Apostropher, do you never find breast implants appealing? But that it would consign me to Republicanhood, I'd admit that sometimes the effect works. (I am guessing about who has implants.)
I really can't see much of a market for this beyond strippers and porn stars. A world-wide network of strippers would explain why patients fly to the doctor from across the world. It would also explain the porn in the purses.
I have a hard time thinking the demand for external genitalia surgery is very strong. Certainly that one doctor wants it to be strong. But, I think he is exagerating. People may fly to him from all over the world because there is noone else to go to. And, even he doesn't do it full time.
Elective cosmetic surgery is very weird. I think the vagina surgery weirds me out more largely because it reminds me of operations designed to give a woman her 'virginity' back; guys wanting their playground a certain way and anything deviant need to be surgically altered. (Breast implants are a bit this way, too, in some cases.)
I understand breast reduction surgery. I thought about having it done myself at one point. (There's a lipo-only version now.) It's about comfort and proportionality too.)
I think this stuff is pretty absurd. Do a lot of men think about the perfect vagina all the time? There are plenty of other look issues to worry about without this one.
I'll put up a fight, just because it's a slow day. A lot of those women seem to enjoy sex a lot more after the surgery, which most likely isn't due to an alleviation of worrying about appearances. That's a nice thing, and maybe something worth spending money on. (After all, his office is across from a Jaguar dealership, the site of much less fulfilling economic exchanges.)
In conclusion, I'd like say: "youthful and aesthetically appealing vulva."
You won't get a fight from me. I'm sure there can be non-crazy reasons to do some of these things, but some of the people mentioned in the article are just--can we still use this word without irony?--shallow.
It's elective cosmetic surgery. Big fuckin' deal. As the technology improves and becomes more commonplace we'll be able to reshape and transform our bodies in all sorts of bizarre ways - not merely to conform to an ideal, but to comport with our various fetishes and fantasies. This isn't a good thing or a bad thing. It's just a thing. Get over it.
I'm not sure the surgery is creepy; I think it's the idea that there are large groups of men out there rating vaginas that's wierd. I can't say I've ever thought or heard about an attractive vagina. It's just never been something that I fixed on visually.
bostongirl, yeah -- I get breast reduction for pain or back surgery or reconstruction after a masectomy, but I'm not sure if that's the motivation for a majority of women. Likewise, a functional or medical reason for surgery on genitalia makes sense... but to just be sexier?
Even cosmetic surgery is still surgery, with all its attendant dangers and risks; 'it's just a thing. Get over it' seems to be exactly the wrong response to what is in many cases major surgery on a perfectly healthy person.
Some women, I really have no idea how common this is, have overly large outer vulva. They can grow far out from the body, and become not only a nuissance, but painful as it becomes difficult not to sit on them. So, there are at least some cases when external vaginal surgery would provide real benefits.
Ogged, as to your 2, apparantly they want playboy vaginas. I can find some links if you like.
10 and 11 are right. When this story surfaced a while ago, I read that vaginal alteration refers to a couple different kinds of surgeries. Some women may also elect to have I-suppose-you'd-call-them hood reductions in order to reveal "hidden" clitorises or just maximize surface area (and resulting awesomeness).
The purely cosmetic surgery is labioplasty, right? It's not obvious to me that that would improve sex, except insofar as it improves how a woman feels about herself, which affects sex a lot. Is it less shallow if a woman is saying "I don't want that"?
it's the idea that there are large groups of men out there rating vaginas that's wierd
Yes, this is the bit that really creeped me out. And the suggestion that a woman would actually hear such ratings or comparisons. The day a man hops into my bed and makes a comment like "your labia don't look like (insert name of porn starhere)'s" is the day he gets booted out of my bed for good. I sort of get comparing what you see on objectified porn stars, but when you enter the real world and get to the point of having a live woman in front of you in an intimate moment? Ummm?
And besides, don't men have enough penis insecurities to prevent them from making such comments to someone who might send a few barbed observations right back in their direction? (The answer to that is yes, yes they do. I may have a small sample to draw upon here, but since they all seem interested in offering up a self-assessment of size -- often inaccurate -- and care about it way more than I do ...)
"Even cosmetic surgery is still surgery, with all its attendant dangers and risks; 'it's just a thing. Get over it' seems to be exactly the wrong response to what is in many cases major surgery on a perfectly healthy person."
Do you say the say same thing to people who want to ride motorcycles, or parachute, or visit 3rd world countries? Namely, point out that it's elective and dangerous and therefore stupid?
If not, why not?
As for this particular issue, it seems that everyone is happy to get upset about this without specifying exactly what is angering them. Get specific people: do you oppose cosmetic surgery in general (ie you make a big fuss about male calf implants and steroid use) or only women? Or is it only female genitalia that upset you?
Finally we seem to have an awful lot of "I don't know but I'm going to shoot my mouth off anyway". How many of those criticizing the vaginal rejuvenation have had kids? If you haven't, then you, as a woman, aren't really in a position to say whether the post-birth stretch affects your sex life or not, are you? Likewise for men. It looks to me like we have a whole lot of 20-somethings here giving their grand pronouncements, based on their massive life experience, of how 40-year olds should live their lives.
Just because the article goes for sensationalism by DELIBERATELY (IMHO) conflating two different issues, namely genital surgery to achieve a specific appearance, and surgery to restore functionality (or deal with congenital disorders) doesn't mean that you have to go along with their game.
Do you say the say same thing to people who want to ride motorcycles, or parachute, or visit 3rd world countries? Namely, point out that it's elective and dangerous and therefore stupid?
If not, why not?
I think she's talking about the risk weighed against the potential return.
Maynard, can you point me to a single comment that specifically criticizes vaginal surgery? And, out of that nonexistant group, how many of those are 20 year old men?
Certainly some commenters have expressed misgivings about cosmetic surgery in toto, and some have expressed misgivings about certain conditions around vaginal cosmetic surgery, but that's it.
It's odd that you get so mad things which have happened only in your imagination.
I think if he could do "dual" surgery on both the male and the female so that they were custom made for each other in a unique lock/key fashion that would be pretty kewl. It might cut down on infidelity, too. But probably not.
Thank you, Sam. Risk versus potential return, is indeed part of it. Part of it is, and what makes it different from motorcycle riding, what Lindsay Beyerstein pointed out; that much cosmetic surgery seems to come with the idea 'you're vile-looking; this will make you acceptable.' I do feel the same way for most other cosmetic surgery; fixing functional problems is okay, the idea one's body is vile solely for not matching airbrushed magazines is not.
I think everyone here was reasonably careful to distinguish between medical need, like post-childbirth rejuvenation or and the idea that if your vulva doesn't match a picture of a porn star that you need surgery.
And to the extent that there's been negative comments about genital surgery, they've all, I think, been about cosmetic surgery rather than about surgery to restore or enhance sexual functioning. Having surgery to enhance the appearance of your vulva, or wanting your sex partner to do so, is just screwed up.
(I would note that I have had two kids, and know many other women who have, and there is no necessary connection between childbearing and sexual disfunction. That doesn't mean there's no one out there whose sex life would be improved by surgery, but this isn't an unmet need of forty-somethings generally.)
Tripp, it's hard to read the tenor of your question. Is it hostile? What sense of "blame" are you concerned with? Do you reject the notion that women do things to please men, or do you simply reject the notion that men are responsible for women submitting to their desires? Or is it some other sense you are concerned with?
Maynard - comments about The Mineshaft and blog-crushes notwithstanding, no one on this site is likely to see your neuticles, much less comment on them. Does anyone here sound like an absolutist on vaginal surgery?
Cala - I certainly understand why women (and one hopes, men) worry about women submitting to surgery for purely aesthetic reasons, but I'm suspicious of strong claims against it. Becoming more attractive to the group you traffic in has to be a fairly large and good life-changing events in one's life; surgery is a cheap way to do that. Life can be a lot easier if you're attractive, and recognition of that fact is, I suspect, what drives a lot of plastic surgery decisions. (Note that the estimations about how much more attractive one will be after surgery are not necessarily good ones.)
I sincerely cannot believe that there has ever been a conversation in which a man has suggested to a woman that she needs to change the appearance of her vagina. "So, Moloch, there was something you wanted to tell me?"
I sincerely cannot believe that there has ever been a conversation in which a man has suggested to a woman that she needs to change the appearance of her vagina.
I think the case for this being motivated by societal misogyny (not here, but in TFA) is just a bit overstated.
