Well, I am having a rare old time arguing with strangers on facebook, after seeing this picture.
Which do you prefer?
Out of 5000 comments, 4750 are negative about the top one. And I wouldn't mind so much if it was women saying "I think the bottom ones look nicer" but loads of them are aggressively rude. "Oh those bitches look like they come from a concentration camp!" they squeal, and embarrassingly, a huge amount of men, who (I presume are trying to get some phone numbers off the fat chicks) are posting negatively about the top one as well!
Things like "Oh we men like some meat on your bones, you go girls!" and all this nonsense. Anyway, after retorting and getting heaps of gak, I want to be vindicated by the always honest about their sexual inadequacies gaming community.
I say, that while the chicks in the bottom picture don't look too bad (only maybe two or three are actually fat fat) they would all look better if they went fething circuit training three times a week.
Can I just mix and match? Because center woman in the top picture is revoltingly thin (her leg that is up kind of grosses me out) but the women on the ends of the bottom picture I find just as unattractive (for different reasons of course).
I think the main problem with comparing the two is that the top picture has very likely seen plenty of post processing while the bottom dove picture has not.
Well, I am having a rare old time arguing with strangers on facebook, after seeing this picture.
Which do you prefer?
Out of 5000 comments, 4750 are negative about the top one. And I wouldn't mind so much if it was women saying "I think the bottom ones look nicer" but loads of them are aggressively rude. "Oh those bitches look like they come from a concentration camp!" they squeal, and embarrassingly, a huge amount of men, who (I presume are trying to get some phone numbers off the fat chicks) are posting negatively about the top one as well!
Things like "Oh we men like some meat on your bones, you go girls!" and all this nonsense. Anyway, after retorting and getting heaps of gak, I want to be vindicated by the always honest about their sexual inadequacies gaming community.
I say, that while the chicks in the bottom picture don't look too bad (only maybe two or three are actually fat fat) they would all look better if they went fething circuit training three times a week.
B actually. Pics of concentration camp survivors don't really peak my interest.
I don't know that the comparison necessarily tells us so much about human perception of attractiveness as it does about advertising. I'll leave aside the curious logic of employing women with no knockers who more than slightly resemble prepubescent boys to advertise underwear, since it seems to be the standard practice, and concentrate on the Dove advert, because that's the clever one.
By hiring a gaggle of quite average-looking women, and telling them to smile, rather than looking po-faced, they successfully convey an everyday, down-to-earth wholesomeness, which works rather well if you're trying to sell soap.
Better yet, whoever come up with the Dove advert deserves a particularly generous bonus for succeeding in getting people to talk about the advert - and, by association, the product. And on Dakka of all places! A community which harbours individuals to whom not even Victor Kiam could sell soap.
I'm surprised, the chicks in the top picture are proper mint. Obviously, because they are professional models.
How do you not find them more attractive?!
Like, Frazzled for example.. I mean, I know you are older obviously, but I still find hot 18 year old girls attractive because Im pretty good looking and I always think push comes to shove I could probably get away with still chasing them! (I'm 32) Do you actually genuinely find the bottom ones better, or do you sorta, accept the fact that your pulling power has lessened after you hit 40 and you cant get 21 year old girls or does something click in your head?
I mean, I've always been a bit concerned about that, you know.. my taste in women hasn't changed much since I was 18, so, when I am 60 I am obviously going to find my missus repulsive right?
Or does something just click in your head when yoy get old and you start fanciing old birds?!
Either way, the top ones arent too skinny in my book, they look pretty awesome. You cant see their ribs or anything and they dont have sunken faces, so they hardly look anorexic.
I just like slim women who look like they actually go jogging. My missus weighs about 110lbs, and I think that's a pretty good weight for a woman.
At the end of the day, its better to be 20lbs under weight than 20lbs over surely? All sorts of studies have been linked to that, with regards to lifespan, risk of illness, injuries whilst exercising and the obvious ones like heart disease and diabetes.
I like 'em a bit thick. Not "fat", mind, but I'm not a fan of really skinny gals. Though, of course, I'd roger every single person in both pics given half a chance.
I prefer the bottom ones too. That's just my taste - I'm generally not into skinny birds. There are certain physical difficulties associated with being a brick gak-house, one of them being that you tend to unintentionally 'crump' skinny birds, like a gorilla fething a spider monkey...
mattyrm wrote:I'm surprised, the chicks in the top picture are proper mint. Obviously, because they are professional models.
How do you not find them more attractive?!
Like, Frazzled for example.. I mean, I know you are older obviously, but I still find hot 18 year old girls attractive because Im pretty good looking and I always think push comes to shove I could probably get away with still chasing them! (I'm 32) Do you actually genuinely find the bottom ones better, or do you sorta, accept the fact that your pulling power has lessened after you hit 40 and you cant get 21 year old girls or does something click in your head?
I mean, I've always been a bit concerned about that, you know.. my taste in women hasn't changed much since I was 18, so, when I am 60 I am obviously going to find my missus repulsive right?
Or does something just click in your head when yoy get old and you start fanciing old birds?!
Either way, the top ones arent too skinny in my book, they look pretty awesome. You cant see their ribs or anything and they dont have sunken faces, so they hardly look anorexic.
I just like slim women who look like they actually go jogging. My missus weighs about 110lbs, and I think that's a pretty good weight for a woman.
At the end of the day, its better to be 20lbs under weight than 20lbs over surely? All sorts of studies have been linked to that, with regards to lifespan, risk of illness, injuries whilst exercising and the obvious ones like heart disease and diabetes.
Those aren't slim women. They have no muscles. Their BMI's really are akin to concentration camp victims. They look like what they are: pretty faced coke heads.
Albatross wrote:. There are certain physical difficulties associated with being a brick gak-house, one of them being that you tend to unintentionally 'crump' skinny birds, like a gorilla fething a spider monkey...
I vaguely remember reading something about the Dove Real Beauty campaign/ad.
Basically, it said that even though women reacted with overwhelming positive feedback, the company actually lost sales. When it came to actually shelling out and buying the product, customers chose other companies with more conventional (hot models) advertising.
I thought the hypocrisy was hilarious, and I'm firmly in the Vic Secret camp.
The top picture has a bunch of women that really need to gain weight, while the bottom image has mostly average women, some of whom need to lose weight...
On average the bottom one is probably more attractive. They actually look like they're having fun instead of suffering for art.
Melissia wrote:The top picture has a bunch of women that really need to gain weight, while the bottom image has mostly average women, some of whom need to lose weight...
On average the bottom one is probably more attractive. They actually look like they're having fun instead of suffering for art.
This ^^^^^
While I won't go so far as to say concentration camp or fat the top ones really need to eat something as they are wayyyyyy to skinny. Honestly it creeps me out some. Now some of them are ok. Same thing with the bottom ones. While they don't creep me out on the skinny factor some of them could stand to loose a few.
WHereas the top ones look like skeletons with some skin on them.
If they're standing up straight, not bending backwards or anything, and I can clearly see the outline of each of their ribs, that's just... disturbing and unattractive.
yeah, I worked on a big fashion show job down in London last year, and there was a gakload of models taking part. I'll be honest, I felt like a guard in a REALLY well-presented death-camp. It was spooky.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Oh, and anime is gak. Take that, internet!
Wow If i posted this i would have a mod jumping down my throat telling me that i cant call women water buffalos.
I picked the top picture. I like skinny chicks. Not saying normal bodied women don't have a place but if you ask which one i prefer, I'm not gonna lie.
Albatross wrote:yeah, I worked on a big fashion show job down in London last year, and there was a gakload of models taking part. I'll be honest, I felt like a guard in a REALLY well-presented death-camp. It was spooky.
Yeah, high fashion is...off. As Mel alluded to its a sacrifice for art, not sex.
Corpsesarefun wrote:If a woman is so skinny that her snapping in half during is a legitimate concern then I'm not interested.
Based on pictures, and were I female, I would be worried about you snapping in half.
Amusingly, no one seems to like Japanese guys. Apparently the world agrees they're less attractive than other kinds of guys?
Being a straight male I can't really comment, but I wouldn't say there is anything unattractive about Japanese men, although they can look a bit feminine (not that that's necessarily a bad thing, some girls like that).
Squigsquasher wrote:Meh. Give me a cute Japanese girl any day.
Christ, what is it with people on the internet and asian girls?
Because I happen to like them?
Also, unlike the vast majority of "people on the internet" I have actually met Japanese girls. And they were incredibly friendly and polite.
Does liking friendliness and politeness make me weird?
Two words: Brick Tamland.
Also, do you genuinely believe that an overwhelming majority of people on the internet have never met a Japanese girl? I'd be interested to see the results of that poll.
