At the start of the year I wrote that I would no longer use the phrase ‘gay marriage’ as marriage is marriage, regardless of the genders of the two people involved. I have been successful so far. Not only is marriage simply marriage but based upon a survey carried out in the UK, marriages between two people of the same gender appear to have a better chance of surviving than heterosexual marriages. After all, Kim Kardashian anyone?
Another word that needs to no longer be used in certain circumstances is ‘curvy’ as in, that woman is curvy. Describing a winding road as curvy is fine but too often the word curvy is being used as a replacement for other words such as fat, chubby, overweight. I know that I have been guilty of this although more because the person in question does indeed have curves in the all the right places.
When you are called upon to describe a woman, why is politically correct to describe a woman as curvy? Do we describe a flat chested woman as looking like a 12 yr old boy? What about a woman with a rather large posterior? It appears to be OK to call it ‘junk in the trunk’ but not so OK to call her fat ass. We, as a society, are still putting labels on anyone who doesn’t fit into what society has been told is normal.
While at last the entertainment industry are finding great actresses who show their ribs when they breathe in, there is only a few that appear to have been deemed acceptable. Christina Hendricks is the current in-girl. A beautiful red head with an hour glass figure with an additional 30 minutes up top. Helped by the figure hugging dresses of Mad Men, Hendricks is the poster girl for those actresses who look like real women. Adele doesn’t hide how she looks, apparently only magazines who place her on the cover do that.
If you go shopping for clothes online, you often find a link to ‘plus sizes’ or ‘above average’ but nothing for ‘boys bodies’ or ‘below average’ or even ‘might as well wear child sizes’. If the average Canadian woman’s weight is 153lb, the shouldn’t anything designed for women who weigh less than 120lb be listed as ‘sub average’? I know there is often ‘petite’ but often it is simply included in the non-labeled section, i.e. the ‘normal’ or ‘average’ section.
Is it because we as a society find it easier to place labels on everything so that it is simpler to group of number of items or people together. Does it make us uncomfortable when we can’t find a box for something? We put labels on people’s personalities, someone is a type A or type B etc. because they exhibit the same traits but just because we are grouping them under the same label doesn’t mean that they really are the same. It is just easier for us to use three or four labels than giving a more detailed description.
When faced with a woman such as Christina Hendricks, or my very own beautiful wife, I have to call them curvaceous, not as a label but as an accurate description of their appearance. They weight has no influence on my description, it is what I see in front of me. Women can and should have curves, embracing who they are and not letting them have a label placed upon them, or putting the label on themselves.
If you don’t believe that women should have curves, perhaps you should ask yourself why is it that so many corsets are sold? Corsets squeeze the middle, creating curves. If men, and women, did not appreciate and enjoy curves, surely corsets would be a thing of the past?