Bigger Girls: Are They More Popular than We Think?

IM0

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

More about the bootay but still look great. I like boobs too though.

so what word would you give them if you described the others as 'slim' and 'curvy'

me? Id say they were the same proportionately but bigger, but with more bootay obviously. Id say they were big framed women, actual bone structure I mean. but I hate when some describe them as big, when they would use the same word for what most of us would call fat!

they are very active women in SUPER shape, with big frames, but other than that they are the same as the three stunners you mention, what you think?

and Im pretty sure they are hour glass shaped too

Legs.Eleven

Wibbs wrote: »

Maybe LE, while I very much agree that a helluva lot of this pressure and focus on weight comes from women themselves(whether that be in the media or "on the ground") there can be a wider pressure in the society and that includes some male influence. Taking your Spanish(and Madrid funny enough) example, I knew a woman who was largely ignored over there, but got a lot more attention from the guys here in Ireland and was surprised by it. I've also had Spanish male mates visiting here who were vocal enough about the contrast in sizes between here and Spain. Ditto for Italian guys(though a little less so). Some eastern European cultures and their women and men can be quite vocal about this too. .

After I typed that post, it actually hit me that the attention I'd get wouldn't be from young Spanish men but from Latino, African and Middle Eastern Men...and older Spanish fellas (who are probably more attracted to the blonde hair). I'd probably be too big for many (maybe most?) Spanish men's taste (just to remind you I'm a size 10!) but luckily I found the one fella who's into tits and ass. They can't help what they go for though and the type of slim Spanish women are would be their norm. There's very little variation in sizes here and if there is, they'd be considered chubby. I'd agree with you that British and Irish men are definitely the most accepting of varying body shapes and long may it last!

Interesting stats on Anorexia though. I'd no idea.

beks101

Wibbs wrote: »

Interestingly on BMI(and I know that's fraught with issues but..), Irish women are slightly lighter than the Spanish overall. What is different is when you look at the ages. Young Irish women's BMI is slightly above the average for all ages, whereas young Spanish women's BMI is certainly lower. That would possibly suggest that young Spanish women may be on permanent diets but that goes out the window as they age. It may also back that old notion of Latin women piling on the pounds when they settle down(Italy shows a similar stat).

Or the fact that strict dieting for too long ultimately backfires when your body fights back.

April O Neill

ViveLaVie wrote: »

I'm 5 ft 1 and at the minimum weight for my height but I don't look like a child. On the one hand, you're criticising the speculation and judgement of women's bodies and on the other you're insulting naturally thin women. Now I realise there is a difference in that you had an eating disorder and therefore you weren't naturally this thin but I do not have an eating disorder and yet the implication is that I weigh the same as a child, have no business doing so and the bmi scale is wrong to tell me I'm healthy.

This thread is doing my head in. People are lamenting the constant scrutiny of the female body and then perpetuating it themselves! Some people are naturally skinny, some are naturally heavy and there's plenty in between. Unless your health is being adversely affected, live and let live!

I didn't read that as her saying nobody has any business being the weight of a child, just that she didn't, as it wasn't natural for her.

Legs.Eleven

April O Neill wrote: »

I didn't read that as her saying nobody has any business being the weight of a child, just that she didn't, as it wasn't natural for her.

That's what I read too. Not everyone can carry off that height and weight. Some are naturally built that way, some aren't.

alibab

This thread is very interesting reading . In my opinion Adele and Hendricks are not curvy they are simply overweight and unhealthy . Lots of women as pointed out call themselves curvy when overweight it's like it's the hip thing to do .

I call myself curvy I am a size 8 but small . I would class myself as hourglass on the basis of having a 9inch difference between my waist and hips . My stomach would be fairly flat but not perfect after 2 kids . In my case women like to tell me I am too skiny when I am obvisly not . Because the norm or average has now become bigger . In my opinion men have all different tastes and there is no one size fits all .

In my case as a women if I was to be attracted to other women I am attracted to fit strong women with lower body fat . Not skinny but strong . This is my personal preference as I am into weights etc myself and I find it attractive . Not body building women but fit and strong .