Albatross wrote:yeah, I worked on a big fashion show job down in London last year, and there was a gakload of models taking part. I'll be honest, I felt like a guard in a REALLY well-presented death-camp. It was spooky.
Yeah, high fashion is...off. As Mel alluded to its a sacrifice for art, not sex.
Corpsesarefun wrote:If a woman is so skinny that her snapping in half during is a legitimate concern then I'm not interested.
Based on pictures, and were I female, I would be worried about you snapping in half.
I weigh 190lb, that's probably more than quite a few of the women in the bottom picture
I prefer the top one. It has little to do with their bodies, but I don't think chubby faces and extra chins are attractive.
I think the whole "accept people for who they are" mentality is doing a lot to contribute to the obesity epidemic in the US. I don't think the girls in the top picture look unhealthy, and while the girls in the bottom picture also do not look unhealthy, a few of them are pushing it. It's just as dangerous to tell people that it should be socially acceptable to be overweight as it is to encourage them to be underweight.
I do agree that drooling over a girl for the simple reason that she is Asian is weird. Liking Asian girls because you just find them pretty, attractive, cute or whatever isn't any weirder than saying you find Spanish or Scandinavian women attractive.
I assumed the stock argument was "omg you haz nevr even met a japaneze girl you dont know nuthin about dem you just lik the cuteness trololilol".
I guess I'm wrong.
Well, I don't type like that, so you're definitely wrong about that. You do realise you just did the equivalent of repeating what I said back to me in a 'stupid' voice, right? What's that about?
Wait, that's supposed to be really hot or something?
He's ridiculously popular in some parts of the world, think Asian Bieber. I'd agree he isn't that great looking but I've never been a fan of pretty boys.
Redbeard wrote:I think the whole "accept people for who they are" mentality is doing a lot to contribute to the obesity epidemic in the US. I don't think the girls in the top picture look unhealthy
I don't know RB. I think that blonde in the center of the VS ad looks a little sickly
They're all skinny, and while some look less disturbing than others, that blonde in particular just looks like she really really needs some more milk in her diet.
Redbeard wrote:I think the whole "accept people for who they are" mentality is doing a lot to contribute to the obesity epidemic in the US. I don't think the girls in the top picture look unhealthy
They are.
Yep. I'd be willing to bet that both sets of girls look much thinner IRL, actually.
I assumed the stock argument was "omg you haz nevr even met a japaneze girl you dont know nuthin about dem you just lik the cuteness trololilol".
I guess I'm wrong.
Well, I don't type like that, so you're definitely wrong about that. You do realise you just did the equivalent of repeating what I said back to me in a 'stupid' voice, right? What's that about?
Sorry, that wasn't directed at you personally at all. I was aiming at the interwebz as a whole.
Redbeard wrote:I think the whole "accept people for who they are" mentality is doing a lot to contribute to the obesity epidemic in the US. I don't think the girls in the top picture look unhealthy
They are.
Yep. I'd be willing to bet that both sets of girls look much thinner IRL, actually.
BEsides, I'm imagining the lower group in nice tuxedos and slacks, and I gotta say I think they'd pull it off rather well.
Redbeard wrote:I think the whole "accept people for who they are" mentality is doing a lot to contribute to the obesity epidemic in the US. I don't think the girls in the top picture look unhealthy
They are.
Yep. I'd be willing to bet that both sets of girls look much thinner IRL, actually.
BEsides, I'm imagining the lower group in nice tuxedos and slacks, and I gotta say I think they'd pull it off rather well.
Curvy women in tuxes? Surely more masculine looking women would pull that off better?
Redbeard wrote:I prefer the top one. It has little to do with their bodies, but I don't think chubby faces and extra chins are attractive.
I think the whole "accept people for who they are" mentality is doing a lot to contribute to the obesity epidemic in the US. I don't think the girls in the top picture look unhealthy, and while the girls in the bottom picture also do not look unhealthy, a few of them are pushing it. It's just as dangerous to tell people that it should be socially acceptable to be overweight as it is to encourage them to be underweight.
I'm sure a doctor would say the bottom list is far healthier than the top list.
Frazzled wrote:I'm sure a doctor would say the bottom list is far healthier than the top list.
My wife, a RD (Registered Dietitian) disagrees with you. And you too Melissia. The top group are not unhealthy, they're just thin. They're at the bottom of the healthy range weight, most of the girls in the second picture are mid-to-upper healthy range.
It's not the girls in the picture who are the problem, it's the girls who see the pictures and take it a step further - those who are much heavier than the girls in the bottom picture, but deny that they're unhealthy because we should like their beauty however they look. As well as those who see the top picture and starve themselves to be even thinner.
No way are they TOO skinny.. I mean, most of the bottom ones arent really too fat either, but you lot are all fussy, rubik said the top were too skinny and the bottom were Sumo (most of them aren't even fat!) half of you demand Japs, Albatross said they look "weird" and Dogma, you wouldn't pursue a Victorias Secret model!?!
feth me, I always thought I was fussy because I have always refused to shag women that are the same weight as me, but Jesus!
The top ones are definitely not skeletons, our lass looks the same in her smalls and she is really fit and exercsies regularly. Trust me, I know skinny, I went out with a proper skinny bird once, she was only little mind.. she was 5'3" I think she weighed about 90lbs.
Anyway, she was too skinny, I was shotting one into her from behind and I could see all of her spinal column, it was like fething a greyhound.
Those poll results disturb me. Half of you saying they are "disgusting" are far too harsh, maybe you dont find them attractive fair dos.. but ugly!?
I know for a fact most of you lot would gleefully hoy it into pretty much every woman in BOTH photos, do you forget I've actually been into a Games Workshop before?
Frazzled wrote:I'm sure a doctor would say the bottom list is far healthier than the top list.
My wife, a RD (Registered Dietitian) disagrees with you. And you too Melissia. The top group are not unhealthy, they're just thin. They're at the bottom of the healthy range weight, most of the girls in the second picture are mid-to-upper healthy range.
It's not the girls in the picture who are the problem, it's the girls who see the pictures and take it a step further - those who are much heavier than the girls in the bottom picture, but deny that they're unhealthy because we should like their beauty however they look. As well as those who see the top picture and starve themselves to be even thinner.
Like I said, its better to be underweight than overweight. Better to risk low blood pressure and an iron deficiency over diabetes and your heart exploding when you walk up some stairs.
Redbeard wrote:The top group are not unhealthy, they're just thin. They're at the bottom of the healthy range weight
When I can clearly see their ribcage, and make out the details of each individual rib with relative ease while they are standing in a relaxed position and not stretching out, they are not healthy.
Redbeard wrote:The top group are not unhealthy, they're just thin. They're at the bottom of the healthy range weight
When I can clearly see their ribcage, and make out the details of each individual rib with relative ease while they are standing in a relaxed position and not stretching out, they are not healthy.
Well, thank you for your uneducated opinion. Like I said, my wife, a trained and registered dietitian disagrees.
My wife, meanwhile, is the president of Abujikistan, and has far more information to pull from than your wife. I rather miss her, up there in the frozen north, but alas, she has been so busy since she was elected via landslide election. Being a martian and a Canadian, she was quite popular with most demographics.
Or, to say it without the jokes, I believe that like I believe there's beach territory in Nevada.
Redbeard wrote:The top group are not unhealthy, they're just thin. They're at the bottom of the healthy range weight
When I can clearly see their ribcage, and make out the details of each individual rib with relative ease while they are standing in a relaxed position and not stretching out, they are not healthy.
Well, thank you for your uneducated opinion. Like I said, my wife, a trained and registered dietitian disagrees.
How can she make such absolute statements based on a single photograph? Doesn't she require any dietary information or at least how much they weigh?
Ill tell you what else is annoying, the fething chicks on the facebook page throwing gak the way of the skinny chicks.
I'm sorry, but when did all this new age, hippy clap trap about "love yourself no matter what you look like" turn into "Love yourself if you are a big ugly fat fether but bully pretty girls"?
Seriously, its not cool basically saying "You know what kids? You are special and important, so eat as many cakes as you like"
I would have more time for fat women if they didn't seem to be so fething abusive to skinny ones.
It seems to be the politics of envy if you ask me. Just as people hate rich people for no good reason, so too do fat chicks hate skinny ones.
Well the jokes on them, cos skinny chicks get to go out with me.
My wife, meanwhile, is the president of Abujikistan, and has far more information to pull from than your wife. I rather miss her, up there in the frozen north, but alas, she has been so busy since she was elected via landslide election. Being a martian and a Canadian, she was quite popular with most demographics.
