Your observation is really spot on. The “entertainment industry” has been androgenizing stars for several decades. it’s been done so gradually that we don’t notice it, until we go back and watch an old movie from the 30s or 40s. I have noticed lately how different the women were. They were all slender, but had definite curves. Models in magazines now have no line of demarcation where their waist should be. Even models that are real women. Whether they are skinny or chubby, there is no waistline. The ideal used to be waist 10 inches less than hips and bust, which were supposed to be the same: the hourglass figure. I also wonder if the hormones in our food and water contribute to the androgynizing.
Your observation is really spot on. The “entertainment industry” has been androgenizing stars for several decades. it’s been done so gradually that we don’t notice it, until we go back and watch an old movie from the 30s or 40s. I have noticed lately how different the women were. They were all slender, but had definite curves. Models in magazines now have no line of demarcation where their waist should be. Even models that are real women. Whether they are skinny or chubby, there is no waistline. The ideal used to be waist 10 inches less than hips and bust, which were supposed to be the same: the hourglass figure. I also wonder if the hormones in our food and water contribute to the androgynizing.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
There’s no line of demarcation but they try to mimic some in poses. In particular, women’s backsides curve inward to the base of their curved spine and contact the “back” at a higher point than do mens. Just as women’s narrowest point (waist line) is higher than men’s, their backside contours flatten at a higher point on the back then do men’s.
To conceal this difference in appearance, “women” models, actresses have adopted a strangely contorted pose in which they turn the torso toward the camera while tilting their hips in some weird way to conceal a flat region between the buttocks and back which is found in men. One trans researcher said an actual woman making that pose would most closely resemble a letters “S” in profile, but a trans woman affecting that pose would result in a “check mark” silhouette (impossible to both round the profile and raise the rounded point to the mid back).
There’s an industry designed to provide padding to falesly portray hips, breasts, backsides, baby-bumps etc. And there are basic clothing designs meant to hide the straight male profile that once identified, is seen everywhere on the red carpet in Hollywood.
The other difference commonly noted is bands of muscle in men’s lower abdomen called “The Adonis belt” that a surprising number of fairly normal looking Hollywood actresses have.
Hard to prove any of this because photoshopping pictures not only removes lines and wrinkles, but adds rounded curves and narrows waists etc. One star (have no idea if she was actual female or not) was featured on the cover of a fashion magazine (Vogue?) and people complained that she couldn’t possibly have that body (too young, impossibly slender even for her slender self). She was ridiculed for falsely portraying herself as slender to a ridiculous degree (unhealthy). She insisted that was her and she absolutely knew her own body so there was no mistake. Others found the same cover photo released in a foreign edition of the magazine but that photo revealed the actual face of the professional model who was emaciatingly thin.
When that level of subterfuge is commonly available to the MSM, glamour industry, we can then know we’ve seen photos of “stars” in bikinis that are not them. So “bombshells” have bikini pics that ‘everyone has seen” and those people are well prepared to insiste, “THERE IS NO WAY THAT IS HER!” because they know what they’ve seen. But trans researchers scour the net for in person fan pics and that brunette babe that people think as as so very sexy is revealed to have the absolutely straight up and down body of a man, complete with masculine “love handles.”
When a Star Trek movie came out years after the original series, the stars had aged and could not be expected to look the part of their younger selves. Costuming, lighting, make up did what they could.
But there was one scene in which Captain Kirk is standing on the bridge looking forward into the camera, and then turns to the left, ascends a setp and walks along the bank of blinking lights in Spock’s area. The original revealed that Shatner put on weight but did so after it was possible to reshoot that portion. Watching the galleys (raw clips) prior to final editing, Shatner exclaimed , “Whoa! Whale butt!” He insisted it had to be edited because that’s not how fans saw Captain Kirk. But it was too late to correct. So that one scene took an immense amount of time for an artist to repaint every frame in with the blinking lights along the wall where his voluptuous backside was originally shown. As he moved along the wall, they painted in areas not desired on film with the background.
That was many many years ago. What must they be able to do now with digital technology? Some of the stars shown in candid pictures on the beach or jogging have the bodies of men. They can replace the foreground with sections of background to create the desired profile. Deep Fakes have been around for awhile, I think.
The industry also is known to digitally photoshop heads on bodies (the movie Black Swan, Captain America prior to “treatment”) and use body doubles.
I’ve seen some pictures of “bombshell actresses” that look nothing like their close up spandex clad selves on film. There are a flew clips left in movies that sometimes surface, one includes an image of the bombshell approaching the camera as she models lingerie in an exaggerated sexy, swaying walk. Freeze-frame reveals, as she sweeps the almost translucent siren-red peignoir around over her lacy French-maid corset, panties, and fishnet stockings,the substantial roped-with-muscle waist/rib cage of a male athlete.
Plastics commonly used in food packaging until recently (probably still) were hormone laden and some young boys began developing breasts as a result (yeah, contributed to those kids social acceptance, eh?). Our society has an unusual amount of hormone influencing chemicals in commonly used items and foods. :/
PS: I have to wonder still to this day about a story in the news years ago. A horrible house fire broke out on an exotic private Island, an elderly fragile mother-in law, a famous actress, and her children had to escape the fire. Fortunately, the actress was able to carry her 100lb mother-in-law out of the fire.
I tried that when I was around 18 years old and accustomed to demanding physical work at the time, so iw as about as muscular as I will ever be without formal training, I suppose. I was shocked to discover my mother extremely ill and struggling to breath and I needed to move her to a point where she could expand her lungs more easily. I can’t tell you how hard I tried (she survived, but I didn’t know she would at the time). I’m talking adrenalin, familial love, desperation etc. I could not lift her despite all the ways I tried to get leverage and command all my strength.
But this actress picks up her mother-in-law and rushes her some distance to safety. In the trans research community, they say she’s trans but I think she doesn’t have the other markers as far as I can see, so I don’t know.
Be careful about confirmation bias - consider Audrey Hepburn.
A lot can be explained by anorexia/malnutrition.
All the same, a lot of this would appear to be driven by the desire to make the girls look like boys (and vice versa).
Personally, I like the ladies to be feminine (Lynda Carter, Sophia Loren, etc., rawr!) :)