18 Jun 2012, 4:34 pm
ValentineWiggin wrote:
Quote:
I know you love and adore the "this is not every individual and we are all special little snowflakes" point of view to invalidate any point of a discussion
You're getting unneccessarily hostile over this, dontcha think?
Quote:
Oh wow, obese children suffer psychologically in a fat phobic culture?
Overweight and obesity are associated with a great number of dietary-related illnesses?
Is this supposed to be representative of your point, or mine? I can't tell..
I've referenced the confusion on the part of the public with correlative vs causative relationships with obesity several times now, so I'll assume it's the latter. Thank you- this proves my point
[/quote]
This'll be the future in like 10 years here in the States...
Sorry, I'm feeling a bit jaded right now after my trip down South, people are getting HUGE there.
18 Jun 2012, 4:38 pm
18 Jun 2012, 4:44 pm
1000Knives wrote:
This'll be the future in like 10 years here in the States...
Sorry, I'm feeling a bit jaded right now after my trip down South, people are getting HUGE there.
That guy in the middle must be the black equivalent of this chap
ValentineWiggin
Veteran
Joined: 15 May 2011
Age: 38
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,907
Location: Beneath my cat's paw
18 Jun 2012, 6:34 pm
1000Knives wrote:
This'll be the future in like 10 years here in the States...
Sorry, I'm feeling a bit jaded right now after my trip down South, people are getting HUGE there.
Except that beauty and aesthetic norms, at least in the West, are defined by novelty-
if the trend continues as it has been, with the categories for "overweight" and "obesity" continually re-defined to be more inclusive, the "ideal" will continue getting smaller and smaller.
People in the South (is where I live
) have, in the modern food era, always been larger for a combination of reasons, socioeconomic, climate-related, and of course there is a food culture here that isn't exactly all about low calorie. 
If you wanted to design a culture that produces larger and larger people,
you couldn't sit down with pen and paper and craft one that's a more efficient model than the US.
When I'm visiting my parents, and they go to a drivethrough, it's a jumping through hoops process just to get an unsweet tea for me with some saccharin sweetener in packets that I have to add and precariously stir in, in a moving car, versus the gallon of glorified sugar water that's just handed to each of them.
I could name a million examples.
18 Jun 2012, 6:56 pm
ValentineWiggin wrote:
1000Knives wrote:
This'll be the future in like 10 years here in the States...
Sorry, I'm feeling a bit jaded right now after my trip down South, people are getting HUGE there.
Except that beauty and aesthetic norms, at least in the West, are defined by novelty-
if the trend continues as it has been, with the categories for "overweight" and "obesity" continually re-defined to be more inclusive, the "ideal" will continue getting smaller and smaller.
People in the South (is where I live
) have, in the modern food era, always been larger for a combination of reasons, socioeconomic, climate-related, and of course there is a food culture here that isn't exactly all about low calorie. What men find beautiful is hard-coded into our instincts.
1940s:
1950s:
1960s:
1970s:
1980s:
1990s:
2000s:
2010s:
The key difference is that beauty icons are no longer exclusively white and that hairstyles change. The most important features more or less remain the same.
18 Jun 2012, 7:13 pm
18 Jun 2012, 7:23 pm
Kjas
Veteran
Joined: 26 Feb 2012
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,059
Location: the place I'm from doesn't exist anymore
18 Jun 2012, 11:06 pm
ValentineWiggin
Veteran
Joined: 15 May 2011
Age: 38
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,907
Location: Beneath my cat's paw
19 Jun 2012, 12:09 am
Kurgan wrote:
SpiritBlooms wrote:
And your point would be? A woman should do her best to look good to you? Maybe she has other priorities, such as feeling good physically and happy with herself - for herself.
My point is that beauty standards have VERY LITTLE to do with novelty and trends, at least when it comes to what men prefer. None of the women I posted were underweight fashion models and all have (or at least had) good health.
I think it's cute you only posted photos from the last few decades and implied beauty standards are based on them something enduring.
