"Skinny is better"
Crystal Renn, in case you haven't heard of her, is the world's most successful plus-sized model. But it wasn't her fabulous derriere or bombshell curves that recently landed her on the front pages in a recent media storm. Oh no. Instead it's been more of a case of her lack of flesh that's landed a photographer in hot water, considering the photos she did for a recent fashion campaign were airbrushed within an inch of their once curvy life. The result? She's gone from a size 10 (an Australian size 14) to a miniscule size two without a single sit-up or celery stick in sight.
"That's not the message I want to give," she told the Daily Mail, after being pretty shocked at how the pictures turned out. "I don't want young women to think being thin is the only way to be beautiful. Beauty is not a pant size."
Renn has battled anorexia and problems with her weight for her entire life, so for her finally to be OK with her size and proud to flaunt it, only then to be undermined by the very people hiring her because of it (and then reneging on their decision by changing her body shape), isn't a good sign.
Yet in a world in which single women are indeed judged on their appearances and pant sizes do indeed play a major factor in what type of men you can attract (just you try going on RSVP or any dating website and putting "voluptuous" in your profile!), it seems that while some brave folk like to preach that big is better/healthier/more attractive, in reality we're still being judged on our figures and live in a society where thin beats big. At least if you want a second date.
"I don't care what anyone says, looks matter," a bloke told me the other day as I sat down to dinner with him. "If she's not hot, I don't date her."
His definition of hot?
"Thin. Goes to the gym." And what about healthy? "As long as she looks good, that's all that matters." Right...
"You must get married!"
Even worse than the pressure to be thin is the pressure for modern women to tie the knot with some bloke (any bloke!) as long as she does it before she's an old maid, her eggs have dried up and she's had to resort to talking to her cats in her spare time. So you can imagine the shock and horror of conservative types on discovering that our very own Prime Minister has decided to forego the institution of marriage altogether for something a little less mainstream.
"Heaven forbid our Prime Minister live in sin!" the media responded to the revelation that Julia Gillard is in a de facto relationship and - gasp! - is actually living under the same roof as her boyfriend.
The fact that she would dare to shun such an institution such as marriage (oh the shame!) is getting all sorts of folk into a tizzy. Their biggest gripe? The fear that women (and their daughters) might just use Gillard's example as a ticket to follow suit and live with a dude without a diamond on their ring finger.
Take Bettina Arndt for instance, who, in a column in the Herald, lampooned Gillard's lifestyle and said she feared Gillard's choice to co-habit with her beau would influence women for the worse.
"Her lifestyle choice may influence other women into making big mistakes about their lives," Arndt wrote. "Women's tiny reproductive window means they pay a high price for wasting precious breeding time in such uncertain relationships."
While I agree with her last point to a certain extent (and have experienced it first hand), who are we to judge what makes a good relationship and what doesn't? And who says that other women will follow suit just because Gillard is in power? Ardnt certainly does.
"If Gillard chooses to play house with Tim Mathieson in the Lodge, this choice sends a strong message to the huge numbers of women who rightly admire her and seek to follow her example … A lifestyle suited to her particular needs may be riskier for many women and their children."
I'm still undecided. Not about Gillard's decision (each to their own), but about the whole marriage thing versus living together with someone you love. True, living together is a risky decision. But so is marriage. Although not to one 24-year-old woman who told me yesterday that the minute she started dating her boyfriend (at age 20), she gave him an ultimatum - marry me or I'm out. "By 23 the pressure was on. I told him it's now or I move on. Why should I waste my 20s in a relationship that doesn't have a future? Where will that leave me when I'm 30?"
Having been in a relationship yourself for most of your 20s that fizzled out before you walked down the aisle, You couldn't help but wonder if her point actually had some merit. Or whether living together helps you decide that ultimately this person was never right for you all along ...
"Sex is for love, not enjoyment"
What about the notion of being able to enjoy casual sex when you're not even in any type of relationship? Opposition Leader Tony Abbot is opposed to the whole notion of pre-marital sex, describing virginity as ''the greatest gift you can give someone, the ultimate gift of giving''. Nauseating indeed. (I wonder what Abbott has to say about Gillard's arrangement...)
Yet here's my gripe: While men seem to be able to bonk whoever they want whenever they want to their heart's content without judgment or labels, the fact that women are still judged for having sex for enjoyment or with a partner who hasn't yet given her a ring really shows just how far we've come ... which is not far at all.
True, sometimes it's a little degrading, you feel like an idiot when the guy doesn't call you the next day (or ever again) and you start to think that all men are bastards and perhaps our mothers were right - they might just be after one thing after all.
Nevertheless the great thing about being a modern woman is that we have choices, and those choices should be celebrated. We should be celebrating curvy bodies, sexual empowerment and not be afraid to live with a man before we get hitched, even if it's just to help us take out the garbage and pay the rent ...
What do you think?
Have a fabulous weekend and happy dating!
I thought you were in the Phils, not Australia.
ReplyDelete