The other day I was at the library and spotted a picture book called "Sexy." I immediately took it off the shelf because I thought it would be full of pictures of naked women. It wasn't. What it was, was a book about the way women should dress to compensate for physical defects. It was fascinating! Women on this site know about this stuff already but I thought I'd publish an example for the education of my fellow males who are probably as clueless as I am about this subject. OK, here's (above) the problem body. The woman is short and has a rectangular body, rather than the classic hourglass. Her legs aren't bad so she has that going for her, but not much else.
According to the book this (above) is the kind of clothing she should most avoid. The long dress covers her greatest asset, her legs, and the thin, clinging fabric emphasizes the thick torso. The tiny straps make the shoulders appear narrow and fat.
Here's (above) what the book recommends: Cover the shoulders and arms to cover the fat. The broad, horizontal neck on the blouse makes the shoulders seem wider and the low waist line takes our attention away from the width of the real waistline. Finally, the long pants over heels makes the legs seem even taller and thinner and the heavy fabrics don't cling. I don't know about you but I regard this as an amazingly effective bit of camoulflage.
The author was obviously a master illusionist so I was anxious to see what he'd do with a really challenging subject. I looked for a truly fat woman but the best I could come up with was a short, plump woman with thick legs (above). The solution was so similar to the previous one that I won't bother printing it here. What I will do is put up the picture of the clothes the author said the woman should avoid. I'm putting it up because I disagree.I grant that the frilly, thin-strapped dress makes the woman look wide, but is that wrong? I like it because it says about the wearer that she's dressing in a deliberately flamboyant way to attract a man. She looks a little vulnerable to ridicule and the vulnerability makes her sexy.
I like people who need people and aren't afraid to be explicit about it. A guy who wears a loud disco shirt to a dance is doing the same thing. At work, during the day, by all means be tasteful. At night, on a date, dress like a peacock in heat.
28 comments:
I always love your posts on the wild world of women, Eddie!
But an entire post dedicated to Olive Oyl would be the ULTIMATE. Your admiration for her on the Popeye DVD commentaries is the funniest thing ever!
Learning about clothing camouflage for those who want a date is way cool and all but I want more women who pontificate about the meaning of law, right reason, conforming to nature, and stuff.
"I like it because it says about the wearer that she's dressing in a deliberately flamboyant way to attract a man." Isn't there some way to dress flamboyantly without making her look like the Venus of Willendorf?
Eddie, you should d ress like a bird of paradise. You know all the moves!
Those books are usually not only silly but totally WRONG; for years and years the advice was for "thick" women to wear shapless sacks. Well, guess what? Very loose-fitting, straight up & down clothes make anyone look 10x as big. Great. A person with a lot of pulchritude(and anyone else) probably shouldn't wear tight clothes that are too small, but clinging fabrics on a person with some shape are just way more flattering(read: human-looking), period.
The bottom line is this: bodies are so incredibly diverse and individualized that those books just can't be useful. Women don't tend to fall into categories-there's much too much variation, unlike men.
Darwin aside, a lot of women don't dress to "attract" men--they dress because they think something is pretty, period.
I know men have abn awfully hard time thinking that it isn't ALL done for their benefit, but-it ain't.
Sometimes this results in women wearing outfits guys hate(as is well documented). sometimes it results in what men think is sexy, but much more often than you'd think if the woman is over 16, they are not dolling themselves up to attract sex/protection/food/money; they're actually more evolved than that. It's for personal vanity(the good kind?), happiness.
Believe it or not!
If the example figure has nice legs, then why are they covered up in that "good" outfit? (That outfit is gross, by the way.) My eye isn't being tricked by the low waistline belt thing; it's thinking--yes, my eye can think--"The low waisted belt thing strongly suggests to me, the eye, that this person is chubby around the midsection." My eye would much prefer to see this person wear something that maybe shows a little too much midsection but isn't gross. That fool-the-eye stuff never works.
You know, and I have a feeling I'm not alone here, I have always found that the rattiest, cruddiest, most nondescript rag in my closet was the one that whatever idiot I was seeing before I snagged my husband always liked the most.
Anon, Anon, Lester: True, they often don't dress for men but I especially admire the ones who are single and wear clothes to attract men. Why not? Isn't that what life is supposed to be about?
I like people who are emotionally needy. Like everybody else I try to come off in public like someone who's self-sufficient and doesn't need anyone, but I think I'm wrong to do that. Dickens novels convinced me of that. What the world needs are interesting characters.
Erik: We definitely need more of them!
Nico: Thanks!
Anon: Interesting! Wow! It's great to hear what an insider thinks!
Spizz: In the artist's drawings the difference is dramatic but maybe in real life it's less so.
Maybe you just felt more at ease in the crude stuff and guys picked up on that. On the other hand, maybe you would have gotten even more guys if you were wearing something that made you feel uncomfortable and vulnerable.