Czarcasm

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

Isn't BBW a term that's applied to those really obese fetish chicks though?

Sorry FF, I must have missed your edit (was it an edit or did I just miss it the first time round? I can't tell on touch! ), but yeah I mean there you're onto the whole trying to nail down a definition again, say it can go from just fat, to obese, to borderline fetish levels of morbid obesity where you're getting into Super Size Big Beautiful Women (SSBBW), which are pretty much immobile because of their sheer size (just as dangerous a fetish sub-culture as the whole thinspiration sub-culture, there's crazy shìt goes on in both extremes).

The whole BBW terminology though has been hijacked on Facebook and the likes by women that have more folds than a flaccid penis. IMO that's not attractive in any way- shapeless and formless, nothing feminine about them if that makes sense?
Then there's still the whole question of attraction, I mean if they have a face like a bulldog chewing a wasp, a cute body isn't gonna help much!

More about the bootay but still look great. I like boobs too though.

Celebrities are a perfect example of "one man's meat", etc, I mean, Beyonce changes her appearance more times, and been called more names, like there are those that say she's a cracker, those that call her thunder thighs, and then those that LIKE her thunder thighs!

I personally wouldn't think she has thunder thighs, but then that's probably because I'm used to seeing bigger, so my perspective is skewed. As you say though FF- great ass but disproportionately small boobs IMO.

I'm just a whole package kinda guy!

Wibbs

beks101 wrote: »

Or the fact that strict dieting for too long ultimately backfires when your body fights back.

Well yea, though they backfire to the same weight as us. But yep I would say a crap diet is going to do that. You lose lean mass which otherwise helps burn calories, so if and when you go back to the original diet you tend to put more back on. Never mind the other damage/side effects like insulin response. It's pretty unsustainable. I seem to recall reading somewhere when researchers followed up on "big losers" on various "official" weight reduction diets(men and women), 3 years on, they were nearly always back to the weight they had been before, some had gained. This can even happen with stomach reduction surgery.

beks101

ViveLaVie wrote: »

I'm 5 ft 1 and at the minimum weight for my height but I don't look like a child. On the one hand, you're criticising the speculation and judgement of women's bodies and on the other you're insulting naturally thin women. Now I realise there is a difference in that you had an eating disorder and therefore you weren't naturally this thin but I do not have an eating disorder and yet the implication is that I weigh the same as a child, have no business doing so and the bmi scale is wrong to tell me I'm healthy.

I mentioned in that post that I'm curvy. That is my natural state. To reach my lowest weight, I had to starve myself, my curves completely disappeared and I had an eating disorder.

My point being, it was a miserable existence for me, all in the name of being
as slim as I could be. A state not helped in any way by weight obsession and scrutiny of women's bodies in general.

You don't appear to have the same issues. Good for you.

Take offence as you please, I think the message of my post was clear.

Pug160

Just to clarify: are the overweight comments aimed at at Christina Hendricks just being made arbitrarily or do you really think she is medically overweight? I've looked at quite a few pictures (and yes I know they don't tell the whole story) and I honestly don't see a woman who looks overweight. I also don't see how she'd have lots of weight on her stomach. Once you reach a certain weight it's impossible to hide it. Adele is just a big girl - big everywhere. Hendricks has massive boobs but is not huge everywhere else. Also, in all of the pictures of Hendricks I've seen her face looks quite lean. I know fat is not always distributed evenly but if she were as big as some of you are suggesting it's unlikely she'd have a face like that. The Adele comparison is laughable in my opinion.

leewarden

Pug160 wrote: »

Just to clarify: are the overweight comments aimed at at Christina Hendricks just being made arbitrarily or do you really think she is medically overweight? I've looked at quite a few pictures (and yes I know they don't tell the whole story) and I honestly don't see a woman who looks overweight. I also don't see how she'd have lots of weight on her stomach. Once you reach a certain weight it's impossible to hide it. Adele is just a big girl - big everywhere. Hendricks has massive boobs but is not huge everywhere else. Also, in all of the pictures of Hendricks I've seen her face looks quite lean. I know fat is not always distributed evenly but if she were as big as some of you are suggesting it's unlikely she'd have a face like that. The Adele comparison is laughable in my opinion.

