Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
100 words for 100 days: submit your 100 word essay and get published on AlterNet
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Sex and Relationships

Why I Hate Beauty

By Michael Levine and Hara Estroff Marano, Psychology Today. Posted August 8, 2008.


Men are barraged by images of unobtainable women in the media, making it difficult for them to desire the ordinarily beautiful.
Advertisement

Poets rave about beauty. Brave men have started wars over beauty. Women the world over strive for it. Scholars devote their lives to deconstructing our impulse to obtain it. Ordinary mortals erect temples to beauty. In just about every way imaginable, the world honors physical beauty. But I hate beauty.

I live in what is likely the beauty capital of the world and have the enviable fortune to work with some of the most beautiful women in it. With their smooth bodies and supple waists, these women are the very picture of youth and attractiveness. Not only are they exemplars of nature's design for detonating desire in men, but they stir yearnings for companionship that date back to ancestral mating dances. Still, beauty is driving me nuts, and although I'm a successful red-blooded American male, divorced and available, it is beauty alone that is keeping me single and lonely.

It is scant solace that science is on my side. I seem to have a confirmed case of the contrast effect. It doesn't make me any happier knowing it's afflicting lots of others too.

As an author of books on marketing, I have long known about the contrast effect. It is a principle of perception whereby the differences between two things are exaggerated depending on the order in which those things are presented. If you lift a light object and then a heavy object, you will judge the second object heavier than if you had lifted it first or solo.

Psychologists Sara Gutierres, Ph.D., and Douglas Kenrick, Ph.D., both of Arizona State University, demonstrated that the contrast effect operates powerfully in the sphere of person-to-person attraction as well. In a series of studies over the past two decades, they have shown that, more than any of us might suspect, judgments of attractiveness (of ourselves and of others) depend on the situation in which we find ourselves. For example, a woman of average attractiveness seems a lot less attractive than she actually is if a viewer has first seen a highly attractive woman. If a man is talking to a beautiful female at a cocktail party and is then joined by a less attractive one, the second woman will seem relatively unattractive.

The contrast principle also works in reverse. A woman of average attractiveness will seem more attractive than she is if she enters a room of unattractive women. In other words, context counts.

In their very first set of studies, which have been expanded and refined over the years to determine the exact circumstances under which the findings apply and their effects on both men and women, Gutierres and Kenrick asked male college dormitory residents to rate the photo of a potential blind date. (The photos had been previously rated by other males to be of average attractiveness.) If the men were watching an episode of Charlie's Angels when shown the photo, the blind date was rated less desirable than she was by males watching a different show. The initial impressions of romantic partners -- women who were actually available to them and likely to be interested in them -- were so adversely affected that the men didn't even want to bother.

Since these studies, the researchers have found that the contrast effect influences not only our evaluations of strangers but also our views of our own mates. And it sways self-assessments of attractiveness too.

Kenrick and Gutierres discovered that women who are surrounded by other attractive women, whether in the flesh, in films, or in photographs, rate themselves as less satisfied with their attractiveness -- and less desirable as a marriage partner. "If there are a large number of desirable members of one's own sex available, one may regard one's own market value as lower," the researchers reported in the Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin.

If you had to pick ground zero for the contrast effect, it would be Hollywood. To feed the film industry's voracious appetite for attractive faces, it lures especially beautiful women from around the world. And for those who don't arrive already at the pinnacle of perfection, whole industries exist here to render it attainable, to reshape faces and bodies to the prevailing standard of attractiveness.

There's an extraordinarily high concentration of gorgeous females in Los Angeles, and courtesy of the usually balmy weather and lifestyle, they tend to be highly visible -- and not just locally. The film and television industries project their images all over the world, not to mention all the supporting media dealing with celebrities and gossip that help keep them professionally viable.

As the head of a public relations agency, I work with these women day and night. You might expect that to make me feel good, as we normally like being around attractive people. But my exposure to extreme beauty is ruining my capacity to love the ordinarily beautiful women of the real world, women who are more likely to meet my needs for deep connection and partnership of the soul.

The contrast effect doesn't apply just to strangers men have yet to meet who might be most suitable for them. In studies, Gutierres and Kenrick have found that it also affects men's feelings about their current partner. Viewing pictures of attractive women weakens their commitment to their mates. Men rate themselves as being less in love with their partner after looking at Playboy centerfolds than they did before seeing the pictures of beautiful women.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: gender, media, sexuality, beauty

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Sex and Relationships! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Beauty?
Posted by: Tom Degan on Aug 8, 2008 12:29 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
These so called "unobtainable women" in the media leaved me stumped, to day the least. Take Madonna. Please.

