turpin@cs.utexas.edu (Russell Turpin) (10/30/90)
----- In article <1990Oct26.170150.9341@nntp-server.caltech.edu> morphy@truebalt.cco.caltech.EDU (Jones Maxime Murphy) writes: >> [...] In my native Caribbean and in Latin America, I find men much >> more open-minded about what's "attractive" in female bodies. [...] On the issue of changing what attracts one, Mr West writes: >> I (and I expect many if not most men) find it baffling because the >> perceived attractiveness of a MOTAS seems an immediate, almost "given" >> reaction, opaque to rational thought in the short or medium term, as >> does, for example the perceived "pleasant-tastingness" of a food. ... In article <26364.272c0370@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu>, huxtable@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu writes: > ... If we don't work for a society where these perceptions are > different we probably won't get such a society. ... > > I don't expect your feelings to be under your conscious control. ... > But you can influence your feelings by your thoughts and you can > influence your thoughts by your actions. And yes, it takes time, is > subtle, and is only marginally voluntary. Before one puts effort into this time consuming process in return for some subtle effects, it might be appropriate to ask what one's goal is in doing so, and in particular, why it is important to society. There are some things that are obviously worthwhile to the individual. At the conscious level, there is the recognition that not everyone has the same tastes, and that one's own tastes set no objective standard. At a more subtle level, one (hopefully) learns that some tastes are superficial and others have deeper import. But where is the social goal? Ms Huxtable wants us to "work for a society where these perceptions are different". Different how? Where people's tastes are the same? Where appearance is totally irrelevant to sexual attraction? (Really?) And how is this social goal, whatever it is, tied to feminism? Russell
huxtable@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu (10/31/90)
In article <26364.272c0370@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu>, I wrote: words about changing one's perceptions. In article <14097@cs.utexas.edu>, turpin@cs.utexas.edu (Russell Turpin) writes: > Before one puts effort into this time consuming process in return > for some subtle effects, it might be appropriate to ask what > one's goal is in doing so, and in particular, why it is important > to society. There are some things that are obviously worthwhile > to the individual. At the conscious level, there is the > recognition that not everyone has the same tastes, and that one's > own tastes set no objective standard. At a more subtle level, > one (hopefully) learns that some tastes are superficial and > others have deeper import. > > But where is the social goal? Ms Huxtable wants us to "work for > a society where these perceptions are different". Different how? > Where people's tastes are the same? Where appearance is totally > irrelevant to sexual attraction? (Really?) And how is this > social goal, whatever it is, tied to feminism? I agree with Russell. One should always consider one's goals. What I am after is a society where each individual is treated as a unique individual, rather than as a set of deviations from some putative norm. Obviously, people have different criteria from each other for sexual attraction. This won't change and I don't think it *should* change. But if we have a society where we each recognize that every other individual has hopes, aspirations, abilities, and limitations and that these may have little in common with our own and that this is not a bad thing then I hope we would have a society I would prefer living in to this one. If you can parse the above sentence, I nominate you for the pseudo-intellectual of the year award. I talk like that in (what passes for) real life. Isn't that scary? -- Kathryn Huxtable huxtable@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
morphy@truebalt.cco.caltech.EDU (Jones Maxime Murphy) (11/01/90)
turpin@cs.utexas.edu (Russell Turpin) writes: >In article <1990Oct26.170150.9341@nntp-server.caltech.edu> morphy@truebalt.cco.caltech.EDU (Jones Maxime Murphy) writes: >>> [...] In my native Caribbean and in Latin America, I find men much >>> more open-minded about what's "attractive" in female bodies. [...] >But where is the social goal? Ms Huxtable wants us to "work for >a society where these perceptions are different". Different how? >Where people's tastes are the same? Where appearance is totally >irrelevant to sexual attraction? (Really?) And how is this >social goal, whatever it is, tied to feminism? There is a definite double standard between the genders as far as the percentage of each gender that matches its "ideal body type". The ridiculously lean image of feminine beauty leads to dire consequences. Excerpted from Time's new issue on women--twice as many women ages 30-64 as men think they're overweight. In a UC study, 58% of 17-year-old girls said they were overweight; only 17% actually were. This farcical situation leads to low self-esteem and unneccessary dieting. Forget feminism for a second, how about common sense and good health? Jones Physics Department California Institute of Technology
gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) (11/16/90)
In some article morphy@truebalt.cco.caltech.EDU (Jones Maxime Murphy) writes: >30-64 as men think they're overweight. In a UC study, 58% of >17-year-old girls said they were overweight; only 17% actually were. >This farcical situation leads to low self-esteem and unneccessary The pressures on men to be a *success*, and other cultural influence, kill men faster than the cultural pressures (that you are so worried about) that kill women. Actually, on average, women live 10% longer than men... >Forget feminism for a second, how about common sense and good health? If you want to forget feminism and talk about health then I think that would be a good idea to try solve the bigger problem (pressures that kill men) too; since the subject has little to do with feminism I direct the follow-up to soc.men
