This site is filthy!

[GHT]

Click the "light style" button on the bottom-left of the page, and choose Dark Style.

Thank you very much.

 

[Edward]

Falsies, however, were widely worn as far back as Victorian times, and usually rated a quarter of a page in the Sears catalog as late as the seventies. These were intended to improve proportion, however, not to inflate the wearer's bosom to fetishistic proportions. That trend is, as you, say, relatively recent -- and coincides closely the wide availablity of pornography.

One of my closest friends is a 27 year old woman who has often expressed frustration with the fact that men her age have had their images of women shaped entirely by exposure to internet pornography, to the point where they're unable to function well in the company of a woman who isn't pumped up, fully depiliated, and airbrushed. It's only going to get worse, and the only hope I see is that such men will, at least, be eliminating themselves from the gene pool.

There was a show on here in the UK a couple of years ago called "Sex education versus pornography", where they did things like show teenage school kids a selection of five men and five women - ordinary, random types - to see what their bodies were like. They asked them questions about things like which one they thought was gay (interesting how the stereotypes came flooding out there - "Him, he looks like he spends a lot of time in the gym", "Her - she looks quite mannish, so she must be a lesbian"). A group of fifteen year old boys were quite shocked when they saw real breasts as opposed to implants ones; some were aghast at the idea of women with pubic hair. It was really quite surprising the things that pornography had normalised for them. One would like to hope that the impending death of the mainstream pornography market at the hands of DIY porn sharing and such would at least create a notion that there is infinite diversity out there when it comes to bodyshapes, but I rather suspect that the reality is it's less furtively-glimpsed websites and more mainstream media that is donig the real damage these days - Page 3, Hollywood beauty standards, and such.

At social functions, it's not uncommon to be asked why we have no children. I try to answer in a way that doesn't say: "Mind your own business." But I'm often tempted. Mass extinction of modern civilisation is just the barbed response that I've been looking for. Must make a note of that.

It is fascinating how some people feel it their entitlement to question those of us who have chosen not to have children, and then when we give our reasons - whether wanting freedom, financial or otherwise, or even something as basic as complete disinterest lack of parental instinct, or such, they don't like the answer for which they pressed, interpreting it as some form of judgement on them for having children. On occasion when it annoys me when people think they have the right to push questions like that, I just try and be mindful that there are people I've known who get questionsl ike "You've been married for years, why no kids yet?" whose answer isn't my "Don't want any", but "We'd love to, but we can't". On balance, I imagine that must be much more upsetting. [huh]

I know for several decades, scientist have been working on a way for men to carry children to birth. Making men go through the pain of child birth is a sure fire way to end the human race! Count me out!

Heh, yeah. When I had my kidney stone, they told me that's about the same as giving birth. Difference is, of cours,e that once I got the kidney stone out, I wasn't stuck with it!

Your friend gives those boys too little credit. Yes, we males are given to following our little captains into battle, especially when we're young (between the ages of, say, 14 and 87) but those boys know the difference between the world they actually live in and what they might see on an online porn site. And besides, whatever one thinks of such graphic displays, the sheer volume and ubiquity of porn assures something for every imaginable predilection. If any genre of film, photography, literature, whatever is democratized, it's pornography.

Those fellows with whom I have discussed such matters tend to agree with me that artificially inflated tops and hairless bottoms just ain't where it's at. And there isn't a one of those fine chaps who lacks for libido. It just that our tastes tend toward the organic.

It's debatable. Among younger males - those currently in their middle teens / going through puberty - it is certainly having a distinct effect as to what is perceived as 'the norm'. The mainstream commercial sector is certainly suffering economically at the hands of the DIY sector in online pornography, which you'd think would be a driver towards more realistic body images, but not always so. For instance, the biggest genre outside of basic, mainstream content is "BBW" - big beautiful women - which is commonly interpreted so broadly that anything over catwalk runways norms is "chubby" or "fat". Hell, a woman doesn't even have to be carrying weight anywhere other than on her bust to be considered a "bbw" in some cases. Pubic hair is considered a specialist interest - girls who have it are "hairy". Yes, there is a wide variety available out there, however anytihng much off the Hollywood beauty standards mainstram is bracketed as at best "specialist", and often a fetish. No matter what the standard is for women, there's no equivalent for men in the industry. Compare the big success in pornogrqphy among the ladies with the big male names. Ron Jeremy? Really?

