The size debate: standards of beauty

Paleocon wrote:

I guess another issue I have with this article stems from this observation. By pulling the example of runway models and elevating that straw man (girl?) as "normative", they seem to be trying to downplay serious issues of obesity, health, and individual body image. The existence of one bad example does not validate the opposite extreme.

I think the priority should be on breaking whatever the obesity/health issues are away from the individual body image/beauty issues. The idea of beauty should be disconnected from health and treated simply as personal, subjective preference.

I think a lot of the health issues we associate with obesity would disappear if we lived in a world that didn't heap stress on people for the way they look.

muttonchop wrote:
Hypatian wrote:

All I really know is that toothpick arms are right out.

This. Fat, muscle, I don't care as long you have more than just skin covering your limbs. Bones aren't attractive.

and for me muscles aren't attractive on the arms. Bones are okay in the arms, though, I've come to find.

KingGorilla wrote:

We can both still find eahother hot right?

No. You will become aroused when we tell you to.

KingGorilla wrote:

I am confused. My girlfriend is proportioned like a playmate. She wants to get some holiday and stress eating weight off in the next few months, a barely noticeable bump in her tummy.

I am no Bradley Cooper, but seem to be regarded as good looking, in shape.

We can both still find eahother hot right?

Enlist the goodjer collective for aid! Post plenty of pictures, and we'll let you know the results.

wordsmythe wrote:
KingGorilla wrote:

We can both still find eahother hot right?

No. You will become aroused when we tell you to.

/shamefully covers pants

Also let's not forget the rumors (stereotypes?) of rampant coke/meth use among fashion models. That's a wonderful weight loss program.

Everyone defines their own definition of beauty. Often what we like is influenced by our own body image (either we like the same thing or the opposite). I tend to like women with a few more curves because I'm a bigger guy and it's generally bad form to break the person you're with.

Also, there is often a difference between what we consider beauty and what we consider sexy. Laetitia Casta might be considered by some as truly beautiful, but (to me) she doesn't hold a candle to Monica Belluci when it comes to sexy.

Nevin73 wrote:

Also let's not forget the rumors (stereotypes?) of rampant coke/meth use among fashion models. That's a wonderful weight loss program.

Nicotine, caffeine, and coke. The holy trinity of weight control in the fashion industry.

OG_slinger wrote:
Nevin73 wrote:

Also let's not forget the rumors (stereotypes?) of rampant coke/meth use among fashion models. That's a wonderful weight loss program.

Nicotine, caffeine, and diet coke. The holy trinity of weight control in the fashion industry.

FTFY..

[size=6]I keed..[/size]

I like callipygian ladies.

KingGorilla wrote:
Spoiler:

I am confused. My girlfriend is proportioned like a playmate. She wants to get some holiday and stress eating weight off in the next few months, a barely noticeable bump in her tummy.

I am no Bradley Cooper, but seem to be regarded as good looking, in shape.

We can both still find eahother hot right? Or do I need to dump her and head to the nearest Old Country Buffet for meatier stock? Or do I need to get to the salon and find leaner? Will the larger or smaller women still laugh at my jokes? Will they cook for me?

Will I be able to carry the larger women into the bedroom in a show of my love and strength?

Only if you hit the gym more.

*edit: ↓↓↓ still makes me laugh to this day.

Tanglebones wrote:
wordsmythe wrote:
KingGorilla wrote:

We can both still find eahother hot right?

No. You will become aroused when we tell you to.

/shamefully covers pants

You will wear pants only when we tell you to.

wordsmythe wrote:
Tanglebones wrote:
wordsmythe wrote:
KingGorilla wrote:

We can both still find eahother hot right?

No. You will become aroused when we tell you to.

/shamefully covers pants

You will wear pants only when we tell you to.

/shamefully covers underwear

Tanglebones wrote:
wordsmythe wrote:
Tanglebones wrote:
wordsmythe wrote:
KingGorilla wrote:

We can both still find eahother hot right?

No. You will become aroused when we tell you to.

/shamefully covers pants

You will wear pants only when we tell you to.

/shamefully covers underwear

You will only shamefully cover things when we tell you to.

LobsterMobster wrote:
Tanglebones wrote:
wordsmythe wrote:
Tanglebones wrote:
wordsmythe wrote:
KingGorilla wrote:

We can both still find eahother hot right?

No. You will become aroused when we tell you to.

/shamefully covers pants

You will wear pants only when we tell you to.

/shamefully covers underwear

You will only shamefully cover things when we tell you to.