For the record: She and I were both born on August 16, 1958. We both will be turning fifty a week from tomorrow. It speaks volumes that the reigning "sex queen" of my generation is a woman I wouldn't give a second look at if she were the last gal at the bar at closing time and I had a quart of vodka in me.

The two most beautiful women in the world live right here in Orange County, New York. One is my ex-girlfriend, Virginia. The other is an elementary school teacher who lives around the corner from me.

Audrey Hepburn is dead and she's not coming back.

Tom Degan
Goshen, NY.
Coming of Age In The Sixties

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Beauty? Posted by: nochicagoboys
» RE: Beauty? Posted by: badkitty68
» RE: Beauty? Posted by: bomec
» RE: Beauty? Posted by: Tom Degan
» RE: Beauty? Posted by: AMERICAN VETERAN
» RE: Beauty? Posted by: donnee
» RE: Beauty? Posted by: bomec
» RE: Beauty? Posted by: Grandma Crabby
» RE: Beauty? Posted by: Yam
» RE: Beauty? Posted by: Grandma Crabby
» RE: Beauty? Posted by: Tom Degan
» Happy Birthday, Emiliano Posted by: Moore Hognutz
» RE: Beauty? Posted by: john mont
I'm Not Buying
Posted by: NoPCZone on Aug 8, 2008 12:48 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Beauty is subjective and although some may be susceptible to the image projected by mass media and norms, all of us are not. Maybe it just goes to how one defines beauty.

I would contend that a static picture cannot reflect beauty any more than taste can reflect motion. Beauty is more than physical appearance- it's bearing, countenance, confidence, personality and other factors as well as mere appearance. A woman of what is considered by many to be plain that projects confidence and a warm, engaging personality is far more beautiful than some tarted up model/actress-type.

Can I explain it? Not really, but I find it to be true.

The old joke about beauty being only skin deep while ugly goes to the bone may have a speck of truth in it. How many of us have seen a 'first glance' attractive person that upon observation is a a repulsive, manipulative, egotistic brat- a user and manipulator of people. Maybe they meet your definition of beautiful, but I don't and I doubt that I'm alone.

The merely physical I would ascribe the title of attractive to and reserve beauty only for one experienced in an unscripted observation through time.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: I'm Not Buying Posted by: lrubemp
» RE: I'm Not Buying Posted by: annavan1
The reality
Posted by: glowforever on Aug 8, 2008 2:22 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
interesting article. Yet I disagree that L.A. has the most beautiful, they may have the most "made-up". Some of those same "unobtainable" women don't look so hot, without their hair dye, make-up, breast jobs and liposuction. Hollywood's notion of beauty is biased and racist, as a woman of color I rarely see other races celebrated and it's pitiful. That is why I stopped buying magazines.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The reality Posted by: ArtemInox
» RE: The reality Posted by: Yam
» RE: The reality Posted by: alternitpic
» Beyonce...? Posted by: mjabele
» RE: Beyonce...? Posted by: Mel H.
All women can be beautiful
Posted by: Bobsays on Aug 8, 2008 2:32 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Just go to a country where the majority of the female population is physically fit, dresses well, and have good hygiene habits (Northern Europe for example). And you will find that the vast majority of women are beautiful and physically appealling. What is the problem is the massive increase in obesity, bad style sense and poor hygience habits. These things lead to ugly women. Militant feminists do not help the issue, by writing drivel defending people being fat. There is no excuse to being overweight. Go out and take a walk!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» I'm not fat Posted by: Bobsays
» RE: I'm not fat Posted by: NoKidding
» RE: I'm not fat Posted by: ArtemInox
» RE: All women can be beautiful Posted by: beautifulady2003
» Brilliant response Posted by: Bobsays
Sorry, this comment has been removed from the system.
» RE: Sorry, Fat AND Beautiful Here!!! Posted by: beautifulady2003
» RE: All women can be beautiful Posted by: morticia
» RE: All women can be beautiful Posted by: cmaciain
» RE: All women can be beautiful Posted by: ArtemInox
» RE: Women are just making excuses Posted by: chrysalis124812
Why does the author hate beauty?
Posted by: weathered on Aug 8, 2008 2:35 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hate is an irresponsible word to describe something we all have. We're beautiful, we're ugly, there's the warts, the elegance its all there on the inside.