That all said, I still retain the opinion that far more damage to the perception of women is done by the mainstream media. Think about it - who are the men most in the public eye? Obama? Trump? Cameron? Then think about the women. The Kardashians get more press than probably the rest of them put together. In the UK, since 1968, The Sun tabloid newspaper - which claims to be a "family paper", and is, in fact, the most widely read newspaper in the UK, daily prints a 'Page 3' photo of a bare-breasted, conventionally attractive young lady. (They recently baited the growing campaign calling for it to stop by pretending to stop it for a few days and then making a big show of its return). Female celebrities across a number of fileds (Rihanna and the likes) in entertainment are sold primarily as sex objects in a manner and to an extent that one almost neverf sees with men. It's inevitable that this sort of cultural norm creates the issues we have nowadays where kids think girls having pubic hair is weird.

not that I think for a minute the sort of repression that was common a generation or two ago was much healthier, but to deny that there's aq problem caused by the sort of cultural-media norms currently in play isn't realistic.

Can't accuse the site of not being clean anymore. Does anyone else find the white background a tad clinical?

You might also want to have a look at the "test dark" option - so far, I think it's the easiet of the three to follow.

 

[tonyb]

...



It's debatable. ...

No kiddin'?

What must be taken with a very large grain of salt is any absolute statement about the effects of any sort of media on its audience. There are sooo many variables that examining any individual factor in isolation is an impossible task. Assessments of the effects of pornography tells us more about the assessor than the assessed. And yes, I often suspect that the lady, or gentleman, doth indeed protest too much.

Having said that, though, I'm in general agreement that "mainstream" media has a much larger effect on public perceptions and attitudes than any of the "fringier" media. Sexually explicit media still carries a whiff of disrepute. That, I suspect, remains a large part of its appeal. But pop stars and the popular entertainments in which they appear are indeed "normal," worthy, to be emulated, et cetera. Large multi-national corporations advertise where they appear. Politicians pose for pictures with them. The not-at-all-subtle message is: Be like this.

 

[foamy]

As usual, Watterson nails it.

 

[Fading Fast]

... It's inevitable that this sort of cultural norm creates the issues we have nowadays where kids think girls having pubic hair is weird....

I wish this wasn't the specific example we were discussing, but is the fact that kids today have a cultural standard of women not having pubic hair any more right or wrong than when I grew up (and even when my parents grew up) that it was cultural acceptable in general - in the US - for men to have armpit and leg hair, but not women? All this stuff is culturally constructed, so if we - my generation - had an arbitrary standard for women's armpit and leg hair, is it any different - or any more right or wrong - if the kids today have their own arbitrary standard for pubic hair?

 

[tonyb]

Good point, FF.

Me, I've never objected to body hair on women. And if I had, I would hope that it would have made not a nickel's worth of difference to any happily hirsute woman.

I understand that it is a not-uncommon practice these days for men to shave their chests, underarms, legs, etc. Indeed, I've been told that my hairy chest (and back, and legs, and ... ) is, or was, unfashionable.

My cross to bear, I suppose. It's pretty darned light, as crosses go. Indeed, I don't even know it's there.

 

[tonyb]

By the way, there seems to be something amiss with the quotation feature on this new system. Fading Fast has me quoted as saying something I find no record of me saying. I thought the "voice" wasn't mine, so I went back to make certain. Nope, can't find me saying that.

 

[Bamaboots]

Good point, FF.

Me, I've never objected to body hair on women. And if I had, I would hope that it would have made not a nickel's worth of difference to any happily hirsute woman.

I understand that it is a not-uncommon practice these days for men to shave their chests, underarms, legs, etc. Indeed, I've been told that my hairy chest (and back, and legs, and ... ) is, or was, unfashionable.

