How to discover your inner Bombshell

barneysplash

Ladies,

Everyone take note, I am a man and I mean you no harm.

My question to you all is this -
Has equality stripped women of their most powerful weapon - their looks?

In the rush for equal pay and treatment did being a
red blooded woman, and enjoying looking great become branded as "anti-feminist"

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for working mums, and women drinking pints,
but I work in a hospital, and the younger women, in their 20 and 30s are grand and all,
but they don't seem to know how to exploit their feminine charms like their mothers
used to, and in many cases still do.

There are a couple of "old" women in work who still captivate the male population
at break time and in the corridors, myself included.

These mature ladies exude feminie charm by not giving it
all away with boob-tubes and micro-minis. Bring back the corset and
dresses that leave everything to the imagination.

As a man I long for the days of silver screen sirens sashaying in figure-hugging
outfits, sky-high heels with a cheeky come hither look in their perfectly made up eyes.

Banish the single digit dress sizes for full grown women, as the old poster said of
a long deceased pin-up "It's gotta be jelly coz jam don't shake like that!"

Every look was a "moment" Every outfit a heartbreaker.

Where has it all gone? Can it be rescued? Do women secretly long to be
bombshells, but fear the backlash of their peers?

Can women not be successful and have sex appeal in equal and separate measure?

Macha

I have a crazy, crazy idea. Can we stop obsessing over women's appearance and sexuality??

Somebody commit me - quick.

PS. Total offense taken at the comment that a woman's most powerful weapon is her looks. Go back to the stone age - they're missing a neanderthal.

EamonnKeane

taconnol wrote: »

Go back to the stone age - they're missing a neanderthal.

That's a common misconception; Neanderthal man had a larger brain than modern humans.

St Bill

Doesn't matter what size the brain is, it's worthless if it's not being used .

OP it does sound from your post that women are just there for your gratification!

St Bill

barneysplash wrote: »

Everyone take note, I am a man and I mean you no harm.

:)

Do you want us to take you to our leader?

SarahSassy

I dont agree that women have let their looks go. I work for a large company and the style there is fantastic on a day to day basis and its expected to be well presented at all levels of the company....

I think a lot of the young womens fashion these days, is not my personal taste as I find it very androgenous (sp ??). I mean the hoodies and runners etc.. I do think this gear is very unfeminine looking but each to their own....

I dont feel that good looking women dont get the opportunities any more, in fact I think its the reverse - the unkempt and shabby looking women and men are not taken seriously....

metaoblivia

Although I don't think your post will be received well here, I can kind of see where you're coming from.
I do enjoy dressing nicely and wearing skirts and make up, although I don't believe that every woman should or has to in order to feel feminine and attractive. To each their own, as it goes.
I do think that a woman can be both successful and sexual appeal, but people have different ways of defining both of those, so... in a lot of ways it's apples and oranges.

SarahSassy

metaoblivia wrote: »

Although I don't think your post will be received well here, I can kind of see where you're coming from.
I do enjoy dressing nicely and wearing skirts and make up, although I don't believe that every woman should or has to in order to feel feminine and attractive. To each their own, as it goes.
I do think that a woman can be both successful and sexual appeal, but people have different ways of defining both of those, so... in a lot of ways it's apples and oranges.

I am not judging people who wear stuff I dont like. I am sure I wear plenty of stuff they dont like. I was giving my opinion on OP's comments and partially agreeing with him...

ChewChew

OP. . I also work in a hospital and dont see where your coming from at all!!! there are different relationships in hopsitals with staffing levels. Personally being a 24 yo female, I do make an effort of nice trousers, tops, heels, hair & makeup. but thats for me. not for my colleagues. I do it because its the way I want to look.

metaoblivia

SarahSassy wrote: »

I am not judging people who wear stuff I dont like. I am sure I wear plenty of stuff they dont like. I was giving my opinion on OP's comments and partially agreeing with him...

I wasn't addressing you in my post. I was addressing the OP.

Wibbs

EamonnKeane wrote: »

That's a common misconception; Neanderthal man had a larger brain than modern humans.

Yea the biggest hominid braincase so far was a Neandertal, but on average they were about on parity with us. In any case it was organised differently. They weren't as sophisticated culturally so taconnol's suggestion would still be valid. Pedant over and out.....

barneysplash

taconnol wrote: »

PS. Total offense taken at the comment that a woman's most powerful weapon is her looks. Go back to the stone age - they're missing a neanderthal.

Of course it's what's inside that counts.

But in this world it can only help to be pretty on the outside too.