The authors 'hates' what he can't have, well that's too bad - don't be so vanity obsessed, look at Leona Hemlsley for all that she had she remained bankrupt, self-love and respect eluded her and it showed.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» And the answer is... Posted by: MartianBachelor
Many American "Beauties" Move To England And Just Mingle With The Crowd
Posted by: opmoc on Aug 8, 2008 3:32 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Where they remain unrecognised most of the time.

The problem with many Americans is that they have got their head so firmly stuck up their own backsides that their perception of beauty is based only around their limited visibilty.

See the movie American Beauty for an explanation, and wonder why Kevin Spacey has been running a little theatre in a grotty part of South London for the last few years.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Grow up.
Posted by: kepstein7777 on Aug 8, 2008 3:42 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This article sounds like it was written by a 17-year-old. Not all of us have been brainwashed by the Hollywood, twiggy vanilla-blond standard. Some of those statistics may be interesting, but I don't think they speak for all men.

I find some of the women I see every day to be far more attractive than the ones I read about in the grocery line or in the movies. And if you've ever seen international news clips of peasant women in Afghanistan, India, or Brazil, I don't see how you can even remember where to find LA on a map.

As for the theory about distorting our interest in our mate or the pool of potential mates, I'll also have to disagree. We may be pigs in the sense that we like to look at babes. But most of the men I know are perfectly capable of loving their wives and girlfriends the way they are without holding them to Hollywood or other media standards.

You don't have to hate beauty just because it's there. It's as if the author has been reading too many feminist articles, and doesn't understand how to work the switches inside the mature male brain.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Grow up. Posted by: jpjmarti
» The error of your post Posted by: maddy
Does Age play a role?
Posted by: vksa on Aug 8, 2008 4:26 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is something I would like to know - in particular, how old most of you poster so far are. I ask because your opinions seem to be more of the 'Wow, I can't believe these authors believe this mold, whereas I am only 25, and I can personally vouch that, being in college, and interacting with guys my age and younger on a regular basis, and myself having very high physical standards for any female I'd even consider flirting wit, this article quite squarely hits the mark.

I've been guilty of it until I cut my feeding tube from the MSM, but many...MANY guys roaming my campus cannot be mentally that far from the several I know, who as easily compare a passing girl (or simply her individual features) to that of models and celebs. I put it forward that this is due to my generation being exposed to the MSM on a daily basis since we were toddlers...and even those young men born after me, since they first could focus their sight.

Our perceptions of women I believe differ from even the immediately preceding generation's in that between tabloids - print and broadcast, reality TV, increasingly accessible porn, etc, our superficial basis of judgment of potential mates is based on a much deeper indoctrination of optimal 'beauty' than in generations of men before.

The effects? I believe the article touched upon it again - I personally know at least 5 or 6 young women who are single, and have been consistently for years - women who are mostly average-looking , or gorgeous in one case, but some physical feature helps maintain their single status. Be it a few extra pounds...and actually, that's the culprit in all of their cases truth be told (I tried to think of any others...but nada), I think my generation's standards have been widely artificially inflated. And these are women of various ethnic backgrounds, personal achievement, and personalities, only 2-3 of whom know one another - but all single. And not a single one is conventionally 'ugly'...just 'average.'

Too 'average' to be tolerated though, evidently.

Thoughts?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Does Age play a role? Posted by: beautifulady2003
» hey beautiful lady Posted by: o
» RE: hey beautiful lady Posted by: beautifulady2003
» RE: hey beautiful lady Posted by: anneliese-nyc
» RE: Does Age play a role? Posted by: lkagy
» RE: Does Age play a role? Posted by: craighorowitz
» RE: Does Age play a role? Posted by: donnee
Now I get it
Posted by: beautifulady2003 on Aug 8, 2008 4:54 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"So the women men count as possibilities are not real possibilities for most of them. That leads to a lot of guys sitting at home alone with their fantasies of unobtainable supermodels, stuck in a secret, sorry state that makes them unable to access real love for real women."

