Noirhaired
Member
For my women's studies class, we are assigned a research paper regarding body image and I came across this website as I was browsing:
www dot femininebeauty dot info (Warning: there is nudity in the site so hopefully I haven't violated a TOS, but it's not meant to be pornographic)
While it seems to be talking about "true feminine beauty" and attacks the unhealthy images of fashion models and eating disorders, it really is misleading. As you continue reading in the site, the author talks about what "real feminine" bodies look like, and I can't help but get the impression that he thinks the hourglass figure is the only true feminine figure. I also couldn't help but get offended (of course) either.
Through my research, from what I can tell there are universal physical features that are coveted or seen as most attractive. For women, it's a small nose, large eyes, soft jaw, full lips, small waist-hip ratio, and sizeable breasts. An hourglass figure is ideal. Apparently, biology has determined this.
But what if you don't have those features? Are you ugly? Are you less than a woman? Are you basically unable to have children?
I can't help but feel that I'm inadequate, or that I must not be "feminine enough" because I don't embody all of those characteristics. I'm of Indian descent so my nose is definately not small, but it's not huge either. My body is not an hourglass-- if anything, I have a "manly body"-- broad shoulders, small hips, big thighs, and nonexistent waist.
While I'm all for being physically fit and taking care of yourself, no matter what some women do, they will never fit into the hourglass ideal. Their bodies are just made that way.
What angers me a lot about that site is how the author tries to take scientific evidence to make his claims but fails to understand that in order to truly determine whether or not someone has higher levels of a hormone or another, a medical examination needs to be done for each individual. I've read the comments portion of the site and this guy seems to think he knows everything about being feminine and being a woman.
Considering biology, if the hourglass figure is most ideal and attractive, does that mean we have no control over what we see as attractive? I really resent how this guy makes the hourglass figure out to be better than any other kind of figure out there.
After seeing this site, it's no wonder many women have poor self-esteem regarding their bodies.
www dot femininebeauty dot info (Warning: there is nudity in the site so hopefully I haven't violated a TOS, but it's not meant to be pornographic)
While it seems to be talking about "true feminine beauty" and attacks the unhealthy images of fashion models and eating disorders, it really is misleading. As you continue reading in the site, the author talks about what "real feminine" bodies look like, and I can't help but get the impression that he thinks the hourglass figure is the only true feminine figure. I also couldn't help but get offended (of course) either.
Through my research, from what I can tell there are universal physical features that are coveted or seen as most attractive. For women, it's a small nose, large eyes, soft jaw, full lips, small waist-hip ratio, and sizeable breasts. An hourglass figure is ideal. Apparently, biology has determined this.
But what if you don't have those features? Are you ugly? Are you less than a woman? Are you basically unable to have children?
I can't help but feel that I'm inadequate, or that I must not be "feminine enough" because I don't embody all of those characteristics. I'm of Indian descent so my nose is definately not small, but it's not huge either. My body is not an hourglass-- if anything, I have a "manly body"-- broad shoulders, small hips, big thighs, and nonexistent waist.
While I'm all for being physically fit and taking care of yourself, no matter what some women do, they will never fit into the hourglass ideal. Their bodies are just made that way.
What angers me a lot about that site is how the author tries to take scientific evidence to make his claims but fails to understand that in order to truly determine whether or not someone has higher levels of a hormone or another, a medical examination needs to be done for each individual. I've read the comments portion of the site and this guy seems to think he knows everything about being feminine and being a woman.
Considering biology, if the hourglass figure is most ideal and attractive, does that mean we have no control over what we see as attractive? I really resent how this guy makes the hourglass figure out to be better than any other kind of figure out there.
After seeing this site, it's no wonder many women have poor self-esteem regarding their bodies.