leelastarsky (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
leelastarsky) wrote2006-04-06 11:26 am
leelastarsky) wrote2006-04-06 11:26 am
Entry tags:
skinny girls
I know everyone has probably had their say on the topic of JK's views already, but I had to weigh in too.
I am regularly appalled by the... what's the word? ...Worship? of the skinny, androgenous, pre-pubecent figure. Of magazines promoting wafer-thin sexless bodies as the ideal for girls and boys to set as a goal. But it is a ludicrously unachievable goal as this ludicrous advertising demonstrates -
This is a prime example of the ridiculous Photoshopping the advertisers do on the models! The purple lines I've added as a rough estimate of where I think her body really was and you can see by the lighting changes where she was cropped.
My point being that not even the models are thin enough! They're promoting figures that cannot be achieved in Real Life as the ideal. What does this do to kids who have no idea that a figure in photo can be manipulated like that? I have seen women's ragmags simply stretch pics on actresses - widthways when they want to flail at them for being fat, lengthways if they want to point the finger at them for being too thin. Seriously WTF?
And, of course, being that wafer-thin means no boobs, so implants are required. Or, as is now the trend in Hollywood, the poor actresses who do happen to have some cleavage are getting breast reductions!! (Jennifer Connelly leaps to mind) Because the andrgenous look is what keeps them working. *head desk*
Look at photos of Marilyn Munroe - all womanly hips and breasts - she would be laughed out of Hollywood today for being horrifically fat.
Which, in my mind is silly and tragic. Women have hips. Women have breasts. They have been designed by nature (or God) to bare children and need hips and breasts to do so. Yet it is the pre-pubescent girl figure that is held up as the ideal, which I find extremely disturbing.
It's not just girls either. The ideal male must either be musclebound or boyish, both with no bodyhair (again with the pre-pubescent).
Why is this? The paedophilic overtones creep me out, and I can't help feeling it's like some weird sort of anti-promotion of sexuality - we're not permitted to show you images of sexually mature males and females because, godforbid, you might think about sex! But we want to use sex to sell our product so we'll use models who look pre-pubescent so that you don't notice. O.o *sigh*
I am regularly appalled by the... what's the word? ...Worship? of the skinny, androgenous, pre-pubecent figure. Of magazines promoting wafer-thin sexless bodies as the ideal for girls and boys to set as a goal. But it is a ludicrously unachievable goal as this ludicrous advertising demonstrates -
This is a prime example of the ridiculous Photoshopping the advertisers do on the models! The purple lines I've added as a rough estimate of where I think her body really was and you can see by the lighting changes where she was cropped.
My point being that not even the models are thin enough! They're promoting figures that cannot be achieved in Real Life as the ideal. What does this do to kids who have no idea that a figure in photo can be manipulated like that? I have seen women's ragmags simply stretch pics on actresses - widthways when they want to flail at them for being fat, lengthways if they want to point the finger at them for being too thin. Seriously WTF?
And, of course, being that wafer-thin means no boobs, so implants are required. Or, as is now the trend in Hollywood, the poor actresses who do happen to have some cleavage are getting breast reductions!! (Jennifer Connelly leaps to mind) Because the andrgenous look is what keeps them working. *head desk*
Look at photos of Marilyn Munroe - all womanly hips and breasts - she would be laughed out of Hollywood today for being horrifically fat.
Which, in my mind is silly and tragic. Women have hips. Women have breasts. They have been designed by nature (or God) to bare children and need hips and breasts to do so. Yet it is the pre-pubescent girl figure that is held up as the ideal, which I find extremely disturbing.
It's not just girls either. The ideal male must either be musclebound or boyish, both with no bodyhair (again with the pre-pubescent).
Why is this? The paedophilic overtones creep me out, and I can't help feeling it's like some weird sort of anti-promotion of sexuality - we're not permitted to show you images of sexually mature males and females because, godforbid, you might think about sex! But we want to use sex to sell our product so we'll use models who look pre-pubescent so that you don't notice. O.o *sigh*
no subject
And THIS...the very first section of this just pisses me off: http://www.angry.net/people/s/skinny_people.htm Vile, hateful, stereotyping. Obviously, skinny girls are in love with themselves an think they're awesome, even when wishing they had the chests of curvier girls. I mean, no one prefers curvier girls!
no subject
I'm bigger now, but I used to be skinny, and got the "Oh you look like you never eat" stereotype, even though I ate a LOT! As well as the "ewww...your hips stick out...have you been sick?" I was just a very active young woman, not sick! Now I get the "Oh, look at these pictures when you were thin and pretty." WHAT? Just because I am bigger now, doesn't make me not pretty. Even now, I hear bigger women say terrible things about women who are thinner. Most recently, "People ignore you when you're fat, but they're nice to skinny girls. Why is that? I hate skinny girls for that." I told her when *I* was skinny, I was ignored a lot, but now that I'm bigger, people talk to me. HOWEVER, the reason people ignored me then and talk to me now is my PERSONALITY, not my WEIGHT.
However, magazines definately go too far with "perfection." Perfect teeth, perfect skin, perfect age, perfect perceived weight...