I write to you at one of the three peak seasons for girl-watching in North America. Sweater-sheathed Ms. October will knock 'em out in the fall, and the darling buds of May will spring fresh in their sundresses all too shortly, but meanwhile this is sultry deep August—impossibly flimsy fabrics, exquisite lengths of limb. Addled by murderous heat, provoked by brutal hot-to-trotness, I here risk gathering some modest notes on visual experience and modern manners.
Shall we define our terms? When I say girls, I am employing a common archaism meaning women, also known as chicks. For the purposes of this discussion, any woman who is older than a child and younger than a matron is a girl. By watching, I mean checking out. Despite all the many philosophical inquiries into beauty since the Greeks and into sidewalk scenes since Baudelaire, there is an acute shortage of discourse on the subject of checking out hot chicks, a silence all the more appalling because they are famously difficult to ignore.
To understand this lack of critical inquiry, we might revisit a New York Observer piece written 11 Augusts ago by a hot and bothered George Gurley. He described “a standoff between men and women” in public spaces: "While the happy gains of post-feminism may have given women permission to wear skimpy garments in the city heat, the earlier and more sober gains of feminism have made it very uncouth indeed for any civilized man to acknowledge the delights that meet his eye." Not much more interesting has been said on the topic. What academic work there is on the subject tends to get bogged down in a male-gaze sound bite from the critic John Berger: “Men look at women. Women watch themselves being looked at.” That quote is also a favorite of people producing social-science papers on body image, sexual harassment, and gender equity. Those are all very serious issues, none of which will be addressed here, this not being a very serious article, I hasten to clarify for those readers already drafting indignant letters to the editor.
The rest of us can get our bearings by recognizing girl-watching and people-watching as distinct activities. An illustration: The alert people-watcher observes that two girls going out about town together, each clad in shorts, are very likely to be wearing shorts of precisely the same length. The girl-watcher, confronted in the flesh by a pair of shorts-clad women, may not notice the identical brevity of their garments, concentrating as he is on how one of the girls is wearing her shorts beautifully. The pleasures of people-watching are anthropological; those of girl-watching are aesthetic.
Modern girl-watching began in 1954, when Harper published The Girl Watcher's Guide. It is still the great text on the topic, a delightful and occasionally profound novelty book constructed on the model of birding manuals: "Although we believe that girl watching has it all over bird watching, we feel that these two hobbies do share one important feature. They are both genteel. They both respect the rights of the watched ... A girl watcher never leers, nor does he utter any sound which might betray his joy."
Author Don Sauers wrote The Girl Watcher's Guide during hours stolen from his job as—what else?—a New York City ad man. Indeed, there is a distinct Mad Men vibe to the production, much helped along by the va-va-voom illustrations from Eldon Dedini. In fact, Sauers went on to design girl-watching-themed ad campaigns for Pall Mall and Diet Pepsi. For nearly a decade-and-a-half—until about the time of the Miss America Protest of 1968—the author received invitations from the likes of the Tonight Show, Expo 67, and Life (where he once helped out with a photo spread about ski pants).
Sauers' recommended "girl watching centers" in Manhattan include Fifth Avenue between 49th and 59th Streets, and 58th Street between Madison and Sixth Avenue, selected on their strength as shopping areas. Employing that standard, the Manhattan girl-watcher is today best served by Prince Street between Sullivan and Elizabeth, where some girls distinguish themselves through their alluring poise, others through flamboyant bralessness. In order to investigate possibilities further uptown, I arranged a lunchtime rendezvous with a friend who works on the same block that Sauers did, Fifth Avenue between 57th and 58th. Before embarking on our field trip, we digested the book's instructions on "mastering the once-over," which are predicated on the idea that "it is never in good taste to look down after watching a beautiful girl's face." Rather, after sighting a striking face, you quickly look at girl's shoes, then "slowly, taking about three seconds, raise your eyes ... remembering always not to move the head." That last directive reminded my companion of instructions he'd gotten on his golf swing.
