Girls Harsher Critics Of The Female Body?

[RogerWallace111]

So.... this thread was really just concern-trolling? You don't actually care about women judging each other harshly because of the beauty standards imposed on them by society, you just want women to adhere to the beauty standard YOU find attractive? It has nothing to do with women being comfortable in their own body, or being satisfied with their own attractiveness regardless of male validation.... it's all about how pissed off you are that there aren't enough women out there who are your type?? Seriously??

\

 

 

Aaah what ? puttin words in others' mouths. As animals on this planet there is, always has been, and always will be a tendency for aesthetically-pleasing features to work favorably in attracting mates. Features that look healthy. From a strictly biological standpoint.

 

You think if "society" started putting mostly overweight girls on billboards, fashion runways, in lingerie catalogs and more movies, male taste would change and that would become the new typical image of "attractive" ? Over-eating and lack of exercise are unhealthy. Our brains, as humans, are biologically predisposed to seek out healthy looking mates, in order to produce the healthiest possible offspring.

[verhrzn]

\

Aaah what ? puttin words in others' mouths. As animals on this planet there is, always has been, and always will be a tendency for aesthetically-pleasing features to work favorably in attracting mates. Features that look healthy. From a strictly biological standpoint.

 

You think if "society" started putting mostly overweight girls on billboards, fashion runways, in lingerie catalogs and more movies, male taste would change and that would become the new typical image of "attractive" ? Over-eating and lack of exercise are unhealthy. Our brains, as humans, are biologically predisposed to seek out healthy looking mates, in order to produce the healthiest possible offspring.

 

Way to completely miss the point. My point was that the OP started this thread being all "concerned" that women are harsh about each other's bodies, and that they shouldn't listen to the magazines.... and then he himself was harsh about women's bodies, and suggested just supplanting one beauty standard with another.

 

So, it pretty much had nothing to do with improving women's self-esteem or body image, but about them adhering to HIS standards. Again, trading one beauty standard for another, which helps women.... how?

[RogerWallace111]

If I missed your intended point, it does nothing to change the truth and utter relevance of what I said above. If one doesn't care about maintaining their health, and is content in the knowledge that they'll mostly attract those who are physically similar, that's perfectly fine. Live and let live.

 

 

 

The OP never acted "pissed off" or "harsh" about any female body choice. Or made any "demands" that they adhere to his personal preference. You are concocting that. You seem to just have anger over the fact that physical appearance inevitably plays into the opposite gender's perception of any given person.

[verhrzn]

The OP never acted "pissed off" or "harsh" about any female body choice. Or made any "demands" that they adhere to his personal preference. You are concocting that. You seem to just have anger over the fact that physical appearance inevitably plays into the opposite gender's perception of any given person.

 

I am angry that guys have beauty standards, and then claim that they don't. I am angry that this thread is supposedly how women are so much worse about other women's bodies, and yet is crammed full of guys judging women's bodies, or dictating how they should be this or shouldn't be that.

 

If you're shallow, own it, and stop trying to say you're NOT shallow because other people are worse.

[RogerWallace111]

EVERYONE has personal standards/preferences concerning "beauty". Male and female. Who doesn't "own up" to that ? That's not being "shallow". You think I'm just being a dick when I look at an obese or overly thin woman and think "that's not for me" ? It's something you can't help. Doesn't mean I couldn't have a conversation with them and find them to be an awesome person.

 

Would you have the same anger toward a guy who naturally, without any deliberate intention, had a thing for really chunky ladies and wasn't interested in anyone of a healthy size/physique ?

 

 

And girls DO often pick their enemies apart physically, in very harsh ways. They notice those details and sometimes want to demean eachother, like enemies of any gender might.

Edited October 8, 2012 by RogerWallace111

[verhrzn]

EVERYONE has personal standards/preferences concerning "beauty". Male and female. Who doesn't "own up" to that ? That's not being "shallow". You think I'm just being a dick when I look at an obese or overly thin woman and think "that's not for me" ? It's something you can't help. Doesn't mean I couldn't have a conversation with them and find them to be an awesome person.