+1

Czarcasm

Pug160 wrote: »

Just to clarify: are the overweight comments aimed at at Christina Hendricks just being made arbitrarily or do you really think she is medically overweight? I've looked at quite a few pictures (and yes I know they don't tell the whole story) and I honestly don't see a woman who looks overweight. I also don't see how she'd have lots of weight on her stomach. Once you reach a certain weight it's impossible to hide it. Adele is just a big girl - big everywhere. Hendricks has massive boobs but is not huge everywhere else. Also, in all of the pictures of Hendricks I've seen her face looks quite lean. I know fat is not always distributed evenly but if she were as big as some of you are suggesting it's unlikely she'd have a face like that. The Adele comparison is laughable in my opinion.

Pug one thing I've always said about photos of celebrities is that they can either make said celebrity look flattering or just plain fcuked up, I'd put even less stock in photos I knew were photoshopped. You might think too it's impossible to hide, but Christina isn't doing a very flattering job of hiding anything. I mean, I've seen young girls of 14/15 whatever pulling their belly fat into their ridiculously undersized bra's to try and give the impression of heaving cleavage. Christina should've given up that nonsense years ago and if she wants to wear corsets, get one that fits and flatters her properly and doesn't make her look like a cartoon character.

I really have to wonder- does she actually HAVE massive breasts, or are they just average sized breasts shoved up and out giving the impression that they're bigger than they are? She's doing her body no favors treating her breasts like they're just ornaments for media attention, but I imagine all that matters to her right now is keeping her name in the spotlight.

If you think the Adele comparison is laughable, just do a Google search of Adele and tell me they're not just as photoshopped as Christina. Of course they are, which as I said earlier is the problem with using celebrity bodies as any kind of measurement of a healthy looking or attractive body.

The OP asks the question-

"Bigger Girls: Are They More Popular Than We Think?"...


My question would be-


"What's all this WE business?"

I never thought of overweight girls as unpopular tbh, that was always just a stereotype perpetuated by the media.

In the last few weeks I've seen more shots of Kim Kardashian pregnant than I ever did before she was pregnant. You can't pick up a paper now without reading about some personal trainer accompanying Kim to the gym, etc, and wait until she HAS the baby, I give it a week before she's back on the front cover of Cosmo showing all women how they too can lose the baby weight like her- bribe the photoshop guy! :pac:

April O Neill

desertcircus wrote: »

Indicator of what? I'm teetering between the "overweight" and "obese" classifications according to BMI, while my brother is a healthy weight. He does no exercise whatsoever, while I play rugby from August to April and this year I'm training for Gaelforce West. I'm fitter, faster, stronger and get sick less than my brother, and thanks to his nicotine habit, I can realistically expect to outlive him even though I'm three years older. What's the value of BMI if it fails to take any of this into account and simply tells us that he's fine and I desperately need to lose weight?

Maybe you do need to?

It's an indicator of healthy weight, though whether that weight was reached in a healthy way is another matter. It's just one metric, but it's not as imperfect as people make out.

Czarcasm

April O Neill wrote: »

Maybe you do need to?

Did you even read his post?

It's an indicator of healthy weight, though whether that weight was reached in a healthy way is another matter. It's just one metric, but it's not as imperfect as people make out.

Actually it is-


Top 10 Reasons Why The BMI Is Bogus

BMI was explicitly cited by Keys as being appropriate for population studies, and inappropriate for individual diagnosis. Nevertheless, due to its simplicity, it came to be widely used for individual diagnosis, despite its inappropriateness.

Source: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_mass_index


I won't quote the whole piece, but have a look at the "Limitations and Shortcomings" section.


Trying to measure anything without a defined metric (especially when it comes to human beings), leads to all sorts of misguided assumptions and errors.

Just ask the Ancient Egyptians who were all fingers and thumbs!

desertcircus

April O Neill wrote: »

Maybe you do need to?

It's an indicator of healthy weight, though whether that weight was reached in a healthy way is another matter. It's just one metric, but it's not as imperfect as people make out.

But the problem is that it's not an indicator of healthy weight. The evidence linking a given BMI to positive health outcomes is very shaky and vastly inferior to measurements of body fat percentage, for example.