Put off by the fanny-pack’d tourists of Midtown, we turned north, discovering a great density of impressive subjects on Madison between 59th and 72nd, which is to say between Barneys and Ralph Lauren’s Rhinelander Mansion. This stretch has its limitations, given the notably homogeneous collection of subjects it presents—cf. the marvelously diverse Union Square—but we nonetheless managed to excite our eyes, each murmuring internally about fine necks and necklines. It happens that Ralph Lauren isn’t very far from Lenox Hill Hospital; thus, near the end of our excursion, I chanced to discover that it can be entirely gratifying to check out a girl clad from ankle to v-neck in sea-green medical scrubs if she holds herself well. I impulsively shared this observation with my companion who, contrary to protocol, moved not just his head but his whole body and shanked.
Though Sauers' three-second bottom-to-top once-over is quite a useful guideline, adhering rigorously to it is not without complications. For one thing, the human eye more naturally moves downward in attempting to pursue an approaching target smoothly; working up from a well-turned ankle to a pretty face, it more likely fixes a series of looks. Which is to say—indulge me a whim here— the most correct girl-watcher apprehends passing loveliness in a sunny flutter—as a series of little thrills to the soul. (Watching a stationary girl—or the mobile rear of a girl—is a whole different thing and affords a rather more meditative experience of physical virtue.)
SNL: Equal Opportunity Objectifiers
Jon Hamm spent most of the Saturday Night Live episode he hosted last night shirtless.
Confessions of a Woman Comedy Writer
Allison Silverman accepts one from New York Women in Film & Television (and tells us why it's rare).
Comments
Boy-watching
By: eew36 | Fri, 10/23/2009 - 16:32
I'm sure that this has been addressed somewhere in the 10 pages of comments, but girl-watching is a completely natural and innocent thing to do, as is the opposite boy-watching, which girls engage in as enthusiastically and sometimes less politely than men watching women. Women seem to feel the right to make their observations and admiration perfectly obvious. Well, it's all a wonderful sport of admiring the opposite sex, or the same sex, for those who see beauty in their own types. And let's be honest: women--even those not attracted to women--observe other women as much as men. And who knows what turns the head, what complex algorithm of tastes and experience draw the eye to a woman in scrubs, or a man in ripped jeans.
The weird thing was that we
By: shin | Wed, 09/09/2009 - 23:19
The weird thing was that we were all terrible judges of what the others would find attractive. They would point out some "attractive" scruffy guy, and all I could see was some dude that needed a haircut and a shave and a shower, or I would point out a cute girl with nerd glasses carrying around a heavy backpack, and they would find her boring and plain. It was good times.
Point of story: In real life, if not on the internet, it is possible for men and women to discuss human beauty without flinging accusations at each other.
---------------------------------------------------
[ stop dreaming start action | mengembalikan jati diri bangsa | Kenali dan Kunjungi Objek Wisata di Pandeglang ]
[ vikhi | web design | website murah ]
My thoughts belong to me.
By: simskola | Fri, 09/04/2009 - 11:32
Guess what, females:
My thoughts belong to me, and you have no business in trying to alter them. You are perfectly entitled to think that I am evil for thinking about human females in a sexual way. However, that does not alter a thing. I do not adhere to all tenets of all feminists, so it is my firm conviction that those of you who declare yourselves to be feminists would think me evil even *if* I would not look at females in the unapproved way, and solve the riddle of breast cancer in one day to boot.
Exactly how would you go around to enforcing your will? Push for criminalization of looking at women? Even if you managed to get such a law on the books, there would not be enough police to enforce it. What else then? Say to all, high and low, that you will not hook up with guys who look around? Big woop. Guys who like to look around are not interested in you anyway. Sure, you can do some ogling of your own, but this time directed against guys. Good luck in finding a guy who would be bothered by that. To be perfectly honest, I do not think that anything short of a burqa would stop men looking at you, unless you are ugly.
