So Guys(and gals, if you wish)...Which Do You Prefer?

Post Reply New Topic

That's a narrow way of looking at it. True, men are visually stimulated, but men also enjoy beauty for beauty's sake. Also, the female body is there primarily for the female's use, whether she wants to use it climb a mountain or take a nap, or have children. This is the twenty-first century.

It seems pretty clear at this point you really don't care what we think anyway, you have a mindset that will not change no matter what we say.

BTW, I just checked online and Marilyn Monroe was a US size 12!! !

I don't agree with this either--as a female and an artist, I think the female body is one of the most beautiful objects there is, especially because of the curves. That is why women are the object of so many paintings, and if you take art classes, the models will usually be women.

Well, I don't.
I have always admired the female body and the ones I show in the pictures of my earlier post are attractive not because I want to have sex with them, but because I find their shapes very beautiful.

I also find women who are thinner to be beautiful.

Appreciating the body, for me at least, does not automatically come with sexual desire for that particular person or body.

Actually this may all be moot since I want a body like those myself!

I don't either... The only time I even take body shape into account is when others start talking about it (as in this thread)... Body shape usually takes a back seat to who the person actually is...

Not necessarily. I'm friends with three girls who are size 0s, and all of them are naturally that size. One is a model, but she was a zero long before that, and the other two are just generally athletic people. Actually, they all eat a ton, and they all want to gain weight, because people are rude to them about their size; they tell them that they must be anorexic or bulimic, when they're not, and they tell them that "real women" are larger. What makes them fake? They're naturally born that way.

Don't get me wrong: I'm not promoting an eating disorder in any way. EDs are serious problems, and they're not to be messed with. But just because someone is thin doesn't mean she's got an eating disorder.

The way I see it is this: most people grow into a body type that suits them, and that's great. I don't see why there should be a big deal about losing or gaining weight, because people tend to look best at a size that they're comfortable in, even if it's not the "ideal". Not everyone was meant to be thin, and not everyone was meant to be fat or average or anything in between; everyone has differences, and weight and build are among them.

The problem with the fashion industry is this: instead of trying to promote acceptance, they bash whichever one happens to be out of favor at the moment. For a long time, thin girls were the only "pretty" ones (or so they said), and being fat was "ugly". Now, being fat (or "curvy" in their words, although I don't always agree with that term) is "pretty" and being thin is "ugly". There's no acceptance in that, just judging, pure and plain. They're not helping anyone.

For my personal tastes, I think the top girl is prettier. I don't like how the second one looks in that swimsuit, but that's my opinion. That's no reason to bash either of them about it.

Well I'll say it again... I wouldn't put it past whoever is in charge of that photo of the skinnier one to have altered the picture a bit to make it more shocking.

I agree with those who say that very small women are not to be automatically condemned.

But it does seem inherent in modern society to always want to find someone to point a finger at and scorn.
What people forget sometimes is the wide range of body types.

Until folks know more about the second girl, I would hope they wouldn't judge her from just that photo.

I obviously prefer the first one, but the pics provided in this article don't make for a very good comparison. The second pic seems to have been picked as to deliberately make her look as bad as possible (to futher the author's agenda). I really doubt this is the look the fashion agency has in mind.

The only problem with second one being "naturally skinny" is that her pelvic bones are hanging out. I too have a friend who's very slender, the only problem is, I don't see any of her bones protruding out like that. My first impression of her was someone who literally came out of the holocaust. Model industry or not, it's kind of creepy looking. There are many healthy slender ppl out there BTW that don't look like that.

So you don't think that picture has been retouched?

when it comes to relationships, yes, I would also focus more on how they are as persons as the more important thing, having a relationship based only on looks is a bad idea from what I have seen.

Last edited by greenblue on 18 Mar 2008, 1:49 am, edited 1 time in total.

What do you mean by retouched, as in making her looking boney?
I could see it being retouched to make her look more slender.

I'd take Jen Hunter(the top one) ANY Day . Ms. Berglund looks like she's anorexic. I would NEVER even think of dating someone THAT Skinny, No Matter How nice of a person she was. Ms. Berglund needs to put on some weight-her bones are sticking out and that makes the swimsuit look rather UGLY on her.

I've pretty much decided that I will ONLY get in the sack with a woman who has thick thighs and Butt.

Last edited by D1nk0 on 18 Mar 2008, 11:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Think thighs?

Go on youtube, look at any videos on the Size 0 debate.
The average height and weight of models at present is 5'11 and 117 ibs.
Many are as low as 105 ibs.
I have seen worse looking ones than the one in this article.

It is not retouched, this was actually on television.

"Sizes" are meaningless.

In Marilyn's time, a size 12 was the equivalent of a size 2-4 today.

How do I know this?

(1) I collect vintage clothing. My measurements are 35-26-35. In clothes from the late 50's and the 60's, I'm a size 12. In modern clothes, I generally take a size 2-4 (but sometimes a 0 or a 6, depending on the manufacturer. Sizes are meaningless.)

(2) I collect vintage patterns. I have one here from Vogue, dated 1959, which tells me a size 12 measures 32-25-34.

So, when you say Marilyn was a size 12, that means she was somewhere between 32-25-34 and 35-26-35 -- much slimmer than the phrase "size 12" would indicate to a modern North American.