The obvious parallel is to penis enlargement. Which, if Salon is to be believed, probably exists/works. I think everyone agrees that it's a pretty silly thing to do, but I don't think people find it particularly troubling. And it's also no doubt prompted by perceived pressures from the opposite sex. Admittedly, there's no cutting involved, but I'm not sure that makes it so hugely different (esp. if this surgery just uses local anesthetic).
Tripp, you can jump in whenever, but I really wasn't thinking of this as 'omg! men made me hate my body!!!!!''
SCMT, true. Attractive people have it easier.
But a couple of points -- most of the newspaper-type articles I've read on those correlations are talking about extremes versus norms, or on physical problems like having an unreconstructed cleft palate. I'm not so sure going from a B cup to a D cup counts, or getting calf implants, is what that data counts..
And (while I'm speculating) I'm not sure surgery does as much as people think. (Anyone watch that show Extreme Makeover? Most of the time, I think they would have looked just the same if they skipped the surgery, but kept the weightloss and better hair.) Sure, it makes you look good.
But so does keeping fit, finding hairstyles and clothing styles that suit you, wearing makeup (something women are lucky in, I'll admit) that plays up your better features. Fashion, to me, is about flattering what you have, not trying to erase it. Getting your hair cut and getting in shape is certainly a lot cheaper and safer than getting surgery.
I sincerely cannot believe that there has ever been a conversation in which a man has suggested to a woman that she needs to change the appearance of her vagina.
I'm with you on the increduality, but as I'm also surprised when I hear things like this,
I may have a small sample to draw upon here, but since they all seem interested in offering up a self-assessment of size -- often inaccurate -- and care about it way more than I do ...
I don't consider myself a very good judge of what goes on in bedroom talk.
I don't consider myself a very good judge of what goes on in bedroom talk.
Michael -- it isn't necessarily bedroom talk. It gets sneaked into other conversations. One guy (more than once) made some comment about wondering how smallish guys felt given that he's "a bit bigger than average" -- although I'd peg him as average. Another one, during a discussion on living with what you've got (in general) sort of apologized about being kind of small (he wasn't -- was on the larger side of average IMHO and I think he was being sincere and not fishing for a compliment). Etc.
Oh, ogged -- you should have let me take a photo of you in your new pants when we went on our date. I'm sure everyone would have noticed the sizeable bulge.
Apostropher, do you never find breast implants appealing?
Not if I can tell they're implants. To be honest, I don't get what the big deal is about breast size anyhow. I've dated women with large breasts and women with nearly non-existent ones and I can't say it made a whit of difference. I'm just happy when they show 'em to me, regardless.
I've dated women with large breasts and women with nearly non-existent ones and I can't say it made a whit of difference.
I don't think dating is when it matters. It's in getting to dating. And breasts are a prominent feature that men often notice.
So far as I know, I've never spent intimate time with someone with implants, so I don't claim to know if they could enhance that aspect of the dating experience.
Well, in real life they tend to correlate with a certain degree of stockiness. The bone-thin/D-cup body is not all that common in the absence of surgery.
All right, I'm not a huge man grabber, and I'm 34DD and reasonably attractive. (I'm not overweight 5'3" and just weighed in at 115lbs) In fact, I think that the proportions are all wrong. I can't buy clothes that fit. I do have some high-end thrift store finds; French clothes tend to fit okay.
If the former, they should both figure out if they live close enough to each other to borrow outfits.
But that would be rough for shopping (and I didn't mean to imply that skinny with big tits wasn't a possible body type, just that it wasn't particularly common). Any deviation from exactly what the six 6 fitting model is built like gets really annoying when you're trying to buy clothes.
I've never understood why an item of women's clothing requires only one number to identify its fit while men's shirts, jackets, or trousers usually require at least two, sometimes with a letter involved.
Because if we aren't the same shape as the model, we don't deserve clothes that fit. Really, it's insane -- you just end up shopping around till you find brands who happen to be designed for someone roughly your shape, but it's all trial and error.
I dunno, slo, maybe someone figured women didn't want their waist size easily guessable or something? Silly -- I'd trade a known waist size for an inseam length.
See 75 -- I think he's good with listening to women discuss breasts.
And I know, but I hate getting everything tailored. I end up just not wearing clothes that fit. Pants length, for heavens sake! Why most women's pants don't have inseam measurements is unimaginable. I'm not all that tall, or really disproportionately leggy, and I end up in floods if I don't watch it.
If I am ever rich, I plan to stop buying clothes off-the rack. I will get everything custom-made, because it's hard to fix a jacket, for example. I really did want a breast reduction. A full C cup would be fine, but even then my narrow shoulders would get in the way. Ann Taylor is out of the question.
Benetton is okay. My black knit Christian Dior top is perfect, now that I've taken out the shoulder pads.
shopping around till you find brands who happen to be designed for someone roughly your shape
yeah, in my case this involves shopping at totally different stores for different items.
and the inseam thing is ludicrous. i'm 5'1," and i had to go with a skirt suit for the 80 zillion interviews i have this month because every time i get suit pants hemmed, they look completely idiotic.
luckily, i've heretofore been a grungy student, so i've been able to get away with chopping off jeans and/or walking on them. sigh.
And on your other point, men are either less shallow, or more complexly shallow, than they are often given credit for. Being a man-magnet (I say, as an objective observer of, rather than participant in, the phenomenon. I'm certainly not one myself) has much less to do with being objectively hot (big tits, whatever) than with attitude and behavior.
Some guys like legs. Legs do not happen when you're 5'4''. (Complexly shallow, I like it.) Point is, it's not like big boobs mean you sail through life being attractive (though you may bounce off of things you run into.)
Now in grad school, I can get away with the grungier look, but the work world meant I had a tailor (and wore more skirts, which I can pull off better with my stubby short legs.)
SCMT, everyone on the internet who says they're female is really 47, balding, and male.
Some guys like legs. Legs do not happen when you're 5'4''.
The grass is always greener. I, myself, am leggy as all get out, but this also fails to result in men hurling themselves at my feet en masse. Not that I'd particularly want them to these days, but back when I was looking it would have been nice.
Well, all we know of you is the sparkling banter. But maybe that itself derives from legginess. (Sparkling banter in the non-leggy obviously has a different origin.)
Huh. I guess it's still frustrating when they don't make clothes in your size, even if the sizing is explicit ehough that you know they won't fit properly before you try them on.
TD--Laughing about your boss telling you how to avoid looking like Linus.
I think that short people can have legs that are almost leggy. I mean they're not ever going to be Uma Thurman-style leggy, but some people have very short torsoes. So, their legs don't look stubby at all.
Oh and as a kid, I was always short. There's a period when girls tend to be taller than boys, but i was always shorter. But I often had to buy the largest size kids pants and cinch the waist, because otherwise the pants were too short.
I always make sure to buy t-shirts and golf shirts in medium so that the sleeves don't go halfway down my forearm. Narrow shoulders and short arms? Yeah, that's me. Torso of a 6'4" inch person? That's me too. Legs of a 5'8" person? Still me.
Re: 82, 108 amen. I've finally gotten to the point where I don't care what size pants I get, so long as they fit (since size is different everywhere). What I hate is when you have to get the XXL *just* to fit your hips and the pants are huge everywhere else. Hopefully I'll get to the tailoring eventually but that'll have to wait until after grad school.
Okay, call me the king of the comment-then-dash-away, and I know this thread has morphed and died and here I am, as my father would say, looking a dead horse up the ass, but I do want to respond to Michael's questions in 30:
Tripp, it's hard to read the tenor of your question. Is it hostile? What sense of "blame" are you concerned with? Do you reject the notion that women do things to please men, or do you simply reject the notion that men are responsible for women submitting to their desires? Or is it some other sense you are concerned with?
To start with I dislike meddling in other people's affairs - who gave me the right to be "concerned" about what some other adult does?
Then we've got the male/female power thing going on. If a woman does something because she thinks it will please a man is that wrong and is that something that all the rest of us need to "correct"?
The bottom line is that nature has made us into two sexes and nature has also given each of us a desire to want to attract the other. I presume that without these drives the human species would have died out long ago.
I don't blame men for women who do things to attract men. That is as silly as blaming women for soccer hooligans because the hooligans did it because they thought they'd be attractive to the babes.
If a woman does something because she thinks it will please a man is that wrong and is that something that all the rest of us need to "correct"?
Depends on the circumstances. In China, women used to cripple themselves by binding their feet to be attractive to men. I have to think most people would be concerned about that -- to the point of suggesting that something active should be done to stop it -- if it were still going on. This obviously isn't that bad, but on the other hand no one here was suggesting that jackbooted (what is a jackboot, exactly?) thugs should go and shut this guy's practice down. Just saying it was creepy.
