Interesting (to me) thought for the day

[spiderine]

rm's latest post has a paragraph about the body-shaping quality of clothing that links back to a previous post entitled "The Public and Private Flesh." It's about how in earlier times when women's clothing was more structured, it followed naturally that the clothes (especially foundation garments) provided the shape of a woman's body, while these

Comments

[rm]

I do believe that if modern men were not socialized to accept (or appear to accept) only a narrow range of "beauty" in women, they'd express personal, individual ideas of beauty and attraction in women that reflect the entire spectrum of women's bodies.

I think this is really true. I know that my ex was always somewhat uncomfortable with his attraction to me, because I did not have the body he thought would garner his desire societal approval. His best friend, he once confessed, particularly thought I was hot, but felt ashamed to admit it, not because of the friendship, but because small tits, handsome face didn't confirm his manhood amongst his friends.

I'm still staggered by all that.

[51stcenturyfox]

This is very, very interesting. And timely, because I stumbled on Amazon forums from a link yesterday and the stupid of "why don't girls dress like girls anymore you guise where are the sundresses and heels?" burned.

Though I'm sure that the topic starter meant the sort of sundresses with nipped-in waists and/or belts. Isn't there a supposed correlation between biological indicators of childbearing fitness and waist-to-hip ratio?

Men, too, used to have the shield of the suit, which gives men with average physiques more shoulder and less gut if it's tailored to fit him, and even if not, in a way casual clothes don't. I wonder if the rise of gyms and bodybuilding correlates, timewise, with the rise of casual wear for work. Men can't hide upper body "flaws" under a polo shirt, and muscles look weird under suits (suits frankly don't fit guys with bulk).

I'm not going to do more situps OR wear a corset, though. ;)

[spiderine]

I used to wear my sundresses with combat boots. I still would, if I could find sundresses that I liked. :)

Rm's post has a lot to say about how men's garments (suits) still provide a lot more structure than women's garments do, which frees them, to a certain extent, from having to maintain a fashionable figure. For a long time, a man who cared about his body to the point of manipulating it to look attractive was coded as "gay". It's only lately that standard is starting to change.

[rm]

That's true, but that's also relatively recent. Athletics manuals for Regency-era gentlemen are quite a hoot to read, and these endeavors, including things like fencing, weightlifting, pugilism and having a coach so that you might learn to walk in the most fashionable way were de rigeur and masculine in the era.

[51stcenturyfox]

True. And combat boots with a sundress sounds comfortable! (And chic!)

Men do have more freedom anyway, in that they can reject the standard more easily sans (as much) judgment. How many TV shows have male leads who are not "fit" with fit partners, versus the reverse?

King of Queens for example, or even the Simpsons. On Torchwood, if Gwen were the chubbier of the pair, wow, that'd be unusual. Everyone says Rhys is cuddly, but if Gwen were the less fit of the pair, would she be "cuddly" or would she be criticised for being big?

I can guess. Though I certainly heard critical remarks from fans when Ianto filled out.

Sorry to diverge from the clothing topic!

[pocketmouse]

Um, considering that long-term wearing of corsets often led to deformation of soft internal organs and inward-curvature of the ribs, to the point of breaking the floating ribs or causing them to intrude on the softer tissues they were supposed to protect, I have to say that I disagree that they freed women from 'having to manipulate, maim or mortify their actual flesh.' It's like wrapping a rope around a sapling or cultivating a bonsai tree -- when you take away that rope or enclosure, the area beneath doesn't spring back to match the rest. I'd say it's more like we've traded one kind of bad for another.

[spiderine]

Absolutely true! That didn't occur to me until after I posted this. Thanks for the input!