0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
In the past there was a procedure of rib removal/resection that could enhance an hourglass shape.http://surgeries.cc/extreme/extremerib.htmlWhat is the world coming to if it takes a few nips and tucks to make a woman look like a woman 
QuoteQuote from: CliffordK on 31/03/2011 19:41:28In the past there was a procedure of rib removal/resection that could enhance an hourglass shape.http://surgeries.cc/extreme/extremerib.htmlWhat is the world coming to if it takes a few nips and tucks to make a woman look like a woman What is the world coming to if it takes a few nips and tucks to make a woman look like a woman Are you sure? Snopes disagrees: http://www.snopes.com/horrors/vanities/ribs.aspThen there's this: http://www.snopes.com/photos/people/smallwaist.aspDue entirely to corsets, apparently. It does appear that she can still walk.
Quote from: CliffordK on 31/03/2011 19:41:28In the past there was a procedure of rib removal/resection that could enhance an hourglass shape.http://surgeries.cc/extreme/extremerib.htmlWhat is the world coming to if it takes a few nips and tucks to make a woman look like a woman What is the world coming to if it takes a few nips and tucks to make a woman look like a woman 
Sorry, I do not see how anyone could think that make a woman look more attractive.
Are you sure? Snopes disagrees: http://www.snopes.com/horrors/vanities/ribs.aspThen there's this: http://www.snopes.com/photos/people/smallwaist.aspDue entirely to corsets, apparently. It does appear that she can still walk.
Quote from: Wiybit on 01/04/2011 23:21:00Sorry, I do not see how anyone could think that make a woman look more attractive. Who said anything about making women look more attractive? Obviously, you are a sexist pig. All I can say is "watch your ass", cos it's about to get reamed.
Sorry but I was the first to criticise this thread as sexist.
Quote from: Wiybit on 02/04/2011 23:08:24Sorry but I was the first to criticise this thread as sexist. As we have come to expect, that's complete nonsense. You were the first to introduce any sexual connotations into the thread.The original question was entirely anatomical. Go back and read it.
Umm sexist conotations to Barbie...
Hence I think women are more beautiful as God intended, hence my point hence I seriously do not know how you could accuse me of sexism.
One of those fascinating conversations seems to have developed in which a whole lot of men discuss who is the least sexist. Always fun. Firstly, I do think that people should occasionally get over themselves. The question, could Barbie walk upright, is a perfectly reasonable one, the more so given that's been discussed by a range of people over the years... and given that her somewhat peculiar physique has been widely remarked on, mainly by feminists worried by the risk that small girls might be being encouraged, even accidentally, to regard the "Barbie figure" as something to aspire to. Throwing about accusations of sexism is rarely helpful, all it achieves is to raise the emotional temperature without affecting anyone's views of anything. There are exceptions to this rule, when an individual is expressing views that are actually objectionable, and there's nothing for it but to stand up and be counted as disagreeing, but this bandying of accusations is merely undignified. Even if I bought the idea that the original question were sexist, or the result of the underlying sexism of our society, or one of those things, which I don't, I would consider Wybit's original contribution to be intellectually lazy:QuoteUmm sexist conotations to Barbie...That was the whole comment. If you're going announce that someone's question or comment is, in your view, objectionable, it is generally considered good manners to explain your difficulty with it from the offset,
because otherwise the result is a lot of talking at cross-purposes, a great deal of huffiness, and generally more heat than light. This applies especially to an internet forum such as this one, where contributors come from a range of countries and backgrounds and indeed do not all have the same native tongue and so the assumption of a set of cultural assumptions is frequently invalid (as especially in the use of certain gendered epithets, which carry very varied levels of insult - or indeed no particular insult at all - depending which side of the atlantic you're on..). On the other hand, I do think that this was a more-or-less fair comment (notwithstanding the extraneous use of the word "sorry" at the beginning, which for reasons I have not entirely fathomed always makes me much less inclined to sympathise with the poster):QuoteSorry, I do not see how anyone could think that make a woman look more attractive. No-one had explicitly raised the question of whether excessive corsetry/rib removal (or not)/other forms of mutilation for the purpose of forcing (usually) a woman's physique to conform to some (often impossible) ideal (foot binding, anyone?), was intended partly or wholly to assist that woman's chances of "catching" a man, but it is generally accepted, rightly or wrongly, that this is why it was done (and after all, when women couldn't do "men's" jobs, what other way had they to guarantee they'd be able to eat after their father retired/died than to have a husband and ideally sons by then). And I don't entirely see that a man being puzzled by the idea that these wierd practices would be considered "attractive" by anyone, male or female, is inherently sexist. Of course, it's always more complicated than that.. many modern women wear what I consider to be bizarre and deeply unattractive layers of foundation and other make-up, not to attract men but because they somehow, apparently, feel uncomfortable if their own skin is visible. And that, as far as I can tell, has much more to do with women's relationships with themselves and with other women than it does with men, even though the origins of the wearing of make-up to emphasise the appearance of the eyes and lips can be traced with some confidence to a the desire to enhance secondary sexual characteristics and attract male attention.
