I wouldn't describe them as normal-looking, as they're all quite thin, but rather a more attainable and perhaps healthier ideal rather than a skeletal one. Biggest differences to me are that their legs are actually womanly, and that they don't have gigantic boobs floating over their flat abs.
I think the stripey one was on the first Barbie
Holy cow, what a mess. Preview is your friend
the relatively advanced age
I'm pretty sure they're all younger than me, asshat.
re: 5
They are probably all the same age as most of today's models, too.
I like the stripey one, although I'm not sure I'd get used to wearing a girdle.
Shouldn't we start by approving the minutes of the last time we had this conversation?
Sorry, tweedle, posted, walked away and remembered I hadn't credited as I stared into the whiteness of the urinal. Fixed.
They are probably all the same age as most of today's models, too.
I'd say they are all in their early to mid 20s, which is older, I think, than most of today's models.
But they definitely look older than today's version of early 20s. Things (e.g., hairstyles) were different back then. Whereas nowadays we move from a very extended youth to old age (if I am no longer young, I must be old), back then they had this lengthy transitional period that they called 'adulthood'.
1: It occurs to me that "womanly" represents no less dense a concatenation of value judgments than "thin." I will now duck into this conveniently-placed Kevlar igloo.
It occurs to me that there are actual physical differences between girls and women, and some of those are hips and thighs.
Where do I RSVP for DCon again?
But they definitely look older than today's version of early 20s.
I think this and what you say about 'adulthood' -- rather than a difference in actual age -- is key. I am interested in photography, and it's striking looking at fashion photography of the past how much older the models often look. So much so that I've sometimes looked up the people portrayed to check. In fact, they often weren't any older than many of today's models.
Aren't lots of today's models a good bit younger than early 20s?
I was thinking that today's models are usually somewhere in the 17-24 range, and these models look about 22-28. Just eyeballing though.
Is some of that related to Photoshop and such? That is, might a straight picture of a model of today, without a lot of alteration after it was taken, look more like fashion photography of the past? (I actually don't know how effectively pictures could be messed with at the development stage in the past -- the sort of spatial distortion people can do now wasn't possible, of course, but I don't know about the rest of it.)
16: ttaM, yeah I noticed this looking in my mother's high school yearbook. The generation gap had not yet hit so hard -- at least not in formal situations -- and the girls very "set" hairdos and twinsets and pearls all say "30" much more than "18" to me.
17: I think it depends on whether it's runway or not.
But IA is right that one reason the women look older is that they look like adults, not like they're trying to be twelve.
14: Given the variety of human physiques, the argument from "actual physical" attributes is not dispositive.
Perhaps in those days being adult gave you real privileges children were not expected to have.
Perhaps in those days being adult male gave you real privileges children were not expected to have.
As some of you may remember, I myself sport a wonderful bathing suit which is half-blouse, half suit. I've been known to wear it with cowboy boots to make a point.
re: 18
They were often that sort of age range back then, too. You'll see photos by, say, Norman Parkinson or Irving Penn and the women look like they are in their 30s and then check and find out they were 24.
I wouldn't want to make the case that it was exactly the same. I'm sure, on average, there was a difference. I'd suspect, though, it was a lot less than the photos would lead you to believe.
re: 19
Nah. Photos have always been heavily retouched. Retouching of large format black and white negatives was actually quite easy. All of those classic 'Hollywood' black and white portraits were heavily messed with before printing.
23: Puberty's puberty, even if we all emphasize that we're all unique snowflakes just like everyone else.
On the veldt,
Snowflakes melt.
Pubescently.
basically we just age less quickly now
good tradeoff overall
its not like we're extending how long acne lasts
You all are wildly overestimating the age of models today:
Most runway models are 14 to 19, with an average age of 16 or 17
(I know this because I watch America's Next Top Model and one of the critiques of the show is that the girls they have on it are usually more like 18-22 and critics say ANTM is just getting their hopes up to be crushed because there's no way a girl that over the hill could ever still make it as a top model.)
well isn't that the age for starting?
i mean its not really that common to become a laywer or a doctress at age 40, even though thats under the aferage age of the profession
also runway models aren't naverage for models in general i don't think. the people in the youtube aren't runwaying it
Whereas 31 or 32 is just about the right age to become a professoress.
32/33 is right on. I have a friend in the fashion industry and am sometimes invited to parties during fashion week (as a plus one). It's genuinely weird to be around all of these giant children. Giant children for whom drinks are openly poured and lines are openly cut.
15 - PGD (and the rest of you), you can RSVP for UnfoggeDCon by emailing unfoggedcon at unfogged dot com.