I have read a large part of the comments, and I do get it: a significant part of the female respondents feel bad about being looked at. I do not think that you are describing your feelings incorrectly, in that respect. However, I will not change my thoughts in order to accomdate your preferences in this case. No effing way. I have been told to not have this or that thought too many times before, and I make a principle of not bending to that stuff again. It is called self-respect.
Well, a surprising mumber of those women who describe themselves as feminists are mothers. You might think it prudent to leverage that, and forbid your sons to look at girls, end of story, no ifs and buts. (pun intended.) Won´t work, since kids generally like to do whatever their parents forbid them to do. If parents forbid something that can not be reliably checked/enforced, it just makes kids want to do it even more in spite. If you would, by some strange way, manage to enforce that on your male children, then it would be even worse. Once the male children grow up and become teenagers, they would explode and your daughters would have to deal with worse stuff than ogling. There are examples of this, going on right now. Where I happen to live, about half of the population come from the ethnic majority of this country, which happens to be more permissive that most of USA. The other half of the local population are refugees, which come from countries in which the boys are enforced to not do anything with good girls from their own nationality before marriage (to a parent-chosen girl). Those boys are under a lot of pressure to ensure their sisters virtue and keep of the other girls in their group, but the parents do not have anything against those guys ogling - or worse - native gals. Let me tell you, the native gals do not appreciate the treatment they get from the refugee guys. Dystopia in action.
Of course, we could agree to not live in the same counties. We could have some counties to be designated feminist-only counties, and only self-described female feminists were allowed to live there. That would require some extra costs, but I would be perfectly willing to pay more taxes if it would be the result. I would even be willing to vote for it if it were to be funded with a tax levied only on men.
But I am not willing to change my thoughts for anything.
Understanding
By: phpeter | Fri, 09/04/2009 - 09:35
I think what is plainly clear here is that most women really do not understand why men look at women the way they do. I have read the posts here trying to for some link to sexual asault, rape, societal demeaning, objectification etc. This requires way less thought than most women are putting into this and it is obvious that they have no idea why men do this, so they must try to construct some justification that fits into the small mold that they understand. Here is why men do it, I will lead you behind this simple curtain and hopefully put to rest this vast mystery:
1) Men find women beautiful. Men notice and look at women of all types, shapes, ages, races etc. We really enjoy women and how they make us feel, even just seeing an appealing women can make our moment better. This feeling is not a blatent sexual feeling, but rather the feeling one would get if they were given a compliment or a courtesy was paid to them...just a nice feeling, but nothing more. Women owe men nothing with regard to this and we shouldn't burdon you with this responsibility, but know that if you look nice and carry yourself a certain way, men will notice...but that is not a bad thing. Don't make this more than it is, guys really don't go full sexual when looking at you, that takes to long. As you should already know, we have a really short attention span and we we have probably already moved on to enjoying the bite we just took from our sandwich...like I said, we are simple people.
2) Men may notice body parts, but that is only if it is something abnormal. Big giant breasts, J-Lo a$$, women who are over 6' tall...you get the picture. Sorry, these things stick out and they will get attention. For you women who have these attributes, I bet women stare at you quite often as well.
3) Men like confindent, healthy women. If you have shrugged shoulders, hunchy walk, unkept look, lack self confidence,...men will not look down on you, but we will also not notice. it is an absolute neutral.
4) Men do not make a habit of going somewhere with the express purpose of looking at women, but if I have my choice of staring at pseudo important people in the coffee shop or sitting outside where I can take in the scenery...well I am going to sit outside.
5) Men enjoy looking at women, but that primarily happens when they are not occupied with any other activity. If the food has just come to the table...sorry ladies, you are now in 2nd place. If the beer has come at the same time...well you know where you rank.
This is not meant to be degrading at all. I love women, I have a great wife and a beautiful daughter...lights of my life, but like the smell of popcorn or the sound of a Harley, the site of a women grabs our attention and we do enjoy the moment, however fleeting it is.