Evolutionarily, fertility and attractiveness has more to do with certain ratios (bust-waist-hips) for example, than BMI.
I was hourglass shaped and had no fertility problems when I was obese.
Now (a hundred pounds later) I'll be lucky if I can ever conceive.
Last edited by ValentineWiggin on 19 Jun 2012, 12:12 am, edited 1 time in total.
ValentineWiggin
Veteran
Joined: 15 May 2011
Age: 38
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,907
Location: Beneath my cat's paw
19 Jun 2012, 12:11 am
OliveOilMom
Veteran
Joined: 11 Nov 2011
Age: 62
Gender: Female
Posts: 11,447
Location: About 50 miles past the middle of nowhere
19 Jun 2012, 12:24 am
kirayng wrote:
I don't see anything strange about possessing knowledge not used for one's own benefit. I know a lot of nutrition and am a professional cook but I love french fries, cakes and pastries... can't really do much about the way we're wired. 
Ever dipped the raw potato in salted flour before you fried it? That's the best fry ever!
_________________
I'm giving it another shot. We will see.
My forum is still there and everyone is welcome to come join as well. There is a private women only subforum there if anyone is interested. Also, there is no CAPTCHA.
The link to the forum is http://www.rightplanet.proboards.com
19 Jun 2012, 5:37 am
ValentineWiggin wrote:
Kurgan wrote:
SpiritBlooms wrote:
And your point would be? A woman should do her best to look good to you? Maybe she has other priorities, such as feeling good physically and happy with herself - for herself.
My point is that beauty standards have VERY LITTLE to do with novelty and trends, at least when it comes to what men prefer. None of the women I posted were underweight fashion models and all have (or at least had) good health.
I think it's cute you only posted photos from the last few decades and implied beauty standards are based on them something enduring.
Evolutionarily, fertility and attractiveness has more to do with certain ratios (bust-waist-hips) for example, than BMI.
I was hourglass shaped and had no fertility problems when I was obese.
Now (a hundred pounds later) I'll be lucky if I can ever conceive.
Just because this is true in your case, doesn't make it so for everyone else. Your fertility problems are because you eat too little. In most cases, obesity actually stalls fertility.
The romans had beauty standards a lot like the ones today. Apart from the fact that it favours slightly chubby eomen (most likely because people didn't eat a lot everyday), the Perfumed Garden also describes what we still find beautiful.
19 Jun 2012, 9:15 am
Kurgan wrote:
ValentineWiggin wrote:
Kurgan wrote:
SpiritBlooms wrote:
And your point would be? A woman should do her best to look good to you? Maybe she has other priorities, such as feeling good physically and happy with herself - for herself.
My point is that beauty standards have VERY LITTLE to do with novelty and trends, at least when it comes to what men prefer. None of the women I posted were underweight fashion models and all have (or at least had) good health.
I think it's cute you only posted photos from the last few decades and implied beauty standards are based on them something enduring.
Evolutionarily, fertility and attractiveness has more to do with certain ratios (bust-waist-hips) for example, than BMI.
I was hourglass shaped and had no fertility problems when I was obese.
Now (a hundred pounds later) I'll be lucky if I can ever conceive.
Just because this is true in your case, doesn't make it so for everyone else. Your fertility problems are because you eat too little. In most cases, obesity actually stalls fertility.
The romans had beauty standards a lot like the ones today. Apart from the fact that it favours slightly chubby eomen (most likely because people didn't eat a lot everyday), the Perfumed Garden also describes what we still find beautiful.
The standard of being thin (or what you label as "healthy") has only existed for less than 100 years. It probably started with Twiggy in the 20's. For a good bit of history men were not looking for women who were thin. They were looking for women who had a little weight behind them so they could handle the hard work of keeping a home, wouldn't die in the occasional famine, and had breeder hips so they wouldn't die in childbirth. There probably was not a whole lot of obesity, aside from the very wealthy, because your average woman had a physically demanding life, but they were not thin.
Throughout history a woman being thin, was a sign of poverty, and not viewed as a positive trait.