/proudly display wiener bomb

Paleocon wrote:

IMAGE(http://www.bodyrock.tv/wp-content/themes/nerdery-skeleton-theme-v1/timthumb.php?src=http://bodyrock.tv/wp-content/Thumbnails/why-should-women-workout.jpg&w=594&h=412&c=1&q=100)

Whats this thread about?

My wife has a physique similar to that of the "plus size" woman. She has some fat to lose but underneath she is very muscular and strong. I'm happy with her just the way she is but she is unhappy with her body and sadly, she strives for the petite, boney look of anorexic models. Im hoping she'll end up somewhere in between.

Back on topic...

Tanglebones, become aroused!

Bonus_Eruptus wrote:

Tanglebones, become aroused!

Well, keep getting people to post these pics..

Tanglebones wrote:
Bonus_Eruptus wrote:

Tanglebones, become aroused!

Well, keep getting people to post these pics.. :)

You will make do with the available pictures, as will I, until... oh, hey, Katya Zharkova shows up in Google Image Search.

wordsmythe wrote:

No. You will become aroused when we tell you to.

Marcus Bachmann, is that you?!

Government censorship or regulation doesn't tend to sit well with people so doesn't it fall to the consumers to vote with their dollar? Yet organizing a broad consumer boycott of all media using that sort of woman(or Photoshop artist) to help sell itself seems extremely improbable. What else could be done here?

Related article:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/ar...

Basically, it's not really about sexism as much as it is about laziness or mass production. My girlfriend gets really ticked off at this stuff since she's both slender and curvy (Why yes, I am bragging).

kazooka wrote:

Related article:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/ar...

Basically, it's not really about sexism as much as it is about laziness or mass production. My girlfriend gets really ticked off at this stuff since she's both slender and curvy (Why yes, I am bragging).

Still the same root cause, people are dumbasses.

krev82 wrote:

Government censorship or regulation doesn't tend to sit well with people so doesn't it fall to the consumers to vote with their dollar? Yet organizing a broad consumer boycott of all media using that sort of woman(or Photoshop artist) to help sell itself seems extremely improbable. What else could be done here?

I don't think that's the approach to take here. I think you have to convince people that it's ok to look different and to be attracted to different. Convince everyone that it's ok to be healthy.

Considering that the vast majority of purchasers of fashion magazines tend to be women, doesn't it follow then that they command the purchasing power to affect substantive change in the industry? It's not like women are trampling over one another to purchase magazines that feature larger women. And I seriously doubt that there is some kind of conspiracy among publishers to sabotage their own profitability by providing only images that women don't want to see.

This really does seem to me to be a problem created with consent of the "victims".

Paleocon wrote:

Considering that the vast majority of purchasers of fashion magazines tend to be women, doesn't it follow then that they command the purchasing power to affect substantive change in the industry? It's not like women are trampling over one another to purchase magazines that feature larger women. And I seriously doubt that there is some kind of conspiracy among publishers to sabotage their own profitability by providing only images that women don't want to see.

This really does seem to me to be a problem created with consent of the "victims".

It's a little of a chicken and the egg thing. Do they buy the magazines because they think the women are ideal or do they think the women are ideal because they bought the magazines?

Either way, you're right, regardless of how we got there we're in this mess and that's why I said it has to be fixed by boosting the self esteem/body image of women (and men for that matter) so that they no longer want to buy the magazines.

gregrampage wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

Considering that the vast majority of purchasers of fashion magazines tend to be women, doesn't it follow then that they command the purchasing power to affect substantive change in the industry? It's not like women are trampling over one another to purchase magazines that feature larger women. And I seriously doubt that there is some kind of conspiracy among publishers to sabotage their own profitability by providing only images that women don't want to see.

This really does seem to me to be a problem created with consent of the "victims".

It's a little of a chicken and the egg thing. Do they buy the magazines because they think the women are ideal or do they think the women are ideal because they bought the magazines?

Either way, you're right, regardless of how we got there we're in this mess and that's why I said it has to be fixed by boosting the self esteem/body image of women (and men for that matter) so that they no longer want to buy the magazines.

Not to mention that the market, especially now with the tremendously low barriers to entry, is extremely adept at adjusting to meet new niches and expectations. Even fat women buy magazines with skinny women in them over ones with fat ones on the covers. They want to look at skinny women, otherwise why would they bother?