 

Would you have the same anger toward a guy who naturally, without any deliberate intention, had a thing for really chunky ladies and wasn't interested in anyone of a healthy size/physique ?

 

I'd have the same reaction for ANYONE who said "your body must be THIS to be attractive." I am not a fan of judging other people's bodies and insisting they be A or B to be attractive or acceptable. Saying "ladies stop listening to the magazines, listen to men who say big asses are great!" is just sticking one body type in for another.

 

And AGAIN, you cannot tell a person's health from their body. You cannot even tell from their physique. Unless you are that person's doctor, stop it with the "this body is healthy" or "this body is unhealthy." You don't know, so stop assuming.

[RogerWallace111]

OP never said "a woman must look like this to be attractive". He said "a woman must look like this if I am going to be attracted to her." The same way a very rare steak doesn't whet my appetite. I'm very aware that for many people it does.

 

^really acknowledge this... cut through the haze of your anger.

 

That is not wrong. Similarly, if a woman didn't find a man to be attractive, it is simply a product of her personal, undeniable taste, and only a bitch or douchebag is gonna try to say "my preference is the rule of what looks good."

 

An yes, you can tell someone's lack of good health from their body's appearance. I'm not quite positive why you are in denial over that. Of course there are internal things, and a person can be skinny & eat terribly/not exercise... but there is no such thing as a healthy, obese person.

[TheBigQuestion]

Once again, agenda-driven posts have knocked a fairly decent thread off-topic, just in a different direction than the dubious accusations of misogyny that tainted the first few pages.

 

First of all, a lot of what has been passed off as "history" in this thread has been pretty heavily distorted. Female beauty standards in Western civilization have NOT remained even remotely constant over the past several thousand years. Depending on the time period and the exact culture, many different types of bodies have been considered aesthetically pleasing. And in the 20th century, the changes in what is considered attractive from one decade to the other are plainly obvious. Do you really think Christina Hendricks would have topped all the "sexiest woman alive"-type lists during the heights of Heroin Chic?

 

V, what do you propose we do? Are you advocating the abolition of ALL standards of physical beauty? Because I can assure you that will NEVER happen in our lifetime. Some body types and facial features will always be considered attractive, and others will not. Period.

[verhrzn]

OP never said "a woman must look like this to be attractive". He said "a woman must look like this if I am going to be attracted to her." The same way a very rare steak doesn't whet my appetite. I'm very aware that for many people it does.

 

^really acknowledge this... cut through the haze of your anger.

 

Um, yes he did...

 

All I'm saying is women look better when they're not underweight. I didn't say women must have 36 DD boobs and 40" hips. Every woman's body type is different, but they all look better with whatever sized curves they have, as opposed to starving themselves and looking emaciated.

 

I think it's better to want a girl to be healthy, then to demand her to be unrealistically skinny. The situation Wholigan and I were talking about is a perfect example. Alba used to have curves. Not mind blowing, out of control kim kardashian curves, but nice curves for her frame. She then lost a significant amount of weight and said she hated her curves. Most men, I assume, would have preferred she embraced her curves instead of trying to lose them.

 

An yes, you can tell someone's lack of good health from their body's appearance. I'm not quite positive why you are in denial over that. Of course there are internal things, and a person can be skinny & eat terribly/not exercise... but there is no such thing as a healthy, obese person.

 

YES, there are plenty of people who are "obese" but healthy.

 

Weight itself is not a health problem, except in the most extreme cases (i.e., being underweight or so fat you’re immobilized). In fact, fat people live longer than thin people and are more likely to survive cardiac events, and some studies have shown that fat can protect against “infections, cancer, lung disease, heart disease, osteoporosis, anemia, high blood pressure, rheumatoid arthritis and type 2 diabetes.” Yeah, you read that right: even the goddamned diabetes. Now, I’m not saying we should all go out and get fat for our health (which we wouldn’t be able to do anyway, because no one knows how to make a naturally thin person fat any more than they know how to make a naturally fat person thin; see point 4), but I’m definitely saying obesity research is turning up surprising information all the time — much of which goes ignored by the media — and people who give a damn about critical thinking would be foolish to accept the party line on fat. Just because you’ve heard over and over and over that fat! kills! doesn’t mean it’s true. It just means that people in this culture really love saying it.