The ancient romans were pigs, but your right-their standards were not so different than today. They were obsessed with beauty, and that defined everything.
side note: I noticed you included Halle Berry with the idea of including women of color, but the fact of the matter is that the only woman that fit into your narrow category, are the ones that look white (have white features). African american culture accepts its women as large and curvy, with no apologies.
Last edited by MeshugenahMama on 19 Jun 2012, 9:49 am, edited 1 time in total.
19 Jun 2012, 9:37 am
MeshugenahMama wrote:
Kurgan wrote:
ValentineWiggin wrote:
Kurgan wrote:
SpiritBlooms wrote:
And your point would be? A woman should do her best to look good to you? Maybe she has other priorities, such as feeling good physically and happy with herself - for herself.
My point is that beauty standards have VERY LITTLE to do with novelty and trends, at least when it comes to what men prefer. None of the women I posted were underweight fashion models and all have (or at least had) good health.
I think it's cute you only posted photos from the last few decades and implied beauty standards are based on them something enduring.
Evolutionarily, fertility and attractiveness has more to do with certain ratios (bust-waist-hips) for example, than BMI.
I was hourglass shaped and had no fertility problems when I was obese.
Now (a hundred pounds later) I'll be lucky if I can ever conceive.
Just because this is true in your case, doesn't make it so for everyone else. Your fertility problems are because you eat too little. In most cases, obesity actually stalls fertility.
The romans had beauty standards a lot like the ones today. Apart from the fact that it favours slightly chubby eomen (most likely because people didn't eat a lot everyday), the Perfumed Garden also describes what we still find beautiful.
The standard of being thin (or what you label as "healthy") has only existed for less than 100 years. It probably started with Twiggy in the 20's. For a good bit of history men were not looking for women who were thin. They were looking for women who had a little weight behind them so they could handle the hard working of keeping a home, wouldn't die in the occasional famine, and had breeder hips so they wouldn't die in childbirth. There probably was not a whole lot of obesity, aside from the very wealthy, because your average woman had a physically demanding life, but they were not thin.
But they weren't HUGE either. I keep posting Lydia Valentin on here, she's an Olympic weightlifter in the 75KG class,
she's hot as all hell. But according to BMI, she's over 25, she's 26.6. BMI is ret*d, as it doesn't take into account muscle mass, not that I'm by any means "jacked" or anything, but I'm 195lbs now, 20% bodyfat, 5'9, I think to get down to a 25BMI I'd have to be at like 7 or 8% bodyfat. So for a lot of my life, I thought I was "supposed" to be 130lbs, now I know it's never gonna be in the cards.
Anyway, what's happening in society is that people see two extremes now. They see the fat people all around them in their daily life, then they see skinny people on TV. Watch like, any 50s show, and most of the people have fairly normal weight. Not skinny, not fat, just...normal. That's all I wish for American society to come back to.
19 Jun 2012, 9:38 am
19 Jun 2012, 10:29 am
1000Knives wrote:
But they weren't HUGE either. I keep posting Lydia Valentin on here, she's an Olympic weightlifter in the 75KG class,
she's hot as all hell. But according to BMI, she's over 25, she's 26.6. BMI is ret*d, as it doesn't take into account muscle mass, not that I'm by any means "jacked" or anything, but I'm 195lbs now, 20% bodyfat, 5'9, I think to get down to a 25BMI I'd have to be at like 7 or 8% bodyfat. So for a lot of my life, I thought I was "supposed" to be 130lbs, now I know it's never gonna be in the cards. Anyway, what's happening in society is that people see two extremes now. They see the fat people all around them in their daily life, then they see skinny people on TV. Watch like, any 50s show, and most of the people have fairly normal weight. Not skinny, not fat, just...normal. That's all I wish for American society to come back to.
Most sensible people ignore BMI because of its faults. It doesn't take into account build, muscle, bone density and so on. However, body fat is a good measure of health to a degree, so are inches or centimeters. Even if you look at TV now, its not like most women on there are Ally Mcbeal, nor are most men Zach Braff or some other girly man.