This explains a lot. For one thing, it explains why so many middle-aged guys seem to only be attracted to the young and beautiful, and so few to women of their own age and comparable attributes. Men are very visually-oriented in their sexuality, and their habit of looking at beautiful women may be actually self-defeating because it could cause them to remain in their lonely state.

Perhaps our society needs to evolve into a less adolescent attitude as to what is beautiful. Smiles are beautiful, as are eyes, hands, laughter, kindness, and a good sense of humor. Some are physical features, but others are also there if a person cares to take a second look.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Now I get it Posted by: nochicagoboys
» RE: Now I get it Posted by: Catwoman
» RE: Now I get it Posted by: beautifulady2003
» RE: Now I get it Posted by: beautifulady2003
» RE: Now I get it Posted by: nochicagoboys
» RE: Now I get it Posted by: 6399
» RE: Now I get it Posted by: beautifulady2003
» RE: Now I get it Posted by: nochicagoboys
Gee
Posted by: wal55 on Aug 8, 2008 4:56 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Perhaps this is a naturally subtle method of containing population growth: if a substantial part of the population maintains unrealistic expectations for mating, that might contribute to a lower birth rate...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Gee Posted by: beautifulady2003
this article......
Posted by: blueglass on Aug 8, 2008 5:06 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
makes me grateful I'm a lesbian.....

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Why? Posted by: kepstein7777
» RE: Why? Posted by: beautifulady2003
» RE: Why? Posted by: blueglass
» RE: Why? Posted by: beautifulady2003
» RE: Why? Posted by: blueglass
Beauty as a civil rights issue?
Posted by: chorton on Aug 8, 2008 5:21 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have at times amused myself by noticing the faces, sizes and shapes of women - and men - I encounter in movies and in real life and building rough statistics. In particular what I speculated about is how many features which have nothing to do with our innate perceptions of beauty come in so much wider a range of variations in real life than in movies. For example, in real life women's noses range from big to small, long to short, wide to thin, none of which has anything to do with our hardwired perceptions of beauty. Yet it is not just in Charlies Angels that Hollywood noses all fall within a very restricted range of sizes and shapes; so do the noses of the hundreds of extras playing the roles of ordinary people in movies, movies that ostensibly are presenting scenes of everyday life. Tens of millions of dollars are spent to create a scene that will look "exactly the way it was", and then it gets populated with this bizarre subset of "beautiful people" that has never existed anywhere outside of Hollywood!

Once one focuses on this phenomenon, the Hollywood world which seems so pleasantly normal suddenly stands out as a bizarre and artificial abstraction on real life. Is this a trivial issue? Not when one considers the pain and disruption caused to the vast majority of women, whose self-image is damaged or even devastated by their perception that they are ugly, that their appearances do not come close to matching this Hollywood ideal. Not to the millions of children who grow up fatherless because their parents' marriage failed at least in part due to some combination of the father's dissatisfaction with the mother's appearance and the mother's inability to believe that she deserves love.

Norman Rockwell's painting of the teenage girl in obvious distress studying her face in a mirror, with a picture of a Hollywood glamor queen propped up beside it, captures the pain and destruction of this process. Multiply that moment of pain by a few billion people and a hundred odd years. What a disaster! And what an opportunity to make huge profits selling an endless array of products and services to distraught consumers urgently trying to fix this artificially-created problem!

Hollywood's defenders argue that what we see on the silver screen and the idiot box reflects what audiences demand; no one will go to the movies to see a bunch of "ugly" people! This may be reality for the maker of a particular movie, but nevertheless the power of Hollywood to define what is beautiful or ugly is enormous, and this cannot be blamed on biology and hard-wired brains. That this is so can be seen in the transformation that has occurred over the course of my lifetime in the perceptions of "Afro-Americans".

It was not so long ago that it was perfectly normal to view a world on the silver screen and the small screen where everyone, often 100%, was "white", where no one had any features that could identify them as having any trace of African, Native American or Asian ancestry. Before Sidney Poitier, in the "mainstream" movie houses and TV, there were with rare exceptions no "Negro" movie stars whatsoever! In that time, nearly all "whites" and many, perhaps most "Blacks" viewed African features as ugly. It is hard now to remember not being able to see the beauty in them, but nevertheless it was so.

