Fat-shaming, fat acceptance, and 'body diversity'.

[bigfield]

I can't help but wonder about the reaction of one of our cousins from 22K years ago were brought to the present and dropped into any Walmart in the country.

They'd probably be pissed off that you can't get a Coke for a nickel, any more.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

I still stand by my previous statements that perceptions of beauty are largely cultural and also often particular to an era. This worship of ultra thin, ultra toned bodies is relatively recent. One need only examine the works of many classical artists, or even look at films from 50 years ago or earlier, as well as examine adverts from prior to the late 1960's to see that I am correct.

While, true there's an underlying message here, ie we can chose to see diversity as beautiful... or something along those lines. But that's nonsense. We have an instinctual drive to place people in hierarchies and try to aim for as high as we think we can get (both to sleep with and to be). Whatever body is hard to achieve, and which signals health, is whatever we will place at the top of the hierarchy. That is a common thread in all cultures view of beauty. In cultures where starvation is an issue plumpness has been seen as attractive. Those cultures didn't embrace body diversity any more than we did. Historically there's been absolutely grotesque traditions of force-feeding young women to make them more desirable to men. It wasn't any easier back in the 50'ies either and there's nothing in your line of argument that would suggest we have any ability to manipulate what makes us attracted to anything. In all cultures in all ages there has been one constant message... you're not ok the way you are. Just check out clothing for people of high status. Absolutely bizarre creations, in order to force the bodies into unnatural positions in order to make themselves hyper-attractive in various ways. This has been especially true for high status women.

Oh... and symmetrical faces and bodies. Those are also always high up in the hierarchy of beauty. We have no control over that desire either.

so fashion never changes?

advertising doesn't work?

In ten years we went from Marilyn Monroe to Twiggy but what is aethetically pleasing cannot be changed?

Within the current American aesthetic, thin is hot but so are big butts and huge breasts.

In other words, it's all complicated.

 

[prideandfall]

so fashion never changes?

i think you and seemingly everyone else puts a hell of a lot more weight into fashion than it deserves.

advertising doesn't work?

see above.

In ten years we went from Marilyn Monroe to Twiggy but what is aethetically pleasing cannot be changed?

you're acting like the two are mutually exclusive in some way.
you know, there's a middle ground between "you're so skinny i can see your bones" and "you're so fat i couldn't find your hip bones with a dousing rod and a depth gauge"
what is attractive to people isn't a single point on a ruler, it's a sliding range that encompasses several points - one could find both monroe *and* twiggy equally attractive, and whichever one happens to have the eye of the zeitgeist at the time doesn't mean fuck-all about what society has declared is the ideal body type.
pro tip: go into any kitch novelty store and you'll find posters of marilyn monroe, to this day still seen as an icon of beauty. you can't go to spencer's and find a twiggy poster though, i'll tell you that much.

Within the current American aesthetic, thin is hot but so are big butts and huge breasts.

within the current american *media* aesthetic slimmer is considered more beautiful, but last i checked for the last 20,000 years or so if you're a woman whether you're thin or you're fat is utterly irrelevant to your capacity to get laid and have someone think you're hot (unless you're just flat out and out *ugly* which is entirely different problem to being fat or not)

In other words, it's all complicated.

it really isn't, people like you just seem to really enjoy pretending that it is.

 

[Bronzeage]

The ideal body type of any culture is a composite of health and wealth.

The Greeks sculpted warriors because wealth came from conquest and conquest came from lean muscled fighters. The balloon animal look is something that only appeals to other balloon animal types. To most women, it seems narcissistic and it's not a particularly healthy life choice.

When most people worked in the fields and bordered on malnutrition, the ideal of beauty was skin so white, blood vessels were visible under the skin. We called them "blue bloods." When working class people moved from the fields to poorly lit factories, it did little to improve their health, but it did make them pale. The ideal of beauty became a nice rich tan.

There was a time before that, when health and wealth had different meaning. This is the Venus of Willendorf. View attachment 2452

Some people think this little stone figure is 24,000 years old. I know some women who look very much like this figure, but I doubt the sculptor of this piece did. He or she obviously understood his subject very well. The detail is very nice, but I don't understand why there are no facial features.