It depends on the extent of what the woman (or man) does. Surely people are always going to do things to attract the opposite sex, from hairstyles to makeup to acting like soccer hooligans. Sex is fun. But just because the person freely chooses to (e.g) bind their feet or get implants doesn't mean that the culture that accepts such things as attractive is wholly exempt from criticism.
A jackboot is a military, heavy leather boot that extends above the knee, I think.
She said she's not disproportionately leggy, Weiner.
Plus it's not polite to make such explicit enquiries regarding a woman's age (and don't most people shrink when they get that high up in years anyway?).
87 was intended to convey that my legs are long compared to my torso, but that it's not extreme enough that I should have trouble buying clothes. 95 was intended to convey that, nonetheless, the visual impression I present is one of legginess, yet sadly, that and $2.00 has generally sufficed to get me on the subway.
(Alternate answer: A foot and a half, and boy was I surprised.)
How is thinking that foot-binding is a bad practice treating a woman like a child?
Surely treating a woman as a full, responsible agent doesn't mean that you can't express disapproval of such a choice, or deplore the reasons that a choice should be made.
He's making a fair point that foot-binding was done to children. In a counterfactual world where adult women were choosing to bind their own feet, though, I think my point would still hold. (Actually, I'm not sure how much adult maintenance had to be done on bound feet -- it's possible that continuing to have bound feet was an adult choice.)
I'm no expert but I thought one had to bind the feet before they started to grow in order to deform their growth.
That is foot binding was done to children.
Surely treating a woman as a full, responsible agent doesn't mean that you can't express disapproval of such a choice, or deplore the reasons that a choice should be made.
That is tricky. If the woman is truly making an informed free choice about her own body then who are we to judge her?
If we are free to judge then where do we draw the line? Can we tut tut over her choice of hair style and clothing or must we hold our tongues unless it involves surgery?
See I want to clear about when I can start criticizing adult women.
Whenever the hell you feel like it. And if I think what you say is stupid, I can criticize you for your criticism. And if you think I'm overly touchy, you can criticize me for that. Free speech is a beautiful thing.
Footbinding I think had to be done as early as two years old. But women were 'freely' choosing to have it done to their daughters (much like genital mutilation now).
It is tricky. I would withold judgment largely because the best person to know why she, say, got breast implants is that woman. (No one here has been saying that cosmetic surgery should be illegal.)
On the other hand, I think 'free' choice here is somewhat illusory. No one's forcing any one to get implants or be soccer hooligans, e.g., but certainly those choices aren't made in a vacuum; I doubt cosmetic surgery is a multi-million dollar industry solely because people all-by-themselves woke up one morning and decided, with no societal input at all, that their body was wrong.
Young girls' feet, usually at age 6 but sometimes earlier, were wrapped in tight bandages so they could not grow normally, would break and become deformed as they reached adulthood. (via Wiki)
The thing that struck me as odd about the original topic of vaginal cosmetic surgery is that, how can I say this, it involves changing an area that will probably be viewed by a relatively few people.
Also you would think that by the time the viewer gets to the, um, promised land the viewer would be trusted by the ummm, flasher/disclother/discloser patient. Damn this is hard to talk about. I think I'm saying if you can't trust someone to be nice when they get a glimpse of the promised land then maybe they don't deserve a glimpse in the first place.
God what a mine field. I can honestly say I have never in my whole life heard a real live man/person ever comment on the appearance of a specific woman's vagina. Maybe I live a sheltered life but I don't think so.
Anyway, consider my 'footbinding' comment to be applied to a world in which adult women bound their own feet. Most people would be comfortable condemning such a practice as incredibly stupid and generally an awful thing, right?
Would said foot binding be reversible? If so then I would think it is stupid like that stupid guy with the stupid tiger face but I wouldn't think it awful.
Yeah, Tripp. It does seem pretty weird to think that a comment would spark a surgery (rather than an immediate ass-kicking), in the way boobs are kind of, you know, hanging out there and noticeable... on the other hand I wonder how many women get implants due to a comment, or just an expectation that they should look a certain way.
Well, that's the thing. I think this set people off (or at least it set me off) because any chain of events I can come up with that would lead a woman to conclude that she needs genital cosmetic surgery for visual reasons involves her being either neurotic to the point of insanity, or involved with a world-class asshole. I can't come up a reason for such a choice that makes any sense at all to me.
That makes some sense, but if that's the best reason I really think it's a pernicious practice. Like someone said on another site in relation to the same story, most straight men see a lot more vulvas in porn than they do in real life, and probably earlier. Developing an artificial norm with relation to a body part that most men don't see many of in real life, seems like it's going to give men completely unnecessary issues relating to sex with, like, actual women.
Sam, not quite, only because I don't know how 'making them right' applies to a cosmetic surgery context. Making them look like a textbook? Maybe that applies to teeth.
Otherwise, what LB said. Outside of medical and, um well, public pubic reasons, it's hard to think of a reason why someone would want it done that didn't involve an unhealthy amount of self-loathing.
Not about a specific person. I've heard jokes, of course, but they involve some unreal person.
Besides strippers I'd guess someone who posed for nude photos would be concerned about this. Other than that, though - geez, use the money for a wide screen TV.
Well, having the surgery itself is a negative -- expense, pain, risk of complications. If a friend wanted to have such surgery, I'd worry about her state of mind, but I'd also try to talk her out ofit on practical grounds.
Practical grounds are a large part of it. If my mother were to feel anxious about aging and begin dyeing her hair and actively trying to lose weight and gain muscle tone, I would feel totally different about that than if she felt anxious about aging and decided that she needed to have a surgeon restore her body to its appearance when she was 20.
For me, as I've said, it's largely a risk vs. reward and it's also part of a continuum. I don't think it's bad to want to look beautiful, or to take steps to make oneself appear to be attractive. I do think, however, that the risks of surgery do not outweigh the benefits.
I am young. But not beautiful by anyone's reckoning.
But really, there's something amiss with our concept of beauty as it does not allow for aging at all. People aren't sixteen forever. Why should the standard for a 50 year-old be the same as that of a 20 year-old?
(Dollars to doughnuts someone is going to start explaining evolutionary psychology now: "Well, you see Cala, our species is evolved to find only the young and fertile sexually attractive. This is why men are attracted to supermodels, because emaciation is a strong predictor of fertility. Society has absolutely nothing to do with anything.")
(I should note that I'm not making fun of any one who's been posting here, just that the question seemed like the perfect lead-in for someone to drone on about evolutionary psychology.)
sonofabitch! Left a < in there somewhere. Comment continues...
great genes. This was especially true back in the savannah--if you were still walking around after the boob job your immune system had to be through the roof. Hard to sterilize the rocks they were shoving into your titties, and the implantation procedure was no walk in the park either.
Um, maybe I should've taken the hint and not finished that.
(We like soccer hooligans because back in caveman days when weapons were scarce, men had to kick around hedgehogs with their bare feet in order to gain nourishing meat that would allow them to have the energy to sleep with the women.)
Also, in response to Tripp and apo above, I've actually noticed and commented upon (to a male friend after the fact) the beauty of a particular vagina before. But I've got serious problems, so.
Gawd! We left out the most obvious one--men are genetically programmed to be attracted only to 20-year-olds because in the savannah the average person died at 20! Any female who was over 20 was probably also dead! And sleeping with the dead won't help you pass your genes on, much.
(N.B. See first comment here for why the main statistic is bogus.)
Well, you see Sam, the women that lusted after the men that weren't adept at kicking hedgehogs to death rarely got any sex, because those men had no energy for it. So the genes for not liking soccer hooligans were less likely to get passed on.
Or that the average meant that people died at 20. I'm not sure why this is exactly -- perhaps because now with better medicine and lower infant mortality, someone in the United States can use the average life expectancy to guess how long they'll live.
I think that's it, Cala--actually this bit about infant mortality is pretty much the one thing I remember from my college population dynamics course (which was pretty watered down anyway). The problem is that average life expectancy is a pretty useless number and people use it anyway.
This has lead to some really spectacular stupidity about Social Security--like the average life expectancy for an African-American male is just over 65, so that means the average African-American male pays SS taxes all his life and then drops dead just after he starts collecting. In fact if you Google African-American life expectancy the first hit is exactly such a snow job! Hmph. I'd link African-American life expectancy to the #2 hit, but Ogged has made Googlebombing inoperative in the comments.
He is a totally, totally nice guy, I'm very happy to report. My gf used to work for the agency that used to represent him (yes, that's two "used to's").
I gotta go but you have totally made my day. I'm thinking I need to mail you my script for Jeff to autograph. Geez, that would make my year! This is really un-freaking-belieavable!
