10 comments

• I really like seeing different shapes of women's bodies. But I really hate the presentation; it's another way of creating an artificial norm. This is not about the evolution of breasts, it's about the evolution of Hugh Hefner's tastes. For example, the blurb on "60s breasts" makes it sound like women's breasts in general changed, when what actually changed was what Hugh Hefner wanted to see in the magazine. (He makes all the final decisions about models.)

• I am sorry that you see it that way. There was a similar sentiment on the (feminist) site I found it on:
  http://jezebel.com/5561224/when-your-breast-shape-goes-out-of-style

  But someone in the comments (I found the comments pretty interesting) said they thought that it was presented in a different way and I must agree. It's easy to get up in arms about anything coming from Playboy, but for me I didn't feel that the author was being sexist or creating anymore of a standard than what already exists.

  While the article may not have been clear to distinguish that breasts didn't actually change that way every decade, I felt like that was the joke. It felt like it was supposed to be satire, to imply that women's breasts actually changed in response to social changes in America.

  Plus it didn't pick on any of the women's shapes and rather seem to celebrate that there are all different types, so I saw it as a positive article (even if the facts behind why what we saw changed are less pleasant).

• This thread has 10 comments. Log in to read them

add a comment