 

What’s more, those groups do not represent anomalies; no one has proven that fat people generally eat more or exercise less than thin people. Period. And believe me, they’ve tried. (Gina Kolata’s new book, Rethinking Thin, is an outstanding source for more on that point.)

 

-http://kateharding.net/faq/but-dont-you-realize-fat-is-unhealthy/

 

The ONLY "health" indicator that weight indicates is how that person looks. That's it. Looks > weight > health are correlated, but science has not proven causation by any stretch.

[verhrzn]

Once again, agenda-driven posts have knocked a fairly decent thread off-topic, just in a different direction than the dubious accusations of misogyny that tainted the first few pages.

 

First of all, a lot of what has been passed off as "history" in this thread has been pretty heavily distorted. Female beauty standards in Western civilization have NOT remained even remotely constant over the past several thousand years. Depending on the time period and the exact culture, many different types of bodies have been considered aesthetically pleasing. And in the 20th century, the changes in what is considered attractive from one decade to the other are plainly obvious. Do you really think Christina Hendricks would have topped all the "sexiest woman alive"-type lists during the heights of Heroin Chic?

 

V, what do you propose we do? Are you advocating the abolition of ALL standards of physical beauty? Because I can assure you that will NEVER happen in our lifetime. Some body types and facial features will always be considered attractive, and others will not. Period.

 

I am advocating that people stop telling others how they should look to BE attractive or acceptable. Not an abolishment of beauty standards, but an understanding that no one should be forced to adhere to them, and that personal preference is much more varied and expansive.

 

It's the difference between saying "This is what I find attractive" and "This is what is attractive."

 

And yes, beauty standards have varied, but not greatly. There are still some things you never see prized, and each beauty standard builds on the time period that came before it. Would you like to have a post of me outlining all of the specifics?

[TheBigQuestion]

 

And AGAIN, you cannot tell a person's health from their body. You cannot even tell from their physique. Unless you are that person's doctor, stop it with the "this body is healthy" or "this body is unhealthy." You don't know, so stop assuming.

 

"And AGAIN, you cannot tell a man's ability to be protective of a woman or how good his fighting skills are just by how tall he is. So why do women insist on feeling physically attracted to tall guys rather than short guys on the grounds that they make her feel safe and protected?"

 

^Do you not see how infantile your protestations sound when someone says the male equivalent? It's interesting how if I hadn't recognized this and chimed in about it, no one else would have, ESPECIALLY not a female poster.

 

People are ALWAYS going to use some physical characteristic or another to vet through potential partners.

[verhrzn]

"And AGAIN, you cannot tell a man's ability to be protective of a woman or how good his fighting skills are just by how tall he is. So why do women insist on feeling physically attracted to tall guys rather than short guys on the grounds that they make her feel safe and protected?"

 

^Do you not see how infantile your protestations sound when someone says the male equivalent? It's interesting how if I hadn't recognized this and chimed in about it, no one else would have, ESPECIALLY not a female poster.

 

People are ALWAYS going to use some physical characteristic or another to vet through potential partners.

 

Um.... no, that ISN'T the same, because height is an advantage in fighting, but weight is not necessarily correlated to health (as I showed in my previous post with lots of fun links.) Now, if someone was arguing that they liked tall men because tall men are healthier, we might have something.... But arguing that men like skinny women because of "health" is quite bs, since there are really not much evidence that an overweight women (not: not so obese she is immobalized) is any less healthy or fertile than a skinny woman.

 

Additionally, YES, people will always have physical characteristics to vet potential partners. It's when they try to claim those characteristics are universal, or that all people should adhere to them, that I start taking issue.

