe that as venemous as much as a sad part of childhood, and a sad pattern generated from the segregation of generations and isolation of young people to be influenced by only their peers. But that’s kind of a different issue.For us, it remans a fact of life even in our 30’s. They are the controlling people in every crowd, who can make you afraid to be seen even though everyone else thinks you look OK.

I hesitate about the men part, because although I recognize the trends in homosexuality and “metrosexuality” as part of the Fall, I think many men still gravitate toward the macho, muscular thing. Which, as materialistic and shallow as it can be, and as much as that might even have to do with male dominance, is at least biologically sound. I don’t know that the extremes you describe are that mainstream. I don’t know. I just see it going on. The macho-muscleman thing is also taken to unhealthy extremes.What is mainstream are the models like in Victoria’s secret, Sports Illustrated swimsuit issues, and “men’s magazines.” Those women aren’t quite that bizarre. But they are too skinny for it to make sense, from a physiological or evolutionary standpoint, for them to be considered the most attractive among us.Yes, and too altered in many ways that would be signs of illness at least if you saw them in the wild.

I’m waffling. Really, the epitome of health and potential for reproduction, should, logically, be the most desirable. Does a woman like on the cover of Maxim represent that?Nope.

 

[gardenswithkids]

I’d like to present a thought I had. Last night I was watching TV and saw that Victoria’s Secret commercial, with their new model I keep seeing who literally looks like she is 15. …It used to be that what was attractive in a woman were the features that showed she could be fertile, which appeals to an evolutionary trait in men seeking to carry on the species. Instead, what society says is attractive are features - like looking young and really really skinny - that aren’t actually conducive to healthy motherhood.

Nowadays, I wonder if evolution has been hijacked in a sense, because the model for what women should look like today is not the one given to us by our genes, by biology, or by the natural desire for the propogation of the species. It seems that what men want …

I haven’t seen that particular commercial, but I have a few thoughts based on previous ads they have. Most Victoria Secret models are hardly “super skinny”–they tend to have a couple of fairly ample fat deposits, (or perhaps silicon). From an evolutionary perspective, it might make a man think their potentially children might be, um , well nourished as infants.

Super-skinny rarely naturally accompanies a C cup. What does that say to the rest of us? Does it tells us women need excessive dieting, lipo-suction and implants to be beautiful? Does Victoria Secret sell underwear or plastic surgery? Advertisers and their models contribute to unrealistic expectation of most women’s figures. I don’t think men really like super-skinny. I think men still prefer healthy women with some curves, not too thin, not too fat.

 

[Swan]

I haven’t seen that particular commercial, but I have a few thoughts based on previous ads they have. Most Victoria Secret models are hardly “super skinny”–they tend to have a couple of fairly ample fat deposits, (or perhaps silicon). From an evolutionary perspective, it might make a man think their potentially children might be, um , well nourished as infants.

Super-skinny rarely naturally accompanies a C cup. What does that say to the rest of us? Does it tells us women need excessive dieting, lipo-suction and implants to be beautiful? Does Victoria Secret sell underwear or plastic surgery? Advertisers and their models contribute to unrealistic expectation of most women’s figures. I don’t think men really like super-skinny. I think men still prefer healthy women with some curves, not too thin, not too fat.

I was thinking that very thing about the models needing a large bra size (I think maybe even a D cup). That seems to be a pre-requisite to be a VS model. I read one fashion magainze, Allure (I read this one because it is the only one that doesn’t usually have sex stories and never have covers with headlines like “how to have the best sex ever!” - I want make-up and body care tips, not sex tips) have a sex-oriented story in, and the “high” fashion models are generally almost flat chested (long legs are a must, however). What kills me is that the “high” fashion looks are usually ridiculous - I mean stuff no one would really wear. And makeup - especially eye makup - all over their face in bright colors. And hair-dos! Get real. They do all have really flat belly’s though.

 

[Danny_OC]

I’d like to present a thought I had. Last night I was watching TV and saw that Victoria’s Secret commercial, with their new model I keep seeing who literally looks like she is 15. In fact, I heard once that she really is that young. Eek.

But this got me to thinking. I wonder sometimes if today the super skinny and super young look that girls are supposed to go for isn’t a kind of appeal to a developing perversion in men, society, and the way we look at women.

It used to be that what was attractive in a woman were the features that showed she could be fertile, which appeals to an evolutionary trait in men seeking to carry on the species. Instead, what society says is attractive are features - like looking young and really really skinny - that aren’t actually conducive to healthy motherhood.

Nowadays, I wonder if evolution has been hijacked in a sense, because the model for what women should look like today is not the one given to us by our genes, by biology, or by the natural desire for the propogation of the species. It seems that what men want (the typical, egocentric jerks who probably comprise 75% of all men in our society) is unmitigated satisfaction, and not to be bothered by the natural consequences of sex, a pregnancy. Modern women also often want their sex lives to be about pleasure - not about getting pregnant. On a subconsious level, this would mean that men would find relative infertility more desirable - hence looking for girls who are way too skinny. Signs of physical immaturity, and NOT being fertile, is what is most appealling nowadays. In our collective unconscious today, its not the “ideal” for women to be mothers, but for them to be objects for satisfaction without consequence.

