CENTLEMEN PREFER

Gisborne Times, Volume LXXXIV, Issue 12869, 23 May 1936, Page 10

CENTLEMEN PREFER

VITALITY BEFORE SWEETNESS.

The American editors*of “Vogue,” by addressing a questionnaire to all universities in the United States, have found out what American college hoys think of girls and their clothes.

The undergraduate world from Princeton, New Jersey, to Levland Stanford. California, was recently peppered with questionnaires asking for masculine comment on feminine fashions and qualities. They came whipping back with an all-time ‘high’ in percentage-of-returns. The college man was frantically eager to express his opinions.

Answers to the first question: “Do you like girls who are pretty rather than smart, or smart rather than pretty?” showed an overwhelming majority for the smart girl. “Lots of pretty girls can look awfully sloppy,” they Added arid, “if she looks smart we think she’s pretty.” The second question was another national landslide: “Which do you prefer, slinky or fluffy evening dresses?” Slinky, slinky, slinky. But analysis shows that south of the Ma-son-Dixon line 90 per cent, of the col-ic-go men prefer something “soft” and “feminine” with “not too much neck showing.” In any other part of the country they want the girls in “plain dark fabric,” “high in front hut very' low in hack,” and “showing the figure” or even “form-fitting.” “For heaven’s sake do away with trains, buffs that drop, long earrings that 'dangle, and do-johnnies in the hair.” - ’

The magazine ventures further in its next request: “Number in order ot importance these qualities in a girl —Neatness, vitality, sex appeal, beauty, -distinction, sweetness*, style.” Here’s the final rating: (1) Vitality; (2) sex appeal; (3) neatness; (4) distinction; (5) style; (6) beauty; (7) sweetness.

There’s a pretty comment on this year of grace: Vitality first and sweetness last. Any number of hardboiled juniors and seniors went so far as to cross sweetness entirely off the list. Here again, it was only the hoys from Johns Hopkins southward who kept it in the batting at ail.

When they were asked : “Do you like to see girls hv day in sports clothes, fur-trimmed- town costumes, or severe suits?” the hoys shouted “sports clothes” unanimously. Sweaters and skirts; tweeds, “with a clash” ; ankle, socks and sports shoes. The hoys did not even admit that there might be occasion for anything else. Their number one general criticism on the v.ay girls appear is overdressing. They cry for simplicity.

They were also asked: “Do you like perfume?” Yes, indeed, hut in 89 per cent, or the answers a warning—- “ Not too much.” “imitation jewellery?” 90 per cent, negative. “Evident make-up?" Practically 100 per cc-nt. no. How they hate h! Thev want to be fooled by artificial aids to beauty—never to he made aware of them. “Bright red nails?” A storm of negatives. Comments ranged from “My pet gripe” to profanity. (“We wish to high heaven you would throw the damn stuff in the ocean”). “Flatheeled sandals?” About 70 per corn , no. Philosophical touches were r.ot f missing in the returns. For instance, “A man does not notice individual points of a woman’s attire. Thus the expression a ‘vision in white’ has become popular. In a vision we would hardly notice individual points, hut rather the beauty of the complete image. And so it is with a girl. We would prefer to think of her as something remotely lovely and intriguing —not as a national animal.” Such are the ■ direct answers on young women’s fashions from the college man—the man- whose opinion makes about six years of a girl’s life into success or failure.