U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Entertainment and Arts
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-11-2009, 02:12 PM
 
Location: Portlandia "burbs"
10,234 posts, read 13,977,460 times
Reputation: 25884

Advertisements

It's interesting how the "ideal standards" have changed in the entertainment (movies, mostly) industry.

In the silent film-early talkies era, a little flesh was admired. Jean Harlow was a popular curiosity because of her platinum hair, but most of the women hard darker hair. Heavily penciled brows. Lips were either bow-shaped or under-emphasized in size (Angellina lips were NOT stylish then!!!!!).

30's & 40's, the screen beauties were usually brunettes or red-heads with slim figures. Clothes ~ oh, those wonderful glamorous dresses! ~ draped them gracefully, and "big boobs" were never a big deal. In fact, it was rare on starlets back then.

50's brought on the new female ideal ~ curvy blondes ~ through Monroe and Mansfield and VanDoren, and it never went away. These women also had booty as well as boobs. Cone-shaped bras became popular.

60's were a hodge-podge. The ideal still included curvy blondes, but it made room for Ann-Margaret and Raquel Welch. Twiggy entered the picture and, although few men were excited by this look, she affected the modeling industry's idea of how women should look to this day (in my opinion). Actually, models have always been slender like Audrey Hepburn. Twiggy simply took it to emaciated heights. And a lot of girls bought into the look. Having a butt became something that no women wanted (and remained that way until Jennifer Lopez emerged way later).

80's saw movie stars and models adopt the skinny but hard-bodied look, with no ass, and model's boobs were getting bigger. I can't remember any real ideal where color goes; when I think of the 80's all I can "see" are bad perms and bushy eyebrows (shudder!). The sleezy look became popular, with tight-fitting, revealing outfits. Still no ass.

Through the 90's, and today, I think a lot of emphasis is still on trim, hard bodies with big boobs. At least in magazines and movies. But we have our advocates out there who have been trying to get the message across that there really is no idea. It's no longer a blemish to have a butt. There's less interest in deep-tanning ourselves. And I'm glad that there is more variety in the modeling world, although we all know that the struggle to be too skinny is definitely still out there, and those ideas ideas are getting instilled somehow.

I'll admit, though ~ I'll be glad when the "whale's tail" and hip-hugger pants are completely gone! To me that is the fashion disaster of the New Millenium.

Sorry for the long report. It's something I was thinking about recently, so this thread hit my eyes at the right/wrong time.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-12-2009, 07:58 AM
 
Location: on an island
13,382 posts, read 40,906,509 times
Reputation: 13245
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluesbabe View Post

Through the 90's, and today, I think a lot of emphasis is still on trim, hard bodies with big boobs. At least in magazines and movies. But we have our advocates out there who have been trying to get the message across that there really is no idea. It's no longer a blemish to have a butt. There's less interest in deep-tanning ourselves. And I'm glad that there is more variety in the modeling world, although we all know that the struggle to be too skinny is definitely still out there, and those ideas ideas are getting instilled somehow.

I'll admit, though ~ I'll be glad when the "whale's tail" and hip-hugger pants are completely gone! To me that is the fashion disaster of the New Millenium.
I was at a training session/retreat type thing on Saturday, and one of the activities involved being fairly physically active. One of the young women there had hiphugger pants on; she was not exactly overweight, just sort of voluptuous, but her pants did not fit her right. She gamely participated in various events which involved running, etc and had to pull her pants up repeatedly--not without showing us all, over and over again, her "whale's tail."
Maybe the guys liked it, but IMHO it was not pretty.
I did get his impression that she was wearing those pants simply because she was young and that's what you're supposed to wear, no matter what your body type.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-14-2009, 04:07 PM
 
1,525 posts, read 3,375,016 times
Reputation: 735
I believe it was Hugh Hefner and/or the film industry that got the blonde thing going. Somewhere years ago I think I read an interview with a director that stated simply that blonde hair caught your eye better in black and white an so leading ladies were selected that way.

As for what's considered attractive these days? I think most men would point at the Victoria's Secret models. Who are not all blonde. For example, my faves all tend to be brunettes. And not neccesarily all are large breasted.

Some examples from stage and screen?

Allesandra Ambrosio, Cyndi Crawford, Julia Roberts, Sandra Bullock, Adriana Lima, Heather Locklear (ok 1 blonde, LOL!), Mary Tyler Moore, Holly Marie Combs, Rose McGowan, Alyssa Milano, Deb Van Valkenburg and about 100 others, LOL!

Thing is, men looking at women, healthy is what's attractive. That ranges from teenie to "amazon". It's actually more a set of *proportions* than a particular size. In my life I've been crazy attracted to gals ranging from Nancy Kerrigan or Kristi Yamaguchi teenie to Lisa Kudrow tall (ok 2 blondes, LOL!). It's just more about proportion and being in good shape than any other one attribute.

Unfortunately modern life is so counter to being in that sort of shape, for men and women. Go look at any crowd in the local mall. How many folks look attractive in the least? And the number definitely dwindle as time in the work force goes up.

For that matter, go to any gym. How many folks that are actually trying, for that matter look like magazine covers... even if you subtract for the airbrushing/photoshopping? Very, very, few.

