The wobbly bits that shook the world: The joyous support created by one model's pictu

winking weber

Gawd I hate that 'real woman' term.

G86

panda100 wrote: »

I don't think its a 'happy medium' we need but a celebration of all womens figures whether they are skinny like Kiera Knightly or have a bit of fat on their thighs and belly. Women come in all shapes and sizes and this is what should be promoted not some sort of medium for all women to aspire to.

Who is to say what a healthy womens body looks like. How is Jessica Biel anymore healthier than Kiera Knightly? They just have completely different body shapes.

As someone who is 6'1,healthy and has been a lanky,skinny beanpole for most of her life I hate this current trend that to be a 'real' women you have to be all curvy with tits and an ass. Us beanpoles are real women too!

I can see how you'd get that from my post, but I didn't mean to imply that every rake thin women is unhealthy. What I was trying to say is that we should be promoting a HEALTHY body, regardless of it's shape; and you have to bear in mind that most healthy people are not overweight.

metaoblivia

panda100 wrote: »

I don't think its a 'happy medium' we need but a celebration of all womens figures whether they are skinny like Kiera Knightly or have a bit of fat on their thighs and belly. Women come in all shapes and sizes and this is what should be promoted not some sort of medium for all women to aspire to.

Who is to say what a healthy womens body looks like. How is Jessica Biel anymore healthier than Kiera Knightly? They just have completely different body shapes.

Sorry but as someone who is 6'1,healthy and has been a lanky,skinny beanpole for most of her life I hate this current trend that to be a 'real' women you have to be all curvy with tits and an ass.

I think what G86 was saying is that there's not a whole lot of in between in models. You've got the skinny ones and the plus sized ones. Okay. Where are the models who are shaped like me? I have a flat tummy, a fairly shapely ass and boobs and quite muscular thighs (or "thick" as the industry would say). I'm too heavy to be a normal model, but far too small to be a plus sized model. Where are the models who aren't bone thin, but also don't have too many wobbly bits? Why aren't these women celebrated like the other two groups?

Malari

panda100 wrote: »

I don't think its a 'happy medium' we need but a celebration of all womens figures whether they are skinny like Kiera Knightly or have a bit of fat on their thighs and belly. Women come in all shapes and sizes and this is what should be promoted not some sort of medium for all women to aspire to.

But models are used for selling stuff - clothes, make-up, whatever. The idea is that you will look at what she has and want it too because you will look like her. I realise this is an oversimplification, but that's the premise. I mean if you see a cool dress on someone and wonder where she got it, the likelihood is that she is not going to be an overweight, old or anorexic woman you're admiring. It's hard to dissociate the model with what she's advertising and that's why they use slim, young, good-looking women.

fatmammycat

I'm not sure we should be equating health with weight. You can be perfectly healthy and over weight same as you can be unhealthy and thin.

Snowie

i don't get....

what because she sitting down leaning slightly forward we see a fold suddenly thats counted as a wobbly bit?
What happens when you walk into any pub in the summer with women wearing those boob tube thingys sitting down? the exact same. doesn't mean that there fat or its unsightly!
The only other thing that could be seen as negative are a few stretch marks but thats natural. Trouble is, the sun zoo nut's fhm, maxim loaded. all Strive for perfection in there pics, beautiful people looking beautiful while surrounded by beautiful people. But the only thing its doing is making a lot of people with really distorted views....

personally, I think the pic is good, captures a happiness.

G86

fatmammycat wrote: »

I'm not sure we should be equating health with weight. You can be perfectly healthy and over weight same as you can be unhealthy and thin.

True, but it was a generalisation, and in all fairness not many overweight people are healthy. Being overweight increases your chances of heart disease, diabetes and all sorts of nasties.

Macha

fatmammycat wrote: »

Well I'm 5 10 and she out weighs me by 30 pounds, and I am no skinny minny. So like I say in MY opinion she's heavy. Not fat, not unhealthy, not unattractive, not unsexy, just heavy.

Muscle weights three times as much as fat. I am 5'9", weight 12 stone but am a lot slimmer than a friend of mine who is the same height but weighs slightly less. I'm also have a hell of a lot more muscle definition.

Weight is not a very useful measure.

Acacia

Am I the only one who finds this whole story a bit daft and frankly patronising? Oh wow, I feel so much better about myself because a model has a stomach! :rolleyes:

What is so ''world-shaking" about some model having a bit of flab? Why is it a source of "joyous support"?