[Hey IA -- any word from Mr Adjunct on how the argument went today?]
The tweedle video is brilliant.
i'm glad you all really think i'm brillaint and think i came up with that joke
You all are wildly overestimating the age of models today:
Better models than muses.
Greetings from Miami, Mineshaft! The sun is shining and art fags are everywhere. Best. Work. Evar.
You're at Basel?! How fun. Are you showing? Buying?
re: 32
Nah, I'm not. It's not a like-for-like comparison.
I was just pointing out that there's much less age difference -- very little at all, in fact -- between the photographic models appearing in, say, French Vogue in the 1950s and the women appearing in French Vogue now.
That doesn't really say anything about catwalk modelling and I'd be happy to accept that catwalk models are generally much younger (especially since I don't really know anything about catwalk modelling). I just have an interest in photography so I've read a lot of books about that period.
That tweedle video is funny, surprisingly so.
the wingding thing--seems inspired by automobile fins.
also convertibles.
it must be stylish; it's *engineered*!
In one of my many, many books on fashion, there's a picture of a 50s high-society woman (Italian aristocracy IIRC) who bought a lot of couture (Balenciaga, maybe?, although I seem to recall it was a woman couturier...) and who while in her twenties streaked her hair grey in order to appear older. Which was viewed as delightful aristocratic whimsy...of course, it was predicated on her actually-existing youth.
50: In a "Whoa! It's 1990!" issue of Time (I think), they asked a bunch of cultural weathervane types what those crazy kids of Generation X should do to . . . um, I think "define themselves" or some shit. Anyway, John Waters suggestion was to dye their hair gray in order to mock his generation's obsession with youth.
My honey has a strange combination of genetic inheritances: a premature gray explosion and a completely unlined complexion. I think it's totally hott, of course. His doting mother claims that it's part of his aristocratic pedigree, but then, she would.
Can someone explain to me what the "obvious reasons" are that one might choose to wear the "wing ding" up or down?
re: 52
Yeah, that sounds like quite a cool look. Better than going bald, anyway [says he, as someone going bald].
In Miami to write about the fairs. I'm here so UK newsdaily-reading audiences don't have to be.
If my friend Ro/ber/t Me/lee is showing this year (and I don't know), say nice things about him.
PGD (and the rest of you), you can RSVP for UnfoggeDCon by emailing unfoggedcon at unfogged dot com.
I know that you are all waiting with breathless anticipation, but I just moved from a probably not to a definite maybe!
Yeah, that sounds like quite a cool look. Better than going bald, anyway [says he, as someone going bald].
Wearing a grey toupée could be a good way to make people less likely to think you're wearing a toupée.
Puberty's puberty, even if we all emphasize that we're all unique snowflakes just like everyone else.
Still, puberty affects some of us more visibly than others. There were girls in my 5th grade class who had more curves at 12 than I do now at 34.
There were girls in my 5th grade class who had more curves at 12 than I do now at 34.
Twelve years old in 5th grade? I take it those girls had been held back a year or two?
FWIW, based on the dataset of my own schoolmates, I would say there is a tight inverse correlation between how curvy a girl was in junior high school and how attractive she is in her 30s. This may be more true of my schoolmates than the population as a whole because of the endemic obesity where I come from; only the preternaturally skinny girls managed to stay reasonably thin into adulthood.
Twelve years old in 5th grade? I take it those girls had been held back a year or two?
Hmm, yeah, that must be off. But I had a specific classmate in mind, and so it couldn't have been later than 6th grade but I also can't picture puberty much before 12... Maybe a late-birthday 6th grader?
I would say there is a tight inverse correlation between how curvy a girl was in junior high school and how attractive she is in her 30s.
I think this must be true. (Have I mentioned that I had no curves at all in Jr. High? And that I'm in my 30s?)
I think that's crap, but I was an early bloomer. I would say, though, if we're making gross generalizations, that people have a specific age at where they look their own personal best. E.g., Jocks never last and it's all downhill after 17, but geeks don't seem to grow into their bodies until they're in their thirties.
Yeah, I didn't grow a face until my mid/late twenties -- skinny as a rail, but my face was an undifferentiated structureless blob. I need to remember to tell Sally this in high school: "Don't worry, you're probably going to end up better looking than this."
I think Cala just called me a geek...
(FWIW, I of course think it's crap, too. But it's certainly a nice ugly duckling kind of narrative for the skinny shapeless girl.)
65: You've posted pix of Sally. I don't think she's going to have any problems.
At thirteen, and all of a sudden, I developed the body I've basically had ever since. It counted as curvy at thirteen.