kenm@maccs.DCSS.McMaster.CA (...Jose) (11/16/90)
In article <1990Oct31.165320.15137@nntp-server.caltech.edu> morphy@truebalt.cco.caltech.EDU (Jones Maxime Murphy) writes: >There is a definite double standard between the genders as far as the >percentage of each gender that matches its "ideal body type". The >ridiculously lean image of feminine beauty leads to dire consequences. >Excerpted from Time's new issue on women--twice as many women ages >30-64 as men think they're overweight. In a UC study, 58% of >17-year-old girls said they were overweight; only 17% actually were. >This farcical situation leads to low self-esteem and unneccessary >dieting. From my own, purely subjective, viewpoint, I have gotten the impression that it is much easier for a woman to be considered as physically/sexually attractive than a man. Men can be attracted to a broad range of physcial types: some like very thin, others more volumptuos forms, some prefer women who are definitely plump.. some men like small breasts, others find large breasts attractive, some like narrow hips, others prefer rounded. With the archetype of the physically attractive male, it seems to be less varied: trim and muscular, with varying degrees of muscularity. The point is, that it would actually take more effort (physical) for a man to fit the beauty archetype than a woman. This, of course, does not consider that women may be less concerned that their man fit into the beauty archetype than men are (about their women). Basically, I think that men have a more difficult/narrower ideal to conform to, but less pressure to conform to it. Of course, as a man, I only feel the societal pressure placed on me as a man... a woman might argue the exact opposite to what I have said, given her subjective experience, based on the societal pressure she feels. -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ".sig quotes are dippy"|Kenneth C. Moyle kenm@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca - Kenneth C. Moyle |Department of Biochemistry MOYLEK@MCMASTER.BITNET |McMaster University ...!uunet!mnetor!maccs!kenm
davej@yang.earlham.edu (David A. Jeroslow) (11/23/90)
Here's a quote I heard on television. "Women learn to find attractive the man they love, whereas men learn to love the woman they find attractive." This goes well with what I've been taught since a child. "Women care more about who the man >is< rather than how they look." I have even heard this said by women my age. Yet I find increasingly that these women are trying to paint a picture for how they would >like< to be. Too often I've seen intelligent women, who are also feminists go out with some total asshole... with a nice set of grabbable buns. Yes, I've found women who "think with their penis." This doesn't bother me as much as the fact that these same women feel that men should stop defining who women are, because men don't know women. Men overpower women because men are innately frightened of women. This is because women are "innately better than men." "We aren't so selfish and self-centered. We like men who are smart and nice first. We don't think with our penis." Just how true is this?
bloch%thor@ucsd.EDU (Steve Bloch) (12/08/90)
davej@yang.earlham.edu (David A. Jeroslow) writes: >Here's a quote I heard on television. > >"Women learn to find attractive the man they love, whereas men learn to >love the woman they find attractive." >... >Just how true is this? I don't find it particularly true. I don't think I've ever fallen seriously in love with a woman I'd been drooling over (figuratively, privately :-) first, but on several occasions I've gradually become physically attracted to a woman after becoming good friends with her. I first noticed this in highschool, and thought it was a nice way for the world to work. Of course, a confounding factor is that at some subconscious level I probably assume women who match societal norms of beauty are the least interesting as people. This is of course an unfair prejudice, and I can counteract it consciously, but it's there. -- "The above opinions are my own -- but that's just MY opinion." Stephen Bloch bloch@cs.ucsd.edu
synth@yenta.alb.nm.us (Synth F. Oberheim) (01/02/91)
bloch%thor@ucsd.EDU (Steve Bloch) writes: >I don't think I've ever fallen >seriously in love with a woman I'd been drooling over (figuratively, >privately :-) first, but on several occasions I've gradually become >physically attracted to a woman after becoming good friends with her. >I first noticed this in high school, and thought it was a nice way for >the world to work. I know a lot of people that should have your philosophy, but don't. Instead they're locked into assuming that instant physical or sexual attraction is the same thing as emotional attraction (love), and dive into a relationship with someone they don't even really know ... >Of course, a confounding factor is that at some subconscious level I >probably assume women who match societal norms of beauty are the least >interesting as people. This is of course an unfair prejudice, and I >can counteract it consciously, but it's there. Actually I think that people who blindly follow societal norms *in general* are less interesting and intelligent. But you're right, assuming it is a prejudice. Sadly, though, I see this too much from unintentional observation alone, so I've found having a prejudice isn't necessary :-). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- :: :: :: :: :: Synth (F. Oberheim) yenta unix pc (((((In Stereo))))) :: :: :: :: :: :: :: synth@yenta.alb.nm.us Albuquerque where available ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about. -- Oscar Wilde