Y'know what would actually make a good change from the impossibly high standards set by magazines and the beauty industry? Somebody who was actually normal-looking. Thighs, big arse, less than perfect boobs, less than perfect skin. And it wouldn't be just a once- off token "it's okay girls, everybody has some (but not too much!) fat" publicity shot- it would be a normal-looking woman who had contracts with make-up brands and clothes labels and regularly modelled.

But that's not what's going to happen. The industry will keep using perfect-looking girls to sell people the dream of being perfect themselves if they buy x/y/z, while occassionally using a hokey picure such as this to justify it all.

This isn't a dig at the OP bt the way, just the Daily Fail article.

And yes, I'm very cynical.:p

shellyboo

G86 wrote: »

True, but it was a generalisation, and in all fairness not many overweight people are healthy. Being overweight increases your chances of heart disease, diabetes and all sorts of nasties.

Yeah, but... so does smoking. And doing drugs. And eating too much salt.

I'm growing tired of the "but fat is unhealthy" card. An *awful* lot of things are unhealthy - but it seems that if you don't look unhealthy, that's ok.

fatmammycat

taconnol wrote: »

Muscle weights three times as much as fat. I am 5'9", weight 12 stone but am a lot slimmer than a friend of mine who is the same height but weighs slightly less. I'm also have a hell of a lot more muscle definition.

Weight is not a very useful measure.

That is utter rubbish- a pound of muscle is exactly the same weight as a pound of fat. Muscle is more dense and take up less space, that's all.

Macha

fatmammycat wrote: »

That is utter rubbish- a pound of muscle is exactly the same weight as a pound of fat. Muscle is more dense and take up less space, that's all.

My point is that two people can have the same body size but with two very different weights, due to their body composition. Fact.

fatmammycat

Yes they can, but that is NOTHING like what you said.

Macha

fatmammycat wrote: »

Yes they can, but that is NOTHING like what you said.

Congratulations for missing my point.

I have seen a number of debates on this picture and it's scary the amount of people (mostly men, not surprisingly) who argue not that she is not attractive (that's their choice) but that she can't possibly be attractive to anyone!

fatmammycat

I'm sorry, at the risk of sounding argumentative, I did not miss your point at all. You came in declared muscle to be 3 times the weight of fat, then changed tack immediately when corrected and put up a different view that no one was actually arguing against. For the record I don't see anyone on here saying she is unattractive. She's clearly a very pretty woman.

cruizer101

In reply to panda who said nothing sexual about pic, not sure about that, I think she looks pretty hot in second pic

One point I think people are kinda forgetting is models are used to sell stuff, so at the end of the day if a slim good looking model sells more than a average one thats what company will go with. Although we like to think they should have a social responsiblilty at they end of the day its a buisness and profit is all.

Remember it is you who buy the product and who are influenced by the ads so until women themselves change their attitude of what they want to look like the companies never will.

Another point, and I am no expert on this, but for modelling it is much easier to have a standard than to have various different sizes, i.e. a shoot would be shorter, cheaper and easier if all models were same height, waist size, bust size even shoe size. Obviously this isn't at all like the real world but it still makes the job easier, much the same as I imagine all manequins are probably the same size.

With reagards to lads mags in a way I think this is quite a separate issue as it is a completely different audience. I agree these models aren't realistic but again its sadly down to sales. And I really don't think there is much chance of this ever changing whatever about female models for female audience.

pearliefan

fatmammycat wrote: »

For the record I don't see anyone on here saying she is unattractive. She's clearly a very pretty woman.

Yes, but under the actual article there are a few comments saying she's fat etc., which I found rather horrible and surprising. She's gorgeous!

lala stone

taconnol wrote: »

I have seen a number of debates on this picture and it's scary the amount of people (mostly men, not surprisingly) who argue not that she is not attractive (that's their choice) but that she can't possibly be attractive to anyone!

what? where?!

Macha

lala stone wrote: »

what? where?!

Guardian website and a particularly narcicisstic guy on www.contexts.org/socimages - scary!

G86

shellyboo wrote: »

Yeah, but... so does smoking. And doing drugs. And eating too much salt.

I'm growing tired of the "but fat is unhealthy" card. An *awful* lot of things are unhealthy - but it seems that if you don't look unhealthy, that's ok.