It's strange to think that 24 millennia ago, morbid obesity would have been seen as a blessing. Humans are no smarter today than they were in those days. Their powers of observation were just as sharp as ours. One thing they would know for certain, thin emaciated women had flat breasts, a boney ass, and never got pregnant. This is still true today. When a woman's body fat drops too low, she stops ovulating.

Little is known of the social structure of those people, but the Venus of Willendorf offers an intriguing window into their world. Maybe children were desired and valued. Maybe the hunter(or tribe) who could provide a rich enough diet for their women to ensure fertility, enjoyed high status.

I can't help but wonder about the reaction of one of our cousins from 22K years ago were brought to the present and dropped into any Walmart in the country.

It represents an archetype, not a physical ideal. If you look at the paintings os say, the Dutch Masters, you will sees my representations of female beauty that we would consider to be fat. He'll, Sophia Loren would be regarded as 'too fat' by many

How does an archetype differ from an ideal, for the purposes of this discussion?

- - - Updated - - -

It's strange to think that 24 millennia ago, morbid obesity would have been seen as a blessing. Humans are no smarter today than they were in those days. Their powers of observation were just as sharp as ours. One thing they would know for certain, thin emaciated women had flat breasts, a boney ass, and never got pregnant. This is still true today. When a woman's body fat drops too low, she stops ovulating.

Little is known of the social structure of those people, but the Venus of Willendorf offers an intriguing window into their world. Maybe children were desired and valued. Maybe the hunter(or tribe) who could provide a rich enough diet for their women to ensure fertility, enjoyed high status.

recent studies indicate many, if not most, ancient peoples art may have been done by women:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/10/131008-women-handprints-oldest-neolithic-cave-art/

bouncing off that, a fairly logical seeming theory that the willendorf type statues are actually "self portraits", because if you're working looking down at your pregnancy and you've never actually looked at yourself before, you very well may come up with exactly that.
http://faculty.ucmo.edu/ldm4683/6.htm

Maybe, but I'm going with the "object of masturbation" taken on long hunting trips theory.

 

[credoconsolans]

For the OP:

women are pushing for all body types to be included in adverts, modeling, etc., because women, as a rule, carry more body fat than teenagers or men do.

Mostly due to the body trying to be ever ready for baby-making.

It's just fact.

And since women spend most of their life carrying extra weight around rather than looking like high metabolism teenagers, they wanted to spend their lives feeling accepted, and seeing themselves represented positively in their society, not shamed and shunned because they no longer have the body or metabolism of a 17 year old.

A friend of mine in college was beautiful. Gorgeous thick blonde hair, big green eyes, creamy complexion. She was also pushing 180 lbs on a 5'7" body. She was never going to be a petite size 4 or willowy size 6 or whatever the media tells us she should be.

She wore a size 14/16 and looked great, perfectly proportioned. She had no lack of suitors and married soon after college.

 

[gmbteach]

Chances are we will not go back to a culture like that: we've seen how hot people can actually get, and you can't un-see that.

Maybe. But I was still much more attracted to Robin Williams when he was alive than Brad Pitt. I've also never been attracted to overly muscled men. They look like cartoons to me. Funny, smart guys who love kids and animals and who are kind and decent : that's hot to me. Bonus if they can cook. Double bonus if they are good at home repairs.

I agree Toni. Mind you, all of that, and being Tall, Dark and Handsome along with it and it's the full package.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

i think you and seemingly everyone else puts a hell of a lot more weight into fashion than it deserves.

advertising doesn't work?

see above.

In ten years we went from Marilyn Monroe to Twiggy but what is aethetically pleasing cannot be changed?

you're acting like the two are mutually exclusive in some way.
you know, there's a middle ground between "you're so skinny i can see your bones" and "you're so fat i couldn't find your hip bones with a dousing rod and a depth gauge"
what is attractive to people isn't a single point on a ruler, it's a sliding range that encompasses several points - one could find both monroe *and* twiggy equally attractive, and whichever one happens to have the eye of the zeitgeist at the time doesn't mean fuck-all about what society has declared is the ideal body type.
pro tip: go into any kitch novelty store and you'll find posters of marilyn monroe, to this day still seen as an icon of beauty. you can't go to spencer's and find a twiggy poster though, i'll tell you that much.