Can't say that I find this particularly weirder than any other elective plastic surgery, but then I find elective plastic surgery pretty damn weird.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 08-16-05 11:06 AM
Truly, we've lost the ability to find things beautiful, as opposed to making them right.
What does this mean? It sounds like something that belongs in the joke personal ad for you that FL did.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 08-16-05 11:06 AM
Too bad you dropped out of the B&T reading group, Tim.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 08-16-05 11:07 AM
Apostropher, do you never find breast implants appealing? But that it would consign me to Republicanhood, I'd admit that sometimes the effect works. (I am guessing about who has implants.)
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 08-16-05 11:10 AM
Ah, the ever-clever, "The answers are contained within" dodge. I've used it myself, ogged.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 08-16-05 11:12 AM
Maybe if you'd asked more nicely.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 08-16-05 11:13 AM
Amanda describes the desired look here.
I really can't see much of a market for this beyond strippers and porn stars. A world-wide network of strippers would explain why patients fly to the doctor from across the world. It would also explain the porn in the purses.
I have a hard time thinking the demand for external genitalia surgery is very strong. Certainly that one doctor wants it to be strong. But, I think he is exagerating. People may fly to him from all over the world because there is noone else to go to. And, even he doesn't do it full time.
Posted by Joe O | Link to this comment | 08-16-05 11:26 AM
Elective cosmetic surgery is very weird. I think the vagina surgery weirds me out more largely because it reminds me of operations designed to give a woman her 'virginity' back; guys wanting their playground a certain way and anything deviant need to be surgically altered. (Breast implants are a bit this way, too, in some cases.)
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 08-16-05 11:29 AM
I understand breast reduction surgery. I thought about having it done myself at one point. (There's a lipo-only version now.) It's about comfort and proportionality too.)
I think this stuff is pretty absurd. Do a lot of men think about the perfect vagina all the time? There are plenty of other look issues to worry about without this one.
Posted by bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 08-16-05 12:00 PM
I'll put up a fight, just because it's a slow day. A lot of those women seem to enjoy sex a lot more after the surgery, which most likely isn't due to an alleviation of worrying about appearances. That's a nice thing, and maybe something worth spending money on. (After all, his office is across from a Jaguar dealership, the site of much less fulfilling economic exchanges.)
In conclusion, I'd like say: "youthful and aesthetically appealing vulva."
Posted by FL | Link to this comment | 08-16-05 12:06 PM
You won't get a fight from me. I'm sure there can be non-crazy reasons to do some of these things, but some of the people mentioned in the article are just--can we still use this word without irony?--shallow.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 08-16-05 12:09 PM
can I say there really is no single perfect vagina? That is, they are all perfect, in one way or another, unless there are signs of serious overuse.
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 08-16-05 12:10 PM
It's elective cosmetic surgery. Big fuckin' deal. As the technology improves and becomes more commonplace we'll be able to reshape and transform our bodies in all sorts of bizarre ways - not merely to conform to an ideal, but to comport with our various fetishes and fantasies. This isn't a good thing or a bad thing. It's just a thing. Get over it.
Posted by Isle of Toads | Link to this comment | 08-16-05 12:14 PM
but some of the people mentioned in the article are just--can we still use this word without irony?--shallow.
On this blog? No.
Posted by Isle of Toads | Link to this comment | 08-16-05 12:15 PM
Toads, I don't think you understand the issue.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 08-16-05 12:17 PM
I'm not sure the surgery is creepy; I think it's the idea that there are large groups of men out there rating vaginas that's wierd. I can't say I've ever thought or heard about an attractive vagina. It's just never been something that I fixed on visually.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 08-16-05 12:18 PM
bostongirl, yeah -- I get breast reduction for pain or back surgery or reconstruction after a masectomy, but I'm not sure if that's the motivation for a majority of women. Likewise, a functional or medical reason for surgery on genitalia makes sense... but to just be sexier?
That bothers me.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 08-16-05 12:19 PM
FL
there are two different surgeries. The external genitalia surgery is purely cosmetic.
Posted by joe o | Link to this comment | 08-16-05 12:20 PM
Even cosmetic surgery is still surgery, with all its attendant dangers and risks; 'it's just a thing. Get over it' seems to be exactly the wrong response to what is in many cases major surgery on a perfectly healthy person.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 08-16-05 12:22 PM
joe o,
Some women, I really have no idea how common this is, have overly large outer vulva. They can grow far out from the body, and become not only a nuissance, but painful as it becomes difficult not to sit on them. So, there are at least some cases when external vaginal surgery would provide real benefits.
Ogged, as to your 2, apparantly they want playboy vaginas. I can find some links if you like.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 08-16-05 12:26 PM
10 and 11 are right. When this story surfaced a while ago, I read that vaginal alteration refers to a couple different kinds of surgeries. Some women may also elect to have I-suppose-you'd-call-them hood reductions in order to reveal "hidden" clitorises or just maximize surface area (and resulting awesomeness).
The purely cosmetic surgery is labioplasty, right? It's not obvious to me that that would improve sex, except insofar as it improves how a woman feels about herself, which affects sex a lot. Is it less shallow if a woman is saying "I don't want that"?
Posted by Kriston | Link to this comment | 08-16-05 12:33 PM
it's the idea that there are large groups of men out there rating vaginas that's wierd
Yes, this is the bit that really creeped me out. And the suggestion that a woman would actually hear such ratings or comparisons. The day a man hops into my bed and makes a comment like "your labia don't look like (insert name of porn starhere)'s" is the day he gets booted out of my bed for good. I sort of get comparing what you see on objectified porn stars, but when you enter the real world and get to the point of having a live woman in front of you in an intimate moment? Ummm?
And besides, don't men have enough penis insecurities to prevent them from making such comments to someone who might send a few barbed observations right back in their direction? (The answer to that is yes, yes they do. I may have a small sample to draw upon here, but since they all seem interested in offering up a self-assessment of size -- often inaccurate -- and care about it way more than I do ...)
Posted by profgrrrrl | Link to this comment | 08-16-05 12:44 PM
"Even cosmetic surgery is still surgery, with all its attendant dangers and risks; 'it's just a thing. Get over it' seems to be exactly the wrong response to what is in many cases major surgery on a perfectly healthy person."
Do you say the say same thing to people who want to ride motorcycles, or parachute, or visit 3rd world countries? Namely, point out that it's elective and dangerous and therefore stupid?
If not, why not?
As for this particular issue, it seems that everyone is happy to get upset about this without specifying exactly what is angering them. Get specific people: do you oppose cosmetic surgery in general (ie you make a big fuss about male calf implants and steroid use) or only women? Or is it only female genitalia that upset you?
Finally we seem to have an awful lot of "I don't know but I'm going to shoot my mouth off anyway". How many of those criticizing the vaginal rejuvenation have had kids? If you haven't, then you, as a woman, aren't really in a position to say whether the post-birth stretch affects your sex life or not, are you? Likewise for men. It looks to me like we have a whole lot of 20-somethings here giving their grand pronouncements, based on their massive life experience, of how 40-year olds should live their lives.
Just because the article goes for sensationalism by DELIBERATELY (IMHO) conflating two different issues, namely genital surgery to achieve a specific appearance, and surgery to restore functionality (or deal with congenital disorders) doesn't mean that you have to go along with their game.
Posted by Maynard Handley | Link to this comment | 08-16-05 12:55 PM
Do you say the say same thing to people who want to ride motorcycles, or parachute, or visit 3rd world countries? Namely, point out that it's elective and dangerous and therefore stupid?
If not, why not?
I think she's talking about the risk weighed against the potential return.
Posted by Sam K | Link to this comment | 08-16-05 12:59 PM
Maynard, can you point me to a single comment that specifically criticizes vaginal surgery? And, out of that nonexistant group, how many of those are 20 year old men?
Certainly some commenters have expressed misgivings about cosmetic surgery in toto, and some have expressed misgivings about certain conditions around vaginal cosmetic surgery, but that's it.
It's odd that you get so mad things which have happened only in your imagination.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 08-16-05 1:04 PM
Harrumph.
I think if he could do "dual" surgery on both the male and the female so that they were custom made for each other in a unique lock/key fashion that would be pretty kewl. It might cut down on infidelity, too. But probably not.
Posted by Tripp | Link to this comment | 08-16-05 1:08 PM
Thank you, Sam. Risk versus potential return, is indeed part of it. Part of it is, and what makes it different from motorcycle riding, what Lindsay Beyerstein pointed out; that much cosmetic surgery seems to come with the idea 'you're vile-looking; this will make you acceptable.' I do feel the same way for most other cosmetic surgery; fixing functional problems is okay, the idea one's body is vile solely for not matching airbrushed magazines is not.