Aye but I agree; I never said someone who's thin isn't unhealthy, I just said that the fast amount of people who are overweight are. You can't debate that in all honesty.

Eviledna

I keep thinking, if thats what is considered wobbly bits, and what is considered fat, I should just stay in from now on.

Malari

pearliefan wrote: »

Yes, but under the actual article there are a few comments saying she's fat etc., which I found rather horrible and surprising. She's gorgeous!

Fat and gorgeous are not mutually exclusive. She is a big girl and has a very pretty face. If she had been in clothes there wouldn't be this outcry. When they start showing disfigured and ugly women in magazines then I'll be surprised. Are they also real women?

justsomebloke

G86 wrote:

This is really interesting because I've actually just completed a thesis on the mediated female body ideal and it's effects on teens; and I do think that alot of female media images are too slim and too unobtainable for the average female.

I didn't do a thesis and could of given you the same conclusion.

G86 wrote:

In my opinion it's not an attractive picture, and either is a skeletal photo of Kiera Knightly - you need a happy medium. I think Jessica Biel would be a good example of a fit and healthy female body.

See for me the above is the problem

panda100 wrote: »

I don't think its a 'happy medium' we need but a celebration of all womens figures whether they are skinny like Kiera Knightly or have a bit of fat on their thighs and belly. Women come in all shapes and sizes and this is what should be promoted not some sort of medium for all women to aspire to.

and this the solution. As long as magazines feature only one generic type of body type this will lead to the problem that some people will aspire to it but no matter what they do they will never be able to achieve it. Magazines should use a spectrum of varying women as women aspire to different things. some want to look like kate moss, some want to look like jessica biel, some jordan and some beth ditto. as a bloke I have seen the size of some of these magazines and surely there is space to cover all types

Dublin_Gunner

anniehoo wrote: »

Even if it is a publicity stunt i think its great. A belly and stretch marks....hurray i think its brilliant. Finally a non perfect pic of a woman most of us can relate to.

I definitely would. She's puurty. I vote for more half naked un-airbrished women in magazines.

In fairness, if she is 5'11" - she probably is that weight. She seems to have quite larg-ish thighs also - which can carry a fair amount of weight.

fatmammycat wrote: »

Pigheads need to learn the difference between making the best of what you have compared to creating an unrealistic humanoid of perfection.

Making the best of what you have is fair enough. Deliberately conning others who may / may not see you first thing in the morning without having 'made the best of what you have' is just plain unfair.

An whomever said a pound of fat weighs the same as a pound of muscle is just so wrong. They are the same mass, they do not weigh the same.

1kg of muscle takes up less space than 1kg of fat. (though nowhere near 3 times - whoever said that is just wrong!)

i.e one litre of muscle would weight 1.06 kg and one litre of fat would weight 0.9 kg. So therefore, a person, who is more muscle-y would appear to be a fair bit smaller than a person who is less muscle-y, but they could both weigh the same.

Fighting Irish

The wobbly bits that shook the world

lol

maybe you're world

pearliefan

Malari wrote: »

Fat and gorgeous are not mutually exclusive.

yes actually, sorry, I've seen overweight people who are stunning as well..
I just meant that she isn't fat. she has a bit of a tummy, but she's far from fat.

lala stone

TBH the whole skinny thing does bother me!

Its the AIRBRUSHING!!!!!! adding boobs, slimiming thighs, re-gapping teeth, etc..
Its not a reality... which is crazy! u may as well aspire to be a cartoon character,,,,

Malari

pearliefan wrote: »

yes actually, sorry, I've seen overweight people who are stunning as well..
I just meant that she isn't fat. she has a bit of a tummy, but she's far from fat.

But fat is subjective. If I got to her size I would consider myself very fat. If some people got down to her size they would consider themselves tiny.

Why are they showing a naked woman with a flabby belly? I don't understand the point. To show that women with this body shape exist? We know that. She's not selling anything, except the magazine, it appears. The article claims that women want to see pictures of girls like her in magazines. No, they don't. They want to see pictures of models, actresses, whatever, with bodies like their own. It's still a matter of dragging the good-looking down with revelations of imperfection.

speedboatchase

Advertisers use beautiful people to sell their products, it's always been this way. For clothes the designer wants their clothes presented in the optimal fashion, to them the ideal body. Now most of us would agree that a. the average catwalk model is not the ideal body for most red-blooded males (have a look at the boobs and bums of Nuts, Zoo, porn) and b. print adverts are airbrushed to death.