Within the current American aesthetic, thin is hot but so are big butts and huge breasts.

within the current american *media* aesthetic slimmer is considered more beautiful, but last i checked for the last 20,000 years or so if you're a woman whether you're thin or you're fat is utterly irrelevant to your capacity to get laid and have someone think you're hot (unless you're just flat out and out *ugly* which is entirely different problem to being fat or not)

In other words, it's all complicated.

it really isn't, people like you just seem to really enjoy pretending that it is.

It really is. Seven billion people on the planet. Hundreds, maybe even thousands of cultures, not to mention subcultures, but what is sexy to you is universally sexy.

What is sexy to you isn't even what is sexy to everyone on your street.

Hell, just look at the variety of kink you can find on the internet.

And even that changes when new discoveries are made. Web surfing can lead a person down all kinds of paths with destinations never thought of before but will never be forgotten now.

 

[rousseau]

The real answer is for society to tell itself:

"Being overweight IS unhealthy and IS unattractive, but does not indicate your value as a human being"

What society tells itself:

"Being fat is unattractive" or "Everyone is beautiful"

Ironically, the second one is actually the lie, as you suggest, but the problem is people are too inequipped mentally to deal with reality.

So what's the solution? You'd think it would be healthy, straight-forward, and honest education on physiological and mental health, but that leads us back to the issue mentioned above: people are too sensitive. So we're stuck beating around the bush on serious issues and letting people figure it out for themselves.

Luckily, the truth prevails, and we will get there when it becomes kosher.

 

[Thomas II]

The Science of Sex Apeal Discovery Channel

[video]http://www.discovery.com/tv-shows/other-shows/videos/other-shows-science-of-sex-appeal-videos/[/video]

 

[Toni]

It represents an archetype, not a physical ideal. If you look at the paintings os say, the Dutch Masters, you will sees my representations of female beauty that we would consider to be fat. He'll, Sophia Loren would be regarded as 'too fat' by many

How does an archetype differ from an ideal, for the purposes of this discussion?

Here are definitions of archetype for convenience.:

1: the original pattern or model of which all things of the same type are representations or copies : prototype; also : a perfect example
2: idea
3: an inherited idea or mode of thought in the psychology of C. G. Jung that is derived from the experience of the race and is present in the unconscious of the individual

I was specifically responding to the idea of why she has no face. The lack of facial features is because she isn't supposed to represent any individual but rather the archetypal mother/mother earth in the most fecund sense of the word/fertility itself. One would not aspire to be the Great Mother but rather to admire and hope to embody some of her characteristics (fertility, particularly). To aspire to be the Great Mother would be the height of hubris (I know the Venus here predates the Greek notion of hubris but it still holds), arrogant and unthinkable. This is quite different than what we are talking about here: body image and sexual attraction.

 

[Toni]

Chances are we will not go back to a culture like that: we've seen how hot people can actually get, and you can't un-see that.

And, regardless, we are living in this era and this culture.

And yet, most people do not look like a supermodel or a dancer or a body builder, yet many are involved in successful relationships with other similarly ordinary looking human beings. Sometimes those relationships are successful for years, decades even. And may produce offspring. And involve love, affection, mutual support and a lot of sex. Hot sex. Eagerly engaged in, with a great deal of regularity and enthusiasm. With the lights on, even.

Some of those people are not just ordinary or plain but downright unattractive to a broad cross section of other humans in their culture or in any other culture for that matter.

So, sure we can all talk about how hot this or that celebrity is but as far as I can tell, ordinary people are having as much sex and are having relationships that are as successful and perhaps more successful than Heidi Klum, Ryan Gosling, (I don't know: I'm too tired to think. Insert sex object of your choice here).