As for whether I need to lose weight: this time last year I was 175 centimetres tall and weighed 105kg, which comes in as a BMI of 34.3. At this point I'm down to about 97kg, and have dropped more than half the fat off my waist (I'm running at close to zero fat anywhere else), and my BMI is 31.7. If I swore off carbs completely and doubled my weekly running to 60km and cycling to 80km, I might be able to get down to 90kg, which would give me a BMI of 29.4 - just shy of being classed as obese. At that point, I'd be edging towards 2-3% body fat, and any further weight loss would involve dropping muscle, which really isn't a positive approach. All of this, of course, would still be done against the backdrop of a brother whose BMI is near-perfect but who'd lose out to me on just about any measurement of fitness or health.

BMI isn't something that's perfectly good for 99% of humanity and only badly flawed when dealing with professional athletes. It's fundamentally flawed; people listed as overweight appear to have better health outcomes than people listed as healthy. People from different ethnic backgrounds have out-of-sync BMI readings. People who exercise regularly get weird BMI readings. It's of severely limited value.

IM0

desertcircus wrote: »

But the problem is that it's not an indicator of healthy weight. The evidence linking a given BMI to positive health outcomes is very shaky and vastly inferior to measurements of body fat percentage, for example.

As for whether I need to lose weight: this time last year I was 175 centimetres tall and weighed 105kg, which comes in as a BMI of 34.3. At this point I'm down to about 97kg, and have dropped more than half the fat off my waist (I'm running at close to zero fat anywhere else), and my BMI is 31.7. If I swore off carbs completely and doubled my weekly running to 60km and cycling to 80km, I might be able to get down to 90kg, which would give me a BMI of 29.4 - just shy of being classed as obese. At that point, I'd be edging towards 2-3% body fat, and any further weight loss would involve dropping muscle, which really isn't a positive approach. All of this, of course, would still be done against the backdrop of a brother whose BMI is near-perfect but who'd lose out to me on just about any measurement of fitness or health.
.

the bit in bold is wrong, the minimum fat % you personally will be is 9% and thats being very kind + if your female more like 12%+

the reason? cause the body has a minimum amount of fat surrounding the organs, I think its 3-4% I believe, and if youre an adult female they carry more fat naturally..about 20-30% more in total compared to men I believe

April O Neill

Czarcasm wrote: »

Did you even read his post?

Yes.

Boofle

80s singer Alison Moyet (who slimmed from a size 22 to a size 10) has said this week in an interview that she has lost too much weight. She said she thinks women look better with a bit of "chub" on them and that she is "working on getting fatter again". . . .

Thwip!

Czarcasm wrote: »

Pug one thing I've always said about photos of celebrities is that they can either make said celebrity look flattering or just plain fcuked up, I'd put even less stock in photos I knew were photoshopped. You might think too it's impossible to hide, but Christina isn't doing a very flattering job of hiding anything. I mean, I've seen young girls of 14/15 whatever pulling their belly fat into their ridiculously undersized bra's to try and give the impression of heaving cleavage. Christina should've given up that nonsense years ago and if she wants to wear corsets, get one that fits and flatters her properly and doesn't make her look like a cartoon character.

I really have to wonder- does she actually HAVE massive breasts, or are they just average sized breasts shoved up and out giving the impression that they're bigger than they are? She's doing her body no favors treating her breasts like they're just ornaments for media attention, but I imagine all that matters to her right now is keeping her name in the spotlight.

If you think the Adele comparison is laughable, just do a Google search of Adele and tell me they're not just as photoshopped as Christina. Of course they are, which as I said earlier is the problem with using celebrity bodies as any kind of measurement of a healthy looking or attractive body.

The OP asks the question-

"Bigger Girls: Are They More Popular Than We Think?"...


My question would be-


"What's all this WE business?"

I never thought of overweight girls as unpopular tbh, that was always just a stereotype perpetuated by the media.