However, the "backlash" and glorification of "normal people" will always be used for short-term publicity stunts and nothing more. Catwalk models sizes will adapt and change when the designers want them too, men will always prefer a Kim Kardashian over a Keira Knightley (in fact the growing trend in adult film over last few years is big asses!) and airbrushing will ALWAYS occur from now on. And people that decry airbrushing should look at their own photos on facebook or bebo or whatever. People are VERY selective over the profile pictures they take and photos they want to tagged under. Honest to god half the women on my facebook contact list look 5x more attractive in their profile photo (b&w, angled shots usually) than everyday life.

This is just a publicity stunt and honestly I can't see any reason for people to take it seriously. Fashion adverts, models and designers will go back to their old practises, a magazine or product will shift a few more units, men will still want an arse they can actually grab and a lot of women will still be depressed by unfair beauty standards they believe they are expected to live up to. Need I remind people that the advertisers behind the "Campaign for Beauty" Boots ads a few years back were also creating the scantily-clad women island adverts for Lynx? The only thing to be celebrated here is clever marketing


EDIT - p.s. Can everyone please stop saying Size 0? Its size 4

shellyboo

G86 wrote: »

Aye but I agree; I never said someone who's thin isn't unhealthy, I just said that the fast amount of people who are overweight are. You can't debate that in all honesty.

I'm not debating it - but let's face it, we're not excluding overweight people from fashion shows and magazines because they're unhealthy. We're excluding them because most people think they don't look very nice.

I just don't appreciate the disingenuous "but it's unhealthy" reasoning that more and more people seem to be reaching for these days.

G86

shellyboo wrote: »

I'm not debating it - but let's face it, we're not excluding overweight people from fashion shows and magazines because they're unhealthy. We're excluding them because most people think they don't look very nice.

I just don't appreciate the disingenuous "but it's unhealthy" reasoning that more and more people seem to be reaching for these days.

Fair point. I'm not relying on the 'it's unhealthy' reasoning at all though, I also said in my first post that I don't think it's an attractive photo. I think she's a good looking girl, but I think with her shape she'd look better in a different shot in more than a g string. Just like I wouldn't look good in that shot!:P

shellyboo

G86 wrote: »

Fair point. I'm not relying on the 'it's unhealthy' reasoning at all though, I also said in my first post that I don't think it's an attractive photo. I think she's a good looking girl, but I think with her shape she'd look better in a different shot in more than a g string. Just like I wouldn't look good in that shot!:P

No no, not saying you are... I was more commenting on the "it's unhealthy" argument in general.


I suppose I just tire of the whole thing really, and no offence to *anyone*, honestly, but thin girls complaining that fashion is now celebrating "real women"... I just kinda think, give me a break. Give someone else a chance to be the ideal body type for a while, maybe? Would that be so bad?

I understand that it's not nice to be made feel like you're less attractive than some unattainable ideal - believe me, I understand - but we are all made to feel like that. There are trends within fashion, and sooner our later every body type is going to be "in". It's swings and roundabouts. Except if you're fat, of course, that will never be in.


The solution is not to change the way we're portrayed in the media. Having "normal" women in the media isn't going to stop us hating ourselves. That change has to come from within. I know because I've done it myself without losing a pound.

EDIT: It's also important to remember that the media is an engine for making money. It is not your friend and it does not have your best interests at heart. We rely on the media to tell us what to wear and how to look - but would you blindly trust a shop assistant in a store? Of course not, because she's just trying to sell you something. The same goes for the glossy mags.

allandanyways

just on that link, there are comments under the picture saying that it's lazy to be fat at 20, and that she should be a 6-8. She's 5' 11, she'd be skeletal if she was a 6-8.

People's obsession with being a certain level of "thin" is sickening. Sometimes I wish all media to do with weight, size and body image could just go away, 'cos let's be honest, that picture doesn't make me feel better, it doesnt have me going "hurrah, she has a bit of a belly on her", mainly because this is a really big deal, the fact that an american magazine published a picture of someone who wasn't rail thin (because all americans are perfect, or so they'd have you believe with their press). Apparently it's a big deal that some people aren't super thin, and that people have imperfections, and I hate that.

Oh for the day when a magazine publishes someone with their ribs hanging out and their stomach concave, and everyone's in shock at that.