Or, to say it without the jokes, I believe that like I believe there's beach territory in Nevada.
My wife is a former Ironman Triathalete, and is wondering whether she should beat me or just run me over for looking at these pictures...
Redbeard wrote:I think the whole "accept people for who they are" mentality is doing a lot to contribute to the obesity epidemic in the US. I don't think the girls in the top picture look unhealthy
They are.
Yep. I'd be willing to bet that both sets of girls look much thinner IRL, actually.
Doubtful, any press released photo has been heavily modified in Photoshop, though the bottom just appears to be blemish removal and some alterations of skin tones. The top one however I can say that they were definitely made to look skinnier then they actually are.
My wife, meanwhile, is the president of Abujikistan, and has far more information to pull from than your wife. I rather miss her, up there in the frozen north, but alas, she has been so busy since she was elected via landslide election. Being a martian and a Canadian, she was quite popular with most demographics.
Or, to say it without the jokes, I believe that like I believe there's beach territory in Nevada.
You believe what you want then. I mean, I guess I could photograph her diploma and her licence and all for you, but your approval really isn't worth the effort.
Corpsesarefun wrote:How can she make such absolute statements based on a single photograph? Doesn't she require any dietary information or at least how much they weigh?
How can Melissia make an absolute, uneducated, statement that they are unhealthy based on a single photograph? Perhaps because there is nothing in that photograph to indicate that they are actually malnourished, you know, to a trained professional eye, not someone making vague statements about seeing ribs. Sure, she doesn't know if they've got Crohn's, or how many of the girls in the bottom photo are diabetics. Seriously, she's a professional in this field. Being able to spot people with actual problems is part of her job.
mattyrm wrote: Ill tell you what else is annoying, the fething chicks on the facebook page throwing gak the way of the skinny chicks.
I'm sorry, but when did all this new age, hippy clap trap about "love yourself no matter what you look like" turn into "Love yourself if you are a big ugly fat fether but bully pretty girls"?
Seriously, its not cool basically saying "You know what kids? You are special and important, so eat as many cakes as you like"
I would have more time for fat women if they didn't seem to be so fething abusive to skinny ones.
It seems to be the politics of envy if you ask me. Just as people hate rich people for no good reason, so too do fat chicks hate skinny ones.
Well the jokes on them, cos skinny chicks get to go out with me.
Am I the only one saddened to find Matty, instead of taking great joy in dismembering the combined miltary might of Argentina with a sock and a broken spork, is now spending time arguing with pre-teens on FB? How the mighty have fallen!
Sorry but we're going to have to confiscate your man card Matty.
Corpsesarefun wrote:How can she make such absolute statements based on a single photograph? Doesn't she require any dietary information or at least how much they weigh?
How can Melissia make an absolute, uneducated, statement that they are unhealthy based on a single photograph? Perhaps because there is nothing in that photograph to indicate that they are actually malnourished, you know, to a trained professional eye, not someone making vague statements about seeing ribs. Sure, she doesn't know if they've got Crohn's, or how many of the girls in the bottom photo are diabetics. Seriously, she's a professional in this field. Being able to spot people with actual problems is part of her job.
I'm not agreeing with Mel, I just find it odd how your wife is so incredibly accurate based on a single photo.
Looking at these 2 pictures my personal preference is for the bottom one. But it’s just that, a personal preference.
There is nothing inherently unhealthy looking about the girls in the top picture. They are slim certainly, but not malnourished and are actually rather curvy. Similarly the girls in the bottom picture are bigger, but are by no means ‘fat’.
Ironically I think critisims of 'body fascism’ have (if you will excuse the pun) started to eat themselves. It used to be about accepting people regardless of their body shape but now has turned into reckless attacks on girls who fit certain mainstream definitions of beauty. Once it used to be the ‘ugly’ girls who where bullied about their appearance and told to cover up, now it’s the ‘beautiful’ girls. To be honest I don’t think that represent progress.
Redbeard wrote:How can Melissia make an absolute, uneducated, statement that they are unhealthy based on a single photograph?
Well for one, I didn't make a claim that I'm an expert.
You made that claim. An ultimately unprovable one really, because I'm fairly certain that if you give me an hour or so I could create a fake but believable diploma, perhaps I should make one and then claim that I'm also an expert!
Well MY wife is a supermodel doctor olympian with degrees in nutrition, kinesiology, and psychology, and she says that -with a few exceptions, chicks look bad in tuxes -the women hating on the skinny chicks are just jealous and that skinny chicks ripping on the chubbywubs is like winning a race and then going back and tripping the other guy before he can cross the finish.
I like a few from each pic, but the skinniest of the top row bothers me more than the biggest of the bottom row. I don't find the boniness of girls in the top picture to be an attractive feature, though I do like slim girls. I think overall my brain prefers pictures of slim girls, but all the girls I've been particularly attracted towards in real life are larger than any in the top row, usually UK sizes 12-16, the very-thin look doesn't do it for me in reality. So that's odd.
I just find it odd how your wife is so incredibly accurate based on a single photo.
How is "they don't look unhealthy" incredibly accurate? It's not like she's calling out anything specific. She says they look like they're at the lower end of a healthy weight range, but that they don't look undernourished or anorexic.
Am I the only one saddened to find Matty, instead of taking great joy in dismembering the combined miltary might of Argentina with a sock and a broken spork, is now spending time arguing with pre-teens on FB? How the mighty have fallen!
Sorry but we're going to have to confiscate your man card Matty.
Hey I like arguing on the internet, that's not a man card offence.
feth me, you frequent the OT board, you are as guilty as I am!
I like the top one better, although I think it is because they look sexier (shiny and glamorous) rather than because they are skinnier. A curvier lady who was oiled up and had her hair done in a similar way would look pretty sexy, too.
Melissia wrote:Stop spazzing out, redbeard. I never claimed to be an expert or that my opinions were "incredibly accurate"
No, you just accused me of lying about my wife's profession and her opinion because her trained opinion (which I never said was incredibly accurate) differed with yours. You insinuated that I'd go so far as to fake a legal document as well.
In short, you're calling me a liar. I may have some interesting opinions from time to time, I'll admit that. But I don't need to lie on the internet to back them up. And certainly not about my wife's achievements.
So, you if you'd like to apologize for calling me a liar, I'll stop "spazzing" out.
You're wrong about this one, and while I'm not claiming to be an expert - or even that my wife is an expert, she IS a registered dietitian, and ultimately, I trust what she says on the matter a lot more than anyone who isn't.
rubiksnoob wrote:Well MY wife is a supermodel doctor olympian with degrees in nutrition, kinesiology, and psychology, and she says that
-with a few exceptions, chicks look bad in tuxes
-the women hating on the skinny chicks are just jealous
and that skinny chicks ripping on the chubbywubs is like winning a race and then going back and tripping the other guy before he can cross the finish.
Son, I like what you've done here.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
rubiksnoob wrote:
Melissia wrote:Stop spazzing out, redbeard. I never claimed to be an expert or that my opinions were "incredibly accurate"
Good. Because they are very few women who look good in tuxes.
Tuxes or women's tailored suits? Tuxes I've not seen many. Women's tailored suits you betcha.
Redbeard wrote:No, you just accused me of lying about my wife's profession
No, I said I had no reason to believe your statements, because anyone can claim anything about themselves or their loved ones on the internet and it's hard to prove or disprove any of it, photographic evidence or no.
Which is true. Or perhaps you think that being skeptical about people's claims of expertise on the internet means I think that everyone is a liar?
Am I the only one saddened to find Matty, instead of taking great joy in dismembering the combined miltary might of Argentina with a sock and a broken spork, is now spending time arguing with pre-teens on FB? How the mighty have fallen!
Sorry but we're going to have to confiscate your man card Matty.
Hey I like arguing on the internet, that's not a man card offence.
feth me, you frequent the OT board, you are as guilty as I am!
You can take my man card, when you pry it from my cold, dead hands!*
*watch out though. My body will be booby trapped by spring loaded now really pissed off wiener dogs.
Redbeard wrote:The top group are not unhealthy, they're just thin. They're at the bottom of the healthy range weight
When I can clearly see their ribcage, and make out the details of each individual rib with relative ease while they are standing in a relaxed position and not stretching out, they are not healthy.
Well, thank you for your uneducated opinion. Like I said, my wife, a trained and registered dietitian disagrees.
Whilst I cheerfully defer to expert opinion, it would be fair to say that it's difficult to shake the visceral feeling that the girls in the top row would look more healthy (and indeed more attractive) if they drank more milk, snorted less coke, had a few good dinners and spent more time outdoors.
