or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Social Life, Food & Drink, Travel › The Attractive Woman.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Attractive Woman. - Page 2

post #16 of 32
Related:
Quote:
Breathe in, girls Jan 11th 2007From The Economist print edition For two thousand years men have written about ladies with small waists SOME gentlemen may prefer blondes, but almost all seem to like a waist to hip ratio of between 0.6 and 0.7. Breasts and bottoms should be substantial; waists should be slim. It should be the case all over the world and throughout human history. That, at least, is the prevailing theory among evolutionary psychologists. The ratio in question correlates with hormone levels promoting maximum female fertility and health, so men who prefer curvy women will have more children. Devendra Singh, of the University of Texas, in Austin, has proved the point in the past by measuring the vital statistics of Playboy models. He found that centrefolds vary in weight but not in their hourglass shapes. Playmates' shapes, however, reveal only the psychology of Playboy's mainly American readers—and do so only since 1953, when Marilyn Monroe appeared in the first issue. To make a stronger case for the theory, Dr Singh and his colleagues have turned to historical descriptions of beauties in the literature of Britain, China and India. It is hardly poetic to write about a knockout's two-thirds ratio, nor equally appropriate across cultures to scribe complementary descriptions of bosoms and behinds, so the analysis focused on romantic references to female waists. Among the results, published in the Proceedings of the Royal Society, all 66 entries about waist size in the sample of British literature from the 16th to the 18th centuries described the waists as small or narrow—even though there were nearly four times as many romantic references to ladies who were plump overall, than there were to slim women. Similarly, every beauty portrayed in first- to third-century Indian epics Mahabharata and Ramayana, and in Chinese sixth dynastic Palace poetry, had a slender waist whenever that part of the body was mentioned. This is not proof, but it adds weight to the idea that men have been predictable since the beginning of time.
post #17 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quirk
Related:

I believe it. Preference for thickness has varied over time but I can't think of anyone who looks for a woman with a large waistline.
post #18 of 32
It means she has good birthing potential. You want her to have nice child bearing hips. Doesn't have to be fat. She just has to be able to squeeze a bunch of kids out.
post #19 of 32
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by whodini
Don't mind TS. He thinks any girl's ugly if they don't look like this:


LabelKing, I'd have to say that this baby-face look is rather unappealing in today's world. It's funny but in watching classic films from the 30s/40s I often wonder if people today resemble people back then. I haven't seen many Marlene Dietrich or Bette Davis-type faces in the media or in person whereas back in that day I'm sure they were a dime a dozen in Hollywood.

I guess it's similar to how easy it is to find a Spears/Lohan/et. al. look alike these days.
I've noticed this too. It seems every aspiring starlet at that time had a similar face whereas today every aspiring starlet has some sort of Lohan-esque type visage.

Sometimes, though, it seems that the older faces were more refined.
post #20 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by whodini
Don't mind TS. He thinks any girl's ugly if they don't look like this:


While technically untrue, the above statement does have some semblance of truth to it.
post #21 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tokyo Slim
While technically untrue, the above statement does have some semblance of truth to it.
Please, anything after #1 is only #2...
post #22 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by whodini
Please, anything after #1 is only #2...
But being the second best looking woman on the planet doesn't make you ugly. Cheer up Whodini! Even at 4,987,274th best looking woman in your state, you might still be attractive enough at 3am in a truck stop to swing a little action!
post #23 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by LabelKing
I've noticed this too. It seems every aspiring starlet at that time had a similar face whereas today every aspiring starlet has some sort of Lohan-esque type visage. Sometimes, though, it seems that the older faces were more refined.
I often find myself staring at actors in old movies and being amazed at incredibly different actors looked then than they do today. I suppose it's all hair, makeup and lighting, though, rather than any fundamental difference in physicality. After all, look how different Jennifer Connelly looks in her retro look above vs. her contemporary look in Tokyo Slim's avatar. Granted, those pics are about fifteen years apart...
post #24 of 32
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quirk
I often find myself staring at actors in old movies and being amazed at incredibly different actors looked then than they do today. I suppose it's all hair, makeup and lighting, though, rather than any fundamental difference in physicality. After all, look how different Jennifer Connelly looks in her retro look above vs. her contemporary look in Tokyo Slim's avatar. Granted, those pics are about fifteen years apart...
I don't know if it's the knowledge that that is a modern person being retro, but somehow that Jennifer Connelly photograph strikes me as a modern person trying to be vintage. That's why I find most costume period films done today unconvincing since the people in there all look very modern despite their attire.
post #25 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tokyo Slim
But being the second best looking woman on the planet doesn't make you ugly. Cheer up Whodini! Even at 4,987,274th best looking woman in your state, you might still be attractive enough at 3am in a truck stop to swing a little action!
You're a little bitch. Not only do you not even recognize my #1/#2 pun, but you futher insinuate that I'm a truckstop whore. And an unattractive one at that. Dick. Label, you make an excellent point about modern women trying to look vintage. I think that's exactly when it emphasizes my point that people today do not look like people from the 30s, at least not from the popular media pool.
post #26 of 32
I watched Casablanca the other night... Ingrid Bergman
post #27 of 32
oo...but jennifer connelly is damned hot.
post #28 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by whodini
You're a little bitch. Not only do you not even recognize my #1/#2 pun, but you futher insinuate that I'm a truckstop whore. And an unattractive one at that. Dick.