 

[DrZoidberg]

While, true there's an underlying message here, ie we can chose to see diversity as beautiful... or something along those lines. But that's nonsense. We have an instinctual drive to place people in hierarchies and try to aim for as high as we think we can get (both to sleep with and to be). Whatever body is hard to achieve, and which signals health, is whatever we will place at the top of the hierarchy. That is a common thread in all cultures view of beauty. In cultures where starvation is an issue plumpness has been seen as attractive. Those cultures didn't embrace body diversity any more than we did. Historically there's been absolutely grotesque traditions of force-feeding young women to make them more desirable to men. It wasn't any easier back in the 50'ies either and there's nothing in your line of argument that would suggest we have any ability to manipulate what makes us attracted to anything. In all cultures in all ages there has been one constant message... you're not ok the way you are. Just check out clothing for people of high status. Absolutely bizarre creations, in order to force the bodies into unnatural positions in order to make themselves hyper-attractive in various ways. This has been especially true for high status women.

Oh... and symmetrical faces and bodies. Those are also always high up in the hierarchy of beauty. We have no control over that desire either.

so fashion never changes?

advertising doesn't work?

In ten years we went from Marilyn Monroe to Twiggy but what is aethetically pleasing cannot be changed?

Within the current American aesthetic, thin is hot but so are big butts and huge breasts.

In other words, it's all complicated.

The difference between Marilyn Monroe to Twiggy has to do with what sort of a lifestyle has high status (for women). There was one revolutionary event that took place in the 60'ies that is the main driver for this change in status. There's been tonnes and tonnes of studies on this, so I won't bore you with the variety of theories (feminist theories and otherwise). But a popular theory is this; Marilyn Monroe was the pinnacle of status for a society where being a housewife to a successful man was the best a woman could do. Monroe's body signals everything a high fertility women has, without being over-weight. Wide hips, big tits, and a narrow waist. Which signals health and youth.

Twiggy's body is a body of fun. It's a body of self control. It's a body of someone who doesn't sacrifice herself for a man. Twiggy is the kind of girl who is young and on the pill. The birth control pill is the revolution. Twiggy is skinny because all trends are dialectic. The new trend is a reaction to the old. If Monroe was a voluptuous girl, twiggy has to be the radical difference to this. This is a pattern in all trends. But extremely obvious in fashion. In the 70'ies big tits were back in vogue for women. Braless big tits at that. Happily swinging and free. 70'ies fashion was a reaction to the high degree of control that 60'ies fashion exuded.

The 60'ies shift in bodies of women is not just the pill. It's a general trend of women taking control of their lives that goes right back to late 19'th century feminists. In the 1920'ies the big revolution was for women to lose the corset.

Anyway... this stuff is not hard to look up if you're interested. Either way, it doesn't give any weight to your theory about body diversity as an aesthetic ever having a chance. In each age and time there's always just one body image that is seen as the most beautiful. The vast majority of women could never look like either Marilyn Monroe or Twiggy no matter how hard they tried.

Today the most beautiful body for both men and women is the athletes. Muscular and toned. Does anybody disagree with this?

 

[AthenaAwakened]

so fashion never changes?

advertising doesn't work?

In ten years we went from Marilyn Monroe to Twiggy but what is aethetically pleasing cannot be changed?

Within the current American aesthetic, thin is hot but so are big butts and huge breasts.

In other words, it's all complicated.

The difference between Marilyn Monroe to Twiggy has to do with what sort of a lifestyle has high status (for women). There was one revolutionary event that took place in the 60'ies that is the main driver for this change in status. There's been tonnes and tonnes of studies on this, so I won't bore you with the variety of theories (feminist theories and otherwise). But a popular theory is this; Marilyn Monroe was the pinnacle of status for a society where being a housewife to a successful man was the best a woman could do. Monroe's body signals everything a high fertility women has, without being over-weight. Wide hips, big tits, and a narrow waist. Which signals health and youth.

Twiggy's body is a body of fun. It's a body of self control. It's a body of someone who doesn't sacrifice herself for a man. Twiggy is the kind of girl who is young and on the pill. The birth control pill is the revolution. Twiggy is skinny because all trends are dialectic. The new trend is a reaction to the old. If Monroe was a voluptuous girl, twiggy has to be the radical difference to this. This is a pattern in all trends. But extremely obvious in fashion. In the 70'ies big tits were back in vogue for women. Braless big tits at that. Happily swinging and free. 70'ies fashion was a reaction to the high degree of control that 60'ies fashion exuded.