ChewChew

barneysplash wrote: »

Of course it's what's inside that counts.

But in this world it can only help to be pretty on the outside too.

oh get a bloody grip.

SarahSassy

metaoblivia wrote: »

I wasn't addressing you in my post. I was addressing the OP.

Oops.

Macha

barneysplash wrote: »

Of course it's what's inside that counts.

But in this world it can only help to be pretty on the outside too.

I think that's true for both sexes, and has been proven in studies *scurries to BBC website for reference*

However there's a difference between that & someone telling you your looks are your best weapon. Nobody tell my parents. They're going to be totally pissed they didn't send me to beauty school instead of uni so that I could maximise my 'most powerful weapon'.

I think this attitude also answers a previous (if misguided) thread about women being jealous of other good-looking women. If you're told your looks are your best bet, of course you're going to become anxious around women who are, by those standards, more successful than you.

Ah reference time: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/beautiful-people-earn-12-more-than-ugly-bettys-461261.html

Apologies for neanderthal comment - twas a bit harsh.

Black Swan

barneysplash wrote: »

Can women not be successful and have sex appeal in equal and separate measure?

Yes, we can be successful and sexy. The only difference from before and now is that we have choice.

The Sweeper

barneysplash, I see where you're coming from.

However it takes a lot of time and effort to look like a screen siren. Hair. Makeup. Nails. Clothes shopping. Personal maintenance generally. And most women don't have time to do all of that, because they're too busy working because if you try to capture someone with just your looks, well you're obviously a gold-digger. I'd love to wear high heels and seamed stockings at home, but it's too difficult to do the laundry and the hoovering in them when I'm trying to squeeze those two jobs in at the end of my working day.

I'd wear my hair in finger curls, but I don't have an hour to sit doing it in the morning before I leave for my 7am start at work.

You'll notice most of the screen siren era women were depicted trying to capture a man. These days, a woman specifically out to capture a man is a bunny-boiler. Back in their day, an attractive, sassy woman was seen as a catch, not a threat. Men wanted to buy her a drink and she didn't feel like she had to pay for it herself, or have it tested for roofies. If she accepted the drink, she didn't feel then obliged to pay for it with sexual favours. An attractive woman who stayed home all day, kept house, looked stunning and minded her man was as much a desirably ostentatious acquisition for a man in those days as a sportscar is these days.

Women were allowed be bombshells back in the day of the bombshell.

These days, if I focused all of my time on looking stunning and went out on dates with men where I expected them to foot the bill for everything and I ended the evening with either nothing more than a tantalising kiss or a witty cutdown designed to make him fight harder for my attention, I'd probably be called a prick-teasing gold-digging slut by the blokes and my female counterparts would think I was a sad bint who needed to cop on.

Seraphina

ahhh MaJD
how i love your posts, you always say what i'm thinking in a much smarter and wittier fashion than i could ever come up with
*swoons*
hehehe

Curvy Vixen

Minesajackdaniels wrote: »

barneysplash, I see where you're coming from.

However it takes a lot of time and effort to look like a screen siren. Hair. Makeup. Nails. Clothes shopping. Personal maintenance generally. And most women don't have time to do all of that, because they're too busy working because if you try to capture someone with just your looks, well you're obviously a gold-digger. I'd love to wear high heels and seamed stockings at home, but it's too difficult to do the laundry and the hoovering in them when I'm trying to squeeze those two jobs in at the end of my working day.

I'd wear my hair in finger curls, but I don't have an hour to sit doing it in the morning before I leave for my 7am start at work.

You'll notice most of the screen siren era women were depicted trying to capture a man. These days, a woman specifically out to capture a man is a bunny-boiler. Back in their day, an attractive, sassy woman was seen as a catch, not a threat. Men wanted to buy her a drink and she didn't feel like she had to pay for it herself, or have it tested for roofies. If she accepted the drink, she didn't feel then obliged to pay for it with sexual favours. An attractive woman who stayed home all day, kept house, looked stunning and minded her man was as much a desirably ostentatious acquisition for a man in those days as a sportscar is these days.

Women were allowed be bombshells back in the day of the bombshell.

These days, if I focused all of my time on looking stunning and went out on dates with men where I expected them to foot the bill for everything and I ended the evening with either nothing more than a tantalising kiss or a witty cutdown designed to make him fight harder for my attention, I'd probably be called a prick-teasing gold-digging slut by the blokes and my female counterparts would think I was a sad bint who needed to cop on.

Wow! +100 :D

Reku

ChewChew wrote: »

oh get a bloody grip.