She is adorable, isn't she? But she's got an adorable baby face, and on family history it stays a baby face into her twenties -- my mother said the same thing.
I was thinking of my guy friends, more, actually. By and large the ones who were all manly in high school now just look stocky, and the skinny as a rail ones now look handsome in their thirties.
I didn't start to like how I looked until about two years ago, so I consider myself a late bloomer in some ways.
I think that's crap
and
By and large the ones who were all manly in high school now just look stocky, and the skinny as a rail ones now look handsome in their thirties.
I'm sensing some inconsistency here.
It's all spelled out in 63 and 71, Knecht.
I didn't start to like how I looked until about two years ago, so I consider myself a late bloomer in some ways.
I'm the same way -- but I can look back at high school pictures now and think, "What the hell was my problem? I was cute." And I'll probably look back at pictures from this stage in my life and think, "Really, you felt good about that?" It's that whole bit about how feeling good on the inside makes you look better on the outside.
(blah blah special snowflake yada yada self-esteem)
They're nto thin; they're wearing girdles. Can you imagine swimming in a girdle?
At thirteen, and all of a sudden, I developed the body I've basically had ever since. It counted as curvy at thirteen.
This is me, exactly. I think I was 12.
Same here, pretty much, although 'ever since' changes to 'until I had kids'.
Any second now either Ogged or Will is going to feel compelled to explain the mechanics of swimming in a girdle -- it's usually something to do with the hips, right?
The girdle keeps your core stable so that the hip snap is maximally effective, so while it's advisable to swim with a girdle when one is first learning, I would hope that these ladies were willing to stop relying on their girdles after a time.
No, the girdle provides a solid place to mount the trolling motor.
Girdle, girdle, girdle, I made it out of clay.
Ahem. See comment 9 in the New York Mag post below.
I didn't develop anything like my adult body until I was 20 or 21. I put about 30 - 40 lbs on in a year and didn't change my jean size. Then low maintenance, basically in really good shape until about 31 or 32 while eating and drinking whatever the hell I liked and then ... a repeat of the 30 - 40lbs in about 2 years, only this time, not in a good way. Getting old sucks.
I was six feet tall in sixth grade, which was great. I didn't realize that I had stopped growing. That sucked.
I was about 5ft 7 at about 16, I think. I'm 5ft 10 or more now. Late growth 'spurt' [for small values of spurt].
I was about 5ft 7 at about 16, I think.
Yeah, I'm 5'9 and didn't get fully there until I was about 18.
Went from 5'2" (shortest kid in the class) to 5'10" in the space of two years. Outgrew a lot of clothes in that period. Topped out at 6'1" by the end of college.
I was a late, late bloomer. I didn't have breasts to speak of at all until I was sixteen. And now here I am, decidedly titsy by adult standards. Bodies are weird.
I've been basically the same size since I was 14. Back then I was among the taller kids in my class. Now, not so much.
I was six feet tall in sixth grade, which was great. I didn't realize that I had stopped growing. That sucked.
Oh, no, a mere six feet tall!
These days six feet tall really isn't noticeably tall for a man.
It's not very tall, but still at least tallish.
It's nothing to sneeze at, is all I'm saying.
ogged was hoping to lord it over other, punier men for his whole life, not just for one year of his adolescence. But alas, he was not a reincarnation of Xerxes, except for the gayness.
debilitating shortness for men presumably kicks in when you are shorter than the majority of women.
i.e., debilitating for one's mate choices, at any rate. for an nba career, debilitating starts a bit higher.
debilitating shortness for men presumably kicks in when you are shorter than the majority of women.
And, mutatis mutandis, the same with tallness for women.
Average height for males ais 5'9'' - 5'10'' for most whitey countries.
re: 99
This has come up before, but while that is true, it doesn't really reflect the difference between the height of young men versus older men. 5ft 10 might be average, but there are definitely age groups within which that can seem quite short.
Sadly, ogged's experience was paralleled with the 4.5 inch cock he was so proud of in 6th grade.
98--
dunno--there's a lot of cachet to being a taller-than-average dame; not so much to being a shorter-than-average dude.
doubtless there is some height above which being tall becomes a dating liability for women, but i bet it is more standard deviations from the mean for women than the shortness-penalty is from the mean for men.
but what do i know about this stuff.
101, it would only be truly parallel if it was the 7-inch cock he thought was barely close to its eventual size.
Which may sound small to you or me, but is nothing to sneeze at.
doubtless there is some height above which being tall becomes a dating liability for women, but i bet it is more standard deviations from the mean for women than the shortness-penalty is from the mean for men.
