Yes, that's one way. The other is for the audience to be thinking ABOVE the waist. Obviously, that concept is lost on you.
I understand the concept completely. I'm just realistic about the habits of many moviegoers and how the industry will try to appeal to them. If someone has a plan to draw audiences with movies that don't feature attractive young women, that person is free to make those movies and enjoy the prosperity of success that comes with making a popular movie. However, people who try to dictate to the market what the market should want are people who rarely succeed.
My complaint with these women is that they were perfectly happy to become rich in their twenties and thirties because they could supply what the market demanded but now insist that the market must change to meet their desires now that they no longer can supply what the market demands. They "lived by the sword" in sense that they profitted a great deal from their appearances. Now, they are "dying by the sword" in that their appearances no longer win them the same roles. Their complaining just makes them appear conceited and immature. The world fell at their feet for a decade or so because they were attractive. Now they can't deal with the fact that things have changed and others are enjoying the kind of success that they once had. They need to grow up and realize that some kinds of success just don't last.
You seem to be trying very hard to miss this point. You accuse me of not thinking above the waist, but I have to wonder whether you are in the position of these actresses but on a smaller scale. In everyday life, it's amazing how many women who were perfectly happy to be the center of attention in their twenties and thirties because they were attractive are suddenly whining and bitter in their forties because they can't hold a man's attention as they once did.
WFTR
Bill