Playboy for so many of us around my age (yes, girls as well) was one of our first experiences with the idea of sex. Of course I had a friend who knew where there was a stash of them in the woods. (Serious question: who was putting all the Playboys in the woods? Why would you put a stack of magazines in the woods? And, yet, there they were.)
I remember looking at those magazines and there were feelings. I knew that these images were forbidden but, at the same time, they were appealing. Every girl was so perfect. Their skin was smooth and almost glowed. They had long flowing hair, beautiful smiles, and tiny, tiny waists.
This was my first image of real sex appeal. This was what men wanted. This was what a girl should look like. The hourglass (but basically thin) figure, the smile under all circumstances, the perfect hair, teeth, and skin. And since it was there for everyone, this is what should be expected, this very narrow definition of beauty.
Yes, it was Hefner's magazine, and he could do what he wanted to do. Of course, he was going to publish the type of woman he felt was attractive. But I can't help but wish he had expanded his definition of what could be sexy. That women of different shapes and sizes and looks weren't celebrated.
Of course, no one wants to be thought of as an object. I am sure those Playboy-perfect women have issues of being treated with little respect. But a women who doesn't have that Playboy-perfect body/face/hair/etc still wants to be thought of as beautiful and sexy. And I know that those Playboys in the woods gave me lessons that I shouldn't have had about how I should be a woman.
Comments
Post a Comment