From: Christian Weisgerber (naddy@mips.inka.de)
Date: Sun Dec 22 2002 - 18:32:14 MST
Terry W. Colvin <fortean1@mindspring.com> wrote:
> Playboy study shows men's tastes tilting to
> androgynous
I think the choice of term "androgynous" was rather unfortunate and
the misleading title above illustrates this. If you look at Playboy
centerfolds, they are *not* androgynous. These women are very
unmistakably female. The study showed a trend pointing to less
pronounced secondary sexual characteristics, which you can label
"more androgenous", but this is not the same thing at all.
Grammatically speaking, make sure you use the comparative and not
the positive form of the adjective.
For what it's worth, I'm under the impression that a non-negligiable
number of Playboy models have undergone cosmetic surgery to enhance
their secondary sexual characteristics (i.e. they got boob jobs).
This is also endemic in Hollywood, not to mention the porn business.
Liposuction is also popular, hip width is not operable at this time.
Am I missing something or can we conclude that the social ideal of
the androgyny index (as defined in the Voracek/Fisher paper) is
definitely above the average one of the eligible female population?
> But what I find scary, is that when I watch TV, which is rare,
> the people on TV, mainly the women, don't even look *human* to
> me. Lot's of cosmetic surgery going on in TV Land methinks.]
Well, how do I tell? :-) As much as I am in favor of giving people
to option of cosmetic surgery, I can't say that I always agree with
the results. Not long ago, Melanie Griffith was on Larry King Live
and I was appalled. I mean, sure, she doesn't have any wrinkles,
but... the term "disfigurement" crossed my mind. Cher at least
only looks weird.
-- Christian "naddy" Weisgerber naddy@mips.inka.de
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:58:51 MST