Oh, I got it. It was supposed to be a pun? I just thought it was so simplistic and juvenile that it must have been unintentional. My mistake.

I've finally narrowed it down, who it is that you remind me of... but are you a blonde or a brunette?



hmm...

post #29 of 32
Quote:
Label, you make an excellent point about modern women trying to look vintage. I think that's exactly when it emphasizes my point that people today do not look like people from the 30s, at least not from the popular media pool.
I find that in the past people looked more normal, i.e., they were more beautiful. If you look at old pictures you'll see that the faces are more symmetrical, the proportions are better and the skin quality is much closer to flawless. I believe there are a lot of factors for this: - food. Food today is horrible. All the big companies are greedy and are saving at the detriment of the customers. Who in the past ate cow's meat from many cows' bones, tendons, and hopefully some meat, and from cows that have been fed only cereals (grown only with NPK), their own bones (read: mad cow disease) and hormones? Exactly this kind of meat is in a burger, a favorite american food. On top of this, the ground meat used by McShite is kept in horrible state (read: stale, putrified, etc), and burned to death so that everything bad is killed (and so is everything good). Ofc, this would be cooked with recycled oil from plants, the kind of oil that would have lots of trans fats when cooked. But what about the french fries? These are much worse than the meat. What about the lack of minerals in people's diet? etc, etc, etc. People today take a multivitamin and think it's OK. It is not. Food does influence your body: the fat/lean mass, bone structure, diseases, etc. - cosmetic changes. Since, we're comparing actors, how many would you say have had something "done"? Today, almost everybody has had at last something small, and before ... the 60's, 70's?? nobody had. While this might increase the attractiveness temporarily, since the body changes over time, the artificial changes will just look wierd. (that's for some cosmetic changes, people need to go to the doctor once every few years) - What about the environment, fresh air and exercise? Actors who work out to compensate look best, but then bodybuilding doesn't really work all the muscles (they concentrate on the most visible ones), and it's not the perfect substitute for the natural human development. Take the latest James Bond for example. You can see that he's "well build" in the gym way. Oh, and yes, he has an inflated belly, and the way the muscles look on him is wierd. But hey, that's just me. (btw, in the bodybuilding world, the inflated belly is a well known side effect of certain steroids that make the intestine bigger. Compare the natural bodybuilder Steve Reeves with waist 29 inches at 220 lbs with the current pros, none of them under 34 -- and that's in "contest" mode -- read they are dehydrated so that they can look more "ripped") I was at the meth in the statue section 2 weeks ago, and since the greeks and romans the ideal of beauty hasn't changed. I find all those naked statues incredibly beautiful, face, body, everything. The ideal hasn't changed. It's people that have. --trajan
post #30 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by LabelKing
I've noticed this too. It seems every aspiring starlet at that time had a similar face whereas today every aspiring starlet has some sort of Lohan-esque type visage.

Sometimes, though, it seems that the older faces were more refined.

I don't know if this was intended to apply to Jenifer Connelly, but if it was, let's remember that she's been who she is, and doing what she does, long before Lindsay Lohan showed up. So, its not Connelly who's derivative of Lohan (if that was intended); it might be the other way 'round, but the fact is, Connelly isn't a starlet, but an established actress, and she doesn't pursue "babyface" roles. The only time I've seen her that way was in "Pollock."

While she might have a babyface (which may be the point here), its a damn lovely one. Among my favorites (but she's not Monica Bellucci, as was already established in another thread).
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Social Life, Food & Drink, Travel › The Attractive Woman.