Alas they did do tests using 2 males both applying for the same jobs & both with equal qualifications, but the more attractive male would usually get the job. So there is some truth to

But in this world it can only help to be pretty on the outside too.

.
If I remember correctly the creators of the programme put it down to the desire to a desire to be surrounded by attractive people.


*FYI before anyone makes any assumptions in most of the interviews they filmed and showed the interviewer was a male so it probably would not have been down to a desire to date.

Dizzyblonde

OP are you sure you just don't have a thing for older ladies?

Wibbs

farohar wrote: »

Alas they did do tests using 2 males both applying for the same jobs & both with equal qualifications, but the more attractive male would usually get the job. So there is some truth to .
If I remember correctly the creators of the programme put it down to the desire to a desire to be surrounded by attractive people.

Naturally as attractive people are physically attractive because of reproductive health.

That's just the basic template though. The nuances vary with time and culture as MAJD points out. Nowadays a bombshell would be considered higher maintenance for a start, so would only appeal to males who could maintain that. Hence very powerful males with primped dolly birds. Her purpose is to be a dolly bird. Those kind of men and women would be more like the pre feminist ones I suppose.

tk123

Minesajackdaniels wrote: »

I'd probably be called a prick-teasing gold-digging slut by the blokes and my female counterparts would think I was a sad bint who needed to cop on.

rolfs :D

farohar wrote: »

Alas they did do tests using 2 males both applying for the same jobs & both with equal qualifications, but the more attractive male would usually get the job.

Sadly this is not the case where I work!!

OP I think it boils down to the environment you are in. I spend all day in front of a pc or lugging servers around or pulling cables thru racks so I wear neat but comfy clothes that allow me to do my job but don't make me look like a slob (hey that rhymes!!). Obviously if I was in a more customer focused role I would dress up a bit. I dress and look the way I want - I couldn't care less if shock-horror somebody thinks I'm gay cos I have short hair or sick because i don't wear makeup and always look pale - they can think what they want! If a guy is only interested in what I'm wearing or seeing a bit of boobage why would I be interested in them?

stratospheres

It's all about choice.

I dress casually and don't bother with makeup most of the time and I've never had a problem feeling or being attractive!

Also, talking about "single sizes" just because I am a smaller size doesn't make me any less of a woman than a bigger girl!

Babette08

Minesajackdaniels wrote: »

barneysplash, I see where you're coming from.

However it takes a lot of time and effort to look like a screen siren. Hair. Makeup. Nails. Clothes shopping. Personal maintenance generally. And most women don't have time to do all of that, because they're too busy working because if you try to capture someone with just your looks, well you're obviously a gold-digger. I'd love to wear high heels and seamed stockings at home, but it's too difficult to do the laundry and the hoovering in them when I'm trying to squeeze those two jobs in at the end of my working day.

I'd wear my hair in finger curls, but I don't have an hour to sit doing it in the morning before I leave for my 7am start at work.

You'll notice most of the screen siren era women were depicted trying to capture a man. These days, a woman specifically out to capture a man is a bunny-boiler. Back in their day, an attractive, sassy woman was seen as a catch, not a threat. Men wanted to buy her a drink and she didn't feel like she had to pay for it herself, or have it tested for roofies. If she accepted the drink, she didn't feel then obliged to pay for it with sexual favours. An attractive woman who stayed home all day, kept house, looked stunning and minded her man was as much a desirably ostentatious acquisition for a man in those days as a sportscar is these days.

Women were allowed be bombshells back in the day of the bombshell.

These days, if I focused all of my time on looking stunning and went out on dates with men where I expected them to foot the bill for everything and I ended the evening with either nothing more than a tantalising kiss or a witty cutdown designed to make him fight harder for my attention, I'd probably be called a prick-teasing gold-digging slut by the blokes and my female counterparts would think I was a sad bint who needed to cop on.

Totally agree with everything said here - times have changed whether you like it or not

barneysplash

I'd like to see more diversity in women's fashions I guess.

The burlesque / cabaret look has done very well in ladies
unmentionables in recent years.

This in a way is a tribute to the fabulous femininity of
times past, where you couldn't go the "full monty"
and still drive men insane with desire:





and of course for the ladies too....




The original untouchable Italian Gucci look from Mr. Brando:




I suppose the male equivelant of a bombshell is a man who makes you swoon!

Women don't swoon enough anymore, maybe I was born in the wrong era.

Do you know what I mean?

Babette08

OP I think the closest you'll get to this look today is probably Dito Von Teese or even the ladies at the Oscars. Cathering Heigel is another example.