[TheBigQuestion]

Um.... no, that ISN'T the same, because height is an advantage in fighting, but weight is not necessarily correlated to health (as I showed in my previous post with lots of fun links.) Now, if someone was arguing that they liked tall men because tall men are healthier, we might have something.... But arguing that men like skinny women because of "health" is quite bs, since there are really not much evidence that an overweight women (not: not so obese she is immobalized) is any less healthy or fertile than a skinny woman.

 

Additionally, YES, people will always have physical characteristics to vet potential partners. It's when they try to claim those characteristics are universal, or that all people should adhere to them, that I start taking issue.

 

Height alone is rarely an advantage in fighting. How many bar fights have you been in? How many times have you been mugged at gunpoint? (I've been in both situations). When it comes to fight or flight situations such as those, one's mental fortitude and actual fighting skills will determine the outcome. Unless you're talking about a 5'2" guy fighting a 6'2" guy, the heights of the participants will not be a factor.

 

Ultimately, both our statements exemplify people responding to something viscerally and providing a factually incorrect but prima facie plausible justification. Women will instinctually look at certain female body features that in more primitive times may have been indicators of good health. Women will instinctually be more attracted to men who look like they can protect them from the unknown.

[MrCastle]

So.... this thread was really just concern-trolling? You don't actually care about women judging each other harshly because of the beauty standards imposed on them by society, you just want women to adhere to the beauty standard YOU find attractive? It has nothing to do with women being comfortable in their own body, or being satisfied with their own attractiveness regardless of male validation.... it's all about how pissed off you are that there aren't enough women out there who are your type?? Seriously??

 

If that's what you got out of my OP then you have truly distorted my message.

[verhrzn]

Height alone is rarely an advantage in fighting. How many bar fights have you been in? How many times have you been mugged at gunpoint? (I've been in both situations). When it comes to fight or flight situations such as those, one's mental fortitude and actual fighting skills will determine the outcome. Unless you're talking about a 5'2" guy fighting a 6'2" guy, the heights of the participants will not be a factor.

 

Ultimately, both our statements exemplify people responding to something viscerally and providing a factually incorrect but prima facie plausible justification. Women will instinctually look at certain female body features that in more primitive times may have been indicators of good health. Women will instinctually be more attracted to men who look like they can protect them from the unknown.

 

Yes, mental fortitude and actual fighting skills help. But that was my point, is that all things being equal, the taller person DOES have the better advantage.

 

Your logic is faulty about weight, though. Being skinny (or skinnier) did NOT help in primitive times. Being chubbier or a little more overweight was actually preferred due to the health benefits.

 

Moreover, if a certain trait always signaled health, then that trait would always be a beauty standard. But standards for weight, as you point out, have changed over time... sometimes skinny is preferred, sometimes heavier. If weight was such an indicator of health to humans, then it would have remained static, like how a preference for taller men has been a rather static male beauty standard.

[verhrzn]

If that's what you got out of my OP then you have truly distorted my message.

 

All I'm saying is women look better when they're not underweight. I didn't say women must have 36 DD boobs and 40" hips. Every woman's body type is different, but they all look better with whatever sized curves they have, as opposed to starving themselves and looking emaciated.

 

I think it's better to want a girl to be healthy, then to demand her to be unrealistically skinny. The situation Wholigan and I were talking about is a perfect example. Alba used to have curves. Not mind blowing, out of control kim kardashian curves, but nice curves for her frame. She then lost a significant amount of weight and said she hated her curves. Most men, I assume, would have preferred she embraced her curves instead of trying to lose them.

 

Distorted how, given your above quotes? Exactly what am I missing?

[TheBigQuestion]

Yes, mental fortitude and actual fighting skills help. But that was my point, is that all things being equal, the taller person DOES have the better advantage.

 

Your logic is faulty about weight, though. Being skinny (or skinnier) did NOT help in primitive times. Being chubbier or a little more overweight was actually preferred due to the health benefits.