This change was not the result of cultural forces; it was brought about by a political movement, involving thousands, millions of people, over the course of decades, demanding the inclusion of Afro-Americans in the entertainment industry. Perhaps it is time for a movement to demand of Hollywood that the images they present us with on TV and the silver screen reflect the full range of people in the real world, not just in skin color but in nose type, chin type, height, hair type and everything else!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

My Litmus Test
Posted by: terradea42 on Aug 8, 2008 5:24 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The author has revealed my litmus test for men! If a man is attracted to beautiful young women but fails to appreciate a wildly sexy, amazingly entertaining and much sought after woman in her late 40s, then that man has not evolved enough for me to go out with him. This elegant, foolproof method for dating has never failed me, and I date only the most gorgeous men.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Shallow males an endangered species?
Posted by: scheherezade on Aug 8, 2008 5:29 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So the women men count as possibilities are not real possibilities for most of them. That leads to a lot of guys sitting at home alone with their fantasies of unobtainable supermodels, stuck in a secret, sorry state that makes them unable to access real love for real women.

Sounds like male shallowness could become an unsuccessful evolutionary trait.

Perhaps, if we're lucky, those males most likely to be moping on the sofa won't ever pass their genes on...thus improving the genome for all of us.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» It's not shallow... Posted by: MartianBachelor
» RE: It's not shallow... Posted by: cmaciain
Beauty Is In The Mind. Your Mind Has Been Programmed By The Media.
Posted by: opmoc on Aug 8, 2008 5:29 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It affects women far more than men. It's about conforming to the norm - just like all the other sheep.

We all have our basic personality on top of our appearence, which is programmed by a combination of our inherited genetics and the way we are brought up.

A massive part of how we appear to others comes from how we feel about ourselves. We can drastically change the image we present.

A brilliant actress - no matter what age - if she really adopts the role - such that when she is playing it she really believes she is that person - can present the appearence of total beauty or total ugliness.

Yet she is exactly the same person - with the same basic appearence.

The make up is only a side dressing - the real beauty comes from within.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What I hate
Posted by: Razst on Aug 8, 2008 5:36 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't hate beauty. I only hate articles about hating beauty.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: I Hate What... Posted by: ranchero42
Our idea of "Beauty" has been programed into us
Posted by: Lilykins on Aug 8, 2008 5:55 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We have been brainwashed by the media into believeing that young absoulutely perfect skin is normal on women, that wrinkles and gray hair are beautiful on men (to some extent to make them apprear distinguished).
Pert, gravity-defying breasts that normally appear on newly mentruating girls should be how all women's breasts are supposed to look. We find skinny women with protruding bones "sexy" and dismiss healthy looking women as being ugly or fat.
I can't imaging that in our natural state we would think a 95lb, 5'8" woman would be attractive! We would normally think she was malnutritioned or diseased, NOT "sexy"!
There are some people that have avoided the brainwashing, and that does make their lives easier.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

what double standards!
Posted by: mtngrl on Aug 8, 2008 6:03 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm a female who is considered fairly attractive by most people (so I've been told, anyway) and is middle aged and happily married. I do workout and have healthy habits and a healthy weight.

I cannot help but notice the complete and ridiculous double standard that exists in the media regarding what constitutes "beauty" for women vs men. Pick up any women's magazine and you'll see articles like "How to Please Your Husband in Bed' right next to "Lose 10 lbs in A Day" which is listed next to "Our Best Chocolate Dessert Recipes". Huh? What conflicting messages!

The men's magazines have articles like " We Interview 10 Hot Models", "What to Say to Her the Morning After" (one night stand) and possibly "Macho Workout". I've NEVER seen an article in a men's magazine about how to please a WIFE!

One other case in point, publications ALWAYS show older men with much younger women, never vice versa. Even a staid catalog like LL Bean is guilty of this.

I guess older wealthy men and younger hot women are the ones who
have it made in our society. The rest of us who are older women, people of color, and senior citizens are considered unworthy....

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: what double standards! Posted by: nochicagoboys
» RE: what double standards! Posted by: beautifulady2003
Where are the hips?
Posted by: Nicnic on Aug 8, 2008 6:07 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Bimbo boobs are for boys and hallowed hips are for men. The former is more visual and visceral and the later more mysterious and meaningful. And that's almost the end of the story.

In case anyone hasn't noticed, women around the world are loosing their hips. They are becoming less womanly. This is due largely to diets increasingly composed of excessive yin substances like sugars, fats and dairy. These poor women are raised on soda (the wretched corn syrup), cheap overly processed carbohydrates and lots of dairy. Their growth energy from an early age becomes vertical and exaggerated as opposed horizontal and steady. The pelvis is robbed of the growth energy it needs to widen and is redistributed higher in the body, or the region of the chest.

