link | Submitted by Whipped Honey on Sat, 10/20/2007 - 13:56.
"This website has to do with physical appearance, not social class."
Physical attractiveness is correlated to social class. In all times and places throughout human history, beauty has been defined in part as the physical signs of higher socioeconomic status (SES).
For example, in the West, in the 19th century, most lower SES people worked outdoors at farmwork or other forms of physical labor, and so a suntan was a sign of lower SES, while higher SES people either did not work or worked at indoor professions, so pale skin was a sign of higher SES. The result is that women went to great lengths to keep their skin as pale as possible, staying out of the sun during the hottest midday hours if possible, using parasols, bonnets and gloves, and even swallowing small amounts of arsenic to get a deathly palor. Then, in the 20th century, the transition to a primarily industrial, primarily non-agrarian economy moved most of the labor jobs indoors into factories, sweatshops, and other indoor environments, so that pale skin ceased to signify higher SES, and only those who had enough money not to work, or to have reasonably limited work hours, had the luxury of spending significant time outdoors. The result is that white people now are so obsessed with suntans that they have spawned entire industries of suntan lotion, fake tanning products, and even tanning parlors where they literally microwave themselves, causing a tragic skyrocket in melanoma (skin cancer).
Lower-class looks are to some degree distasteful to anyone who is not from a lower-class background, depending on whether those looks are combined with other attractive attributes such as the physical signs of good health and fertility.
For instance, Marilyn Monroe, even more so before her nose job and chin implant, looked rather lower class, but at her peak she also looked extremely healthy and extremely fertile, so the effect was balanced out to create an overall attractive look. Gabrielle does not have that fertile look; her obviously fake, cartoonishly disproportional breast implants do not have the same effect as Marilyn Monroe's obviously real, gorgeously perfectly proportioned full breasts.
Oversized, disproportional breast implants are usually a sign of lesser fertility. The psychology of breast implants is that women who get absurdly oversized implants are almost always those whose natural breasts are A cups or very small B cups, so that they grew up hating their small breasts and idolizing huge breasts and lost all sense of perspective about how big is too big for a given frame, so laughably oversized implants are almost always a sign of naturally flat chests. Pamela Anderson is an example of this. I would bet money that Gabrielle has natural A cups. (To be clear, I am not suggesting that all small-breasted women hate having small breasts; just the ones who get the oversized implants.)
Oversized, disproportional breast implants are almost always a sign of lower socioeconomic background (not to be confused with lower current SES). Women with middle to high socioeconomic background, if they get implants, choose a size that is reasonably proportional to their frame. Pamela Anderson grew up in a trailer; though she's rich now, she still has the sexual/body image psychology of a girl from the lower class. I would bet money that Gabrielle grew up poor. It's not a coincidence that ridiculous cartoon-character breast implants are far more common among hard core porn stars, who are almost always from humble backgrounds, than among actresses and clothed models, who are from the whole spectrum of class status. Most porn stars have a year or five and then disappear; Pamela Anderson would have disappeared fast had it not been for her publicity-generating marriages to two rock stars and, now, her engagement to the leading man of the highest-selling porn flick ever. Lower class looks without the signs of good health and high fertility almost never hold the public's attention for more than a brief moment in the absence of extending their fifteen minutes by latching on to someone else's fame.
"How do the feminine women I have been showing look lower class/trailer trash? There is an inverse relation between obesity and socioeconomic class among white women, and I haven’t been featuring overweight/obese women, but slender/medically-normal-weight women."
There is an inverse relation between the *rate* of obesity and socioeconomic class among white women. This means the *rate* of obesity is higher among lower class white women; it does not mean that thinness automatically makes it impossible for a woman to look lower class. Gabrielle's face looks lower class, and would regardless of her weight. Also, her oversized implants indicate a lower-class background.
"Attractive women are upwardly mobile (disproportionately taken by richer men), i.e., feminine beauty is associated with higher class in this sense."
Do you have any proof for your claim that the women who meet your definition of "feminine" are upwardly mobile or disproportionately taken by richer men?
Offhand most of the rich married men I can think of married or women who do not meet your definition of feminine: Donald Trump's wife Melania, Bill Gates' wife Melinda, Prince Charles' wife Camilla, Prince Edward's wife Sophie, Prince William's probable future wife Kate Middleton, Rupert Murdoch's wife Wendi Deng, Prince Maximilian of Luxembourg's wife Angela, U.S. President John F. Kennedy's wife Jackie.
It appears that many, perhaps most, rich men do not agree with your definitions of "feminine" and "attractive". I wonder if you will evade this issue by claiming that these men must have "narrowly escaped nonheterosexuality", a very convenient accusation since it is impossible to prove and impossible to disprove.
"Joey Heatherton and Amy Locane are not feminine and Traci Lords is an ex-porn star. You think I would be using such women in a mainstream movie if I needed feminine characters?"
Whom *you* would cast in a *mainstream* movie is beside the point.
Joey Heatherton, as seen in these pictures 1, 2, and http://www.angelfire.com/tv2/eccentric/jli1l1ij/joey-60s.jpg, and Amy Locane, as seen in pictures 1, 2, and 3, would be consired attractive by the vast majority of straight men, excepting men who are turned off by their coloring, an issue unrelated to femininity. Now I suppose you will inform me that their jaws are too wide or something of that nature. I submit that the vast majority of straight men couldn't care less.
As for Traci Lords being an ex-porn star, how is that relevant to her femininity?