 

Moreover, if a certain trait always signaled health, then that trait would always be a beauty standard. But standards for weight, as you point out, have changed over time... sometimes skinny is preferred, sometimes heavier. If weight was such an indicator of health to humans, then it would have remained static, like how a preference for taller men has been a rather static male beauty standard.

 

No. The taller person only has an advantage when the shorter person is shorter than over 99% of the male population, such as my hypothetical 5'2" guy above.

 

And again, I'm not trying to say that those justifications make any real sense in the long run. In either situation. Both of those justifications are fundamentally flawed and not really based on any sort of sound science.

[MrCastle]

Distorted how, given your above quotes? Exactly what am I missing?

 

My original post; the entire purpose of this thread, was to talk about how harsh some women are when it comes to criticism of the female body; how precise and detailed their attacks are when it comes to bringing another woman down. From that, it branched out into the media's portrayal of women and who is responsible for the portrayal.

 

Silly me decided to add my two cents about how women that look healthy in terms of their weight is more ideal than the super skinny, unhealthy image the media pushes on women. Instead of getting high fived by women here for that comment, I got blasted for it. Apparently I shouldn't promote women to maintain a healthy body because that in itself is a physical preference and thus, shallow on my part.

 

Shame on me for not wanting women to destroy their bodies because of the pressures put on them by the media.

[verhrzn]

My original post; the entire purpose of this thread, was to talk about how harsh some women are when it comes to criticism of the female body; how precise and detailed their attacks are when it comes to bringing another woman down. From that, it branched out into the media's portrayal of women and who is responsible for the portrayal.

 

Silly me decided to add my two cents about how women that look healthy in terms of their weight is more ideal than the super skinny, unhealthy image the media pushes on women. Instead of getting high fived by women here for that comment, I got blasted for it. Apparently I shouldn't promote women to maintain a healthy body because that in itself is a physical preference and thus, shallow on my part.

 

Shame on me for not wanting women to destroy their bodies because of the pressures put on them by the media.

 

But you're putting pressures on them too! Like I said, you're just trading one body type for another. You're still perpetuating that only a narrow range of women can be attractive. Sure, it's the "healthy" (read: your idea of curvy) body type, which is just as impossible if not more impossible than the skinny body type, but it's still a narrow range.

 

What do you think is the benefit of trading one unrealistic body standard for another?

[MrCastle]

But you're putting pressures on them too! Like I said, you're just trading one body type for another. You're still perpetuating that only a narrow range of women can be attractive. Sure, it's the "healthy" (read: your idea of curvy) body type, which is just as impossible if not more impossible than the skinny body type, but it's still a narrow range.

 

What do you think is the benefit of trading one unrealistic body standard for another?

 

My expectations are not unrealistic. If I gave specific measurements then I could see a point in what you're trying to say. I said healthy weight. A healthy weight will give most women something to work with in terms of curves. My guess is because you believe you don't have any curves, you took what I said as a personal attack; much like short men who get mad at women who say they prefer tall men. If that's the case, understand that I'm not asking all women to be built like a pornstar, my problem is with women that go through extreme dieting and exercise, putting their health at risk, to fulfill an image that most men are not even looking for.

[Lonely Ronin]

But you're putting pressures on them too! Like I said, you're just trading one body type for another. You're still perpetuating that only a narrow range of women can be attractive. Sure, it's the "healthy" (read: your idea of curvy) body type, which is just as impossible if not more impossible than the skinny body type, but it's still a narrow range.

 

What do you think is the benefit of trading one unrealistic body standard for another?

 

This is selective reading/understanding on your part V.

[verhrzn]

My expectations are not unrealistic. If I gave specific measurements then I could see a point in what you're trying to say. I said healthy weight. A healthy weight will give most women something to work with in terms of curves. My guess is because you believe you don't have any curves, you took what I said as a personal attack; much like short men who get mad at women who say they prefer tall men. If that's the case, understand that I'm not asking all women to be built like a pornstar, my problem is with women that go through extreme dieting and exercise, putting their health at risk, to fulfill an image that most men are not even looking for.

