1926
A Doctor Discusses Sex Appeal
Why all gentlemen don't prefer blondes and why two people with red hair rarely marry—Why we love the women we do, explained in an unusual way
By Frederic Damrau, M.D.
Why all gentlemen don't prefer blondes and why two people with red hair rarely marry—Why we love the women we do, explained in an unusual way
By Frederic Damrau, M.D.
"Why, whatever can he see in that girl?"
You've heard the question often. Quite likely you've asked it yourself. You've heard women ask it indignantly; women with personal designs on the young man under discussion. Or, perhaps, if the victim happened to be an old chum, you have put the query rather compassionately, having in mind your friend's remembered stipulations of more youthful days. And now look at the girl he's picked! Beautiful? Positively not! Hardly to be called attractive. Yet, you recall vaguely, Harry always said he preferred the plump ones. "I like to know I've got someone in my arms," he used to say. Still, the question refuses to be downed: "Whatever can he see in that girl?" The answer is, he just couldn't help himself. He had to fall in love with that particular woman. And, if you're still single, the same kind of fate is in store for you; that is, you will find yourself irresistibly attracted to a certain girl, for reasons—if you even consider them, which is doubtful—quiet unfathomable. The solution of the riddle goes back to your cradle days. Before you could talk, or walk—almost before the time you could distinguish objects clearly—you began forming your impression of the ideal girl. And the basis of that idea, the real root of sex appeal, is your mother. A hand reaches into the crib to tuck you in. The same hand guides food to your mouth; you associate a certain form with your comfort and well-being. Gradually the purely animal satisfaction resulting from gratification of physical needs ripens into affection. Your ideal takes the shape of the one who has made the greatest sacrifices uncomplainingly for your sake. Girls have similar experiences. A girl discovers her heart palpitating when in the company of a man whose voice is of a certain pitch; whose laugh is hearty; whose shoulders are broad. She realizes it would not be difficult for her to fall in love with him. And she will find—no doubt about it—that the man who was nearest her in her baby days—the one who bounced her on his knee and pushed her buggy through the park—had that same vocal pitch, or hearty laugh. This is no theory of mine. It's the finding of the new psychology. And I've confirmed it to my own satisfaction with independent tests. Of late, questionnaires have been exceedingly popular, and the college lads have borne the brunt of the interrogating. Which is more popular, corned beef or chicken à la king? Ask the college boys. Is Gloria Swanson or Mary Pickford the better actress? Ask the college boys. Are flopping galoshes responsible for flapper, and if so, why? Ask the college boys. Throughout the deluge the lads have been scribbling uncomplainingly, revealing their innermost thoughts. Much information of real value, and much rot, too, are the result of all this. Possibly you recall a recent survey in which the youths were asked to describe their ideals of womanhood. When they planned to settle down to matrimony, which would they choose for life partners—the flappers or the old-fashioned girls? And you will remember that, despite the students' apparent fondness for the 1926 model as a roadster companion, he voted to cast her out when it came time to switch to the matrimonial flivver. |
Why? The answer is simple. The lads at college today came into the world a few years after the birth of the twentieth century. Most of their mothers were the old-fashioned type, who looked askance at flappers. And, since a mental picture of his mother as a flapper shocked him, he could not complacently visualize his future wife in the same pose. Not only that, but the young men went on record overwhelmingly as opposed to their wives' working. The subconscious reaction was that their mothers didn't—and their mothers, remember, are their ideals.
Another interesting side-light on the question was thrown by a survey made by the Bureau of Social Hygiene, under the direction of Dr. Katherine B. Davis. Questionnaires, bearing queries of the most intimate nature, were sent to 1,000 women. They dealt with the relationship between man and wife, with the ultimate object of determining what conditions tended to make married life happy. And the women who continued to work after they were married far exceeded the "home bodies" in the unhappy group! Bear in mind, I am not trying to argue against married women in business. I merely cite this as I think it strengthens the theory of sex appeal as I am outlining it. Married women of a generation ago did not go to work; it simply wasn't done; and, although their sons, believing themselves broadminded on the subject, agreed to permit their wives to continue working, it militated against the peace of the household. What psychology calls the "mother complex" was stronger than reason. Not so many years ago Professor Sigmund Freud, of Vienna, set the medical world agog with his startling theories regarding the queer doings of the human subconscious mind. The great point in Freud's argument was the sex life of children. An important point he made was that, as a rule, the baby's first love is his mother. As he grows older, this mother romance is likely to become a complex, meaning a group of ideas bossed by a constant craving. The craving is for his mother's love; the group of ideas, everything connected with his mother. In later life, the average man takes the mother complex as the standard of perfection, and it's the little things that count. A man may fall in love because of the tilt of a woman's head; the seductive scent that stirs him unaccountably; the way she wears her hair. But the mother complex is back of it all. Gloria Swanson owes her present eminent position in the film world to the manner in which she leaned against a door. Sounds ridiculous, doesn't it? Yet the story is vouched for by the man who had the most to do with starting her on her meteoric career, Cecil B. de Mille, the famous producer and director. During the filming of one of the early Mack Sennett comedies, Mr. de Mille's attention strayed for a moment from the principals to the slim figure of an extra whose presence meant little or nothing to the success of the picture. Something in the attitude of the young woman as she stood against a door caught the director's eye and held him spellbound. "She leaned like a woman in distress," he said later, "with her soul expressed in the pose of her body." For the remainder of the day Mr. de Mille watched the girl anxiously, and was disappointed. "She was very, very bad for the rest of the time," |
he admitted; but on the strength of those few seconds he gave her a chance at something better. Now see where she is!
