I’m on hols so I’m not reading the news on a regular basis. Too damn busy doing things I want to do, as opposed to the usual, things I have to do. Work. Read into that what you will.
Having more of my time for me means browsing Facebook, which in turn brought me across this item in the Sydney Morning Herald. A rag I’m afraid has become less than a newspaper & more of a gossip rag. My personal opinion aside, the article struck a chord with me as a male on multiple levels. Firstly, while Jennifer Hawkins might be considered attractive, frankly I find her less than representative of the female form than, say, Jennifer Love Hewitt. Four years difference in age, however, compare…
Bare in mind that there is no perfect 10, despite what Dudley Moore may have thought. That said, I’ll give you what I believe to be desirable in the feminine form.
-
Long Hair;
-
symmetrical facial structure
-
Tits
-
Tummy;
-
Hips;
-
Arse; and
-
Legs
I love long hair on a woman. Find me a man who doesn’t. Facial structure is a no-win, but one can be choosy in imagine land, yes? Tits….now for mine, a woman needs to look like a woman, not an adolescent teeny-bopper. Tummy? Well, we all have them. That is, if we live in the real world, without personal trainers and dieticians. That’s ‘tummy’ by the way, not ‘belly’. There’s a vast difference.
Hips….now without a solid pair of hip bones suitably buffered for comfort, a woman simply isn’t a woman in my estimation. Woman means female means reproduction. All women have the same plumbing inside, but it’s how that plumbing fits & functions which makes her desirable to me. To be blunt, they’re called ‘child-bearing hips’ and a real woman has to have them. Coupled to those hips, a real woman needs an arse and not just for sitting on. I’ll simply refer back to the comfort reference above. Balance is important and for 90% of all women, balance in that hip/arse/thigh area is near impossible because of the way the female form builds itself, stores for the lean times, copes with the monthly cycle and so on. Best any man can wish for is two from the three to be close.
Which brings me to legs. Ahh, yes, legs. Without which the arse looks no good, the hips have no saving grace and both not nearly as attractive in high heels. Don’t forget that this is my own personal wish list and has no bearing on a general overall body image sense of perfection. I’ve already stated that there is no ‘10’ and neither there is. Would I bed Jennifer Hawkins? Do bears shit in forests? Is she desirable to me? Pleasant, even attractive, but not desirable. No tits, skinny arse and nobbie knees. Is Jennifer Love Hewitt desirable? Sure thing, but is she attractive? Not really. Face is too long and ears are too big.
What I’m getting at here is that every woman has her body image faults, flaws, things she wishes were bigger, smaller, better balanced. So what is body image if every woman has her own flaws? It’s a societal construct created by free market competition from the media sector. Here’s the evidence.
To the left, Marie Claire, a production of Pacific Magazines, which is a part of the Seven Network/Stokes stable of corporate entities. To the right, Madison, a production of ACP Magazines, which is a part of the Nine Network/Packer stable of corporate entities. Am I ringing any bells yet?
Let’s be perfectly clear as to what these two magazines and their compatriots in the feminine couture/gossip/titillation realm of monthly glossies are all about. Concern over just what body image is and the fallacy that modern societal mores and fashion demand it be are as far from the intents of these publications as is the very thought of printing either by it’s respective publishers gratis. It’s not about the common good, feminine psyche, male desire or any other countless excuses. It’s about sales. The one on the left, $8.20. The one on the right, $7.95. Both monthly. One puts a former Miss Universe on the cover naked with five pages, supposedly, of nude pics inside, so the other puts four non-Miss Universes participants, their abbreviated bios, AND their nudie pics inside theirs. One links up with an organisation purporting to be assisting women with body image and eating disorder problems while the other rests on the facts of their nudie-girls battles with their own self-confidence, drug, eating or weight issues.
From a purely gratuitous male perspective, I think they’re all damn attractive. Some far more so that others, and I’d happily bonk the lot of ‘em. One at a time of course. But seriously, isn’t it all just so much bullshit, this body image issue? If glossy magazines, fashionista’s, news, films, advertising in general didn’t use sex to sell their wares, women in general wouldn’t have body image issues! You’re all beautiful, you’re all attractive in you’re own special ways and whether you’re touched up in a photo, have love-handles or tiny titties, it doesn’t matter a damn to the men/women in your lives. If it did, they wouldn’t be in your lives, would they?
It’s all bullshit, ladies!! Wake up, smell the roses and stop wasting your hard earned paying for shit which is only going to make you discontent with who you are.