The 60'ies shift in bodies of women is not just the pill. It's a general trend of women taking control of their lives that goes right back to late 19'th century feminists. In the 1920'ies the big revolution was for women to lose the corset.

Anyway... this stuff is not hard to look up if you're interested. Either way, it doesn't give any weight to your theory about body diversity as an aesthetic ever having a chance. In each age and time there's always just one body image that is seen as the most beautiful. The vast majority of women could never look like either Marilyn Monroe or Twiggy no matter how hard they tried.

Today the most beautiful body for both men and women is the athletes. Muscular and toned. Does anybody disagree with this?

yes.

Alot of people.

alot of people also agree.

why is it so important that everyone agree? Do some people here need to hate on fat people?

 

[DrZoidberg]

Today the most beautiful body for both men and women is the athletes. Muscular and toned. Does anybody disagree with this?

yes.

Alot of people.

alot of people also agree.

why is it so important that everyone agree? Do some people here need to hate on fat people?

My argument is that we have no choice. It's instinct. Animal sexual drives are among the strongest of any species. Sexual instincts in humans are of course no different. Everybody agrees... because we're genetically programmed to. There is no way for us to have any other opinion. All the variation historically of high-status bodies prove is that what we find attractive is variable based on cultural factors. But it's still instinct. We can't have another opinion no matter how hard we try.

As long as food is consistently plentiful over-weight will be low status. The only way to change this is to somehow introduce mass starvation again. But maybe most importantly, it's a hierarchy. If plump is up toned is down. It'll always be unfair to somebody. Trying to change peoples opinion via media or public opinion is a waste of time.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Fat acceptance is necessary for a healthy body and a healthy society.

Here is what I mean by fat acceptance. Accepting that fat is a part of the human body and a healthy part of the human diet. We need fat to live and he must consume fats (or oils if you prefer) in sufficient quantities in order to live healthy lives.

Fat is a reality like beef liver or Drake, you don't have to like it, but you have to admit some people do and they have that right.

What we have come to do is give fat too much power. We use fat in ways it was never intended. We use fat to make moral judgments about people we do not know. If you have a small amount of body fat, then you are good and if you have a large amount you are bad.

Fat is supposed to be a way to survive famine not an excuse to prejudge.

And what happens to the psyche of a person or a people when who imbue fat with a power to rank people as worthy or less worthy of being treated with common decency and respect? A billion dollar weight loss industry, yo-yo dieting, bulimia, anorexia, suicides, type two diabetes, and the list goes on.

What if we could all just accept fat for nothing more than what it is, not give it more more meaning than what it has? What if we could think about being healthy without regard to size and fat? Well, I stopped giving power to fat that fat didn't have and I stopped being winded after a single flight of stairs, started enjoying walking, and cut my need for blood pressure medication.

Oh yeah I lost 130 lb. But that doesn't matter. Getting healthy does and if I could have gotten healthy and not lost one ounce, it would have been ok because I don't let fat determine my worth.

And as long as we live in a society that does allow such foolishness, our health problems are just gonna get worse.

 

[Toni]

yes.

Alot of people.

alot of people also agree.

why is it so important that everyone agree? Do some people here need to hate on fat people?

My argument is that we have no choice. It's instinct. Animal sexual drives are among the strongest of any species. Sexual instincts in humans are of course no different. Everybody agrees... because we're genetically programmed to. There is no way for us to have any other opinion. All the variation historically of high-status bodies prove is that what we find attractive is variable based on cultural factors. But it's still instinct. We can't have another opinion no matter how hard we try.

As long as food is consistently plentiful over-weight will be low status. The only way to change this is to somehow introduce mass starvation again. But maybe most importantly, it's a hierarchy. If plump is up toned is down. It'll always be unfair to somebody. Trying to change peoples opinion via media or public opinion is a waste of time.

Of course we have a choice. If we had no choice, at a bare minimum, humans would only mate when the female was fertile and there was a chance of conception.

The ultra thin bodies which have been demanded of models, actresses, female public figures, etc. are actually unhealthy to the point of compromising fertility of women. If your body fat drops below a certain amount, you no longer ovulate. Can happen in extremely thin people, ultra athletes (marathoners), gymnasts, etc. It's not an absolute but it does happen as it is nature's way of shutting down reproduction for an individual whose body is unlikely to be able to support pregnancy due to lack of any reserves (which is your body's fat).