»
Reply
Note: If your comment does not appear immediately after posting, then reload/refresh the page.
"This website has to do with physical appearance, not social class."
Physical attractiveness is correlated to social class. In all times and places throughout human history, beauty has been defined in part as the physical signs of higher socioeconomic status (SES).
For example, in the West, in the 19th century, most lower SES people worked outdoors at farmwork or other forms of physical labor, and so a suntan was a sign of lower SES, while higher SES people either did not work or worked at indoor professions, so pale skin was a sign of higher SES. The result is that women went to great lengths to keep their skin as pale as possible, staying out of the sun during the hottest midday hours if possible, using parasols, bonnets and gloves, and even swallowing small amounts of arsenic to get a deathly palor. Then, in the 20th century, the transition to a primarily industrial, primarily non-agrarian economy moved most of the labor jobs indoors into factories, sweatshops, and other indoor environments, so that pale skin ceased to signify higher SES, and only those who had enough money not to work, or to have reasonably limited work hours, had the luxury of spending significant time outdoors. The result is that white people now are so obsessed with suntans that they have spawned entire industries of suntan lotion, fake tanning products, and even tanning parlors where they literally microwave themselves, causing a tragic skyrocket in melanoma (skin cancer).
Lower-class looks are to some degree distasteful to anyone who is not from a lower-class background, depending on whether those looks are combined with other attractive attributes such as the physical signs of good health and fertility.
For instance, Marilyn Monroe, even more so before her nose job and chin implant, looked rather lower class, but at her peak she also looked extremely healthy and extremely fertile, so the effect was balanced out to create an overall attractive look. Gabrielle does not have that fertile look; her obviously fake, cartoonishly disproportional breast implants do not have the same effect as Marilyn Monroe's obviously real, gorgeously perfectly proportioned full breasts.
Oversized, disproportional breast implants are usually a sign of lesser fertility. The psychology of breast implants is that women who get absurdly oversized implants are almost always those whose natural breasts are A cups or very small B cups, so that they grew up hating their small breasts and idolizing huge breasts and lost all sense of perspective about how big is too big for a given frame, so laughably oversized implants are almost always a sign of naturally flat chests. Pamela Anderson is an example of this. I would bet money that Gabrielle has natural A cups. (To be clear, I am not suggesting that all small-breasted women hate having small breasts; just the ones who get the oversized implants.)
Oversized, disproportional breast implants are almost always a sign of lower socioeconomic background (not to be confused with lower current SES). Women with middle to high socioeconomic background, if they get implants, choose a size that is reasonably proportional to their frame. Pamela Anderson grew up in a trailer; though she's rich now, she still has the sexual/body image psychology of a girl from the lower class. I would bet money that Gabrielle grew up poor. It's not a coincidence that ridiculous cartoon-character breast implants are far more common among hard core porn stars, who are almost always from humble backgrounds, than among actresses and clothed models, who are from the whole spectrum of class status. Most porn stars have a year or five and then disappear; Pamela Anderson would have disappeared fast had it not been for her publicity-generating marriages to two rock stars and, now, her engagement to the leading man of the highest-selling porn flick ever. Lower class looks without the signs of good health and high fertility almost never hold the public's attention for more than a brief moment in the absence of extending their fifteen minutes by latching on to someone else's fame.
"How do the feminine women I have been showing look lower class/trailer trash? There is an inverse relation between obesity and socioeconomic class among white women, and I haven’t been featuring overweight/obese women, but slender/medically-normal-weight women."
There is an inverse relation between the *rate* of obesity and socioeconomic class among white women. This means the *rate* of obesity is higher among lower class white women; it does not mean that thinness automatically makes it impossible for a woman to look lower class. Gabrielle's face looks lower class, and would regardless of her weight. Also, her oversized implants indicate a lower-class background.
"Attractive women are upwardly mobile (disproportionately taken by richer men), i.e., feminine beauty is associated with higher class in this sense."
Do you have any proof for your claim that the women who meet your definition of "feminine" are upwardly mobile or disproportionately taken by richer men?
Offhand most of the rich married men I can think of married or women who do not meet your definition of feminine: Donald Trump's wife Melania, Bill Gates' wife Melinda, Prince Charles' wife Camilla, Prince Edward's wife Sophie, Prince William's probable future wife Kate Middleton, Rupert Murdoch's wife Wendi Deng, Prince Maximilian of Luxembourg's wife Angela, U.S. President John F. Kennedy's wife Jackie.
It appears that many, perhaps most, rich men do not agree with your definitions of "feminine" and "attractive". I wonder if you will evade this issue by claiming that these men must have "narrowly escaped nonheterosexuality", a very convenient accusation since it is impossible to prove and impossible to disprove.
"Joey Heatherton and Amy Locane are not feminine and Traci Lords is an ex-porn star. You think I would be using such women in a mainstream movie if I needed feminine characters?"
Whom *you* would cast in a *mainstream* movie is beside the point.
Joey Heatherton, as seen in these pictures 1, 2, and
http://www.angelfire.com/tv2/eccentric/jli1l1ij/joey-60s.jpg, and Amy Locane, as seen in pictures 1, 2, and 3, would be consired attractive by the vast majority of straight men, excepting men who are turned off by their coloring, an issue unrelated to femininity. Now I suppose you will inform me that their jaws are too wide or something of that nature. I submit that the vast majority of straight men couldn't care less.
As for Traci Lords being an ex-porn star, how is that relevant to her femininity?