I think everyone here was reasonably careful to distinguish between medical need, like post-childbirth rejuvenation or and the idea that if your vulva doesn't match a picture of a porn star that you need surgery.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 08-16-05 1:12 PM
Cala,
At which point on the risk/reward scale are we free to jump in and start blaming men for what some women do?
Posted by Tripp | Link to this comment | 08-16-05 1:18 PM
And to the extent that there's been negative comments about genital surgery, they've all, I think, been about cosmetic surgery rather than about surgery to restore or enhance sexual functioning. Having surgery to enhance the appearance of your vulva, or wanting your sex partner to do so, is just screwed up.
(I would note that I have had two kids, and know many other women who have, and there is no necessary connection between childbearing and sexual disfunction. That doesn't mean there's no one out there whose sex life would be improved by surgery, but this isn't an unmet need of forty-somethings generally.)
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 08-16-05 1:23 PM
Tripp, it's hard to read the tenor of your question. Is it hostile? What sense of "blame" are you concerned with? Do you reject the notion that women do things to please men, or do you simply reject the notion that men are responsible for women submitting to their desires? Or is it some other sense you are concerned with?
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 08-16-05 1:28 PM
Maynard - comments about The Mineshaft and blog-crushes notwithstanding, no one on this site is likely to see your neuticles, much less comment on them. Does anyone here sound like an absolutist on vaginal surgery?
Cala - I certainly understand why women (and one hopes, men) worry about women submitting to surgery for purely aesthetic reasons, but I'm suspicious of strong claims against it. Becoming more attractive to the group you traffic in has to be a fairly large and good life-changing events in one's life; surgery is a cheap way to do that. Life can be a lot easier if you're attractive, and recognition of that fact is, I suspect, what drives a lot of plastic surgery decisions. (Note that the estimations about how much more attractive one will be after surgery are not necessarily good ones.)
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 08-16-05 1:35 PM
Do you say the say same thing to people who want to ride motorcycles, or parachute, or visit 3rd world countries?
I usually just ask them who gets their stereo if, God forbid, something happens to them.
Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 08-16-05 1:37 PM
I sincerely cannot believe that there has ever been a conversation in which a man has suggested to a woman that she needs to change the appearance of her vagina. "So, Moloch, there was something you wanted to tell me?"
Posted by Kriston | Link to this comment | 08-16-05 1:39 PM
It certainly seems weird in the US. Worldwide of course, not so much.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 08-16-05 1:50 PM
I sincerely cannot believe that there has ever been a conversation in which a man has suggested to a woman that she needs to change the appearance of her vagina.
Hey, your mom brought it up..
Posted by Sam K | Link to this comment | 08-16-05 1:53 PM
I think the case for this being motivated by societal misogyny (not here, but in TFA) is just a bit overstated.
The obvious parallel is to penis enlargement. Which, if Salon is to be believed, probably exists/works. I think everyone agrees that it's a pretty silly thing to do, but I don't think people find it particularly troubling. And it's also no doubt prompted by perceived pressures from the opposite sex. Admittedly, there's no cutting involved, but I'm not sure that makes it so hugely different (esp. if this surgery just uses local anesthetic).
Posted by tom | Link to this comment | 08-16-05 1:56 PM
Tripp, you can jump in whenever, but I really wasn't thinking of this as 'omg! men made me hate my body!!!!!''
SCMT, true. Attractive people have it easier.
But a couple of points -- most of the newspaper-type articles I've read on those correlations are talking about extremes versus norms, or on physical problems like having an unreconstructed cleft palate. I'm not so sure going from a B cup to a D cup counts, or getting calf implants, is what that data counts..
And (while I'm speculating) I'm not sure surgery does as much as people think. (Anyone watch that show Extreme Makeover? Most of the time, I think they would have looked just the same if they skipped the surgery, but kept the weightloss and better hair.) Sure, it makes you look good.
But so does keeping fit, finding hairstyles and clothing styles that suit you, wearing makeup (something women are lucky in, I'll admit) that plays up your better features. Fashion, to me, is about flattering what you have, not trying to erase it. Getting your hair cut and getting in shape is certainly a lot cheaper and safer than getting surgery.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 08-16-05 1:56 PM
I sincerely cannot believe that there has ever been a conversation in which a man has suggested to a woman that she needs to change the appearance of her vagina.
I'm with you on the increduality, but as I'm also surprised when I hear things like this,
I may have a small sample to draw upon here, but since they all seem interested in offering up a self-assessment of size -- often inaccurate -- and care about it way more than I do ...
I don't consider myself a very good judge of what goes on in bedroom talk.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 08-16-05 2:16 PM
I don't consider myself a very good judge of what goes on in bedroom talk.
Michael -- it isn't necessarily bedroom talk. It gets sneaked into other conversations. One guy (more than once) made some comment about wondering how smallish guys felt given that he's "a bit bigger than average" -- although I'd peg him as average. Another one, during a discussion on living with what you've got (in general) sort of apologized about being kind of small (he wasn't -- was on the larger side of average IMHO and I think he was being sincere and not fishing for a compliment). Etc.
Posted by profgrrrrl | Link to this comment | 08-16-05 2:36 PM
With all this blogging, I can't even remember if I've ever mentioned my enormous wang.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 08-16-05 2:42 PM
Oh, ogged -- you should have let me take a photo of you in your new pants when we went on our date. I'm sure everyone would have noticed the sizeable bulge.
Posted by profgrrrrl | Link to this comment | 08-16-05 2:44 PM
Some things are private, pg.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 08-16-05 2:46 PM
Does that include resetting the TiVo?
Posted by profgrrrrl | Link to this comment | 08-16-05 2:47 PM
And some things are for liveblogging.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 08-16-05 2:48 PM
Apostropher, do you never find breast implants appealing?
Not if I can tell they're implants. To be honest, I don't get what the big deal is about breast size anyhow. I've dated women with large breasts and women with nearly non-existent ones and I can't say it made a whit of difference. I'm just happy when they show 'em to me, regardless.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 08-16-05 2:48 PM
OK, I'll be right over ...
Posted by profgrrrrl | Link to this comment | 08-16-05 2:49 PM
Dude! Score!
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 08-16-05 2:52 PM
[hands in the air] Titties!
Or are they brrrreasts?
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 08-16-05 3:06 PM
Hmpf. She's not here yet.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 08-16-05 3:08 PM
I prefer titties in that context, given a choice.
Ogged, you live far away! Give me some time. (Should have taken advantage of the offer when I was out there ...)
Posted by profgrrrrl | Link to this comment | 08-16-05 3:10 PM
Better hurry, pg, that woman from the personals site might write back any minute.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 08-16-05 3:14 PM
Yes, but does she have a fantastic rack?
Posted by profgrrrrl | Link to this comment | 08-16-05 3:19 PM
She doesn't seem to, no.
But she knows kung-fu!
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 08-16-05 3:22 PM
Ah. So you like it rough. I get it. All cool.
Posted by profgrrrrl | Link to this comment | 08-16-05 3:23 PM
No no, I need protection, since I'm a flouncing little girl, as Timbot likes to say.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 08-16-05 3:26 PM
Live on the edge a bit, ogged! (She puts away all of the toys and whatnot she was packing ...)
Posted by profgrrrrl | Link to this comment | 08-16-05 3:34 PM
Technically, you're "not even a girl".
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 08-16-05 3:35 PM
pg, I'm beginning to think you're just teasing me (and the greater unfogged readership).
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 08-16-05 3:37 PM
Well, can't blame a girl for having a little bit of fun ... but does that mean you were interested in the toys and whatnot?
But in all seriousness, when I was out in oggedville I found you quite charming. I'd have gone on a second date ...
Posted by profgrrrrl | Link to this comment | 08-16-05 3:42 PM
Well, thanks, that's very nice of you. It's getting the first date that seems to be the problem.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 08-16-05 3:44 PM
but what savory flavor in those teases, ogged.
yearning is living. Without want there is boredom.
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 08-16-05 3:44 PM
Uh, thanks for the clarification, slol.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 08-16-05 3:45 PM
That's because you actually have to ask! And your blog readers can't set it up for you all of the time ...
Posted by profgrrrrl | Link to this comment | 08-16-05 3:45 PM
you actually have to ask!
That's crazy talk. Old High Mongolian, probably.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 08-16-05 3:50 PM
Well.
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 08-16-05 3:55 PM
Still hurting from that one, huh?
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 08-16-05 3:57 PM
An elephantine memory for slights may not have served me well, but it has served me constantly.