>True, they often don't dress for men but I especially admire the ones who are single and wear clothes to attract men.
AHEM. There's a word for those girls, Eddie!
Jorge: LOL! I didn't mean that dating women should dress like prostitutes. If I had the time I'd put up examples.
This is certainly a...different point of view.
And here I'd always read, been told and believed that men run screaming from too-vulnerable, needy women. Huh.
Thank goodness you posted this, Eddie. Now I have a reason to take out my teal bubble shirt out of the closet again.
Watch out world!
cool post eddie, every girl knows the right formulas for her body. sorry the book didn't have nakeds
"every girl knows the right formulas for her body"
Marlo is right- it's like a sixth sense...well not every girl has it.
Marlo can get away with a big sweatshirt on top- cause then she can balance it out by wearing super short shorts, because her legs are so lean. I couldn't do that. My body type calls for a deep plunging neckline to excentuate my top half, and belt off the mid section- which is the smallest part of my body, creating an hour glass. My body type is not an hourglass, it's a pear shape- but girls with the pear shape should try to create an hourglass figure. Katie actually has an hourglass, so we can wear a lot of the same things (belted dresses that flare out past our big butts)- except that she is far more top heavy in her breast area, thus a square neck line top is the best for her chest. None of us are fat though, but it helps to know how to dress your body type.
Kali: Wow! Fascinating!
>> I like people who are emotionally needy. Like everybody else I try to come off in public like someone who's self-sufficient and doesn't need anyone, but I think I'm wrong to do that. Dickens novels convinced me of that. What the world needs are interesting characters. <<
That's a very interesting observation. Yes, emotionally needy people can be fascinating and interesting fictional characters, and this personality trait is always a great catalyst for comedy and drama. Yet paradoxally, displaying emotional neediness in the reality is one of the most undesirable qualities that could ruin the love-life like nothing else. It's an attraction-killer really, and women seem to be absolutely repulsed by it, in my opinion. However, they do perceive men's vulnerability in small doses as sexy.
Also, women in many cases dress up not because of men, but for the other women. Not to attract them really, but in some kind of competitive way, to outdid or outclass the friends/opponents. Yes, they're just as competitive in nature as we guys are :)
Hammerson: Yeah, I've noticed that too. A lot of women don't like vulnerability in a man. But...a lot of women do. If Jimmy Stewart was here he wouldn't have trouble getting dates.
"If Jimmy Stewart was here he wouldn't have trouble getting dates."
Jimmy Stewart from 1936--maybe.
BUT Stewart from 1946--onwards? Vulnerable? No way! You need to set yourself down and enjoy some Anthony Mann movies. At my house we refer to postwar Jimmy as the angriest man in films! He's still admirable and desirable for all that, too! : )
Sorry, couldn't resist jumping in there.
Jenny: True, Stewart got very serious later in his career and that Stewart is hard to take. What a pity!
Oh, but I don't think it's a pity at all!
I love all the incarnations of James Stewart. Those later films are quite--what shall I say? Profound.
In many ways I think Stewart was underrated, as beloved as he was. He must have been a hell of a complex, interesting man: all that acting talent AND to be a squadron leader in WW2 AND an Eagle Scout, no less! It comes through in his portrayals. I am usually turned off by negative stuff in actors--too much rage, too much angst--but never with Jimmy. Purely a personal thing. But really, a man matures and Stewart did; he couldn't very well play a 55 year old Mr. Smith.
I prefer him as he was in those Mann films: embittered, BUT a true idealist; a no holds barred individualist who nevertheless was forced to admit a need for a woman and for other people's society--even if he found society itself lacking.
A real man! ; D
Jenny: You can make a case for the later films. Stewart still had the charisma. But don't you think he came off kind of mean in those films?
No, not mean--frustrated. Eternally frustrated. Usually he's a guy travelling alone who wants to be left alone, but someone needs help, which irks him no end--but of course he helps out(at great personal risk).
He acts "mean" to get rid of people and encumbrances, but his false face doesn't work in the end: kids, old people, his horse(Pie-always the same horse btw) and girls all see through it.
That's in the westerns, which are all great. In the non-westerns it's much the same minus the meanness, i.e. "No Highway In The Sky"--now there's a doozy. "Call Northside 777" etc. etc.
The interesting thing is how well Stewart pulls off these guys(who are sometimes seemingly on the verge of a nervous breakdown)and does make them likeable. Another actor would have an impossible job, but JS just has that it factor that makes him the hero no matter what. For me, anyway.
Jenny: Fascinating! Now I want to see some of these films!
Aw, Eddie! That comment has made my day! : )
I read a similar book and had the same problem with it as you. I don’t want to wear arbitrary, casual, blazer-and-pants outfits. I want to wear really feminine things. The book didn’t say how to do that with my physique.
Post a Comment