My cross to bear, I suppose. It's pretty darned light, as crosses go. Indeed, I don't even know it's there.

I'm with you tonyb, though I am a little uncomfortable with this discussion. The older I get the more hair I have in places that are considered "unfashionable." None at all on my head anymore, since I began shaving it and if I don't maintain my ears it looks as a if my eyebrows have shifted to the side of my head. Several years ago when I gave in and bought some reading glasses, I looked in the bathroom mirror and thought I had a long piece of dental floss dangling from my righ ear.

 

[tonyb]

I'm with ya, 'boots. I bought a little electric trimmer gizmo to keep the cookie-duster in check. And the ears, not just at the opening to the ear canal, either (although there certainly is plentiful growth there), but also also all along the outside, around the entire perimeter, really. Fortunately it is mostly unpigmented, so it doesn't really show much. But I do mow it down every few weeks.

 

[LizzieMaine]

As usual, Watterson nails it.

View attachment 38028

Disturbing realization: if Calvin had aged in real time, he'd be 35 years old today. And he'd probably be a social-media billionaire.

 

[Fading Fast]

By the way, there seems to be something amiss with the quotation feature on this new system. Fading Fast has me quoted as saying something I find no record of me saying. I thought the "voice" wasn't mine, so I went back to make certain. Nope, can't find me saying that.

tonyb, I saw this and went back and I think the fault is mine in that I edited Edward's quote poorly so that it looked like you said it - I'm sorry. I try to be careful when editing (to make it clear by using "..."), but I blew it this time.

 

[Fading Fast]

Disturbing realization: if Calvin had aged in real time, he'd be 35 years old today. And he'd probably be a social-media billionaire.

Had I been asked, I thought he was older - seems like he's been a round most of my life, but clearly he hasn't - God I'm old.

 

[Edward]

No kiddin'?

What must be taken with a very large grain of salt is any absolute statement about the effects of any sort of media on its audience. There are sooo many variables that examining any individual factor in isolation is an impossible task. Assessments of the effects of pornography tells us more about the assessor than the assessed. And yes, I often suspect that the lady, or gentleman, doth indeed protest too much.

Oh, absolutely. We can't discount it completely, but it's certinly true that it's only one of many factors. I've always been reluctant to legislate on the basis of perceived causation, as really that's just such a nebulous, unproven (either way) argument in this sort of area.

Having said that, though, I'm in general agreement that "mainstream" media has a much larger effect on public perceptions and attitudes than any of the "fringier" media. Sexually explicit media still carries a whiff of disrepute. That, I suspect, remains a large part of its appeal. But pop stars and the popular entertainments in which they appear are indeed "normal," worthy, to be emulated, et cetera. Large multi-national corporations advertise where they appear. Politicians pose for pictures with them. The not-at-all-subtle message is: Be like this.

Absolutely - though I suppose it's easier to take aim at a defined subgrouping within media than to deal with the wider implications of such things.

I wish this wasn't the specific example we were discussing, but is the fact that kids today have a cultural standard of women not having pubic hair any more right or wrong than when I grew up (and even when my parents grew up) that it was cultural acceptable in general - in the US - for men to have armpit and leg hair, but not women? All this stuff is culturally constructed, so if we - my generation - had an arbitrary standard for women's armpit and leg hair, is it any different - or any more right or wrong - if the kids today have their own arbitrary standard for pubic hair?

It's a fair point: many European (mainland Europe, not the UK) women don't shave their armpits. A lot of it is cultural norms. I would like to think we could eventually evolve as a society to the point where people can shave or grow whateverf they want, wherever they want, as to what they prefer themselves, without feeling the need to conform to a specific set of norms. I'm sure for younger men there is an issue nowadays too, though I do tend to the view that it's women who face the most pressure to fit an accepted beauty model.

 

[LizzieMaine]

though I do tend to the view that it's women who face the most pressure to fit an accepted beauty model.

