The caption to the photo said, “New York plastic surgeon Jacob Sarnoff drew this vision of total transformation–entitled ‘diagrammatic illustration of common deformities amenable to plastic surgery’–in 1936.”
I found this in Venus Envy: A History of Cosmetic Surgery, by Elizabeth Haiken (1997), page 13.
New (or new to me) body modification trends (the first four found here):
Look like a dragon (found here):
Likes spikes (found here):
Eyebrows (found here):
Boob job (found here):
This one is braille (found here) :
It might be interesting to discuss the different reactions to the body modifications… that is, people might think the braille one is kind of sweet, but the boob job one as disgusting. How do we decide which body modifications are good or bad, neat or stupid, etc?
Here’s an ad for breast implants:[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8RL9Wm5-n4[/youtube] Clearly in this situation the solution is to get breast implants, not a new date.The company’s website is here.This ad encourages women to be envious of “perfect” women and to compare themselves unfavorably:[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=arf9LzdIY2s[/youtube] Try plastic surgery if your eating disorder doesn’t do the job:[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HzTPOAzgwQE[/youtube] The center is still in business, but I think a different doctor is in charge now.
Gwen Sharp is an associate professor of sociology at Nevada State College. You can follow her on Twitter at @gwensharpnv.
Just try to imagine this advice aimed at a woman:[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGmX6m78zDM[/youtube] How I dream for the day that I, as a woman, get permission to buy a bigger shirt and forget about it.
Today Gwen and I went to the by now well-known Bodies exhibit that displays preserved human cadavers, purportedly so we can learn more about the human body (and give up smoking).
As we went in we joked about how there probably wouldn’t be any female bodies until the part on reproduction. We were royally pissed off to discover that we were right. This is a great illustration of the way in which men are neutral and women deviants from the standard (that is, men are people and women are women). The first 8 or so bodies were all male and all in action doing masculine things.
The first female body we encountered (there were only two out of more than a dozen) stood immediately outside the fetal development hall and alongside the dissections of the genitals and reproductive organs.* Not only was this the first female, she was arranged not in action, but in a pose for the male gaze. She was standing with her hands on her hips, with her breasts and hips thrust forward, and on her tip toes as if she were wearing high heels. We couldn’t find any pictures of her on the web (and we weren’t allowed to take any), but we did find an image of a female cadaver from another exhibit. She was both pregnant (fulfilling her biological destiny) and positioned like a pin up (fulfilling her role as sexual object for men). So, in addition to marginalizing the female body, they gendered both male and female bodies. Male bodies are on the move, but female bodies are good for only two things: babies and sexual provocation.
The last body (male) had a sign over it that said “Your Body” because, of course, the male body is just the neutral human body that represents us all.
* As we entered the fetal development hall there was a sign that warned people that they should take a second and think about whether they wanted to see the fetuses, while assuring us that all of them died of natural causes (that is, not abortion). I think it’s bizarre that we’re supposed to find these fetal bodies disturbing, but not the bodies of people who lived lives and loved others and were loved and all that good stuff. There is something weird about the priorities here, as if the fetuses were somehow more human than the adults. Also, while we were looking at the deformed fetuses, a woman standing next to us said that all teenagers should have to see the deformed fetuses because “that’s what gonna happen” if they start having sex.
Lisa Wade, PhD is an Associate Professor at Tulane University. She is the author of American Hookup, a book about college sexual culture; a textbook about gender; and a forthcoming introductory text: Terrible Magnificent Sociology. You can follow her on Twitter and Instagram.
These photos are from a February 7th New York Times story in the Style section (p. E1 and E6) about changes in what male fashion models look like. This first picture shows some male models from the 1990s.
These three photos show the new ideal: very thin, lanky, and pasty.
These anti-statutory rape PSAs were made by advertising agency Serve for the United Way of Milwaukee. They created enough of a controversy that they were pulled (see an article at Salon).
In response to the controversy, the advertising agency put a little over 2 minutes of focus group footage on youtube:[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=61-gu2X_57k[/youtube]
Lisa and I are completely confused by these ads. We at least get the first one–her boobs are so big in a Wonderbra that they honk the horn while she drives. And the other I guess means she can’t see to put out her cigarette?But the other two? Is the coffin one supposed to imply that her breasts are too big for the coffin to close? I shouldn’t have to think this hard to understand an ad![youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9O45b6bpoEI[/youtube][youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ksUddNDJYHI[/youtube][youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=af-5gu7HKdA[/youtube]