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 08-16-05 3:57 PM
I've dated women with large breasts and women with nearly non-existent ones and I can't say it made a whit of difference.
I don't think dating is when it matters. It's in getting to dating. And breasts are a prominent feature that men often notice.
So far as I know, I've never spent intimate time with someone with implants, so I don't claim to know if they could enhance that aspect of the dating experience.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 08-16-05 4:13 PM
It's not like having big boobs are an automatic man-grabber; at least judging from the number of D-cup women that are single that I know.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 08-16-05 5:11 PM
Well, in real life they tend to correlate with a certain degree of stockiness. The bone-thin/D-cup body is not all that common in the absence of surgery.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 08-16-05 5:15 PM
It's not like having big boobs are an automatic man-grabber
That definitely requires surgery.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 08-16-05 5:16 PM
What do you think training bras are for?
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 08-16-05 5:17 PM
"Sit! Stay! Roll over!"
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 08-16-05 5:18 PM
All right, I'm not a huge man grabber, and I'm 34DD and reasonably attractive. (I'm not overweight 5'3" and just weighed in at 115lbs) In fact, I think that the proportions are all wrong. I can't buy clothes that fit. I do have some high-end thrift store finds; French clothes tend to fit okay.
Posted by bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 08-16-05 5:49 PM
I do love this blog.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 08-16-05 5:52 PM
Ditto, b-girl.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 08-16-05 5:54 PM
Ditto what? You're both 5'3" and 34DD or you both have trouble finding clothes that fit?
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 08-16-05 5:55 PM
The sexiest thing a woman can say is 'Perhaps.'
I'm 5'4''.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 08-16-05 5:57 PM
If the former, they should both figure out if they live close enough to each other to borrow outfits.
But that would be rough for shopping (and I didn't mean to imply that skinny with big tits wasn't a possible body type, just that it wasn't particularly common). Any deviation from exactly what the six 6 fitting model is built like gets really annoying when you're trying to buy clothes.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 08-16-05 6:00 PM
That should have been "size 6", obviously.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 08-16-05 6:03 PM
size 6
I've never understood why an item of women's clothing requires only one number to identify its fit while men's shirts, jackets, or trousers usually require at least two, sometimes with a letter involved.
Posted by Anonymous | Link to this comment | 08-16-05 6:04 PM
It isn't particularly common. Bra shopping can be hell.
And no designer seems to account for hips or an ass. If they like designing for 12 year old boys so much, why don't they just design boys' clothes?
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 08-16-05 6:05 PM
Because if we aren't the same shape as the model, we don't deserve clothes that fit. Really, it's insane -- you just end up shopping around till you find brands who happen to be designed for someone roughly your shape, but it's all trial and error.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 08-16-05 6:08 PM
81: me.
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 08-16-05 6:12 PM
Or you find someone who knows how to take in pants.
(Sorry, ogged, for contributing to making your blog gayer than you want.)
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 08-16-05 6:13 PM
I dunno, slo, maybe someone figured women didn't want their waist size easily guessable or something? Silly -- I'd trade a known waist size for an inseam length.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 08-16-05 6:14 PM
See 75 -- I think he's good with listening to women discuss breasts.
And I know, but I hate getting everything tailored. I end up just not wearing clothes that fit. Pants length, for heavens sake! Why most women's pants don't have inseam measurements is unimaginable. I'm not all that tall, or really disproportionately leggy, and I end up in floods if I don't watch it.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 08-16-05 6:18 PM
If I am ever rich, I plan to stop buying clothes off-the rack. I will get everything custom-made, because it's hard to fix a jacket, for example. I really did want a breast reduction. A full C cup would be fine, but even then my narrow shoulders would get in the way. Ann Taylor is out of the question.
Benetton is okay. My black knit Christian Dior top is perfect, now that I've taken out the shoulder pads.
Posted by bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 08-16-05 6:40 PM
But my main point is that I do not act as a magnet for men.
Posted by bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 08-16-05 6:42 PM
Sadly, for clothes that really fit me well off the rack, I shop at Brooks Brothers. Which, okay, I am a lawyer, but it's still depressing.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 08-16-05 6:43 PM
shopping around till you find brands who happen to be designed for someone roughly your shape
yeah, in my case this involves shopping at totally different stores for different items.
and the inseam thing is ludicrous. i'm 5'1," and i had to go with a skirt suit for the 80 zillion interviews i have this month because every time i get suit pants hemmed, they look completely idiotic.
luckily, i've heretofore been a grungy student, so i've been able to get away with chopping off jeans and/or walking on them. sigh.
Posted by silvana | Link to this comment | 08-16-05 6:44 PM
And on your other point, men are either less shallow, or more complexly shallow, than they are often given credit for. Being a man-magnet (I say, as an objective observer of, rather than participant in, the phenomenon. I'm certainly not one myself) has much less to do with being objectively hot (big tits, whatever) than with attitude and behavior.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 08-16-05 6:48 PM
This is all crazy-talk. Cruel crazy-talk.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 08-16-05 6:57 PM
Some guys like legs. Legs do not happen when you're 5'4''. (Complexly shallow, I like it.) Point is, it's not like big boobs mean you sail through life being attractive (though you may bounce off of things you run into.)
Now in grad school, I can get away with the grungier look, but the work world meant I had a tailor (and wore more skirts, which I can pull off better with my stubby short legs.)
SCMT, everyone on the internet who says they're female is really 47, balding, and male.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 08-16-05 7:06 PM
Some guys like legs. Legs do not happen when you're 5'4''.
The grass is always greener. I, myself, am leggy as all get out, but this also fails to result in men hurling themselves at my feet en masse. Not that I'd particularly want them to these days, but back when I was looking it would have been nice.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 08-16-05 7:11 PM
Maybe we can attribute the many people here who have crushes on you to your legginess somehow.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 08-16-05 7:19 PM
SCMT, everyone on the internet who says they're female is really 47, balding, and male.
Thank you. Sanity restored.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 08-16-05 7:23 PM
Shit, did I leave the webcam on?
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 08-16-05 7:23 PM
But seriously, Ben, I'm hurt. It's not the sparkling banter? (bats eyelashes)
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 08-16-05 7:28 PM
Well, all we know of you is the sparkling banter. But maybe that itself derives from legginess. (Sparkling banter in the non-leggy obviously has a different origin.)
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 08-16-05 7:34 PM
From titties!
(Hooray!)
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 08-16-05 7:47 PM
And somewhere, ogged flings his hands in the air.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 08-16-05 8:03 PM
I have a 29" inseam, with a 34" inch waist.
Dress pants only fit if they're 37" waist. I have short arms too. My boss told me to roll up the sleeves on my shirts so that I don't look like Linus.
Posted by tweedledopey | Link to this comment | 08-16-05 8:18 PM
Huh. I guess it's still frustrating when they don't make clothes in your size, even if the sizing is explicit ehough that you know they won't fit properly before you try them on.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 08-16-05 8:29 PM
TD--Laughing about your boss telling you how to avoid looking like Linus.
I think that short people can have legs that are almost leggy. I mean they're not ever going to be Uma Thurman-style leggy, but some people have very short torsoes. So, their legs don't look stubby at all.
Posted by bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 08-16-05 8:46 PM
Oh and as a kid, I was always short. There's a period when girls tend to be taller than boys, but i was always shorter. But I often had to buy the largest size kids pants and cinch the waist, because otherwise the pants were too short.
Posted by bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 08-16-05 8:50 PM
I always make sure to buy t-shirts and golf shirts in medium so that the sleeves don't go halfway down my forearm. Narrow shoulders and short arms? Yeah, that's me. Torso of a 6'4" inch person? That's me too. Legs of a 5'8" person? Still me.
Let's face it. I'm odd shaped.
Posted by tweedledopey | Link to this comment | 08-16-05 9:08 PM
Long torso and shorter (and muscular) legs here. Let's just face it. Clothes are not shaped for people.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 08-16-05 11:11 PM
Re: 82, 108 amen. I've finally gotten to the point where I don't care what size pants I get, so long as they fit (since size is different everywhere). What I hate is when you have to get the XXL *just* to fit your hips and the pants are huge everywhere else. Hopefully I'll get to the tailoring eventually but that'll have to wait until after grad school.
Posted by Karyn | Link to this comment | 08-17-05 11:16 AM
When will Ogged's hands come down?
Posted by alex | Link to this comment | 08-17-05 12:52 PM
Whenever a woman reveals her titties, anywhere in the world, ogged's hands go up.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 08-17-05 12:59 PM
Prehaps that's his crisis. He couldn't blog because his hands were stuck in titties! position.
Posted by Sam K | Link to this comment | 08-17-05 1:00 PM
makes it hard to type. which explains his occasional absence.