Yep. I work with young women who have on more than one occasion been reduced to tears by demands from boyfriends that they lose weight and otherwise change their bodies as a condition of retaining affections, while said boyfriends are themselves dough-bellied, pasty-faced, greasy-haired schmucks.

 

[Fading Fast]

Yep. I work with young women who have on more than one occasion been reduced to tears by demands from boyfriends that they lose weight and otherwise change their bodies as a condition of retaining affections, while said boyfriends are themselves dough-bellied, pasty-faced, greasy-haired schmucks.

A request like that - lose weight to keep affection - is great because now the woman knows the man is a complete and total jerk (you know the word I want to use here is not "jerk") and now she doesn't have to waste one second more on him. The flip version that men get sometimes is the make-more-money-if-you-want-to-keep-me demand (and its many variations that sometimes are somewhat camouflaged), which is also an easy one to deal with.

 

[tonyb]

Yep. I work with young women who have on more than one occasion been reduced to tears by demands from boyfriends that they lose weight and otherwise change their bodies as a condition of retaining affections, while said boyfriends are themselves dough-bellied, pasty-faced, greasy-haired schmucks.

I believe it, for sure, but it still amazes me.

I recall a conversation I had with a young man who was waiting along with me in a supermarket checkout line. We both shook our heads at the magazines on offer there -- publications aimed toward a predominantly female audience. Just about every title had on its cover teases for stories inside telling how the reader could lose a few pounds or inches here or there or highlight her physical attributes while disguising her less appealing ones. Et cetera. Hair. Makeup. And yes, sex.

Don't they all know they're beautiful?, we both said, or words to that general effect.

Moral of this story, if there is one, might be that we boys are not all cut from the same cloth. This is not to say we don't find some women more physically attractive than others, of course, nor that women aren't more subject to judgments based on appearances than are men. But if we wish to swap anecdotes, I can cite several instances (and more than one bad joke) of women being every bit as superficial.

 

[LizzieMaine]

A request like that - lose weight to keep affection - is great because now the woman knows the man is a complete and total jerk (you know the word I want to use here is not "jerk") and now she doesn't have to waste one second more on him.

Easier said than done in a world where women's worth is constantly measured by their youth, their weight, and their appearance. This is especially true among young working-class women who've learned early on that the only way anyone will ever pay them any attention at all is if they have the right "looks."

As for gold diggers, sure, they're out there. But you don't find too many of them around here -- the young women I know are well aware that most of the men in their social class will never have any gold to dig.

 

[tonyb]

As one whose weight has fluctuated as much as 60 pounds, I can assure you that I get get chatted up by women much more frequently when I'm on the lighter end of that spectrum.

 

[2jakes]

Easier said than done in a world where women's worth is constantly measured by their youth, their weight, and their appearance. This is especially true among young working-class women who've learned early on that the only way anyone will ever pay them any attention at all is if they have the right "looks."

Working in the news media as a photographer, “looks” is at the top of the totem pole
as far as providing a step inside the door for women.
But looks alone will not guarantee that you will remain on the top & the fall will be fast & painful.

The sad thing is that some of the women who have been baptized as beautiful when young & are talented
as journalist, still have concerns as they grow old & their looks are diminishing. While others who are
just as talented, but not blessed with exactly perfect “looks” are confident in themselves &
what they bring to the table. I’m not implying this to be the case for everyone, just my observation
as a photo-journalist who worked with many dedicated & skilled women for 28 years.

 

[LizzieMaine]

We even ran into the issue in radio, of all places. You wouldn't think looks would matter in a medium where the audience can't see you -- but there were a lot of stations where you couldn't get in the door if you didn't flash your legs at the program director or the general manager.

This was back in the '80s, but that same spirit is alive and well in broadcasting today -- as witness the head of a certain prominent cable TV news network who insists his female personalities display their legs on camera. How come he doesn't insist the men appear in Speedos?

Interestingly, the pub where I eat lunch with a friend every Tuesday shows that particular channel on its big screen -- but with the sound shut off, I guess so the men watching won't be distracted by any opinions coming out of the ladies' mouths.