If we had no choice, we would all like the same thing, find the same body type attractive. We don't. Some of our preferences are cultural, some are familial--some people are more attracted to individuals who resemble their family and some are more attracted to someone whose looks diverge from that ideal. Moreover, I learned a long, long time ago that the person was a lot more important than the face and the body. The fact is that we re-direct our desires all of the time. In fact, advertising is based on the premise that advertising can redirect our desires.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

If the media can not change minds, why is being an avowed racist a bad thing in the south? Why can't you smoke in bars anymore? To say that media can't change minds would be akin to saying that introduction of information cannot change minds.

Is that true? Once someone thinks something, they can never change their minds, never be convinced of something else?

 

[thebeave]

If the media can not change minds, why is being an avowed racist a bad thing in the south? Why can't you smoke in bars anymore? To say that media can't change minds would be akin to saying that introduction of information cannot change minds.

Is that true? Once someone thinks something, they can never change their minds, never be convinced of something else?

As Dr. Zoidberg said earlier, our sexual preferences are, to a large degree rooted in our biology and genes. You seem to think that men can (and should) be re-trained to lust after obese women. Should we expect women to be trained to lust after short men? This video seems to say that "it ain't gonna happen". At least with obesity there is some glimmer of hope that an obese person can be made thin. No short adult male has any hope whatsoever of becoming tall.



And as the guy at the end of the video says, "Life ain't fair":

 

[Toni]

so fashion never changes?

advertising doesn't work?

In ten years we went from Marilyn Monroe to Twiggy but what is aethetically pleasing cannot be changed?

Within the current American aesthetic, thin is hot but so are big butts and huge breasts.

In other words, it's all complicated.

The difference between Marilyn Monroe to Twiggy has to do with what sort of a lifestyle has high status (for women). There was one revolutionary event that took place in the 60'ies that is the main driver for this change in status. There's been tonnes and tonnes of studies on this, so I won't bore you with the variety of theories (feminist theories and otherwise). But a popular theory is this; Marilyn Monroe was the pinnacle of status for a society where being a housewife to a successful man was the best a woman could do. Monroe's body signals everything a high fertility women has, without being over-weight. Wide hips, big tits, and a narrow waist. Which signals health and youth.

Twiggy's body is a body of fun. It's a body of self control. It's a body of someone who doesn't sacrifice herself for a man. Twiggy is the kind of girl who is young and on the pill. The birth control pill is the revolution. Twiggy is skinny because all trends are dialectic. The new trend is a reaction to the old. If Monroe was a voluptuous girl, twiggy has to be the radical difference to this. This is a pattern in all trends. But extremely obvious in fashion. In the 70'ies big tits were back in vogue for women. Braless big tits at that. Happily swinging and free. 70'ies fashion was a reaction to the high degree of control that 60'ies fashion exuded.

The 60'ies shift in bodies of women is not just the pill. It's a general trend of women taking control of their lives that goes right back to late 19'th century feminists. In the 1920'ies the big revolution was for women to lose the corset.

Anyway... this stuff is not hard to look up if you're interested. Either way, it doesn't give any weight to your theory about body diversity as an aesthetic ever having a chance. In each age and time there's always just one body image that is seen as the most beautiful. The vast majority of women could never look like either Marilyn Monroe or Twiggy no matter how hard they tried.

Today the most beautiful body for both men and women is the athletes. Muscular and toned. Does anybody disagree with this?

The 60's women taking control of their lives and their bodies was emphatically NOT embracing the body type typical of an adolescent girl --or boy, really. It was also the advent of national advertising, big media and the worship of youth.

You could toss your girdle but you had better be skinny.

Actually I don't think athletic body types are the most beautiful, especially for women.

 

[credoconsolans]

Today the most beautiful body for both men and women is the athletes. Muscular and toned. Does anybody disagree with this?

Talk to Chris Pratt's wife (Guardians of the Galaxy star).

She married him when he was soft and pudgy. He lost weight and got ripped for his Guardians role. Last I read, he said she prefers his previous body.