Looking at these models and their BMIs, it is clear that they are severely underweight, as are many models who run the runway.
http://www.lindora.com/faqs.aspx?faqID=17
Occasionally we are asked if we will help someone become "super-thin" or "thin like a supermodel." We will decline to participate when someone wants to drop below a healthy weight. The habits developed by many supermodels trying to become or stay super-thin lead to very unhealthy lifestyles.
Keep in mind, supermodels are actually supposed to be taller than average (5'8" is considered short in the industry), and yet they are supposed to weigh less than average as well (with weights of 115 or less being common).
From the latest celebrity outfits to how-to's for homemade shampoo, Lovelyish has the fresh fashion and pop culture content you crave. Based in New York City, we bring you exciting daily content on style, beauty, celebrities, dating and everything in between, from book reviews to cupcake recipes.
Glad you're getting your nutrition advice from a good source.
Looking at these models and their BMIs, it is clear that they are severely underweight, as are many models who run the runway.
http://www.lindora.com/faqs.aspx?faqID=17
Occasionally we are asked if we will help someone become "super-thin" or "thin like a supermodel." We will decline to participate when someone wants to drop below a healthy weight. The habits developed by many supermodels trying to become or stay super-thin lead to very unhealthy lifestyles.
Keep in mind, supermodels are actually supposed to be taller than average (5'8" is considered short in the industry), and yet they are supposed to weigh less than average as well (with weights of 115 or less being common).
This is NOT healthy.
True enough Mel, but like I said, better too skinny than too fat.
mattyrm wrote: Who do you think is gonna live longest?
The chicks in the VS ad, or Roseanne Barr?
Neither one. Being underweight is just as bad as being over, just in different ways. And for people who have a psychological urge against gaining weight and eating, gaining weight is just as hard for them as losing weight is for those obsessed with eating.
Unless you naturally have that bodytype. Didn't we already have a thread discussing that ultimately it's going to come down to the individual level, and that bell curves have fat tails and individuals can blow the 'averages' out of the water if they're genetically predispositioned that way and/or also live a lifestyle that would exaggerate that?
Now, I imagine that would be more valid for an exceptionally active individual, like a sand volleyball player, than someone with an incredibly low energy intake, but unless the ladies in the top row can be medically shown to be individually unhealthy then I see no reason to disparage their bodies.
Now, if the standard for modeling was actually unnatural, i.e. 'be 6' tall, weigh 110 lbs, and have 20 of those lbs be in your bra', that would actually be something that could be discussed, medically.
To suggest the VS models are malnourished is as absurd as saying the Dove ones are fat. The VS ones are all thin, certainly but being able to see some rib is absolutely no sign of malnourishment whatsoever. Both I and my missus are thin enough that you can see some rib showing if we're topless: neithe rof us are malnourished, in fact we eat rather more than most, we're just both active and naturally on the skinny side. Equally, although all the Dove models are on the heftier side, some more than others, they're nowhere approaching obese. It's sadly unsurprising though that 'fat fascism' is now apparently a double-headed coin thrown at people who are neither unhealthily thin nor unhealthily overweight.
And to suggest that the VS girls resemble concentration camp survivors is pretty outrageous. i mean okay, anyone can exaggerate for effect, but there's exaggeration and blatant stupidity.
Percent of adults age 20 years and over who are obese: 33.9% (2007-2008) Percent of adults age 20 years and over who are overweight (and not obese): 34.4% (2007-2008)
That's a total of more than 2/3rds of Americans who are overweight. They get counted in that average, you know. Comparing anything to the average American size is not good. The average American is overweight, and close to obese. This is a far greater problem than a handful of models being underweight.
Ahtman wrote:The average American woman is 5'4'' and 140 pounds
The average fashion model is 5'11'' and 115 pounds
Fashion models are thinner than 98% of American women
80% of women are dissatisfied with their appearance
91% of women in a recent survey on a college campus said they have attempted to control their weight through dieting
25% of men and 45% of women are on a diet at any given time
Approximately seven million girls and women struggle with eating disorders and 1 million boys and men
Source: The National Eating Disorders Association and Screening for Mental Health
The average human being is unique - basic biology.
Interesting that you mention mental health, as psychiatric units prohibit fashion magazines as they are detrimental to recovery because they promote unattainable goals and lifestyles, and promote poor self esteem.
Redbeard wrote: a handful of models being underweight.
Only a handful? And who stated that we have to pick one problem over the other? Both are problems that need to be addressed.
Both are problems, true, but with 100 million-or-so obese Americans, and a bill for obesity-incurred healthcare in excess of 75 billion per annum, it's pretty obvious which is the more - ahem - weighty problem.
Supermodels being a weight achievable by normal girls would go a long way towards fighting obesity. But that's a very large discussion with a lot of possibilities.
Redbeard wrote: a handful of models being underweight.
Only a handful? And who stated that we have to pick one problem over the other? Both are problems that need to be addressed.
Both are problems, true, but with 100 million-or-so obese Americans, and a bill for obesity-incurred healthcare in excess of 75 billion per annum, it's pretty obvious which is the more - ahem - weighty problem.
Redbeard wrote: a handful of models being underweight.
Only a handful? And who stated that we have to pick one problem over the other? Both are problems that need to be addressed.
I think he means that models are a handful of the general population.
Also, Melissia, if it means anything, I've talked to Redbeard about nutrition in person. I
believe him when he says his wife is a dietician because nobody is going to believe a guy
who looks like him knows what he knows
Ahtman, are you suggesting people in the developed world eat too much high fat food, far too many empty calories, don't get enough exercise, and are incapable of basic statistical analysis of populations?
Redbeard wrote: a handful of models being underweight.
Only a handful? And who stated that we have to pick one problem over the other? Both are problems that need to be addressed.
Both are problems, true, but with 100 million-or-so obese Americans, and a bill for obesity-incurred healthcare in excess of 75 billion per annum, it's pretty obvious which is the more - ahem - weighty problem.
The two issues (underweight or overweight) are connected; to address one really requires us to address the other.
I wasn't singling Americans out; living as I presently do in the north of England, I'm horribly conscious of how many fat bastards we have here in dear old Blighty. My point, however, was that only do I see no causal relationship between the two problems (beyond both involving food), their relative levels (8 million anorexics globally, versus 100 million obese in the US alone) make it obvious which one is the pressing medical and social problem.
Melissia wrote:That actually is close to the desired body type for supermodels.
Mind you, it was far worse during the sixties and seventies.
That's not true (that tiny body huge boobs is the desired body type for supermodels) these days. It was moreso in the 60s/70s, the Monroe hourglass figure, but there are very, very few (none?) D-cups walking the fashion stage overall. None of the women in the VS would be considered exceptionally busty.
Percent of adults age 20 years and over who are obese: 33.9% (2007-2008)
Percent of adults age 20 years and over who are overweight (and not obese): 34.4% (2007-2008)
That's a total of more than 2/3rds of Americans who are overweight. They get counted in that average, you know. Comparing anything to the average American size is not good. The average American is overweight, and close to obese. This is a far greater problem than a handful of models being underweight.
While I agree with the assessment that the majority of Americans are overweight, what is the actual metric that they're using to judge this? If they're going by BMI, then it's a laughably bad metric. I was skin, bones, and muscle in high school and I was overweight by the BMI scale even back then.
I'd check the link myself and find out, but apparently we've decided that cdc.gov is not work-safe and have blocked it appropriately. I'm as surprised as you are. God help them should we ever come under some kind of abrupt pandemic while I'm here at work and I can't research it.
mattyrm wrote:... and Dogma, you wouldn't pursue a Victorias Secret model!?!
It would be about their fame, not their body.
And, honestly, no; I wouldn't. I would happily sleep with one, if it came to pass, but I wouldn't chase one.
Redbeard wrote:
My wife, a RD (Registered Dietitian) disagrees with you. And you too Melissia. The top group are not unhealthy, they're just thin. They're at the bottom of the healthy range weight, most of the girls in the second picture are mid-to-upper healthy range.
Tell me, how tall are the relevant women?
sourclams wrote:
That's not true (that tiny body huge boobs is the desired body type for supermodels) these days.
Anything beyond a C-cup is considered an impediment to a model.
Alternatively, they aren't meant to be hot; they're meant to be pretty.
Some of the women in picture 2 are seriously hot. Personally I think picture 1 looks like a pastiche of a schoolboys wet dream, complete with multiples of the same shiny woman. The essence of beauty is imperfection. Perfection is inert, boring and predictable. Honestly pic 1 looks like a production line. Tust me, production lines are not sexy.
Ahtman wrote:80% of women are dissatisfied with their appearance
This seems to imply that only 20% of American women are liars, which strikes me as somewhat low.