But then I suppose that's why models earn what they do. Rarity I suppose, carries a premium.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-14-2009, 06:20 PM
 
Location: Livingston, Montana
638 posts, read 1,721,916 times
Reputation: 466
Quote:
Originally Posted by JMadison View Post
Unfortunately modern life is so counter to being in that sort of shape, for men and women. Go look at any crowd in the local mall. How many folks look attractive in the least? And the number definitely dwindle as time in the work force goes up.

For that matter, go to any gym. How many folks that are actually trying, for that matter look like magazine covers... even if you subtract for the airbrushing/photoshopping? Very, very, few.

But then I suppose that's why models earn what they do. Rarity I suppose, carries a premium.
LMAO.. such a joke!!!

Models look no different in terms of facial features. Find them w/o makeup and airbrushing. They look like average every day women.

as for the body? Now THAT is crap. They are not healthy or curvacious. They are stringbean skinny.. scarily so. My husband will throw a hamburger at the TV when one comes on they are so gross.

They are NOT in shape.. just skinnier than hell from NOT eating, throwing up a jelly bean and snorting coke.

Don't assume they make the money because they are so beautiful and perfectly in shape when in all actuality they are average in looks and anorexic in body (from lack of eating and drugs) FACT!!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-14-2009, 06:25 PM
 
Location: southern california
55,636 posts, read 74,577,828 times
Reputation: 48121
i have known some very ugly people with white skin and bleached blond hair.
i do not have a pin up of rosie o'donnell
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-19-2009, 07:21 AM
 
4,253 posts, read 5,439,926 times
Reputation: 10299
Beauty is a curse. Nobody wants to look below the surface, all they care about is what you look like. Trouble is all that attention can be addictive and you find yourself looking for it. It's very hard to ignore, you want people to like you for who you are and sometimes you will allow yourself to believe that it's because they like your mind or your personality and then you find out otherwise. People seem to think that if you look good you have it made but the truth is it can be very lonely and frustrating.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-26-2009, 07:20 PM
 
Location: Land of Free Johnson-Weld-2016
6,473 posts, read 13,941,549 times
Reputation: 6436
Default Yes Blondes Rule...

Yes, I know!
Well, I wanted to chime in about Medieval European standards of beauty. Although this seems like a non sequitur, I want to point out that the European beauty standard has been the same for thousands of years, and I don't see any signs that it has changed. The quintessential medieval beauty was a blond waif. Men for aeons in Europe have also liked women with large breasts. Now through the Magic of Cinema, the liking for that kind of beauty has spread across the world.

I think that larger women really want to believe that fat woman were much desired in old European societies, but my research has shown that to be untrue. I think that the "blonde" bombshell is the standard of beauty. Most men seem to be attracted to that type of woman, and blond haired women were also prized as being especially attractive in European societies thousands of years ago. I have no doubt that a European man in 1400 would find Paris Hilton or Pamela Anderson attractive. There is lots of auto-erotic material with these types of women, and I believe that if men did not like them, they would look at another type of women.

As Huckleberry or whoever mentioned, the blond, blue eyed look has become the "standard of beauty" for all women in the world. That's sad for me because men have all of the power and women depend on them to a big extent for our homes, jobs, food etc. If you don't have blond hair and blue eyes, you just have to work a lot harder, because your chance of finding a man to support you are limited. Personally, that sucks. I'm financially secure but I have worked much too hard and put up with way too much poo at work just to make a good life. I personally would like to take it easy and still be financially secure... sigh. Now I'm depressed...

References: Sex with Kings by Eleanor Herman
The Last Medieval Queens by J L Laynesmith
The Hunchback of Notre Dame by Victor Hugo
Titus Andronicus - Shakespeare
and so on
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-26-2009, 08:53 PM
 
Location: Portlandia "burbs"
10,234 posts, read 13,977,460 times
Reputation: 25884
I do think Paris Hilton has a very UGLY face. Not exactly a bombshell body, either.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-26-2009, 11:43 PM
 
Location: Omaha, Nebraska
124 posts, read 269,767 times
Reputation: 59
I don't look at colour or gender, I find my own kind of beauty. Which means that, maybe oddly enough, most 'conventional' forms of beauty I don't find that.. well, great. Not to say they're ugly, but I don't generally see the hype. And even more on a personal level, I could give a **** less what a person looks like, really. Personality will always outlast looks.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-26-2009, 11:49 PM
 
Location: Omaha, Nebraska
124 posts, read 269,767 times
Reputation: 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by kinkytoes View Post
As Huckleberry or whoever mentioned, the blond, blue eyed look has become the "standard of beauty" for all women in the world. That's sad for me because men have all of the power and women depend on them to a big extent for our homes, jobs, food etc. If you don't have blond hair and blue eyes, you just have to work a lot harder, because your chance of finding a man to support you are limited. Personally, that sucks. I'm financially secure but I have worked much too hard and put up with way too much poo at work just to make a good life. I personally would like to take it easy and still be financially secure... sigh. Now I'm depressed..
I don't think, whether male or female, that one person out of two should have to take all of the burden for being the provider. Both parties should contribute equally, that's what defines it. Otherwise, you're just considered a housewive. And hey, not knocking that at all, if you have children and you feel it is best to stay with them, and the spouse is okay with that, more power to ya. But that's a minority of the rich people who can afford that. Personally, and very honestly, I love my boyfriend and right now he is jobless so I am being the provider for us, and I'd rather be in my position than his. While a life of leisure sounds nice, I could never feel right having my significant other working while I'm just about the house all day. I enjoy feeling like I have a purpose in life.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Entertainment and Arts
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top