In the last few weeks I've seen more shots of Kim Kardashian pregnant than I ever did before she was pregnant. You can't pick up a paper now without reading about some personal trainer accompanying Kim to the gym, etc, and wait until she HAS the baby, I give it a week before she's back on the front cover of Cosmo showing all women how they too can lose the baby weight like her- bribe the photoshop guy! :pac:

If only someone would volunteer to find out

Czarcasm

Boofle wrote: »

80s singer Alison Moyet (who slimmed from a size 22 to a size 10) has said this week in an interview that she has lost too much weight. She said she thinks women look better with a bit of "chub" on them and that she is "working on getting fatter again". . . .

Heard it before, and the only one who seems obsessed with her own weight is Alison-

2009 - http://www.liverpooldailypost.co.uk/liverpool-culture/liverpool-arts/2009/11/27/alison-moyet-tells-liverpooldailypost-co-uk-why-her-body-size-is-irrelevant-92534-25259422/

2012 - http://www.nowmagazine.co.uk/celebrity-news/537168/alison-moyet-shows-off-amazing-weight-loss-in-clingy-dress

2013 - http://www.mirror.co.uk/lifestyle/going-out/music/alison-moyet-ive-lost-much-1920988


Like so many other celebrity yo-yo dieters such as Claire Richards, Charlotte Church, and now Adele-


http://music.ninemsn.com/blog.aspx?blogentryid=979766&showcomments=true

Czarcasm

Thwip! wrote: »

If only someone would volunteer to find out

Well the reason I was thinking about that was because I remembered the whole Jordan and Jodie Marsh spat a few years back, and Jodie claiming she had 34DDs, but when she actually went topless, her breasts were, well, "flappy", and putting them in a DD cup would certainly fill the cups and make her breasts look fuller (she has had implants put in since and become a rather dedicated female body builder), and I just wonder is Catherine doing the same thing - wearing an ill fitting bra to make her breasts appear fuller, as Geena Davis did at the Oscars about 20 years ago.

It wasn't me!

Thwip! wrote: »

If only someone would volunteer to find out

*dons snorkel*

Crea

Certainly Christina Hendricks wears certain bras and dresses to push up her breasts but she is a big breasted woman. She is by no means what I would classify as a "big woman" in the weight/size sense. She has large boobs, curvy hips but slender arms, legs, waist, face.
I have a friend who is "big" in the 5ft 2, 18 stone sense and when she was on-line dating she put a very accurate photo of herself on the site. She could have had a man in her bed every night of the week.

jimbobaloobob

Crea wrote: »

I have a friend who is "big" in the 5ft 2, 18 stone sense and when she was on-line dating she put a very accurate photo of herself on the site. She could have had a man in her bed every night of the week.

but is that what she wanted or something more long term?

Crea

I was just saying that she had plenty of offers but didn't take up any of them. She's now in a relationship and her size doesn't seem to be an issue.

jimbobaloobob

i get ya, sorry i didnt mean it to sound any other way.

getzls

Big girls are the best.

Had the best sex ever with a big girl on a giant beanbag.:D

Legs.Eleven

The thread is mental.

leewarden

It is a very emotive issue with women though. Lots of women posting "well I have...." or "My body is...." I do think having lived with a sister with an eating disorder that women do feel under pressure to fit some ideal, whether it be one perpetrated by the media, their own friends or even themselves. My male friends never seem to worry about how a top or jeans make them look.

Czarcasm

leewarden wrote: »

It is a very emotive issue with women though. Lots of women posting "well I have...." or "My body is...." I do think having lived with a sister with an eating disorder that women do feel under pressure to fit some ideal, whether it be one perpetrated by the media, their own friends or even themselves. My male friends never seem to worry about how a top or jeans make them look.

Men too though have their own various foibles and insecurities, they just tend to internalise them a lot more than women IME. Certainly men are becoming more conscious of their appearance (and not just their penis size any more), and cosmetics and clothing companies / health and fitness companies / magazine and internet media companies are tripping over themselves to accommodate and even encourage a growing market.

I'd give it another twenty years before men are as openly insecure as women, because I can't see women becoming more secure in themselves with the pressure and influence exerted on them from numerous sources.

Honey-ec

Crea wrote: »

Certainly Christina Hendricks wears certain bras and dresses to push up her breasts but she is a big breasted woman. She is by no means what I would classify as a "big woman" in the weight/size sense. She has large boobs, curvy hips but slender arms, legs, waist, face.
I have a friend who is "big" in the 5ft 2, 18 stone sense and when she was on-line dating she put a very accurate photo of herself on the site. She could have had a man in her bed every night of the week.

Again, I just have to go back to that photo I posted of Hendricks in her swimsuit and I genuinely wonder how anyone can look at it and go "Nah, she's not overweight."

And your friend's experience is that of pretty much every woman on OD. The fact that none of those men are anyone you'd want in your bed is probably more salient.

Maybe the Hendricks thing is down to the fact that as being overweight has become more and more normalised, people's perception of what's overweight and what isn't has changed. That was actually the whole reason behind the EU's waist measurement campaign - people actually no longer even recognise what's overweight as the average person is getting bigger.

I'd agree with you that Hendricks' face is extremely slender. To the point of being completely out of proportion to the rest of her. It makes her look slimmer than she actually is at first glance. And we've seen how the converse can be true - even at her thinnest, Renee Zellweger still had a very round face with chubby cheeks, and it made her look heavier than she was, when for a long time she was actually in what I would consider the dangerously underweight range.

Phantom of the Oprah

My experience of online dating I find that too many large ladies are in denial of there size. Because of this its clear that there sensitive on the issue which makes it harder to tell them "I'm not interested because your too heavy".
As has been said its all about attraction and personal preference so we all have to take the rejections for whatever reasons.

pastorbarrett

It's naive of course to downplay the significance of aesthetics, but I truly wish the general trend encouraged both sexes to lend more time and effort to advertising their attributes and other qualities rather than their wares. Sure, I like impossibly sexy women, but I also love- dare i say it- 'average' women who are funny, artistically inclined etc.



As an aside, although this may be the personification of 'curvy', there's nothing real about it.

Honey-ec wrote: »

Perfect example of what I think of when someone says "curvy" - curves in all the right places on a slim frame.

http://cdn.imnotobsessed.com/wp-content/uploads/sofia-vergara_50895598.jpg

Black Leather

My ideal woman has to have big bouncing breasts, broad swaying hips and a good bottom - in other words - a Big Girl - I just luv em! No fried eggs please!

bodice ripper

Phantom of the Oprah wrote: »

My experience of online dating I find that too many large ladies are in denial of there size. Because of this its clear that there sensitive on the issue which makes it harder to tell them "I'm not interested because your too heavy".
As has been said its all about attraction and personal preference so we all have to take the rejections for whatever reasons.

I call bull****. You could easily just not be a dick and not specify a reason. That's what I do.

Also, this is online, is it? Pretty certain the women on online dating mostly sit and wait for interested emails, not chase down men to reject them...

Esoteric_

Black Leather wrote: »

My ideal woman has to have big bouncing breasts, broad swaying hips and a good bottom - in other words - a Big Girl - I just luv em! No fried eggs please!

We get it, you like bigger women. How many times do you need to say it before you realise people have already read your previous posts?!

Wibbs

Czarcasm wrote: »

I'd give it another twenty years before men are as openly insecure as women, because I can't see women becoming more secure in themselves with the pressure and influence exerted on them from numerous sources.

I dunno C. While mass media has certainly increased this pressure, oft to the point of madness, the pressure for women to be beautiful(whatever that is depending on culture) has a very long history, long before mass media was even dreamt of. Even behind closed doors in closed societies such pressure remains. The pressures on men have traditionally been different, with male beauty coming way down the list after things like social power, virility, strength etc. We certainly see men being insecure in those areas and of course we see issues in some like baldness and height(or lack of it) which are about the physical, but overall as a gender being as insecure about our physical selves? I don't see it happening to nearly the same degree as it has with women.

Honey-ec wrote: »

Maybe the Hendricks thing is down to the fact that as being overweight has become more and more normalised, people's perception of what's overweight and what isn't has changed. That was actually the whole reason behind the EU's waist measurement campaign - people actually no longer even recognise what's overweight as the average person is getting bigger.

+1 on this. I would definitely agree with you that size perception has skewed. In my class at school the "fat" guy was solidly built with a round face, but would barely register as the class fat lad today and that's only a generation ago.

You sometimes get it at the other end of the scale too in some circles at least, where near or actual anorexia is seen as "slim". Your example of Renee Zellweger a good one.

It seems our bodily perceptions are very plastic depending on culture and time. This makes sense as we are the social and symbolic ape, where belonging to a group isn't just about the obvious things, the "uniform" goes deep.

Legs.Eleven

Wibbs wrote: »

I dunno C. While mass media has certainly increased this pressure, oft to the point of madness, the pressure for women to be beautiful(whatever that is depending on culture) has a very long history, long before mass media was even dreamt of. Even behind closed doors in closed societies such pressure remains. The pressures on men have traditionally been different, with male beauty coming way down the list after things like social power, virility, strength etc. We certainly see men being insecure in those areas and of course we see issues in some like baldness and height(or lack of it) which are about the physical, but overall as a gender being as insecure about our physical selves? I don't see it happening to nearly the same degree as it has with women.

...and I believe pressure on women is getting worse as time goes on. On many street corners here I have clinics targeted at me (woman) telling me I need to undergo plastic/cosmetic surgery. These types of places are solely targeted at women along with adverts for perfume, posters for holidays of women in bikinis (rarely men), ads for clothes shops, make up, magazines for both women and men with "perfect" women plastered on the front etc. I think it's disingenuous to say men experience similar pressure. I do agree that pressure is growing for men but as the pressure on women is increasing at a depressing rate also, I think we'll always be "ahead" on this one unfortunately.

It takes a strong person not to succumb to it all. I think it all comes down to looking for internal approval from yourself and to stop searching externally for it. Easier said than done.

Wibbs

Legs.Eleven wrote: »

...and I believe pressure on women is getting worse as time goes on.

Certainly is and that pressure is even more twisted because of technology. The societal ideal has morphed into impossibility. An ancient Roman woman might look at statues of ideal women and mope she didn't match up, but there would be many in a population who would match up as the ideal was within normal human constraints. Today with digital manipulation impossible ideals are all around us that even the models for the ideal themselves don't match up to.

I think it's disingenuous to say men experience similar pressure. I do agree that pressure is growing for men but as the pressure on women is increasing at a depressing rate also, I think we'll always be "ahead" on this one unfortunately.

I'd agree and IMHO it's because there is or at least may be an innate gender difference when it comes to which insecurities are at play and which traits are rated higher and men as a gender and of course as an average pay far less attention to their(and other mens) looks and rate it's importance lower. Might be down to something as obvious as mate selection and competition for same within the genders. There are any number of examples of men well hit by the ugly stick, but with social power* with women who are significantly higher than them in the looks ranking. The reverse is far less common**.





*wealth and fame are the obvious ones. Others in different societies might be hunting ability, religious power etc.

** as women become more powerful in previously male dominated arenas it'll be interesting to see how this may change things. I would argue that women have often been more powerful than men at different points of history, but behind the scenes and because they controlled access to reproduction. The first thing very patriarchal societies try to stifle is this power.

Czarcasm

Wibbs wrote: »

Certainly is and that pressure is even more twisted because of technology. The societal ideal has morphed into impossibility. An ancient Roman woman might look at statues of ideal women and mope she didn't match up, but there would be many in a population who would match up as the ideal was within normal human constraints. Today with digital manipulation impossible ideals are all around us that even the models for the ideal themselves don't match up to.

Just when you mention Ancient Rome there Wibbs I was reminded of this chap - Michaelangelo's Statue Of David. I mean, they don't come much more "ideal of physical perfection" than that, and that was over 400 years ago. Nowadays we have Gerard Butler advertising male grooming products, Bradley Cooper advertising ice cream ffs (the Haagen Das advert!), I mean, you wouldn't see Zak Galifianakis advertising anything aimed at the ideal of male perfection!

I'd agree and IMHO it's because there is or at least may be an innate gender difference when it comes to which insecurities are at play and which traits are rated higher and men as a gender and of course as an average pay far less attention to their(and other mens) looks and rate it's importance lower. Might be down to something as obvious as mate selection and competition for same within the genders. There are any number of examples of men well hit by the ugly stick, but with social power* with women who are significantly higher than them in the looks ranking. The reverse is far less common**.

Ouch! :pac:

No yeah I get too what Legs.Eleven is saying- there was always a pressure on women to physically look their best, but I pass by a cosmetic surgery clinic on my way to work every morning, and their adverts are aimed not just at women any more, but also at men. I could tip in on my lunch break and have a face freeze (botox injections) done and be back at work that afternoon, so that's why I was saying earlier that men are becoming more openly insecure- because they are being targeted more openly - you can't even turn on the television any more without seeing a pack of oiled up muscle bound spartans, or the "I have such a busy day" male model that splashes his face with moisturiser. These cosmetics companies are relaying the message to men that women will no longer put up with a man who isn't trimmed, toned and buffed in all the right places (hell even the Lynx deodorant adverts play on the idea!), and so while the female target market has increased at a steady rate, the male target market in the last few years has grown almost exponentially.

A splash of old spice just doesn't cut the mustard any more :pac:

Legs.Eleven

Feckin' marketeers. Shower of ****ehawks. :mad:

Mr_Spaceman

As Anthony said to Cleopatra
As he opened a crate of ale :


Oh, I say :
Some girls are bigger than others
Some girls are bigger than others
Some girl's mothers are bigger than
Other girl's mothers

Phoenix Wright

Define a "big woman". Are we talking about obesity here or just having a little extra to grab onto ?

bodice ripper

You know, women don't have to bend to societal pressure. You can always decide "**** that".



*awaits accusations of victim blaming

Czarcasm

bodice ripper wrote: »

You know, women don't have to bend to societal pressure. You can always decide "**** that".

I'm beginning to wonder do some people read threads at all before they contribute, or even catch up on what's been said in their absence.

Legs.Eleven addressed that point already-

Legs.Eleven wrote: »

It takes a strong person not to succumb to it all. I think it all comes down to looking for internal approval from yourself and to stop searching externally for it. Easier said than done.

Legs.Eleven

bodice ripper wrote: »

You know, women don't have to bend to societal pressure. You can always decide "**** that".



*awaits accusations of victim blaming

Very few people don't bend to social pressure in some way - even you. They're usually considered renegades or outcasts or even mad.

Honey-ec

Phoenix Wright wrote: »

Define a "big woman". Are we talking about obesity here or just having a little extra to grab onto ?

If you'd bothered reading the thread you'd see that the last 30-odd pages have been attempting to do just that.

Naos

bodice ripper wrote: »

You know, women don't have to bend to societal pressure. You can always decide "**** that".



*awaits accusations of victim blaming

Surely they are caving into societal pressure if they're eating all the crap foods that's being marketed at them constantly?

As well as the pressure of 'Have some cake/sweets it's blah blahs birthday' which you get at work etc or 'Lets go to the pub / cinema' instead of exercise.

Very rarely if ever do I hear someone telling me to eat salad/go for a run/train.

blacklilly

Naos wrote: »

Surely they are caving into societal pressure if they're eating all the crap foods that's being marketed at them constantly?

As well as the pressure of 'Have some cake/sweets it's blah blahs birthday' which you get at work etc or 'Lets go to the pub / cinema' instead of exercise.

Very rarely if ever do I hear someone telling me to eat salad/go for a run/train.

There's a thing called personal responsibility, everyone is in control of their weight (to a certain degree) I don't need someone to tell me to eat healthy and excerise. Also from my own point of view I think the healthy eating agenda is being pushed and is usually marketed towards women.

Some people are have issues with food, some of us are programmed to like fatty food more so then others, therefore they have more urges to eat unhealthy foods, we can't blame marketing for everything, after all we have free will.
Also there are people who are happy being overweight and are not bothered with eating healthy or excerising.

bodice ripper

Good to see I got snapped at for that comment.

I just think the societal pat on the head for being a good looking woman is not what it is cracked up to be.

T'wouldn't be my thing now. I might forgive someone for "looking after themselves", but only if they also read just the right sci-fi. Otherwise, pale and chubby all the way, male or female.