So it is with love. Just such a pose, provided it duplicates an attitude struck by a man's mother, may mean he will start wooing her ardently, his mind made up before he has even seen her face. "But," you may object, "this feature of resemblance does not work out in my case. My mother was a brunette—deep brown eyes, black hair. And I'm married to the sweetest girl in the world, but she is a blonde, not the drug store variety either. Everyone knows how dissimilar those types are." But are they? Who says so? I hate to shatter a belief of such long standing, but I must in the interest of truth. Except for pigmentation, the blonde and the brunette are virtually interchangeable. You don't have to take my word for that. I'll refer you to a test made recently at the University of Minnesota—another one of those questionnaires—by two members of the faculty. They had their doubts that the brunette invariably is positive, driving, hopeful, and loving, while the blonde is negative, plodding, submissive, and static. A list was prepared of various traits attributed to both types and given to ninety-four students of psychology. Each was told to select two pronounced blondes and two equally decided brunettes from among his acquaintances, and to judge them with respect to the characteristics on the list. The students were not informed of the purpose of the test, that they might not unconsciously follow the old formula. It was discovered that no possible line of demarcation could be drawn. Whereas one student ascribed positiveness to a blonde acquaintance, another credited his brunette friend with the same trait. And so it went all the way down the line. Vigorous brunettes, passive blondes; passive brunettes and vigorous blondes. So, you see, color does not necessarily have anything to do with it. |
— Frederic Damrau, M D, "A Doctor Discusses Sex Appeal", Popular Science Monthly, Aug 1926, pg 10-11, 104. USA.
|
What It Costs to Be a Well-Dressed Flapper
By Scott Pierce Among the many things that the male of the species can never understand about feminine wearing apparel is the fact that simplicity is one of the most expensive effects a designer can achieve.
That is why a really well-dressed flapper presents such a shock to the average man's mind when he reads the price tags on the chic and deceptively simple garments that make up the flapper ensemble. As a matter of fact, it costs about as much to dress a modern girl in a genuinely modish flapper outfit as it does to equip completely a reasonably well-furnished three-room flat. The jaunty costume illustrated by Clara Bow is an excellent example of what it costs to be a well-dressed flapper. The total cost of this outfit comes to the very interesting figure of $346.50. The various items cost as follows: White chiffon velvet tam, trimmed with silver band, $25
Black silk faille coat, lined with white crepe, and trimmed with ermine fur collar and cuffs, $150 Large white gardenia, $5 White silk faille blouse, trimmed with tailored pipings of black faille, $25 Pearls, three strands, $50 Black silk faille skirt, box-pleated, $30 Lizard-skin hand-bag, black and white, $30 Doeskin gloves, with turn-back cuffs embroidered in varicolored yarns, $8.50 Rose beige chiffon stockings, $4.50 Rose beige shoes trimmed with darker tan leather in appliquéd designs, $18.50 |
This was posted on Retronaut, but I do not know the context or the original source. I'd like to point out that Clara Bow was one of the most sought after actresses in Hollywood at this time, so the way she is dressed here probably has more to do with how actresses dressed in 1926 than how flappers dressed.
$346.50 in 1926 would have the purchasing power of $4,400 in 2011, but looking at purchasing power alone doesn't tell us the whole picture. When compared to the average budget, the cost would have the impact of $8,660 today.
$346.50 in 1926 would have the purchasing power of $4,400 in 2011, but looking at purchasing power alone doesn't tell us the whole picture. When compared to the average budget, the cost would have the impact of $8,660 today.
Results
Behaviors
|
Appearance and Dress
|