SeekUp

humanji wrote: »

Anybody else scroll down to the Chanel ad they show in the middle of the article to demonstrate a normal ad? This pretty much sums up the campaign, to be honest. They show pictures that the average woman can relate to and once you have good publicity, go back to the skinny models.

I think they were just pointing out the airbrushing on Kiera Knightley's breasts; the ad wasn't actually inserted in the piece out of context.

Sorry to nitpick . . .

Dudess

Sorry, I don't want "real" looking people in ads, marketing campaigns and so on - I want escapism, fantasy... I don't mean waifs, I mean Agent Provocateur type models with curves galore - fantasy women whose figures I would like, and whom men desire.
There's a quote by some advertising exec which I spotted somewhere on the internet (:D) but, dubious sources aside, I like it: "If you want to sell a magazine to a man, put a picture of a beautiful woman on the front. If you want to sell a magazine to a woman, put a picture of a beautiful woman on the front".

This just smacks of playing on insecurities by the Daily Fail - "look girls, she's got a few chubby bits - let's all scrutinise her and feel smug about ourselves". I find it fairly monstrous to be honest - it reminds me of those ghastly "Look who's eaten all the pies! 6-page spread inside showing celebs on the beach with their wobbly bits on show" announcements on the cover of Heat etc. In no way is it designed to celebrate "normal women" etc, it's to appeal to our inner bitch, the side of us that makes us think "Ha! Not so perfect now are ya?!" And the fact that it's held up as imperfect etc just further reinforces its unacceptability.

I find the Dove campaign incredibly patronising and just a cynical exercise in self congratulation, which makes Dove lots of money - that's the bottom line. Don't believe them when they say they care...
Oh and it's also cheaper to use non professional models as models...

Dudess

Dudess wrote: »

Sorry, I don't want "real" looking people in ads, marketing campaigns and so on - I want escapism, fantasy... I don't mean waifs, I mean Agent Provocateur type models with curves galore - fantasy women whose figures I would like, and whom men desire.
There's a quote by some advertising exec which I spotted somewhere on the internet (:D) but, dubious sources aside, I like it: "If you want to sell a magazine to a man, put a picture of a beautiful woman on the front. If you want to sell a magazine to a woman, put a picture of a beautiful woman on the front".

This just smacks of playing on insecurities by the Daily Fail - "look girls, she's got a few chubby bits - let's all scrutinise her and feel smug about ourselves". I find it fairly monstrous to be honest - it reminds me of those ghastly "Look who's eaten all the pies! 6-page spread inside showing celebs on the beach with their wobbly bits on show" announcements on the cover of Heat etc. In no way is it designed to celebrate "normal women" etc, it's to appeal to our inner bitch, the side of us that makes us think "Ha! Not so perfect now are ya?!" And the fact that it's held up as imperfect etc just further reinforces its unacceptability.

I find the Dove campaign incredibly patronising and just a cynical exercise in self congratulation, which makes Dove lots of money - that's the bottom line. Don't believe them when they say they care...
Oh and it's also cheaper to use non professional models as models...

And breath... and relax!

Feel better now?

Macha

Dudess wrote: »

I find the Dove campaign incredibly patronising and just a cynical exercise in self congratulation, which makes Dove lots of money - that's the bottom line. Don't believe them when they say they care...
Oh and it's also cheaper to use non professional models as models...

If it helps you hate the Dove campaign any more, some of the images they use in their videos (like the one with the young girl) are images from Lynx ads - owned by the same parent company. Fail!

Fooz

I think it's great, just great. More of it I say.

I for one have given up weightwatchers and all that ****e. I'm not unhealthily overweight but I have curves, I have a little bit of a tummy and big boobs. I am never going to be a size 6/8/10 and it has taken me YEARS to accept this and quit trying to look skinny/hide my boobs, etc and it has been such a relief to be happy with the way I am. I think women need to concentrate more on being a healthy weight and making the most of what they've got and this is a step towards it.

Dudess

But I think the likes of Heidi Klum are healthy looking - they have ample curves too, they're just very toned.

b3t4

Dove have natural looking women advertising their products and weirdly they haven't gone out of business. I haven't read any announcements stating they've lost millions due to their advertising campaign for the last few years.

Back in the day when they didn't use photos and used drawings, they still managed to shift the stuff they were advertising.

So to say that you need an airbrushed, 15yr old to sell your product is moot. You don't, the people with the power choose to continue to use the models they do and airbrush the life (literally) out of them.