On the other hand, I do rather find this remark, clearly made to defend against the charge of sexism, unpalateable (and I use that word advisedly). QuoteHence I think women are more beautiful as God intended, hence my point hence I seriously do not know how you could accuse me of sexism.Because the notion of an appearing "as God intended" always strikes me as rather repressive. Who gets to say what any god or gods there might be out there may or may not have intended for anyone or anything? Speaking as someone who, appearing "as God intended", would look a bit like the girl in the picture here:http://www.smiletrain.org/site/PageServer?pagename=mission (Note that a cleft palate isn't just a cosmetic issue) ... there's no reason anyone has to stick with the cards they were dealt. Even if an unrepaired cleft palate didn't lead, as it does, to difficulties speaking, eating, and generally getting on with life, spending your whole life talking to people who are looking, not at you, but at the damn great hole in your face ain't going to be a whole lot of fun. There's no reason, either, to encourage society to project unrealistic "norms".
There are a whole lot of ways of looking at Barbie as a metaphor for what's wrong with our society. She's certainly got a very peculiar figure, the attempted attainment of which would be frighteningly unhealthy for most normal-shaped women... but kids aren't, for the most part, as naive as we adults tend to make out, and Barbie's plastic doll figure is much less likely to confuse their mental picture of the world than airbrushed (apparently "real") photos on billboards... after all, they also play with dolls with great big cartoon heads and anthropomorphic teddy-bears.Up to a point, there is also a perfectly sensible reason for Barbie's tiny waist and feet. Most little girls (and it is mainly little girls who play with Barbie dolls) are not interested in what she looks like naked. She's a clothes horse. She exists to wear "Barbie goes riding" and "Barbie goes surfing" and "Barbie goes to the shops" outfits... and these are made from real fabrics. Because the reality of actual fabrics is that they are much stiffer on the short length scales of Barbie's scale than on the real lenght scales of you and me, her clothes stick out. The elasticated waistband of a pair of trousers is terribly thick and would look totally unrealistic on a "normal" shaped doll. There's a tradeoff going on there that isn't particularly related to the "sex appeal" of the doll herself.Conversely, I was never a Barbie doll fan. Barbie always struck me as a terribly boring person. Was she supposed to be a grown-up? If so, what was her job? Where was teacher Barbie? Or banker Barbie? Or bus- or train-driver Barbie? Or nursing home manager Barbie? Or computer programming Barbie? Or dentist Barbie? Or dental receptionist Barbie? Or nurse Barbie? Or plastic surgeon Barbie? (Yeah, I had a slightly odd range of ideas of what jobs most grown-ups did, a middle class upbringing and a cleft palate will do that for a kid) And why did she do such boring things when not working? Where was adventure-playground Barbie in her tracksuit trousers and T-shirt? Dinghy sailing Barbie in her wetsuit? But then, after all, we're talking about a kids' toy here. The dressing up clothes available in the Early Learning Centre were no better, you could be a doctor, or a nurse, or a fireman, or one of a range of superheros. Basically, Barbie is a commercial proposition. Her outfits tend to allow her to do the things little girls (are thought, by the manufacturers and by their parents to) aspire to do.. shopping, driving, surfing, horse-riding, going-to-the-ball. I didn't (well, except the horse-riding). But those are what sells. Barbie is symptomatic of the fact that in lots of ways the world sucks
Has anyone thought to incorporate the role of Ken in all this? I think Ken is actually a plastic surgeon!!
It was said of the cartoon character of Lara Croft, that if a real woman had her proportions, she would never fall flat on her face.
Quote from: Don_1 on 14/06/2011 11:54:11It was said of the cartoon character of Lara Croft, that if a real woman had her proportions, she would never fall flat on her face.I once met the girl who was the original model that the game used - she would never have fallen on her face, for a start men would be flinging themselves to the floor to prevent any injury and secondly she was an accomplished acrobat