My missus told me she read an article that said 90% of women think they are "unattractive" and apparently about 90% of men think of themselves as "very attractive"
While I have not read all the posts here, I have never seen anyone in other forums on this thread post it. Notice how all the models on the top pic are the same height give or take about a half an inch?
I prefer variety in my life, so the Dove Girls anyday over the Victoria Girls.
Now if I have to pick between picture one and two, one. While there are only two-three girls in picture 2 I do not like (Not a fan of Tattoos on anyone. Piercings are ok. No tats.), I find the girls in picture one more attractive.
Pole vaulter from this page, hard choice on the first one. I have someone I think will be an all around favourite in terms of sporty girls. Shes an Australian hurdler. Here is a picture and heres a video of her warm up dance http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3SLvZ2AVL0
I would venture to say that 100 years ago those girls in the VS ad would not be considered all that skinny. America has gotten so out of shape that what the average human looks like is been distorted. 164lbs or whatever the average just got raised to is not a healthy weight. I'm sorry but when 25% of America falls in the obese category, thats not a fault of the BMI. Thats too much protein, too much fat, and too little exercise.
That being said, 100 years ago the thicker girls would probably have been more attractive. But thats because food was scarcer.
Corpsesarefun wrote:I have a thing for girls with short hair so it's the weightlifter for me.
I think short hair works better with darker hair, myself. A boy-cut blonde hair doesn't really look good on either guys OR girls... but then again, I cordially dislike blonde hair to begin with.
There is nothing wrong with that, why should we turn this over to lawyers?
I guess I never really answered the question. I don't prefer either because I prefer women in general. No one in either picture is sickly skinny (though maybe pushing it a bit) or horribly overweight. I, like Benjamin Franklin, like women in general. Curvy, skinny, athletic, Asian, Latino, Black, White, ect ect. If I had to pic, I would choose the bottom picture because there are more women in it.
I like slim girls too, but many high fashion models in fact look like aliens. That's the only reason there is debate, because you are looking at the extremes of the spectrum.
If you put Jessica Alba, Kate Beckinsdale, Kim Kardashian, Brooklyn Decker, Kate Upton and Sofia Vergara up against the Dove ladies, no one would be like " No thanks, I'll take the bushpigs."
Here is one of the most beautiful women of the modern world, I prefer when she is not wearing some kind of waist cincher, and she got better looking as she got a little older. Picture date 1959.
I dunno, the top ones look almost unhealthily skinny. There's a thin line between just being slim and anorexic.
EDIT: But I will say that a few of the women in the bottom one do resemble water buffaloes. Yeah, I'd pick anyone of the women in the top picture over the water buffaloes.
Top, but mostly because I have a weakness for a pretty face. I prefer women with more curves & mass than the VS models, and less than the ones at bottom. More like a regular, healthy woman. The VS models may be healthy (though some of them may also have eating disorders and/or coke habits), and the ones at bottom may be healthy too; but they're both a bit far out on the ends of the bell curve for me.
The vaulters pictured were great. Christina Hendricks is a goddess.
I'm still trying to figure out how people are coming to the conclusion that the top picture is more photoshopped. I cannot see much cellulite on the women in the bottom picture and it should most definately be there.
Apart from the gir lto the left of the middle of the bottom pic, i'd have to say top. (l originally said middle, then counted back, and quickly had to edit after being ambushed by the blonde swamp donkey.- probably not really a swamp donkey, but it's my fave saying and i don't get to use it much...so i'm sticking with it!)
It is amusing that this campaign failed, all that positive press, all that positive image for the company and it did not increase sales. I now hold this ad campaign up as a rebuttal to women who say "men are responsible for bad body image, due to the media".
I like the girls in the top picture more, but whatever. You like what you like, and if other people's tastes differ then it's no biggie. Or at least it shouldn't be.
What I don't get is how it's become the worst possible thing in the world to say a girl looks fat, but if a girl is too skinny the whole world can abuse her.
I mean, either it's okay to criticise someone for their body shape or it isn't.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
mattyrm wrote: Ill tell you what else is annoying, the fething chicks on the facebook page throwing gak the way of the skinny chicks.
I'm sorry, but when did all this new age, hippy clap trap about "love yourself no matter what you look like" turn into "Love yourself if you are a big ugly fat fether but bully pretty girls"?
Yes, that's exactly what I was getting at.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jihadin wrote:I want to disagree but I kind of agree....just seems I've seen more skinny guys with "heavy" females than "heavy" males with "heavy" females
But at the same time I don't think I've ever seen a rich dude with a fat wife. Well, not a wife who was fat when he married her.
Guys and girls work kind of difference. If a guy is poor he will drop from a 7/10 to a 5/10. If a girl is hot it doesn't matter if she's sleeping in her car, guys will still chase her.
What I'm saying is I think the skinny guys and fat girls thing is explained that they end up on level terms, he's a 4/10 because he's poor, she's a 4/10 because she's overweight.
Bullockist wrote:I'm still trying to figure out how people are coming to the conclusion that the top picture is more photoshopped. I cannot see much cellulite on the women in the bottom picture and it should most definately be there.
Apart from the gir lto the left of the middle of the bottom pic, i'd have to say top. (l originally said middle, then counted back, and quickly had to edit after being ambushed by the blonde swamp donkey.- probably not really a swamp donkey, but it's my fave saying and i don't get to use it much...so i'm sticking with it!)
It is amusing that this campaign failed, all that positive press, all that positive image for the company and it did not increase sales. I now hold this ad campaign up as a rebuttal to women who say "men are responsible for bad body image, due to the media".
Like I said bottom definitely had retouching done, though it appears to be limited to blemish removal and skin tones. I can also tell you that there is no way way in hell a VS shoot gets published without being worked over, which can often include modification of body shape.
sebster wrote:
What I'm saying is I think the skinny guys and fat girls thing is explained that they end up on level terms, he's a 4/10 because he's poor, she's a 4/10 because she's overweight.
I'm a short skinny guy who used to get hit on by Much Larger Women. It's got nothing to do with money. Chicks loves a racer's bum, that's all. I never reciprocate, however, because I just don't like feeling like I'm doing rock-climbing when I'm having sex...
Kovnik Obama wrote:I'm a short skinny guy who used to get hit on by Much Larger Women. It's got nothing to do with money. Chicks loves a racer's bum, that's all. I never reciprocate, however, because I just don't like feeling like I'm doing rock-climbing when I'm having sex...
They're hitting on you, and you're saying you're not interested because you feel you can do better. However, if you really couldn't do any better, likely because you were real poor, or real ugly or something else like that, well then sooner or later you'd probably settle and accept you had to do some mountain climbing
sebster wrote:They're hitting on you, and you're saying you're not interested because you feel you can do better. However, if you really couldn't do any better, likely because you were real poor, or real ugly or something else like that, well then sooner or later you'd probably settle and accept you had to do some mountain climbing
AH! Probably They would probably not like my attempts at slipping subliminal suggestions about dropping the goddamn cake while they sleep, tho.
Actually... she's gonna be heavier than them because muscle is heavier than fat.
Also, unlike them, she has boobs. And given that she's probably wearing a sports bra which is designed to constrict them and their movement, they're bigger than they appear in that image.
As for who she is, a pole vaulter of some kind. I've not been paying attention to the olympics.
mattyrm wrote:Haha. I just googled the most famous gay man in the world and that picture came up.
feth knows what he is doing.. he might be overcome with excitement looking into a shop window that sells dildos?
I doubt it. I mean, he's the most famous gay man in the world. He probably has heaps to choose from. Just like a famous straight man (i dunno, lets say Gosling) probably doesn't have to go hire hookers for a good time, that dude probably didn't need an electric friend, he could probably just pick and choose. I think that makes sense, anyway.
Albatross wrote:To clarify, I'm saying that men who are attracted to women with six-packs are most likely closeted homosexuals.
Asserting that any physically fit woman is manly is definitely misogynistic.
Stick to chemistry, love.
See THAT was misogynistic.
I don't really think misogyny is the correct word like, men are the stronger sex, and it IS more common for men to exercise vigorously, ergo its not really misogynistic to say that vigorous exercise is manly is it?
Like, you know, its not misandry to say that cooking or flower arranging is girly is it?
Thats why Gordon Ramsey is always in a bad mood, his mates see him doing a womans job on TV all the time.
Albatross wrote:To clarify, I'm saying that men who are attracted to women with six-packs are most likely closeted homosexuals.
Asserting that any physically fit woman is manly is definitely misogynistic.
Stick to chemistry, love.
See THAT was misogynistic.