It's quite sad to see all these young women walking around in what they think are sexy shorts when the truth is they still look like children with their stovepipe elongated torsos that bypass the hips and go straight to the thighs. For a real man who has a real focus on a real woman this is anything but desirable. Not surprisingly the mindset of younger males has likewise been affected. The reality for both will be in the birthing process.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Where are the hips? Posted by: jroth420
» RE: Where are the hips? Posted by: nezuminico
Childishness, from start to finish.
Posted by: nh on Aug 8, 2008 6:11 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This man wants us to believe that because he is surrounded by "beautiful women", he is compelled to behave like a textbook responder and cannot see "normal" women as beautiful, leaving him sad and lonely. Hollywood has ruined "beauty" for him.

It's laughable. Everyone knows Hollywood "beauty" is barely skin deep, created by trainers, plastic surgeons, makeup artists and image consultants. It's a created look, meant to market products (clothes, movies, lifestyle purchases) through an advertising image, i.e., the young woman (who is rarely a plausible consumer, unless she is empowered by...some older man's money, perhaps?)

They're selling a fantasy, and this guy knows it. So is it really so impossible to live in a reality-based world, even if you live in L.A.?! Even if everything he says about "studies" is true, all it takes to be free of that influence is to grow up, pal. Blaming the industry for your childish unwillingness to face your own relationship issues is a farce, considering that you chose that as a career, and your wistful mightabeens at the end just made me LOL!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What's wrong with a man or woman looking beautiful?
Posted by: jwverez on Aug 8, 2008 6:21 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Beauty is what brought my wife and I together. Even after losing two legs and an arm in Vietnam, I didn't give up trying to recover some handsome looks and my wife deeply admired my strength in not giving up. It's bad enough that if a man looks more handsome, he's written off as "gay" whereas if a woman isn't "beautiful" enough, she's SOL. However, if we're gonna distinguish between beautiful and being too lustrous, we gotta draw a line somewhere.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What you see is not what you get
Posted by: taxidriver on Aug 8, 2008 6:28 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have a friend whose sister works with female models. She told him, basically, "You should see them when they come to work, before the makeup, hair styling, and all the other primping."

Men need to grow up and recognize the "cover girls" are not as amazing as they seem. A photographer takes hundred of photos, sometimes thousands, to get the one, "magical" shot. Then that photo is often "enhanced," with creative airbrushing. (Remember how Katie Couric "lost" about 20 pounds when a well-meaning but dumb refinisher "slimmed" her photo, using digital technology?)

Of course, there's no denying there are beautiful men and women. Most of us would agree Heath Ledger was a hunk; and that Jessica Alba is a babe. But even the hunkiest guy or the prettiest gal can look ugly real fast if they're bossy, abusive, selfish, mean, greedy, etc.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Beautiful? You mean white.
Posted by: Pinorrow on Aug 8, 2008 6:36 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The image of beauty you get in Los Angeles is of tall, skinny, white women with northern European features. Venture out into the world a little and your idea of beauty wouldn't be limited to someone who looks like Kate Moss (who isn't too sexy, if you ask me).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What was Left Out
Posted by: badkitty68 on Aug 8, 2008 6:35 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The article seemed to be solely focused on male perception and biases resulting from media programming. Where is the research about how women evaluate men based on media images? It tends to reinforce the sexist, cultural norm of women being commodities to be evaluated for market value, based solely on appearance.
If people would spend some time thinking about how we are all intensely impacted psychologically by the media, which reduces everything and every being into products for consumption, we would all benefit greatly. We have to be willing to choose actual life experiences over non-stop fantasy entertainment, and see through the number corporate puppeteers are running on our heads.
Some of the most intensely sexy, intensely appealing men that I have had the pleasure to be involved with would not be meeting any GQ standards of male attractiveness. But I was enthralled with them because of who they were, what they cared about, their energy, charisma, and their sense of humor, charm, and manners (I know, so outdated).
The self-absorbed, "perfect 10" mannequin is soooo boring and tedious. Give me the unconventional, brainy, funny, crazy, passionate mess any day.
Anna
The Mills River Progressive