Also, I find it extremely stupid when a girl of about 20 is advertising anti-aging products.

Also, I think that if there wasn't such an over saturation of 'perfection' we wouldn't really notice the imperfections as much.

Macha

Dudess wrote: »

they're just very toned.

This means she has low body fat, for the muscle definition to show through.
The average woman is above 20% body fat and this is perfectly normal (and, dare I say, desirable/attractive/beautiful?)

To see your abs, you need to get down to below 14% - very difficult for anyone who's every been on a cut - just ask G'em! There are very, very, very few women who naturally have such a low body fat and most of these woudl have difficulty menstruating.

Jules

Deleted User wrote: »

And breath... and relax!

Feel better now?

No need for a comment like that Zaraba.

Dudess

b3t4 wrote: »

Dove have natural looking women advertising their products and weirdly they haven't gone out of business. I haven't read any announcements stating they've lost millions due to their advertising campaign for the last few years.

I'd say they've made more money because of the "Real Women" campaign.

Ginny

TBH the is a terriblly unflattering angle for anyone, I'd put money on her looking a lot better standing and facing the camera dead on.

suspectpackage

that pic from the side angle is GROSS

Macha

suspectpackage wrote: »

that pic from the side angle is GROSS

With no intention to get personal, comments like this always make me wonder how many naked women have been seen in the flesh? No one short of an athlete or model would not have a roll like that when in that position.

Wibbs

taconnol wrote: »

This means she has low body fat, for the muscle definition to show through.
The average woman is above 20% body fat and this is perfectly normal (and, dare I say, desirable/attractive/beautiful?)

To see your abs, you need to get down to below 14% - very difficult for anyone who's every been on a cut - just ask G'em! There are very, very, very few women who naturally have such a low body fat and most of these woudl have difficulty menstruating.

I would agree, but only partially. There are quite a few women I've known who would have had very little fat on the belly. The bloating from the menstrual cycle notwithstanding. They weren't at the 14% bodyfat either. It was just the way they were, whether through fitness or genes and all menstruated. Indeed the partner I was with who had the heaviest periods of all was the one with the least overall body fat, though she was all woman to me. It really does depend on the baseline "natural" bodyshape involved.

There are all shapes out there and they should all be celebrated. I've known women with defined abs and women without and each type brought something different even just on that superficial level of engagement. The rest of them as people made the diff for me anyway.

With no intention to get personal, comments like this always make me wonder how many naked women have been seen in the flesh? No one short of an athlete or model would not have a roll like that when in that position.

True. Even those women I mentioned above when in that position would have a "roll" of some kind. Hell if they didn't they wouldn't have been able to stand up straight. The sad joke is, even those women with bodies that many other women would aim to aspire to or envy, each believed they were pudgy or in need of less. "Bloated" was the usual description. It hurt me to see that I don't mind admitting. They had the "perfect body" as far as the current society aspires to, yet still felt lesser.

I'll be honest here. As a guy, that was attractive in of itself, but way less than you might think. At least it was attractive because it was part of them and I cared about them. I've cared equally about women who weren't that way. The way women are "supposed" to be. Utter bollox, because both types of women felt lesser. If the "ideal" had felt ok about themselves it would have been somehow easier to process, but they didn't. What does that tell us about the "ideal"? It's a crock of shíte, pardon my french.

They were never lesser in my eyes anyway, but I'll say this it does become difficult for a man when the woman he looks at with loving eyes and sexual eyes and appreciative eyes, doesnt see the same in herself.

Macha

Wibbs wrote: »

It really does depend on the baseline "natural" bodyshape involved.

Oh sure and look I hate thin-bashing as much as I hate fat-bashing. The point is there are many healthy, attractive body types out there, not just one.


Wibbs - you're a guy??! Christ on a bicycle! :pac:

panda100

Wibbs wrote: »

They were never lesser in my eyes anyway, but I'll say this it does become difficult for a man when the woman he looks at with loving eyes and sexual eyes and appreciative eyes, doesnt see the same in herself.

Awwwhh Wibbs you're lovely

SheRa

Wibbs wrote: »

They were never lesser in my eyes anyway, but I'll say this it does become difficult for a man when the woman he looks at with loving eyes and sexual eyes and appreciative eyes, doesnt see the same in herself.

+a million. its only in the last while i realised this myself.