I don't really think misogyny is the correct word like, men are the stronger sex, and it IS more common for men to exercise vigorously, ergo its not really misogynistic to say that vigorous exercise is manly is it?
Like, you know, its not misandry to say that cooking or flower arranging is girly is it?
Thats why Gordon Ramsey is always in a bad mood, his mates see him doing a womans job on TV all the time.
mattyrm wrote:Like, you know, its not misandry to say that cooking or flower arranging is girly is it?
Thats why Gordon Ramsey is always in a bad mood, his mates see him doing a womans job on TV all the time.
Ok that might have been misogynist as well....
That's why the vast majority of chefs are male.
It's one of those complicated cases; being a chef is generally regarded as acceptably manly (possibly because it involves the opportunity for loudly shouting orders), while cooking at home remains seen as a girly pursuit. Doesn't bother me, of course, since I can bake a cake, then restore my testosterone levels by playing with plastic spacemen...
Bromsy wrote:I vote for Stacey Dash
Makes every other woman look like a Walrus.
Inane smile, and tart makeup, boring. Ok, can I see the walrus please.
I would rather see the walrus.
Agreed. She looks fake, too much tan, make-up too thick - you just know she'd be a total nightmare.
Edited for those too sensitive to stand seeing a swearword starred out, as can be found in any newspaper on any given day - unlike 'gak' and 'feth', the meanings of which are obvious to all here.
Corpsesarefun wrote:
That's why the vast majority of chefs are male.
You say that like I'm unaware of the fact that I can name Jamie Oliver and Heston and Gordon Ramsey off the top of my head and pretty much know feth all about the female ones.
It still doesn't make cooking widely perceived as "manly" though does it?
feth me, I can name male dancers and poets and strippers but it doesn't mean I think they could have me in a fight! (They couldn't, even that big fether out of the full monty)
Cooking is definitely perceived as being effeminate. I don't personally think its particularly girly to cook, and I can cook alright myself cos my missus if a hoofing cook and she has been training me for years, but in society as a whole, cooking is viewed as being girly.
Manly things include rugby, cage fighting and painting tiny plastic soldiers.
Corpsesarefun wrote:
That's why the vast majority of chefs are male.
You say that like I'm unaware of the fact that I can name Jamie Oliver and Heston and Gordon Ramsey off the top of my head and pretty much know feth all about the female ones.
It still doesn't make cooking widely perceived as "manly" though does it?
feth me, I can name male dancers and poets and strippers but it doesn't mean I think they could have me in a fight! (They couldn't, even that big fether out of the full monty)
Cooking is definitely perceived as being effeminate. I don't personally think its particularly girly to cook, and I can cook alright myself cos my missus if a hoofing cook and she has been training me for years, but in society as a whole, cooking is viewed as being girly.
Manly things include rugby, cage fighting and painting tiny plastic soldiers.
Cooking can be manly as hell, just look at barbeque.
Admittedly it can also be extremely effeminate if french food is anything to go off.
mattyrm wrote:Like, you know, its not misandry to say that cooking or flower arranging is girly is it?
Thats why Gordon Ramsey is always in a bad mood, his mates see him doing a womans job on TV all the time.
Ok that might have been misogynist as well....
That's why the vast majority of chefs are male.
It's one of those complicated cases; being a chef is generally regarded as acceptably manly (possibly because it involves the opportunity for loudly shouting orders), while cooking at home remains seen as a girly pursuit. Doesn't bother me, of course, since I can bake a cake, then restore my testosterone levels by playing with plastic spacemen...
Thats why I'm part of a carefully designed team bolstering each other's weaknesses. I paint and seal the carefully painted marching ducks to be placed in marching order on top the cake. The wife bakes the cake. Team Wienie circle like furry sharks and clean up any tasty bits that fall on the ground. Rusty the Tank dog keeps the sofa from floating off. We raffle the cake for band boosters so band can go to Six Flags. The kids sleep til 3.00PM and then eat all my food. Wait I sense a flaw...
I didn't like either, so I went for the water buffalo post.
May we vote for the MMA lady and the pole vaulter instead? They are much more attractive.
Also +1 for Christina Hendricks ^^
Bromsy wrote:I vote for Stacey Dash
Makes every other woman look like a Walrus.
Inane smile, and tart makeup, boring. Ok, can I see the walrus please.
I would rather see the walrus.
That walrus is seriously well hung in the tusk region.
But seriously, hands down winning the thread in attractiveness is the highjumper....that kind of image immediately motivates me to get fit...next monday.
FFS on the mysogyny,..... a woman in tails is hot? I could say that was misogynistic as she is wearing "man clothes", grow another sexual politics sensitive point. That gak belongs in the 60's when thoughtless stupidity was rife.
and btw chefs don't count as male, they have their own distinction of being "deviants" i know, i was one and talked to many chefs and the conversations were interesting to say the least
Bromsy wrote:I vote for Stacey Dash Makes every other woman look like a Walrus.
Inane smile, and tart makeup, boring. Ok, can I see the walrus please.
I would rather see the walrus.
Oh god...those eyes are friggen terrifying. Also, Eva Longoria is much more attractive than her. And so is Sofia Vergera, and so is Selma Hayek, and so is Christina Hendricks, and so is Jessica Nigri...really, I could just go on. This means by your logic, there are several walruses out there who are more attractive than Stacy Dash.
Bromsy wrote:I vote for Stacey Dash
Makes every other woman look like a Walrus.
[img ] Tarte Brule [ /img]
Inane smile, and tart makeup, boring. Ok, can I see the walrus please.
[img ] Walrus [ /img]
I would rather see the walrus.
Oh god...those eyes are friggen terrifying.
Also, Eva Longoria is much more attractive than her. And so is the girl next door*...really, I could just go on.
This means by your logic, there are several walruses out there who are more attractive than Stacy Dash.
Fixed.
*This depends on your neighbourhood. If you live on a chav estate the girl next door and this Stacy Dash will likely have a lot in common.
Agreed. She looks fake, too much tan, make-up too thick - you just know she'd be a total nightmare.
...but she's of african, bajan and mexican descent... I seriously doubt she does any tanning at all.
And she's been acting since like 1982, and I can't remember a single controversy or scandal involving her - that much time in and around hollywood with a record like that makes her sound pretty low key to me.
Albatross wrote:To clarify, I'm saying that men who are attracted to women with six-packs are most likely closeted homosexuals.
PFFFFFFUUUUAAAWAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAhahahahaaaa....
Oh wait you're serious...
...
Are women that are attracted to fat men actually closeted lesbians because of man-boobs? Take the advice you gave to Melissia, stick to your field, and leave sexual psychology to other, more sensible intellects.
Just so we're all clear, the girls in the bottom photo are skinny. We're just comparing them to overly-idealised pictures on the internet. I think maybe one of them crosses the line from 'skinny' into 'normal'.
They're just not ridiculously skinny like we're used to seeing.
Also love seeing the nerds on here insisting they wouldn't be interested in women from either picture.
Guys, you wouldn't sleep with any of the women in any of the pictures. We know. But it wouldn't be because of your choice...
She's fething lovely.. I like a woman who looks like she could at least attempt to keep up with me if we went for a run.
And she's not that much heavier than the VS models. If you can call them unhealthy but not her, your talking gak!
Allison Stokke. She became internet famous a while back after some pictures of her popped up on a few different gossip sites. At 5'7, and being a pole vaulter, she's probably right between 130 and 140. That's not a huge difference in weight, but when you consider that she's 3-4" shorter than your average VS model, and about 15 lbs heavier, its a pretty big difference in actual physique.
Kaldor wrote:Just so we're all clear, the girls in the bottom photo are skinny. We're just comparing them to overly-idealised pictures on the internet. I think maybe one of them crosses the line from 'skinny' into 'normal'.
I've been around female athletes most of my life and spent about 8 years living and working on college campuses, none of those women qualify as skinny. Most of them fit pretty squarely into "normal", with a couple qualifying as "big", but none of them are fat. And it isn't like I haven't known women that had model type physiques, they do exist outside the world of fashion, and they are no less realistic than any other body type. The issue arises when we start pretending that there's only one standard of beauty, which is something I think most people figure out as they age.
If you want a point of reference: 5'4, 100 lbs is skinny. 5'4, 130 lbs is normal. 5'4, 160 lbs is big. Anything above that is probably getting into fat territory unless the woman in question has a ridiculous amount of muscle mass, though body composition also comes into play. Truthfully, if look at the majority of major actresses, they mostly tend to be somewhere between skinny and normal. "Ridiculously skinny" pretty much only applies to professional runway models, both male and female.