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 08-17-05 1:01 PM
alas, Sam K, you've pwned me.
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 08-17-05 1:01 PM
And I'm just a n00bzorz!
Posted by Sam K | Link to this comment | 08-17-05 1:03 PM
From Rescue Me last night:
Double peaches of pleasure.
Posted by tweedledopey | Link to this comment | 08-17-05 1:39 PM
Okay, call me the king of the comment-then-dash-away, and I know this thread has morphed and died and here I am, as my father would say, looking a dead horse up the ass, but I do want to respond to Michael's questions in 30:
Tripp, it's hard to read the tenor of your question. Is it hostile? What sense of "blame" are you concerned with? Do you reject the notion that women do things to please men, or do you simply reject the notion that men are responsible for women submitting to their desires? Or is it some other sense you are concerned with?
To start with I dislike meddling in other people's affairs - who gave me the right to be "concerned" about what some other adult does?
Then we've got the male/female power thing going on. If a woman does something because she thinks it will please a man is that wrong and is that something that all the rest of us need to "correct"?
The bottom line is that nature has made us into two sexes and nature has also given each of us a desire to want to attract the other. I presume that without these drives the human species would have died out long ago.
I don't blame men for women who do things to attract men. That is as silly as blaming women for soccer hooligans because the hooligans did it because they thought they'd be attractive to the babes.
Posted by Tripp | Link to this comment | 08-18-05 8:57 AM
If a woman does something because she thinks it will please a man is that wrong and is that something that all the rest of us need to "correct"?
Depends on the circumstances. In China, women used to cripple themselves by binding their feet to be attractive to men. I have to think most people would be concerned about that -- to the point of suggesting that something active should be done to stop it -- if it were still going on. This obviously isn't that bad, but on the other hand no one here was suggesting that jackbooted (what is a jackboot, exactly?) thugs should go and shut this guy's practice down. Just saying it was creepy.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 08-18-05 10:18 AM
It depends on the extent of what the woman (or man) does. Surely people are always going to do things to attract the opposite sex, from hairstyles to makeup to acting like soccer hooligans. Sex is fun. But just because the person freely chooses to (e.g) bind their feet or get implants doesn't mean that the culture that accepts such things as attractive is wholly exempt from criticism.
A jackboot is a military, heavy leather boot that extends above the knee, I think.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 08-18-05 11:05 AM
Now, see, wearing jackboots to attract the opposite sex - perfectly unexceptionable.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 08-18-05 11:07 AM
Unexceptionable, though perhaps not the most successful.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 08-18-05 11:09 AM
Looks like it depends on how leggy you are.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 08-18-05 11:25 AM
LB, how much did your legs grow between 87 and 95?
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 08-18-05 11:26 AM
She said she's not disproportionately leggy, Weiner.
Plus it's not polite to make such explicit enquiries regarding a woman's age (and don't most people shrink when they get that high up in years anyway?).
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 08-18-05 11:29 AM
87 was intended to convey that my legs are long compared to my torso, but that it's not extreme enough that I should have trouble buying clothes. 95 was intended to convey that, nonetheless, the visual impression I present is one of legginess, yet sadly, that and $2.00 has generally sufficed to get me on the subway.
(Alternate answer: A foot and a half, and boy was I surprised.)
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 08-18-05 11:30 AM
Well, OK, but "not all that tall" is also relevant. I should probably have stood pat at 122.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 08-18-05 11:42 AM
I knew girls would get involved with this. When I said "woman" I meant adults, not children.
Why does the question of "protecting women" usually end up wandering into the "treat women like children" forest?
Well, I think I know the answer to that but why do so many sensible adult women do it (treat other women like children) too?
Posted by Tripp | Link to this comment | 08-18-05 11:44 AM
How is thinking that foot-binding is a bad practice treating a woman like a child?
Surely treating a woman as a full, responsible agent doesn't mean that you can't express disapproval of such a choice, or deplore the reasons that a choice should be made.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 08-18-05 11:54 AM
He's making a fair point that foot-binding was done to children. In a counterfactual world where adult women were choosing to bind their own feet, though, I think my point would still hold. (Actually, I'm not sure how much adult maintenance had to be done on bound feet -- it's possible that continuing to have bound feet was an adult choice.)
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 08-18-05 12:01 PM
Is the idea that foot-binding is done to children, not adults? I don't know if that's true, but that's how I read Tripp's comment.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 08-18-05 12:01 PM
Pwned by LB again! But I zinged you back at my place.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 08-18-05 12:01 PM
I saw, and was indeed pwned. (I am so not a gamer. Is that a 133t version of 'owned'? or is there another origin?)
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 08-18-05 12:06 PM
I think you have to start the foot-binding early if you want it to take properly.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 08-18-05 12:08 PM
I don't know, I picked all this up from Wolfson.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 08-18-05 12:08 PM
134 to 132.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 08-18-05 12:09 PM
I'm no expert but I thought one had to bind the feet before they started to grow in order to deform their growth.
That is foot binding was done to children.
Surely treating a woman as a full, responsible agent doesn't mean that you can't express disapproval of such a choice, or deplore the reasons that a choice should be made.
That is tricky. If the woman is truly making an informed free choice about her own body then who are we to judge her?
If we are free to judge then where do we draw the line? Can we tut tut over her choice of hair style and clothing or must we hold our tongues unless it involves surgery?
See I want to clear about when I can start criticizing adult women.
Posted by Tripp | Link to this comment | 08-18-05 12:09 PM
Whenever the hell you feel like it. And if I think what you say is stupid, I can criticize you for your criticism. And if you think I'm overly touchy, you can criticize me for that. Free speech is a beautiful thing.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 08-18-05 12:13 PM
Footbinding I think had to be done as early as two years old. But women were 'freely' choosing to have it done to their daughters (much like genital mutilation now).
It is tricky. I would withold judgment largely because the best person to know why she, say, got breast implants is that woman. (No one here has been saying that cosmetic surgery should be illegal.)
On the other hand, I think 'free' choice here is somewhat illusory. No one's forcing any one to get implants or be soccer hooligans, e.g., but certainly those choices aren't made in a vacuum; I doubt cosmetic surgery is a multi-million dollar industry solely because people all-by-themselves woke up one morning and decided, with no societal input at all, that their body was wrong.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 08-18-05 12:31 PM
Posted by Sam K | Link to this comment | 08-18-05 12:37 PM
Free speech is a beautiful thing.
No it isn't. har har har de har har
The thing that struck me as odd about the original topic of vaginal cosmetic surgery is that, how can I say this, it involves changing an area that will probably be viewed by a relatively few people.
Also you would think that by the time the viewer gets to the, um, promised land the viewer would be trusted by the ummm, flasher/disclother/discloser patient. Damn this is hard to talk about. I think I'm saying if you can't trust someone to be nice when they get a glimpse of the promised land then maybe they don't deserve a glimpse in the first place.
God what a mine field. I can honestly say I have never in my whole life heard a real live man/person ever comment on the appearance of a specific woman's vagina. Maybe I live a sheltered life but I don't think so.
Posted by Tripp | Link to this comment | 08-18-05 12:40 PM
Ew.
Anyway, consider my 'footbinding' comment to be applied to a world in which adult women bound their own feet. Most people would be comfortable condemning such a practice as incredibly stupid and generally an awful thing, right?
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 08-18-05 12:41 PM
Would said foot binding be reversible? If so then I would think it is stupid like that stupid guy with the stupid tiger face but I wouldn't think it awful.
If it were permanent, hmmmm. I dunno.
Posted by Tripp | Link to this comment | 08-18-05 12:46 PM
Yeah, Tripp. It does seem pretty weird to think that a comment would spark a surgery (rather than an immediate ass-kicking), in the way boobs are kind of, you know, hanging out there and noticeable... on the other hand I wonder how many women get implants due to a comment, or just an expectation that they should look a certain way.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 08-18-05 12:46 PM
probably be viewed by a relatively few people
I suspect at least a decent-sized minority of the women who are getting this done show their vaginas for a living. Just a guess.
never in my whole life heard
Really? Never? I've not been the speaker of such, but I've certainly heard it spoken.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 08-18-05 12:46 PM
you can't trust someone to be nice
Well, that's the thing. I think this set people off (or at least it set me off) because any chain of events I can come up with that would lead a woman to conclude that she needs genital cosmetic surgery for visual reasons involves her being either neurotic to the point of insanity, or involved with a world-class asshole. I can't come up a reason for such a choice that makes any sense at all to me.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 08-18-05 12:46 PM
Would it be fair to say that you and Cala simply agree with ogged's first point?
