Monthly Archives: August 2013

Under Where?

Has anyone seen pictures of this person they call the human barbie? She’s some Eastern European model, Ukranian I think, who has based her physical appearance on that of the typical blonde barbie doll. She has breast implants and very long blonde hair that may or may not be real. The rest of her is very thin, bordering on anorexic in appearance, which creates quite the ‘hourglass’ figure when combined with her large fake breasts. She does her make up in such a way that makes her eyes look enormous, and all the pictures I found of her have the same lifeless, doll-like facial expression. I found some videos of people talking about how women like her and the idealism of the barbie figure create problems for little girls because it is an unnatural standard for perfection. The data that came out within the last few years about what the real life proportions of a barbie would be are clearly not number combinations that occur in nature. And if there was a person who had those dimensions, they would stand out from the rest of society in a negative way, not because they were ‘perfect’ and beautiful’. One of the video commentaries I watched mentioned that the Barbies of today have wider waists and small breasts than the Barbie dolls of the past. I started to think about what has changed since then, the 50s/60s with regards to female icons. The pin-up illustrations that were popular at the time had large breasts and very small waists, not to different from what many people perceive as the ultimate female form these days. However, I realized something when I began to think about how the females of the past achieved this form: undergarments. Today we have spanks and the like, that can slim all our little rolls and dimples. Back then, women actually wore some pretty intricate stuff under their dresses, and it was all designed to create the perfect figure: big on top, tiny in the middle. But it was common knowledge among regular women that these types of apparatus were used to push and pull in all the right places. So although they may look like they have the ideal body in the desinger gown on television, everyone knew that it wasn’t 100% natural, there was some deception going on under there. Today, the situation is similar, but with a key difference. The ideal shape is mostly the same, although the grotesquely skinny super model body was the vogue for a while, I do think it is starting to lose some popularity as people begin to realize it’s more important to be healthy. And yes we know the celebrities have access to the same slimming undergarments that the masses do, but the thing is, they don’t really seem to need them. In their attempts to point out every little flaw of every person who could even loosely be called a celebrity, the tabloids and lifestyles constantly bombard us with images of our favorite actresses in bikinis and bathing suits. And for the most part they are in amazing shape. Of course it’s part of their chosen profession to be in perfect shape all the time, so diet and exercise is an important part of how they maintain their work performance. But that’s the difference: they look amazing in the designer gowns because underneath their bodies are simply amazing. The ideal is the same, but the means is not. Here’s what it seems to boil down to, in my opinion anyways:

Past: You don’t have the ideal female shape? No problem? Where these various undergarments and you’ll look perfect!

Present: You have to wear all that stuff to look good in a dress? You should probably work out more…

Leave a comment

Filed under Rants and Raves