 

No, I am arguing that most women DON'T have curves, even at a healthy weight, because most women are not built to have "curves."

 

Apple or V shape (triangle downward)

Apple shaped women have broad(er) shoulders compared to their (narrower) hips.[18] Apple shaped women tend to have slim legs/thighs, while the abdomen and chest look larger compared to the rest of the body. Fat is mainly distributed in the abdomen, chest, and face.

 

Banana, straight or I shape (rectangular)

The waist measurement is less than 9 inches smaller than the hips or bust measurement.[18] Body fat is distributed predominantly in the abdomen, buttocks, chest, and face. This overall fat distribution creates the typical ruler (straight) shape.

 

Pear, spoon, bell or A shape (triangle upward)

The hip measurement is greater than the bust measurement.[18] The distribution of fat varies, with fat tending to deposit first in the buttocks, hips, and thighs. As body fat percentage increases, an increasing proportion of body fat is distributed around the waist and upper abdomen. The women of this body type tend to have a (relatively) larger rear, thicker thighs, and a small(er) bosom.

 

Hourglass or X shape. (triangles opposing, facing in)

The hip and bust are almost of equal size with a narrow waist.[18] Body fat distribution tends to be around both the upper body and lower body. This body type enlarges the arms, chest, hips, and rear before other parts, such as the waist and upper abdomen.

 

A study of the shapes of over 6,000 women, carried out by researchers at the North Carolina State University circa 2005, found that 46% were banana (rectangular), just over 20% pear, just under 14% apple, and 8% hourglass.-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_body_shape

 

"Curves" such as bust, waist and hip width are determined by skeleton and muscle tone, with fat layered on top of that, but weight does NOT change a woman's shape. A woman is curvy or straight regardless of how much she weights. An obese hourglass is still an hourglass, it's just easier to see with the loss of weight.

 

Most women are either rectangular (with little waist, and no ample bust or hips) or with large distributions of weight on their thighs. That's nearly 70% of women right there.

 

So arguing for healthy weight in hopes of gaining "curves" is just as impossible as arguing for skinny chicks, as far as beauty standards go.

[verhrzn]

This is selective reading/understanding on your part V.

 

How so? If you're saying "THIS body type is attractive, THIS is not" even if you're replacing "skinny" with "curvy" it's still placing a beauty standard. It's still putting social pressure on women to adhere to what is attractive, aka, THIS body type (curvy.) Most women do NOT fit into either group, so how is replacing one for the other better?

[MrCastle]

How so? If you're saying "THIS body type is attractive, THIS is not" even if you're replacing "skinny" with "curvy" it's still placing a beauty standard. It's still putting social pressure on women to adhere to what is attractive, aka, THIS body type (curvy.) Most women do NOT fit into either group, so how is replacing one for the other better?

 

Because one is women living a healthy lifestyle and maintaining a healthy body; and the other is women destroying themselves to obtain an unrealistic image.

[verhrzn]

Because one is women living a healthy lifestyle and maintaining a healthy body; and the other is women destroying themselves to obtain an unrealistic image.

 

But you don't KNOW that she is. Unless you are obsessively tracking a girl's eating and exercise routines, you have no idea if she's living unhealthy. You have no way of knowing if a girl with a "healthy" body is living a healthy lifestyle. Unless you are their doctor, and they are tracking such things, you have no idea.

 

A month or two ago I was 113 pounds, the skinniest I have ever been. I "looked" healthier than I do now at 121 pounds. I was also anxious to the point of never sleeping, ate a slice of chocolate cake every other day, and barely exercised. Now, I look fatter, but my food intake is back to "no deserts absolutely ever, Subway salads only," I am constantly taking long walks and doing push-ups, and my sleep schedule is back on track.

 

Looking at my body, you would have no idea about any of that. Does "healthy looking" me sound particularly healthy to you?

 

No. So let's stop assuming we can guess someone's health by how they look, or by what body type they have. And more importantly, can we PLEASE stop saying that one is more attractive than the other??