Posted by Sam K | Link to this comment | 08-18-05 12:47 PM
I can't come up a reason for such a choice that makes any sense at all to me.
Stripper.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 08-18-05 12:48 PM
That makes some sense, but if that's the best reason I really think it's a pernicious practice. Like someone said on another site in relation to the same story, most straight men see a lot more vulvas in porn than they do in real life, and probably earlier. Developing an artificial norm with relation to a body part that most men don't see many of in real life, seems like it's going to give men completely unnecessary issues relating to sex with, like, actual women.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 08-18-05 12:53 PM
Sam, not quite, only because I don't know how 'making them right' applies to a cosmetic surgery context. Making them look like a textbook? Maybe that applies to teeth.
Otherwise, what LB said. Outside of medical and, um well, public pubic reasons, it's hard to think of a reason why someone would want it done that didn't involve an unhealthy amount of self-loathing.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 08-18-05 12:53 PM
apostropher,
never in my whole life heard
Not about a specific person. I've heard jokes, of course, but they involve some unreal person.
Besides strippers I'd guess someone who posed for nude photos would be concerned about this. Other than that, though - geez, use the money for a wide screen TV.
Posted by Tripp | Link to this comment | 08-18-05 1:01 PM
Not about a specific person.
Huh. You must have spent your younger years around a higher class of people than I did.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 08-18-05 1:08 PM
OK, I am not a great reader, but I think ogged means "making them into what we perceive to be 'right.'"
It seems like what bothers you is precisely that women feel the need to have cosmetic surgery, and not so much whether they do.
Posted by Sam K | Link to this comment | 08-18-05 1:08 PM
Barring strippers and medical cases, of course.
Posted by Sam K | Link to this comment | 08-18-05 1:08 PM
Well, having the surgery itself is a negative -- expense, pain, risk of complications. If a friend wanted to have such surgery, I'd worry about her state of mind, but I'd also try to talk her out ofit on practical grounds.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 08-18-05 1:13 PM
Practical grounds are a large part of it. If my mother were to feel anxious about aging and begin dyeing her hair and actively trying to lose weight and gain muscle tone, I would feel totally different about that than if she felt anxious about aging and decided that she needed to have a surgeon restore her body to its appearance when she was 20.
For me, as I've said, it's largely a risk vs. reward and it's also part of a continuum. I don't think it's bad to want to look beautiful, or to take steps to make oneself appear to be attractive. I do think, however, that the risks of surgery do not outweigh the benefits.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 08-18-05 1:22 PM
You mean that they do outweigh the benefits?
Posted by Sam K | Link to this comment | 08-18-05 1:28 PM
Cala,
You do understand that you say what all the young and beautiful say, don't you?
Posted by Tripp | Link to this comment | 08-18-05 1:32 PM
I am young. But not beautiful by anyone's reckoning.
But really, there's something amiss with our concept of beauty as it does not allow for aging at all. People aren't sixteen forever. Why should the standard for a 50 year-old be the same as that of a 20 year-old?
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 08-18-05 1:39 PM
(Dollars to doughnuts someone is going to start explaining evolutionary psychology now: "Well, you see Cala, our species is evolved to find only the young and fertile sexually attractive. This is why men are attracted to supermodels, because emaciation is a strong predictor of fertility. Society has absolutely nothing to do with anything.")
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 08-18-05 1:46 PM
(I should note that I'm not making fun of any one who's been posting here, just that the question seemed like the perfect lead-in for someone to drone on about evolutionary psychology.)
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 08-18-05 1:50 PM
Actually, I think the explanation is that anyone who has the resources to waste on plastic surgery and can still survive must have hella
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 08-18-05 1:53 PM
sonofabitch! Left a < in there somewhere. Comment continues...
great genes. This was especially true back in the savannah--if you were still walking around after the boob job your immune system had to be through the roof. Hard to sterilize the rocks they were shoving into your titties, and the implantation procedure was no walk in the park either.
Um, maybe I should've taken the hint and not finished that.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 08-18-05 1:55 PM
(We like soccer hooligans because back in caveman days when weapons were scarce, men had to kick around hedgehogs with their bare feet in order to gain nourishing meat that would allow them to have the energy to sleep with the women.)
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 08-18-05 1:56 PM
I thought 16(1 and)2 had potential.
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 08-18-05 2:02 PM
That wouldn't explain why women still like soccer hooligans.
Posted by Sam K | Link to this comment | 08-18-05 2:03 PM
165 to 163
Posted by Sam K | Link to this comment | 08-18-05 2:04 PM
Also, in response to Tripp and apo above, I've actually noticed and commented upon (to a male friend after the fact) the beauty of a particular vagina before. But I've got serious problems, so.
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 08-18-05 2:06 PM
Gawd! We left out the most obvious one--men are genetically programmed to be attracted only to 20-year-olds because in the savannah the average person died at 20! Any female who was over 20 was probably also dead! And sleeping with the dead won't help you pass your genes on, much.
(N.B. See first comment here for why the main statistic is bogus.)
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 08-18-05 2:09 PM
Mmhm. I am always amazed by the number of people who think that shorter life expectancies in the past meant that people aged faster.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 08-18-05 2:11 PM
Hopefully, my boss is googling my name RIGHT NOW.
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 08-18-05 2:12 PM
Well, you see Sam, the women that lusted after the men that weren't adept at kicking hedgehogs to death rarely got any sex, because those men had no energy for it. So the genes for not liking soccer hooligans were less likely to get passed on.
Posted by Cala is too pale | Link to this comment | 08-18-05 2:12 PM
Whoops. 'Cala is too pale'. Stupid archiving of previous nicks. Next it'll reveal that I'm really Fontana.
Whoops.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 08-18-05 2:13 PM
Or that the average meant that people died at 20. I'm not sure why this is exactly -- perhaps because now with better medicine and lower infant mortality, someone in the United States can use the average life expectancy to guess how long they'll live.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 08-18-05 2:16 PM
It looks like you are doing a fine job of explaining evolutionary psychology yourself, LizardBreath.
Cala, I know that you know who will be the judge of your beauty. And do you really not know why the standards for beauty do not change with age?
Posted by Tripp | Link to this comment | 08-18-05 2:18 PM
Joe,
I've actually noticed and commented upon (to a male friend after the fact) the beauty of a particular vagina before.
It is nice to see you back. Did you hear? I'm Lockstock in Urinetown! Very excited.
If you had made the vagina comment to me I'd accuse you of having the love bug real bad.
Posted by Tripp | Link to this comment | 08-18-05 2:22 PM
I think that's it, Cala--actually this bit about infant mortality is pretty much the one thing I remember from my college population dynamics course (which was pretty watered down anyway). The problem is that average life expectancy is a pretty useless number and people use it anyway.
This has lead to some really spectacular stupidity about Social Security--like the average life expectancy for an African-American male is just over 65, so that means the average African-American male pays SS taxes all his life and then drops dead just after he starts collecting. In fact if you Google African-American life expectancy the first hit is exactly such a snow job! Hmph. I'd link African-American life expectancy to the #2 hit, but Ogged has made Googlebombing inoperative in the comments.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 08-18-05 2:24 PM
Did you hear? I'm Lockstock in Urinetown! Very excited.
Nice! I just had drinks with Jeff McC., the original Lockstock. I saw him in Follies about a month ago.
If you had made the vagina comment to me I'd accuse you of having the love bug real bad.
I definitely had something. Though in that instance, it was short-lived.
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 08-18-05 2:26 PM
Matt,
Yeah. If Bill Gates walks in the bar the bar patron's average salary goes through the roof but so what? I still have trouble buying the next round.
Posted by Tripp | Link to this comment | 08-18-05 2:27 PM
Joe,
Nice! I just had drinks with Jeff McC., the original Lockstock. I saw him in Follies about a month ago.
You are shitting me. Awww geeez. The guy is awesome. I'm inhaling his songs. Seriously. I really can't believe how small the world is.
Wow.
Posted by Tripp | Link to this comment | 08-18-05 2:30 PM
He is a totally, totally nice guy, I'm very happy to report. My gf used to work for the agency that used to represent him (yes, that's two "used to's").
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 08-18-05 2:34 PM
Tripp -- because we all think of ourselves as 20? ;-)
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 08-18-05 2:40 PM
Joe,
I gotta go but you have totally made my day. I'm thinking I need to mail you my script for Jeff to autograph. Geez, that would make my year! This is really un-freaking-belieavable!
Posted by Tripp | Link to this comment | 08-18-05 2:41 PM
Glad to make your day, Tripp. If you mailed me something, I could probably get him to sign it.
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 08-18-05 2:46 PM