I doubt it. Relationships where the woman is taller than the man are not very common.
104--
yeah, well, this is where we need to hear from some she-giraffes, i guess, but partly my thought was that if tall women are limited to tall guys, and tall guys are advantaged in other ways (see, e.g., the differences in annual income by height), then the women are being restricted to a more desirable pool.
but jesus i'm suddenly sounding like jacqueline pasty face, so i'll just shut up now.
I'm only very mildly tall, but I know people who are very tall. My impression is that being a tall woman cuts down your dating pool pretty severely, but it's still probably more fun than being a short man -- if you're tall and pretty, men who wouldn't want to date you will at least admire you, whereas short men don't even get much of the esthetic appreciation.
the women are being restricted to a more desirable pool.
Yes, but a much smaller one. And if they're really tall, like over 6 feet, the pool is very restricted indeed.
Very short men may be limited to very short women, but those are the most feminine and demure women. I recommend that all men under 5'6" move to Thailand.
"And, mutatis mutandis, the same with tallness for women."
maybe, but not that many guys, and especially not the sort one would want to date, are opposed to dating a girl as tall or a bit taller than they are. so its their own standards, not others. which maybe isn't much different, but its different enough for some extra blame to slip through.
I do'nt really ever remember 'changing' at puberty. i feel pretty much the same as i did when i was 13.
God, I go away for a moment and look at the abuse. Foxytail, a guy just expects more then his height at twelve. And it's true that tall women are limited in their choice of mates, but that's a blessing in disguise, since short guys are bitter and overcompensating.
Foxytail, a guy just expects more then his height at twelve.
Oh, well, fair enough, shorty.
God, I go away for a moment and look at the abuse.
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that you had only a 7-inch cock.
I always find it a little bit odd when men tell each other their heights in these threads.
i thought my bitterness *was* the compensation.
"The wing ding: wear it folded up. Or down. For obvious reasons."
I spat my tea at that one. But I'm still not sure: what're the obvious reasons?
Also, this subject has been discussed a billion times, but it still creeps me out how, in these advertisements, sexuality is displaced onto motherhood. It just ends up feeling like incest. You know, that last picture where the womanly figured woman in the fashionable suit brings the tiny tots running?
The launch party in the tweedle video looked like a managerial meeting at bigwannabe.com. I couldn't decide whether to laugh or cry.
it doesn't really reflect the difference between the height of young men versus older men. 5ft 10 might be average, but there are definitely age groups within which that can seem quite short.
Huh. I admit I've not really researched this, but what I've seen is consistent with this chart. That is, that even among younger demographics, the average is still often well under six feet.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_height#Average_adult_height_around_the_world
I didn't develop anything like my adult body until I was 20 or 21. I put about 30 - 40 lbs on in a year and didn't change my jean size. Then low maintenance, basically in really good shape until about 31 or 32 while eating and drinking whatever the hell I liked and then ... a repeat of the 30 - 40lbs in about 2 years, only this time, not in a good way. Getting old sucks.
My college buddies and I look back and laugh (aka cry) at how lean we were. Fiveish percent bodyfat (under 5 depending on how you measured it).
I am 5'10" and I worked hard to get my weight up to 165 in college. It has been a long time since I've seen 165.
But, I agree completely with how often a person's appearance in high school does not correlate to attractiveness later on.
I arrived as a college frshman at 6'0", 145#. I graduated six years later at 205#.
frshman
That's how skinny I was; I could only fit one vowel.
123. You were a catering student?
6'0", 205 seems reasonable if you have muscle or a larger frame.
I often wished I could scale myself a bit, like Giant-Man in the mid-sixties version I knew best. So as to seem less conspicuous, friendlier, more approachable, more likely debonair, and so on. Would have made, I would have thought then, walking up to, or dancing with, or just not being awkward and ridiculous-standing-with, a lot easier. Of course many young women like it, but you may not like what they like about it, nor feel it's you.
Maybe nobody's idea of themselves quite matches the impression they think they give, for better or worse.
armsmasher - I too am in Miami and am free after 3 or so. Want to get together for a drink/dinner? I fly out tomorrow a.m.
This reminds me, anyone who hasn't seen The Machinist is missing out. Most amazing weight loss by an actor I've ever seen.
http://www.imdb.com/gallery/ss/0361862
5ft 10 might be average, but there are definitely age groups within which that can seem quite short.
Only 15 percent of men are 6 ft. plus. There are no age group where 5'10" is short.
Very short men may be limited to very short women
Bollox. I'm 5'3" and Mrs OFE is 5'11". And not remotely demure, I'm delighted to say.