Kaldor wrote:
They're just not ridiculously skinny like we're used to seeing.
I imagine that most people, even the horrid nerds ( ) that populate this place, interact with, or at least see, more women on a daily basis than pictures of women.
dogma wrote:I've been around female athletes most of my life and spent about 8 years living and working on college campuses, none of those women qualify as skinny. Most of them fit pretty squarely into "normal", with a couple qualifying as "big", but none of them are fat. And it isn't like I haven't known women that had model type physiques, they do exist outside the world of fashion, and they are no less realistic than any other body type. The issue arises when we start pretending that there's only one standard of beauty, which is something I think most people figure out as they age.
I guess I was a little to quick to start dealing out labels. One persons normal will be another persons extreme. To me, it's 'normal' to have a little bit of fat on a body. Most of the girls in the bottom picture have less fat than I would call normal. They're close to the line, but I wouldn't say any of them have an average build. Don't get me wrong, they're none of them atheletic, but I think they fall into the correct end of the skinny spectrum.
dogma wrote:I imagine that most people, even the horrid nerds ( ) that populate this place, interact with, or at least see, more women on a daily basis than pictures of women.
I like to call it 'supermodel syndrome'. When you see someone on the internet, or in a movie or the TV or a magazine, you don't compare them to normal people. You compare them to your created expectations for that medium, and so instead of comparing the girls in the bottom pic to the hags at your local club, you compare them to the girls on the cover of cosmo or the VS models in the top pic, or Angelina Jolie, or Jessica Biel, or whoever. And you rate them accordingly, but artificially, low.
When in reality if you saw those girls dressed up at your local bar, you'd break your own back to try and get them to come home with you, and you rate them significantly higher.
I'm not referring to you in particular, but the internet (and people) in general.
Kaldor wrote:
I like to call it 'supermodel syndrome'. When you see someone on the internet, or in a movie or the TV or a magazine, you don't compare them to normal people. You compare them to your created expectations for that medium, and so instead of comparing the girls in the bottom pic to the hags at your local club, you compare them to the girls on the cover of cosmo or the VS models in the top pic, or Angelina Jolie, or Jessica Biel, or whoever. And you rate them accordingly, but artificially, low.
I think that's true for a lot of younger people, especially in high school when the way you engage with the opposite sex is relatively limited. But once you get to college, or simply out of your parents' house, and the prospect of bringing girls home becomes realistic and convenient things start to change as the means by which you appreciate beauty and gratification become more immediate, and less tied to public figures. I mean, maybe its just me, but I stopped finding celebrities sexually interesting years ago both because I know what professional makeup can accomplish, and because I've had enough experience to realize that there are plenty of attainable women that are every bit as good looking.
Kaldor wrote:
When in reality if you saw those girls dressed up at your local bar, you'd break your own back to try and get them to come home with you, and you rate them significantly higher.
I don't know, maybe it just the bars I frequent, but I regularly see girls (generally aspiring models) that fit the VS mold, and have ever since college. They're by no means the norm, but there's enough of them around that they're not completely alien. Honestly, I think the bigger issue is simply the nature of the internet as hyper-critical of nearly everything, though it has been fairly tame here because no one has out and out called either group hideous.
Seriously lads, you lot have surprised me. I cant help but feel this thread is clearly full of spite and envy.
The VS girls aren't "too skinny" they are slim. Are we really claiming that most women if they are honest would prefer to be fat? They don't look like "concentration camp survivors" lets have it said. I would post some photos of actual camp survivors, but frankly we all know its in bad taste.
Why is it ok to insult gorgeous people? I mean, granted I have a personal stake in this because I am ESSENCE OF MAN but still.. I get raged at for insulting fatties all the time! But here we are and all the fatties are waddling in here and throwing insults at people that aren't gluttons! As Seb said, its horrendous double standards. What really annoys me is that fatties seem to think that its never their fault so its fine to rip the piss out of people for their "good genes" and 90% of the time its nonsense. I gained weight every single time I had a lenghty leave, I would go on the piss for 3 months, come back 20 pounds heavier and then eat healthy and train hard until I was back to my best. That's how it works! You don't think I want to eat a pint of Ben and Jerries every day?! They seem to wallow in self pity and convince themselves that cakes and candy taste like ash in our mouths!
I mean take Kaldor.. seriously.. the girls in the bottom picture are SKINNY?! How can you say that with a straight face?!
A woman of 5'5 is supposed to weigh about 115-135lbs right?
Ergo, you either have no idea what BMI means, you were making a joke, or you are a proper fat knacker and think that insisting every fattie you see is actually slim is merely a really clever way of staying skinny without having to diet.
Well, speaking for myself, I genuinely do prefer thicker ladies. I'm not hating on the gals in the upper picture, but I really am more attracted to the women in the bottom picture.
Mannahnin wrote:But how do you feel about cheap beer?
Depends on the day I've had, really.
Mannahnin wrote:I don't like ripping on my nerd kindred. Maybe a little good-natured ribbing.
Reading between the lines, I tend to imagine the person doing the ripping is an angry virgin nerd himself but is in denial. Which makes it that much funnier.
Monster Rain wrote:Well, speaking for myself, I genuinely do prefer thicker ladies. I'm not hating on the gals in the upper picture, but I really am more attracted to the women in the bottom picture.
Oh yeah I understand that, I wasnt talking to you was I!
gak Ive been out with all sorts of shaped chicks, and I don't mind half of the birds in the bottom picture.. well, more like 2/3s. I'm just saying, they aren't fething skinny are they!
If they are too skinny, then she is "perfect weight for height and build"
Kaldor wrote:Just so we're all clear, the girls in the bottom photo are skinny. We're just comparing them to overly-idealised pictures on the internet. I think maybe one of them crosses the line from 'skinny' into 'normal'.
Errr....what? They're not skinny in all. In fact, I think that the Dove people hired them precisely because they weren't skinny and were a bit less attractive than the girls from the Victoria Secret picture.
Also love seeing the nerds on here insisting they wouldn't be interested in women from either picture.
I would smash all of the VS girls with the fury of 1000 Samurai. There's only one (maybe two if we're stretching it) girl(s) on the bottom Dove picture who I could genuinely say that I would smash.
Also I got a good laugh out of the "seeing the nerds here", as if you aren't a nerd too? I mean c'mon, look at your signature. You're 30 years old and playing tabletop wargames. I'm sure the panties drop when girls see that.
Guys, you wouldn't sleep with any of the women in any of the pictures. We know. But it wouldn't be because of your choice...
But of course, you could. Because you are awesome. Because you are a Grey knight! And you are the best! Although I'm sure you would totally reject any of the Victoria Secret models on the basis that they're too skinny for you.
Who are you really kidding though?
In other news, Mattyrm has got it. Why is it cool to make fun of people who are attractive/popular or whatever? Because it's a defense mechanism. It makes you feel better about being 300lbs at 5 foot 10 if you say that some good looking person looks like they haven't eaten for 10 days.
Also don't get me started on the super fat women who think that they have curves. Curves means an hourglass figure. Not the curves from the fat slopping down your body and congealing into a thick cottage cheese-looking mass. That is not attractive.
This right here is what I consider to be "thick". Girl is clothed but I just put it in spoilers anyway
Yeah, skinny was probably a bit hasty. They're none of them over-weight however, and the girls in the top photograph are far too skinny. Their ribs stick out, their knees are the thickest parts of their legs, their faces are sunken, they just look malnourished. They aren't athletic at all, which is the only saving grace for being that skinny.
Vladsimpaler wrote:Also I got a good laugh out of the "seeing the nerds here", as if you aren't a nerd too? I mean c'mon, look at your signature. You're 30 years old and playing tabletop wargames. I'm sure the panties drop when girls see that.
I'm a nerd. I'm know a lot of nerds. I'm sure you know a lot of nerds too. Going by the nerds I know, my comment wasn't off base.
mattyrm wrote:
The VS girls aren't "too skinny" they are slim.
Eh, if they're the average professional model then they are 5'11, 115 (its hard to tell without direct context). I dated a girl that was 5'4, 100 and she was damn skinny. Add 7" to that and I can't imagine "slim," especially given that the girl I dated was anything but slim or muscular, though not fat.
mattyrm wrote:
They seem to wallow in self pity and convince themselves that cakes and candy taste like ash in our mouths!
I hear that all the time. "Oh, you're only fit because you don't enjoy food." feth off, I drink at least 3 days a week and eat whatever I want, I get away with it because I run 49 miles a week. I can put up with this because I'm vain as hell, and I'm not afraid to admit that.
