Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => The Coffee Corner => Topic started by: Rob C on August 25, 2017, 05:50:32 pm
-
I can't remember where the original (on LuLa) discussion was running, but it was about the male/female rôle-stereotyìng thing.
I just watched a docu on Blondie's Parallel Lines - how could I not - and one woman contributor, a singer, came up with the perfect argument clincher.
She said, about glamour and the Debbie looks, and I have to paraphrase here, but pretty accurately: "it's how our species is; we have to attract you, pull you in and make you want to stay."
As far as I'm concerned, she's the most honest voice on this topic that I ever heard.
Good for her for telling it like it is, always was and if there's to be a tomorrow for us, always will be.
Anybody contesting that is just playing politics or has another, underlying problem.
Rob
-
I think most people accept and understand that. The variations come about in considering what is and what isn't attractive.
-
In nature it is usually the male that fulfills that role. So why should that be any different for the human species? The staying bit, by the way, seems optional if nature is any indication. You primarily want them them to stay with the offspring...
And i find it quite disconcerting that you can't remember the thread, and then i chuckle on the irony of your claim that you paraphrase accurately...
;-)
;-)
-
In nature it is usually the male that fulfills that role. So why should that be any different for the human species? The staying bit, by the way, seems optional if nature is any indication. You primarily want them them to stay with the offspring...
And i find it quite disconcerting that you can't remember the thread, and then i chuckle on the irony of your claim that you paraphrase accurately...
;-)
;-)
But it wasn't a thread, it was a show last night on BBC4 about the making of the Blondie album Parallel Lines. Should be possible for an interested party within the UK to get that on one of the second-chance options. I don't have those in Spain.
Rob
-
In nature it is usually the male that fulfills that role. So why should that be any different for the human species? The staying bit, by the way, seems optional if nature is any indication.
If we just limit ourselves to the primates closest to us, we have next to Homo Sapiens the Gorillas, Chimpanzees and Bonobos. They have vastly different mating strategies, so probably "nature" indications have to be taken with caution.
-
But it wasn't a thread,
I meant the LuLa discussion which was "shame on Google".
-
If we just limit ourselves to the primates closest to us, we have next to Homo Sapiens the Gorillas, Chimpanzees and Bonobos. They have vastly different mating strategies, so probably "nature" indications have to be taken with caution.
Certainly, and physically, at least where medicine is concerned, we are apparently closer to pigs... but considering the declining western ideal of single-mate-for-life it does make for an interesting discussion though. For example: male human species remain relatively more attractive and/or better preserved over the course of their lifetime compared to what is considered the female ideal.
How then is several layers of make-up, died hair, inflated breasts going to help "getting a male and getting him to stay?"
And yes, i am deliberately provocative here for obvious reasons i should hope.
-
If we just limit ourselves to the primates closest to us, we have next to Homo Sapiens the Gorillas, Chimpanzees and Bonobos. They have vastly different mating strategies, so probably "nature" indications have to be taken with caution.
Don't know much about our jungle rockers, but the chick I quoted - as best I could - was referring to her own species: us lot.
Rob
-
Certainly, and physically, at least where medicine is concerned, we are apparently closer to pigs... but considering the declining western ideal of single-mate-for-life it does make for an interesting discussion though. For example: male human species remain relatively more attractive and/or better preserved over the course of their lifetime compared to what is considered the female ideal.
How then is several layers of make-up, died hair, inflated breasts going to help "getting a male and getting him to stay?"
And yes, i am deliberately provocative here for obvious reasons i should hope.
I think the males might have been better preserved longer - once - but I wouldn't say it's the case today. You see as many tubs of lard of either gender, but perhaps what we are seeing, despite our hopes, is a morphing of both genders into a single blob, where apparent sexuality is determined by a designer beard or lack of it. Though that's no guarantee either. I have lost count at the number of blobs pushing prams, and to my shame, the same question always surfaces in my mind: how did that ever happen? That these people may be saints hasn't a chance.
I never did hire a model with fake tits. My memory is of the pool at the Montfleury in Cannes, the model and my wife discussing the Arab ladies (and their overdressed nannies who watched over the next generation of sheiks) sporting their immaculately cast breasts to the Med sunlight. Now there was an early business opportunity for the medical profession to cross borders! Would they, chez eux, have been beheaded for this semi-private display of fruit? The sheikesses, not the cosmetic wizards.
Rob
-
... You see as many tubs of lard of either gender...
Not in my environment. Which is, without doubt, the most suitable statistical pool for observing that. Here, morbidly obese women outnumber similar men 3 or 4 to 1.
-
Not in my environment. Which is, without doubt, the most suitable statistical pool for observing that. Here, morbidly obese women outnumber similar men 3 or 4 to 1.
Aha! Servile men, then, eaten out of house and home by tougher women!
-
Apropos: