Author Topic: "Bulky" women  (Read 9111 times)

Offline phrakture

  • Global Moderator
  • General
  • ****
  • Posts: 1275
  • Karma: 64
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: "Bulky" women
« Reply #45 on: July 22, 2010, 02:17:56 PM »
These women are raised in a society where being physically desired is one of the best things they can have in life. You can't just point at an individual and say "change!". You have to change the social mores.

I disagree completely. Wanting to be the most attractive member of your gender is not a result of civilization or agriculture or society, but rather an instinctive drive to pass on your genes in the best possible way. For men, it means being attractive to as many women as possible (quantity), and for women (quality), it means being the most attractive to the most desireable man/men.

Being attractive for women is quite straightforward  and has not been significantly affected by Cosmo, Fashion models or any of the other "societal evil" or alleged brainwasher. Being attractive is a proxy for being fertile and can be summed up as:

- Be young (fertility decreases a LOT after 30).
- Have a .7 hips to waist ratio (or as close as possible).
- Look generally healthy (eg: full lips, no acne, good skin, etc.)
- Be reasonably sane.

Other factors that women may consider should make them attractive, such as their career, experience, personality, knowledge, prizes, etc., won't necessarily make them more attractive to all men. Some may appreciate these factors, but not all.

What agricultural civilizations create, by virtue of size, is a much bigger peer group. So the women who have an instinct to be desireable to the top men in a group of 100-150 people are all of a sudden driven to compete with their 10 million peers in a region. Most of them cope well, but a few end up with problems / wrong decisions such as anorexia, too much surgery, etc.

One could also argue that in our current society, physical attractiveness is no longer the most appropriate quality for choice of a mate. Some of this already occurs: women marrying ugly rich men, etc.

I'll give you the fact that among primitive man, attraction was king, but I think once we started creating languages and having conversations, there was a shift there. Intelligence level is nearly as important as physical qualities (not necessarily HIGH intelligence either - I have numerous friends that prefer "dumb women" :'( ).

General health was also likely a factor in mate choice. Most of the signs of severe illness have their own odors... some sicknesses change your body odor smell, the smell of one's breath, and even the smells from an unclean toilet trip would linger on primitive man who had no toilet paper.



Offline gb

  • Lieutenant
  • ***
  • Posts: 318
  • Karma: 6
    • View Profile
Re: "Bulky" women
« Reply #46 on: July 22, 2010, 02:18:33 PM »
Every society has their own stereotypical ideal for a woman's body, and in America's case, this ideal is currently in the hands of the media, which likes to portray terribly thin frames with moderate curves as the ideal.


 her body has been shaped by olympic competition, not by the media.


You're right.  But in the media's eyes and to most women she would be considered "too muscley" and "thick".  I find it quit attractive but that's me.  If you asked a random person off the street they would most likely think the opposite.

Offline ARod

  • Private
  • *
  • Posts: 19
  • Karma: 0
    • View Profile
Re: "Bulky" women
« Reply #47 on: July 22, 2010, 02:19:11 PM »
Every society has their own stereotypical ideal for a woman's body, and in America's case, this ideal is currently in the hands of the media, which likes to portray terribly thin frames with moderate curves as the ideal.

Can you describe how that media portrayed ideal differs from Marilou Dozois, as pictured in Phrakture's post on the first page of this thread?  It seems to me she's a pretty good example, but her body has been shaped by olympic competition, not by the media.


not every woman can be an olympic athlete, but you are correct in suggesting that an active and healthy lifestyle is one practical method of lessening body dissatisfaction among men and women alike.  Every society has an ideal that is considered by the society to be healthy and attractive.  Ours can sometimes be reached through firm commitment to diet and exercise, but most women will never match up to the ideal (even those who fight to become thin often lack the curves).  This would be a non-problematic and normative situation were it not for the fact that the media not only thoroughly teaches women to constantly compare themselves to the ideal, but also suggests that the ideal can be reached easily, often through some fad diet or a pill or surgery.

Offline Warren Dew

  • Global Moderator
  • General
  • ****
  • Posts: 4397
  • Karma: 328
    • View Profile
Re: "Bulky" women
« Reply #48 on: July 22, 2010, 03:09:12 PM »
You're right.  But in the media's eyes and to most women she would be considered "too muscley" and "thick".  I find it quit attractive but that's me.  If you asked a random person off the street they would most likely think the opposite.

Given the difference betwee your reaction and ARod's reaction to my example, I think you're talking about different ideals.

I think that what you're thinking of is not so much the media ideal, but the fashion industry ideal.  The fashion industry ideal is stick like, without much in the way of curves.  There's a reason for that:  fashion designers find it easier to design for a human coat rack, without any curves, since curves tend to be difficult to fit.

Then once that body ideal is established for the fashion industry, you get the "skinny jeans" that no one with leg muscles can fit into.

That's not the media ideal for television and movie stars, though, and most men aren't even aware of it, and don't care for it if they do see it.  Most men would much prefer Maria Dozois with her curves.  I think many women would, too - just not the ones brainwashed by fashion magazines.

Offline gb

  • Lieutenant
  • ***
  • Posts: 318
  • Karma: 6
    • View Profile
Re: "Bulky" women
« Reply #49 on: July 22, 2010, 03:31:17 PM »
okay so it's fashion and media then.  I simply pointed out the fashion aspect b/c it was an easy example.
Think about the magazines like SHAPE, ELLE, GLAMOUR .  it's printed media advertisement.  One may be more "fitness" related but it's still media at it's best.

And television most certainly exposes us to the "ideal" feminine body.  Weight loss this, weight loss that...it's everywhere in one form or another.

I'm saying it's all around us. In fashion, media, tv, magazines, etc.  It's thrown in our face every possible second.
Maybe there are some men out there who do like women with natural curves but there are also the latter who like them stick thin and unshapely.

I am not doubting anyone's opinion on here, I'm giving it to you from a females perspective.  You may think a gals muscular legs look freaking fantastic but she, the owner of those legs, may hate them b/c they are too muscular to abide by societies standards of what "sexy legs" look like.  To each their own I guess.
« Last Edit: July 22, 2010, 03:36:56 PM by gb »

Offline ARod

  • Private
  • *
  • Posts: 19
  • Karma: 0
    • View Profile
Re: "Bulky" women
« Reply #50 on: July 22, 2010, 03:52:18 PM »
Interesting that there may be a split in the ideal among the media as a whole and among the fashion industries... I hadn't thought about that.  I guess the media as a whole tends to promote the thin with curves ideal whereas the fashion industries tend to promote the stick-thin with less curves ideal.  That would mean that even if someone were to objectively have the body of one ideal, she may still be dissatisfied with her body because it does not match up to the other.

Offline phrakture

  • Global Moderator
  • General
  • ****
  • Posts: 1275
  • Karma: 64
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: "Bulky" women
« Reply #51 on: July 22, 2010, 04:01:25 PM »
I am not doubting anyone's opinion on here, I'm giving it to you from a females perspective.  You may think a gals muscular legs look freaking fantastic but she, the owner of those legs, may hate them b/c they are too muscular to abide by societies standards of what "sexy legs" look like.

The age old "guess what someone else wants rather than ask them" theory :)



Offline gb

  • Lieutenant
  • ***
  • Posts: 318
  • Karma: 6
    • View Profile
« Last Edit: July 22, 2010, 04:15:16 PM by gb »

Offline Warren Dew

  • Global Moderator
  • General
  • ****
  • Posts: 4397
  • Karma: 328
    • View Profile
Re: "Bulky" women
« Reply #53 on: July 22, 2010, 04:18:06 PM »
That would mean that even if someone were to objectively have the body of one ideal, she may still be dissatisfied with her body because it does not match up to the other.

Good point.

With respect to the body types, here's a good illustration of what I mean.

Emma Watson, the #1 earning actress in 2009, on the left, is probably a good example of what Il Capo is talking about (ignore the person on the right whoever she is):



Compare the arms and legs with those in the first full body picture that comes up on a Google search for "model:



Bit of a difference there, eh?

« Last Edit: July 22, 2010, 04:34:36 PM by Warren Dew »

Offline gb

  • Lieutenant
  • ***
  • Posts: 318
  • Karma: 6
    • View Profile
Re: "Bulky" women
« Reply #54 on: July 22, 2010, 04:30:08 PM »
either way you look at it a girl who carries muscle on her frame will (IMO) have the odds stacked against her if she were to enter an "IDEAL FEMALE BODY" contest.

It just depends on who's judging and their likes and dislikes. 

Offline samjohn

  • Global Moderator
  • General
  • ****
  • Posts: 2387
  • Karma: 144
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: "Bulky" women
« Reply #55 on: July 22, 2010, 04:35:03 PM »
I have zero sympathy for all this 'the media gave me an eating disorder' idiocy. It is passing the buck just as surely as is suing Mcdonald's for being fat because you stuffed your face with burgers.

That said, these magazines have to go. In Australia Dolly and Cosmo both have an audience which contains a large percentage of 12-14 year old girls yet regularly feature very sexually explicit articles.

With regards to body type, it is personal choice. If you want to be muscly, be muscly, just be aware there are people it will appeal to and people it will not appeal to. There is no 'Ideal female body'.
The answer to your question is 'eat more fat'.

Stop counting calories. If you are eating Paleo, there is usually no need.

If you are having weight loss issues, it'd be a good idea to start posting a detailed food journal, then everyone can help.

'Anecdotal Evidence' is an oxymoron.

Offline gb

  • Lieutenant
  • ***
  • Posts: 318
  • Karma: 6
    • View Profile
Re: "Bulky" women
« Reply #56 on: July 22, 2010, 04:50:48 PM »
I have zero sympathy for all this 'the media gave me an eating disorder' idiocy. It is passing the buck just as surely as is suing Mcdonald's for being fat because you stuffed your face with burgers.

That said, these magazines have to go. In Australia Dolly and Cosmo both have an audience which contains a large percentage of 12-14 year old girls yet regularly feature very sexually explicit articles.

With regards to body type, it is personal choice. If you want to be muscly, be muscly, just be aware there are people it will appeal to and people it will not appeal to. There is no 'Ideal female body'.

It's not the media that GAVE the person their disorder but it does play a part in perpetuating the disorder, does it not?  It's an addiction.  Obese people have their "addiction" to food and anorexics the opposite.

Magazines--yes, a form of media.  Very inappropriate for young girls and send the wrong message to women of all ages.

It's a personal choice just like anything in life.  A skinny will be a skinny.  A muscley will be a muscley and they most likely won't understand each others preference and there is NOTHING wrong with that.  Just like a BB will never understand a marathoner.  There is no "ideal body" for any gender.

Offline Warren Dew

  • Global Moderator
  • General
  • ****
  • Posts: 4397
  • Karma: 328
    • View Profile
Re: "Bulky" women
« Reply #57 on: July 22, 2010, 05:08:13 PM »
not every woman can be an olympic athlete, but you are correct in suggesting that an active and healthy lifestyle is one practical method of lessening body dissatisfaction among men and women alike.  Every society has an ideal that is considered by the society to be healthy and attractive.  Ours can sometimes be reached through firm commitment to diet and exercise, but most women will never match up to the ideal (even those who fight to become thin often lack the curves).

I would contend that to the extent that Marilou Dozois meets the ideal that you and I and Il Capo are talking about, that ideal is not societally dependent.  Olympic weightlifting is pretty simple in concept - lift a weight over your head - and isn't all that different from what we might have done in the paleolithic.  Marilou Dozois would have looked pretty much the same in the paleolithic, and would still have been attractive then.

Your point about not every person being able to be an Olympic athelete is true, but I think that's the same point as Il Capo's about the size and connectedness of modern society making it much easier to see what the one in a million person looks like, rather than just the one in ten.

However, I would also note that some anthropologists think that the average paleo person would actually be comparable to an Olympic athlete today.  And that gets at the main reason that people are so much further from that ideal today:  starchy neolithic agricultural foods with at best poor quality proteins that make it easy to add fat but difficult to add muscle, along with a life style that involves minimal exercise.
« Last Edit: July 22, 2010, 07:55:15 PM by Warren Dew »

Offline Il Capo

  • General
  • ****
  • Posts: 1096
  • Karma: 55
    • View Profile
Re: "Bulky" women
« Reply #58 on: July 22, 2010, 07:47:04 PM »
@Warren: yeah, media is definitely a facilitator in the "competing with a million girls" vs. "competing with a few dozen women".

@Arod and gb: you made me realize there was a blind spot in my original comment, which is:

- What is objectively attractive to the "reproductive jury on objective beauty" (aka men) is different from:
- What the girls are regularly told is attractive by their influencers of choice.

Now if girls listened more to men (SI models, the FHM/Maxim lists of hot girls, VS models, etc.) and less to gay men / other women (catwalk models, designers, girly mags), then both criteria would converge.

Luckily, most girls figure out what men like pretty soon, just by virtue of being in the real world and interacting with said men and grow up to know to ignore BS.
Any idiot can get on a treadmill and watch TV and then take great pride in the fact they've exercised.
Mark Rippetoe

Offline ARod

  • Private
  • *
  • Posts: 19
  • Karma: 0
    • View Profile
Re: "Bulky" women
« Reply #59 on: July 22, 2010, 11:11:23 PM »
if nothing else, i guess we can all agree that the media stinks

and, on a more practical note, i think most would agree that we should be sympathetic when someone these days suffers from body image-related self esteem issues

CAVEMANforum - The most popular Paleo diet and caveman exercise discussion site

Re: "Bulky" women
« Reply #59 on: July 22, 2010, 11:11:23 PM »

 


CAVEMANforum | CAVEMANwiki New!