Of course this is my interpretation. People talk about body image all the time, and how unhealthy is this bizarre standard for women, physically and psychologically. But I always wonder not just about how bad it is, how unhealthy it is, and how we can combat it - though these are important questions - but also, why is it? Where does this standard come from in the first place ? The media pushes it, but why do they even do that? They wouldn’t push it if people didn’t buy into it. It would be one thing if the ideal female form purported by society were one of some kind of human perfection. But really its not. The male ideal of having no extra body fat and lean, rippling muscles, is, while unattainable for most, at least in line with what our evolutionary role would have been, and conducive to long term physical health - barring steroid use or anything. What I find so weird about our expectation for women is that the superskinny ideal isn’t even healthy. It’s unnatural. It goes against our evolutionary instincts. From a biological perspective, girls like Paris Hilton are not desirable mates.

My thought is that the image is ultimately wrought by the sexual revolution, which decided that sex isn’t about a marriage bond or about children - its about physical pleasure without commitment or consequences. This reminds me of Freud, that atheist who I think got pretty much everything wrong except maybe this point - when he said the severing of the sexual act from the potential for procreation is at the root of all sexual perversion. I guess its no surprise that this perversion led to such mental sickness of today’s world, and the disastrous effects it is having on women, especially young women, and their health.

So long way round, there’s my thought: The superskinny ideal came about when sex, in our culture’s collective mindset, if you can say that, stopped being about parenthood. Only in part, of course; culture changes rarely have just one cause. But what do you think? Or is this way off?

I don’t know… I’m as against the sexual revolution and its consequences as much as anybody, but skinny people get pregnant too. Most guys I know aren’t very into “super” skinny girls either, and though such girls do catch our eye in advertisements, i wouldn’t say that advertisements are exclusively or even predominantly composed of super skinny girls.

The much greater problem is our overweight public. While skinniness is at least the product of hard work, the opposite is the product of sloth and gluttony, two major sins in Christianity.

 

[cam100]

I don’t know… I’m as against the sexual revolution and its consequences as much as anybody, but skinny people get pregnant too. Most guys I know aren’t very into “super” skinny girls either, and though such girls do catch our eye in advertisements, i wouldn’t say that advertisements are exclusively or even predominantly composed of super skinny girls.

The much greater problem is our overweight public. While skinniness is at least the product of hard work, the opposite is the product of sloth and gluttony, two major sins in Christianity.

You make an excellent point. The incidence of anorexia is about 3% in the US, while the incidence of obesity is over 30%!!! I think it is odd that I hear so much about how “super skinny” models are damaging our health, yet obesity is a far more prevalent problem. As you indicated, obesity can have its roots in sloth and gluttony as well, although I wouldn’t assume that every case of obesity is caused by these.

 

[vern_humphrey]

You make an excellent point. The incidence of anorexia is about 3% in the US, while the incidence of obesity is over 30%!!! I think it is odd that I hear so much about how “super skinny” models are damaging our health, yet obesity is a far more prevalent problem. As you indicated, obesity can have its roots in sloth and gluttony as well, although I wouldn’t assume that every case of obesity is caused by these.

At last year’s 4th of July Parade, the Stone County Right to Life had a booth set up on Main Street here in Mountain View. It was right across from the War Memorial, where the judges view the various groups in the parade.

A group of girls in a clogging society – traditional mountain dancing derived from Irish dancing – halted right in front of us and danced for the judges. It was disturbing. Something was wrong, but I couldn’t figure out what.

Then it hit me – “There’s a group of 30 teenage girls, and none of them are fat!”

 

[strngrnrth]

It’s more than skinny models, though. It’s the increasing unacceptability of the sight of a woman who looks like anything that could posibly exist in nature in terms of size, shape, finish, coloring, balance and composition. Bones get digitally airbrushed off women’s faces when they appear on magazine covers. Now natural skin, fat, muscle, hair and bone are forbidden. What does that leave? Not much of the original woman. It’s an anti-life pursuit. It’s bestial because it upholds an ideal that we be formed like some slenderized porpoise, surfaced like some slick amphibian or catfish, colored like a mandrill, able to balance like a sandpiper, and sex-crazed like a notorious other primate is said to be. It’s necrophiliac because it upholds an ideal that cannot live and that does not look alive but rather wooden, plastic, some substance harder than living tissue.

 

[Danny_OC]

It’s more than skinny models, though. It’s the increasing unacceptability of the sight of a woman who looks like anything that could posibly exist in nature in terms of size, shape, finish, coloring, balance and composition. Bones get digitally airbrushed off women’s faces when they appear on magazine covers. Now natural skin, fat, muscle, hair and bone are forbidden. What does that leave? Not much of the original woman. It’s an anti-life pursuit. It’s bestial because it upholds an ideal that we be formed like some slenderized porpoise, surfaced like some slick amphibian or catfish, colored like a mandrill, able to balance like a sandpiper, and sex-crazed like a notorious other primate is said to be. It’s necrophiliac because it upholds an ideal that cannot live and that does not look alive but rather wooden, plastic, some substance harder than living tissue.

And it would be wrong for any man to demand that of a woman. The thing is though; since you are right, it IS impossible; men do not (because they cannot!) demand it. I don’t know a whole lot of guys who are bothered by deviations from the impossible woman you describe; its really just magazine covers and fashion companies that are concerned with that; and anyone who understands the value of time does not bother wasting it on such pursuits. I do however want my wife (when I find one!) to be in good physical shape. Your body is your temple, and it’s not only unsightly but wrong to allow it to degrade into being overweight.