Alarming News: I like Morgan Freeberg. A lot.
American Digest: And I like this from "The Blog That Nobody Reads", because it is -- mostly -- about me. What can I say? I'm on an ego trip today. It won't last.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: We were following a trackback and thinking "hmmm... this is a bloody excellent post!", and then we realized that it was just part III of, well, three...Damn. I wish I'd written those.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: ...I just remembered that I found a new blog a short while ago, House of Eratosthenes, that I really like. I like his common sense approach and his curiosity when it comes to why people believe what they believe rather than just what they believe.
Brutally Honest: Morgan Freeberg is brilliant.
Dr. Melissa Clouthier: Morgan Freeberg at House of Eratosthenes (pftthats a mouthful) honors big boned women in skimpy clothing. The picture there is priceless--keep scrolling down.
Exile in Portales: Via Gerard: Morgan Freeberg, a guy with a lot to say. And he speaks The Truth...and it's fascinating stuff. Worth a read, or three. Or six.
Just Muttering: Two nice pieces at House of Eratosthenes, one about a perhaps unintended effect of the Enron mess, and one on the Gore-y environ-movie.
Mein Blogovault: Make "the Blog that No One Reads" one of your daily reads.
The Virginian: I know this post will offend some people, but the author makes some good points.
Poetic Justice: Cletus! Ah gots a laiv one fer yew...
A few days ago I got in trouble with a whole lot of my male readers on the subject of chicks. And so I’m glad, today, to see my point of view defended by…a chick. And not just any chick, but Blogsister Daphne.
We all know when a good-looking woman crosses our path, our eyes turn, we can’t help ourselves. Humans enjoy physical beauty. Classically beautiful women have two things in common; a shapely figure and attractive faces. It has always been so. Playboy didn’t define beauty, it merely showcased the finer lights of my sex in a more blatantly prurient vein.
Big bottomed girls, fair redheads sprinkled with freckles, golden brown brunettes, lean boyish frames, overflowing busts and tawny eyed blondes all find admirers in the wide arena of men. Taste is subjective, sexual heat is particular. Acknowledging the platinum standard of female beauty doesn’t denigrate or negate women who failed to benefit from a great combination of DNA nor does it demean the men who fall in love or deep passion with a woman who swims in circles well outside that ancient ideal.
I still maintain my own careless editing motivated many to take my words out of context. Many among my critics were offering the critique that man-to-man-to-man, the ideal of beauty will naturally change. I agree with this, and it seems Daphne does too.
But I’ll certainly go along with the idea that there is a predilection. And that it is frequently misrepresented and mis-perceived. Rare is the man who’d prefer the physique of Keira Knightly, contrasted against Marilyn Monroe. My point was that Vox Populi was perfectly on-target: If you spend your lifetime preferring a certain look, it is highly unlikely some “Rules”-reading bimbo will come along sporting a completely different look, and cause you to stop in your tracks and go “Whoa!” You’ll probably end up marrying someone within your ideal of beauty.
Daphne’s point is well taken too, though. There is taste; there is the magnetism. One is subjective, the other is far less so.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Ahh, the old “don’t tell me what kind of woman I like” routine. Men love this one, and it really borders on being a soldier in the Army of Deflated Indignation. OF COURSE we’re not all attracted to the same thing. There are a handful of things that are intellectually exhausting to hear, especially from intelligent people, and one of them is “don’t you dare accuse me of thinking thin women are attractive.” The smuggest, most insufferable bastard on the planet is the one guy in a group of ten men looking at a playboy centerfold who says ‘I really don’t see anything attractive about that.”
Taste is very subjective, indeed. But it’s also worth noting that the absolutely, ridiculously overwhelming majority of the naked chick industry is based on the skinny, busty chick with a tight little caboose. Commercialism aims at what will appeal to the greatest number of people, so hey fellas: it’s not particularly enlightening or refreshing to come to these discussions with your “I like fat chicks” dirge.
- Andy | 01/07/2010 @ 09:57…it’s not particularly enlightening or refreshing to come to these discussions with your “I like fat chicks” dirge.
Ah, nice rant… but the phenomenon is MUCH more insidious than just us guys with a predilection for “fat chicks.” (I prefer the term “substantial” myself, but a spade is still a digging tool, innit?) Part and parcel of bombarding all of us… men and women… with all these “skinny busty chick(s) with a tight little caboose” is the effect this mass-merchandising (Vogue, Revlon, the “beauty” industry as a frickin’ whole) has on normal women and their self-image, especially the youngest of women who are beginning to form their self-image. Which ain’t good, in any number of ways. I’ll not flog the dead horse here, Andy, coz I’m sure you get my drift. I’ll add more, if’n ya think it necessary or proper. This just happens to be a hot button of mine… insufferable as I am. 😉
- bpenni | 01/07/2010 @ 15:51No need to add anything, Buck. I do get your drift. The effect it has on women is rarely – if ever – in question. Never was here, nor was it in Morgan’s original post. But someone always takes it there. Every time. And it typically takes the tone of some guy who purports to like his girls big and thinks that people who like the Playboy Bunny type have somehow fallen for a big marketing scam .
- Andy | 01/07/2010 @ 17:45[…] cartoon that reminds me of a certain kerfufflage that was taking place between blogger friends Buck and Andy on these pages a few days […]
- House of Eratosthenes | 01/09/2010 @ 16:22