These looks have been known to take 5 hours to achieve? Why not subtly imply to one of your nurse colleagues where your preferences in female attire lie? I'm sure they'll only be too happy to oblige, assuming of course you look as dashing as Jimmy Stewart in all his finery at 7.30am

Eviledna

If women were to conform to your idea of beauty:"screen siren", what would happen to all the other men with their ideas of beauty? Are their fetishes to be left unsatisfied?:rolleyes:

Seriously, are you kidding? Give me a modern man and a modern woman any day. Anything else is sheer nostalgia and a fantasy.

To quote a "screen siren", is this how you want us all to be?

"You know you don't have to act with us, Barney. You don't have to say anything and you don't have to do anything. Not a thing. Oh, maybe just whistle. You know how to whistle, don't you, Barney? You just put your lips together and blow"

Just don't expect any woman to reciprocate.

The Sweeper

Personally I'd love to go back to the screen siren days. They were days where women on the whole were worshipped and idolised.

These days women on the whole are criticised, dissected and denigrated.

Then: Be womanly in your shape.
Now: Be stick thin. With tits.

Then: Be all you can be for a man.
Now: Be all you can be for yourself. (And your man. And your kids. And your boss.)

Then: Be sassy. Be smart. Be beautiful.
Now: Don't be too sassy, don't be smart and we'd like you to be extremely beautiful, but not in a way that makes us feel threatened.

Then: Don't give it away easy. Wait for a man to take care of you. Be choosy about the guy you pick.
Now: Welcome to female emancipation where you can choose whoever you want in your own sex life but you can't rely on him because you're now responsible for taking care of yourself.


Sweeping generalisations? Yes, but all "women these days" and "women those days" comments are going to be generalisations.

barneysplash

Minesajackdaniels wrote: »

Personally I'd love to go back to the screen siren days. They were days where women on the whole were worshipped and idolised.

These days women on the whole are criticised, dissected and denigrated.

Then: Be womanly in your shape.
Now: Be stick thin. With tits.

Then: Be all you can be for a man.
Now: Be all you can be for yourself. (And your man. And your kids. And your boss.)

Then: Be sassy. Be smart. Be beautiful.
Now: Don't be too sassy, don't be smart and we'd like you to be extremely beautiful, but not in a way that makes us feel threatened.

Then: Don't give it away easy. Wait for a man to take care of you. Be choosy about the guy you pick.
Now: Welcome to female emancipation where you can choose whoever you want in your own sex life but you can't rely on him because you're now responsible for taking care of yourself.


Sweeping generalisations? Yes, but all "women these days" and "women those days" comments are going to be generalisations.

Excellent point, should generate some interesting rebuttals.

Macha

Minesajackdaniels wrote: »

Personally I'd love to go back to the screen siren days. They were days where women on the whole were worshipped and idolised.

I'm afraid women were worshipped and idolised for their appearance as much as they are today. Only what society demands that a woman looks like has changed. Right so it was a healthier ideal of a woman back then than today. But in my opinion its the worshipping and idolisation that's unhealthy - be it for a Marilyn Monroe type or a Kate Moss type. Stop the idolisation.

Minesajackdaniels wrote: »

Then: Be all you can be for a man.
Now: Be all you can be for yourself. (And your man. And your kids. And your boss.)

Do you really think the concept of a woman totally devoting herself to her man & kids is a good idea? Right it suits some women. I personally would slowly go insane with a permanent joker-smile etched on my face if my only motivation were to 'be all that i can be for my man'.

Minesajackdaniels wrote: »

Then: Be sassy. Be smart. Be beautiful.
Now: Don't be too sassy, don't be smart and we'd like you to be extremely beautiful, but not in a way that makes us feel threatened.

Again, what's with the beautiful? Be sassy. Be smart. Be happy and comfortable with how you look, without feeling that you have to confirm to whatever era's whimisical notions about what 'beautiful' is.

Minesajackdaniels wrote: »

Then: Don't give it away easy. Wait for a man to take care of you. Be choosy about the guy you pick.
Now: Welcome to female emancipation where you can choose whoever you want in your own sex life but you can't rely on him because you're now responsible for taking care of yourself.

Wait for a man to take care of you..really? My boyfriend and I are equal partners. I take care of him as much as he takes care of me.
Don't give it away easy? This is just the old cliche of female virtue re-hashed. See 'virgin' thread.

Today's society attitude towards women may be flawed but not in a million years would I swap it for the *pat-on-the-head* 'run-along-dear' of days gone by.