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: What was Left Out Posted by: Q30
» RE: What was Left Out Posted by: janvdb
» RE: What was Left Out Posted by: cmaciain
» Yup Posted by: Q30
» RE: What was Left Out Posted by: badkitty68
» RE: You make your own money... Posted by: annavan1
» RE: What was Left Out Posted by: MartianBachelor
» RE: What was Left Out Posted by: 6399
» RE: What was Left Out Posted by: cmaciain
» You're kidding, right? Posted by: annavan1
» RE: Martian Bachelor Posted by: badkitty68
» RE: actually, it does... Posted by: Durga_is_my_homey
Beauty as coercion, not vulnerability
Posted by: daniel347x on Aug 8, 2008 6:38 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The research described here is immensely valuable, but it is flawed.

There are a number of points to be made.

The context in which men view and perceive physical beauty in women is of paramount importance, but a far more important aspect of a man's environment than the physical characteristics of women in that environment is the community rootedness and the sense of meaning and engagement in that environmnent.

In the U.S., we live in a society that has destroyed community, arguably more so than almost any other country in the world, including the poorest countries. The form of sexuality that is considered beautiful in this environment is plasticized, devoid of character, acts to conceal emotional reality and forms an impenetrable shield against vulnerability.

The purpose of healthy sexuality is to express vulnerability and open the door to emotional reality. When sexuality has not been corrupted and distorted, young attractive women are not perceived as untouchable idols. They are integrated into the community, because a little communication among people in a community is the antidote to the perverse tendency to wield sexuality as a weapon - for both men and women. In such a community, women would not walk around in high heels, fully shaven, using makeup to exacerbate impenetrability - rather than vulnerability - and gripped with fear. Women today are encouraged to use sexuality as a weapon, to use it to destroy community and privatize privilege. The social mechanisms by which sexuality is coerced out of young women to feed the isolation machine has become an industry in which women's sexuality has now become a destructive force in society.

The women in Hollywood movies and fashion magazines are not sexually attractive in the way that sexuality would be expressed in a healthy society. Sexuality has been corrupted in our society, as food has been, and men's perception that fashion models are attractive is an indication that men in our culture are not sexually developed, in the same way that our food diet is one of the unhealthiest in the world, or in the same way that somebody who never exercises is not physically developed.

Therefore, the results of the research studies cited in this article identifying the effects of male perceptions of beauty are flawed. These studies reveal instead something very different: in a social environment stripped of community and meaningful engagement, men have lost their sensibility to the connection between sexuality and vulnerability, and instead respond only to the aspect of sexuality that implies power and coercion.

Sexuality can be used as coercion, to stimulate a response that only seems sexually attractive in the context of an environment in which vulnerability and emotion is suppressed and in which the sexually attractive individual is perceived to be in a position of privilege and power in that environment.

There are other equally potent aspects of sexuality that lead to equally intense sexual desire, with a different conception of beauty than the Hollywood ideal.

Failing to recognize the dimensions of sexual attractiveness and failing to describe the fact that men and women both generally have a stunted and undeveloped sexual self whose primary purpose has been directed towards survival in a competitive, dehumanizing social environment, the authors make the mistake of confusing what should be considered a social analysis, with an analysis that makes the false assumption of a universal measure of sexual attractiveness. The author writes, they're just giving us what we are naturally interested in. This is false.

(continued...apologies for long posting)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

(continued)
Posted by: daniel347x on Aug 8, 2008 6:40 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
(continued...apologies for long posting)

The author discusses the concept that beauty could make so many men so miserable, but fails to recognize that beauty as defined by fashion models is not true beauty - it is sexuality being wielded as a weapon, to hide vulnerability and contribute to an isolating social environment in which discussion of social issues is off the table. Therefore, the author does not draw the proper conclusion. When this concept of beauty is coerced upon men through the scientifically developed industry of the mass media, it creates a highly oppressive and debilitating social environment for men, as well as for women.

The author also makes an incidental comment that women are bombarded with images of socially powerful men. This staggering reality is a massively oppressive force in our society. It encourages men to be manipulative and coercive in a psychotic and antisocial work environment, and it induces women to express their sexuality in coercive and destructive ways.

Finally, the author writes about the biological basis of physical attributes identified as "beautiful". There is a more important biological basis to sexual attractiveness that stems from the sense of meaning associated with community rootedness.

Dan Nissenbaum

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]