A new book analyzing the sexual appeal of women’s curves was on the receiving end of a scathing criticism in The Washington Post this week, where writer Caitlin Flanagan flayed British veterinary expert David Bainbridge for attempting to mansplain to female readers how they feel about their breasts, thighs, and butts.
“Read a chapter or two, however, and you discover that “Curvology” merely — and mildly — repeats the assertions of the manosphere: Evolution has caused men to like big breasts, big buttocks and small waists,” Flanagan writes. “We know, we know!”
The review cites passages — Flanagan calls them “graspable chunks for the dizzy broads who pick up the book” — in which Bainbridge quotes anonymous women telling him they feel bad about eating, think they look terrible when they check themselves out in a mirror, and harp on their physical failures, or their “bingo wings, love handles, and muffin tops.” Flanagan criticizes Bainbridge’s “pseudo-scientific” assertions that men like larger-breasted women and therefore women are caught between the twin desires to be curvy and skinny. She cites a particularly egregious passage in which Bainbridge bemoans the fact that many women’s breasts are not large enough to form a cleavage “without artificial support,” and so wear bras that “can push the breasts together as well as upwards, and thus give almost any woman a cleavage.”
Read the full review at the The Washington Post.