With the explosion of different types of media, the availability of free media, and the democratization of media sources (eg: Youtube et al), you'd think that if folks were really not interested in looking at images of women with thin waists, they'd gravitate toward media that portray women differently. In general, they don't. And it appears the worst offenders are women themselves.

Paleocon wrote:

Considering that the vast majority of purchasers of fashion magazines tend to be women, doesn't it follow then that they command the purchasing power to affect substantive change in the industry? It's not like women are trampling over one another to purchase magazines that feature larger women. And I seriously doubt that there is some kind of conspiracy among publishers to sabotage their own profitability by providing only images that women don't want to see.

This really does seem to me to be a problem created with consent of the "victims".

How can you sell something to someone you remind in each monthly issue "hey--you're okay girlfriend!"

CheezePavilion wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

Considering that the vast majority of purchasers of fashion magazines tend to be women, doesn't it follow then that they command the purchasing power to affect substantive change in the industry? It's not like women are trampling over one another to purchase magazines that feature larger women. And I seriously doubt that there is some kind of conspiracy among publishers to sabotage their own profitability by providing only images that women don't want to see.

This really does seem to me to be a problem created with consent of the "victims".

How can you sell something to someone you remind in each monthly issue "hey--you're okay girlfriend!"

I guess I don't understand nor have much sympathy for any segment of the population that participates in its own oppression if they honestly feel that they are being oppressed. If folks are really that concerned about their own body image and resent the existence of a prevailing image of beauty, there really is just about nothing stopping them from marketing another standard. Heck, there are publications for folks with five pounds of metal in their faces or full face tattoos for gods' sakes. If heavier women want publications that affirm their body image, it has never been easier to start printing.

Media images of all kinds of different body types are available everywhere. Just the other day, I was in Target and the checkout rack had a Muscle and Fitness with Dana Hamm on it and two gossip rags with Beyonce Knowles and Jennifer Lopez on them. None of them could be confused with being "skinny" or "waiflike".

If you or anyone else wants a positive image, pick a positive image. I may (and do) idolize Roy Jones, Jr., but I don't beat myself up if I fall short of his nearly reptilian abs (I confess, mine look more like Chuck Liddell's).

Seriously, if folks have body image issues, blaming it on fashion magazines seems pretty misguided. Just stop buying fashion magazines. It seems as backward as blaming school aged violence on videogames. Or, if you're really that dissatisfied, do something to change it. Folks do it all the time. And as Oscar Wilde put it "discontent is the first step toward positive change.".

I blame Barbie.

Because the fashion/beauty industries' business model involves making people feel unattractive, it perhaps makes sense that they would promote the most difficult-to-achieve body shape. It helps (and may not be a coincidence) that many of our culture's sexism issues play directly into their hands.

Except they've been taught by pretty much everything else they're supposed to be ashamed.

I'm not sure how to explain this to you. Let me try it this way. We have an ice cream shop chain here called Dairy Queen. They make the best fat free/sugar free fudge bars. They're so good my kids will rifle my freezer for them even if there is other ice cream in the house.

However, if I walk into that store, I get knowing stares and tsking comments in the line behind me, just because I'm the size I am and I walk into the store. Everyone assumes I'm there to overindulge with something awful.

I don't know how to make you understand how that feels even once, much less day in and day out and manifesting in every subtle and blatant way you can imagine. You, no one would look twice at. You could walk out of there with six sundaes and no one would even blink.

The few who aren't ashamed and just do what they like are called every sort of bad name. And those who like that sort of thing are treated as if they're sick or wrong. Ever heard the term "chubby chaser"? There are niche materials out there, but they're treated on the same level as Furry publications (which also do exist). Heck, just read the article in the root post for a rather tame demonstration of their reception.

This isn't a new thing. Ever hear the old nursery rhyme about Jack Sprat and his wife? And it starts in that young, too. The new and uh... improved Tinker Bell is a great example. Or the new Dora the Explorer.

We all should buck up, right? What the entire world has to say shouldn't matter. Well, I do as best I can. I actually manage to leave the house most days. And I square my shoulders and go buy my fudge bars trying to keep in mind that they all can take a nice long running kiss at my rosy Irish ass. Even someone as dumb as them can't miss mine. But that doesn't mean it is right, or that no one should be trying to find another way.

And just not buying Vogue won't help. There is no way I could walk into a store and vote with my wallet about the magazines. There is nothing else out there. If I don't buy anything, then the magazine publishers don't get any message - you're just not their market. You get ignored and written off by yet another segment of the world. Nice. It's not just magazines. I have this problem with games, too.