Universal Norms For Attractiveness Do Exist
By: rome222 | Thu, 09/03/2009 - 17:55
Some have pointed out that biological characteristics such as hair color, skin color and overall size are not universal norms for attractiveness, but are social constructs. True, but the lack of similarity in social norms for female sexual attractiveness does not contradict the fact that biology drives attractiveness. Variation in the conception of attractiveness does not mean they are not grounded in enduring (across time), universal (across cultures) norms. In fact, it is the variations that highlight what is universal for female attractiveness including:
- Symmetrical body, particularly faces
- Smooth skin
- Healthy appearance
- Youthful appearance
- Lack of visible disease or deformity
- Proportional difference between waist and hips (the Golden Ratio)
yes that wright...thank
By: sukabumi | Thu, 09/03/2009 - 01:11
yes that wright...thank you
Stop Dreaming Start Action | Rusli Zainal Sang Visioner | kenali dan kunjungi objek wisata di pandeglang | mengembalikan jati diri bangsa | Sukabumi | lowongan kerja | webdesign murah
@buggie
By: P Starling | Mon, 08/31/2009 - 22:54
Hey, no. Not you. I'm calling bigot on anyone who says your experiences and mine are invalid or unimportant because we are obviously, y'know, all female and oversensitive and crap. (I think it's my comment you're referring to; so far, I'm the only one who's thrown that particular grenade.)
*I'm* a bigot??? That is the
By: buggie | Mon, 08/31/2009 - 22:23
*I'm* a bigot??? That is the first time in my life I have EVER been called a bigot! I have nothing against men, and nothing in any of my posts suggests that I do. I date men, I'm friends with men, I have a dad, and a brother, and I like them all. I responded to the article and to the other comments, and pointed out that I have read a LOT stuff like the article in question lately. There is no way I'm a "bigot."
@kate m, diggy g and
By: gson29 | Mon, 08/31/2009 - 18:59
@kate m, diggy g and corkpopper: whew! reading your posts resulted in a big sigh of relief for me. I am also a woman who relates very little to the concerns of the other women posting on this article, and I'm glad to know that I am not clinically insane if I 1. Do not now loathe Mr. Patterson, 2. Do not feel reduced to the status of a Barbie doll every time I catch a man sneaking a glance and 3. Don't feel the need to mortify myself if I either find my gaze attracted by a beautiful man or woman, or god forbid find myself examining one stunning body part in particular, or (OH NOOO!) actually have sexual thoughts about that person in the succeeding moments. I don't care if men are biologically driven to check out the sex of their choice or if women are, or what have you - regardless of what exactly goes on in someone's head, if they can keep in mind that the object of their gaze is a person and then treat them commensurately when it is called for, who cares?
As someone who definitely checks out members of both sexes, I STRONGLY believe that most checking-out is not malicious or threatening, DOESN'T have an element of deprecating those who don't attract the looker's attention, and does not automatically entail seeing the person one is looking at as someone who is either primarily valuable for their physical qualities or who does not have other elements to their being and other reasons for being in a public space. It seems pretty clear to me that Troy wasn't saying that a woman was returning from the hospital or going shopping JUST so he could check her out. I'm pretty sure the writer isn't an imbecile.
Like Kate M, I saw the article as pretty frothy and don't see why this discussion instantly had to get so intense and ascribe so many terrible characterizations to so many people.
Fun can be OK
By: CorkPopper | Mon, 08/31/2009 - 15:11
Gender wars can be so tedious...while it's true that there are serious issues around women, men, women's bodies, self-image, blah blah blah, it's OK for men AND women to just enjoy the aesthetics of each other sometimes. I remember once, crossing 42nd Street on Sixth on the way to work, I passed a very attractive man and (discreetly, I thought) checked him out in the crosswalk. A few paces after passing him, I turned around to blatantly check out the rear view...and discovered him checking out mine. We smiled at each other and continued on our way. It made my day!