What Dogma said, up to a point. I don't see ribs (although that could've been shoped), so I won't say anything about them being unhealthy thin. Hell I've had ribs showing the majority of my life and it wasn't because I wasn't eating properly, just that I'm ectomorph. I lose muscle mass while sleeping, damnit.
Were they petite (5'- 5'4), they would be gorgeous. Usually models aren't.
That said, I still think they are way hotter than the bottom ones. Might be the faces too...
I see them. I can make out plenty of detail on them as well, despite the blatant shopping.
Their breasts were shopped too from the look of it, which is why I made the comment that, and I mean no offense to flat-chested girls, the ones on the bottom have the advantage of having boobs.
mattyrm wrote:Are we really claiming that most women if they are honest would prefer to be fat?
Could you stop putting words in peoples' mouths?
At five foot ten-- about normal for a runway supermodel, with five foot eight and nine being considered short for the career-- you'll likely want to be around 130-170 pounds. A lighter framed woman would want to be on the lower end of that scale, while a heavier framed woman would want to be on the latter end.Most women at the heights of 5'4 and 5'5 would be closer to 120-160, as an ideal weight depending on their frame.
When you're ~5'10" / 110lbs, you're endangering your health just as much as any woman who's 5'4 and 180 pounds.
mattyrm wrote:
They seem to wallow in self pity and convince themselves that cakes and candy taste like ash in our mouths!
I hear that all the time. "Oh, you're only fit because you don't enjoy food." feth off, I drink at least 3 days a week and eat whatever I want, I get away with it because I run 49 miles a week. I can put up with this because I'm vain as hell, and I'm not afraid to admit that.
Yeah that's what I'm talking about. I fething love booze and ice cream. If it was calorie free I would drink bitter 7 nights a week and polish off a pint of Ben and Jerries every night before bed.
People in good shape generally look after themselves because they want to look good. Call it shallow if you like, but it takes work and determination to get your ass to the gym 6 days a week and lay off the cakes. If we are mocking people that have self control and discipline, we might as well mock people that go to University or do charity work!
Melissia wrote:
mattyrm wrote:Are we really claiming that most women if they are honest would prefer to be fat?
Could you stop putting words in peoples' mouths?
At five foot ten-- about normal for a runway supermodel, with five foot eight and nine being considered short for the career-- you'll likely want to be around 130-170 pounds. A lighter framed woman would want to be on the lower end of that scale, while a heavier framed woman would want to be on the latter end.Most women at the heights of 5'4 and 5'5 would be closer to 120-160, as an ideal weight depending on their frame.
When you're ~5'10" / 110lbs, you're endangering your health just as much as any woman who's 5'4 and 180 pounds.
Im not putting words in peoples mouths Mel! gak loads of people mock those women, both here and on the campaign page. Surely if you are a big fat fether and you are ripping the gak out of them and saying they look like they got stuck in an elevator for 6 weeks you ARE saying "its better to be fat than skinny" aren't you?
Regards the health thing, I disagree, I think being underweight has less health risks than being overweight unless you are talking serious malnutirtion, and none of the VS girls are anywhere near that.
Christ its obvious! None of the VS models are dangerously underweight. Not a single on of them.
This is dangerously underweight.
This isn't. (Victorias Secret)
Clearly not a single one of those women is a health risk. They are all really slim, sure they are. But no doctor or medical professional would look at that picture and go "feth me, go eat or you are going to kill yourself"
As I told you, my missus is at the low end for BMI, and I just asked her.. she is 5'5 and 116lbs exactly, and she seems pretty much ideal weight, she works out and has a decent amount of muscle. Never had an issue with the Doc or anything, are you really telling me she is at serious risk if she dropped 5 or 6 pounds, or stayed the same weight and gained 2 inches in height?
Like I said Mel, don't take it the wrong way cos I'm not saying you are a fat knacker or anything, obviously I dont know what anyone here looks like im just talking in general, but I think people seem to be desperate to say that slim women are "OMG anorexic rats!" because it makes them feel better about themselves, but lets not cheapen and demean the suffering of anorexic people by claiming that petite slim Victoria's Secret girls are at serious risk of death.
mattyrm wrote:Im not putting words in peoples mouths Mel!
Yes you are. You're being an donkey-cave by effectively insinuating that everyone who criticizes them is fat.
The women on the bottom are painful to look at, just as much as the one on the top image.
As I told you, my missus is at the low end for BMI, and I just asked her.. she is 5'5 and 116lbs exactly, and she seems pretty much ideal weight, she works out and has a decent amount of muscle. Never had an issue with the Doc or anything, are you really telling me she is at serious risk if she dropped 5 or 6 pounds, or stayed the same weight and gained 2 inches in height?
Try five or six inches in height, and the answer would be yes.
Kovnik Obama wrote:What Dogma said, up to a point. I don't see ribs (although that could've been shoped), so I won't say anything about them being unhealthy thin. Hell I've had ribs showing the majority of my life and it wasn't because I wasn't eating properly, just that I'm ectomorph. I lose muscle mass while sleeping, damnit.
At 5'9 195 I have ribs showing. I've had them since 5'9 230, and it has actually been problematic.
mattyrm wrote:
People in good shape generally look after themselves because they want to look good. Call it shallow if you like, but it takes work and determination to get your ass to the gym 6 days a week and lay off the cakes.
I don't know, I actually like working out. Though running is, at this point, only pleasant because I can enjoy the Mag Mile at night, which is a pretty cool view.
Though it is pretty awesome to see that occasional cute girl give you the once over, even if you're not interested.
Kovnik Obama wrote:What Dogma said, up to a point. I don't see ribs (although that could've been shoped), so I won't say anything about them being unhealthy thin. Hell I've had ribs showing the majority of my life and it wasn't because I wasn't eating properly, just that I'm ectomorph. I lose muscle mass while sleeping, damnit.
At 5'9 195 I have ribs showing. I've had them since 5'9 230, and it has actually been problematic.
I'm taller and lighter than you yet my ribs don't show, how is that even possible?
Now now, I think we've all watched Meet The Medic, we really don't need to answer that question and we just need to ask, is it the megababoon heart, or something else?
Both groups are painful to look at and while the bottom group is overweight, they aren't excessively fat in proportion to the top group's skinniness.
For whatever reason though it's trendy to proclaim overweight women are "real women" and everyone else is an anorexic freak. I guess lacking the discipline to eat somewhat healthy and exercise is commendable.
I'm just of the opinion that, as many of us here fall in to the category of being obese, massively obese, ridiculously skinny and weedy, fantasists (and borderline fantasists), social misfits/rejects, chronic virgins, conspiracy theorists, nazi viking fixaters, black/tech/symphonic metal fans, plastic paddies, emotionally and/or physically underdeveloped teens, being severely acne'd, having delusions of grandeur or an atrociously hairy back (not looking at anyone in particular, Matty ), not to mention having a hobby that is only slightly more socially acceptable than collecting child pornography, we should probably not be so quick to point fingers at people and go 'ugh, fatties!' or 'ugh, anorexic!'.
Having been to a gaming convention or two, I'd have to agree that pointing out that some of the people in here talking smack about VS models might be overweight is simply playing the odds.
Albatross wrote:I'm just of the opinion that, as many of us here fall in to the category of being obese, massively obese, ridiculously skinny and weedy, fantasists (and borderline fantasists), social misfits/rejects, chronic virgins, conspiracy theorists, nazi viking fixaters, black/tech/symphonic metal fans, plastic paddies, emotionally and/or physically underdeveloped teens, being severely acne'd, having delusions of grandeur or an atrociously hairy back (not looking at anyone in particular, Matty ), not to mention having a hobby that is only slightly more socially acceptable than collecting child pornography, we should probably not be so quick to point fingers at people and go 'ugh, fatties!' or 'ugh, anorexic!'.
Just my 2p.
Personally, I fall in to the category of advanced biological AI, myself.
Albatross wrote:I'm just of the opinion that, as many of us here fall in to the category of being obese, massively obese, ridiculously skinny and weedy, fantasists (and borderline fantasists), social misfits/rejects, chronic virgins, conspiracy theorists, nazi viking fixaters, black/tech/symphonic metal fans, plastic paddies, emotionally and/or physically underdeveloped teens, being severely acne'd, having delusions of grandeur or an atrociously hairy back (not looking at anyone in particular, Matty ), not to mention having a hobby that is only slightly more socially acceptable than collecting child pornography, we should probably not be so quick to point fingers at people and go 'ugh, fatties!' or 'ugh, anorexic!'.
Just my 2p.
Personally, I fall in to the category of advanced biological AI, myself.
Symphonic metal fan, delusions of grandeur, possible atrocious hairy back.
I gotta say, if I was forced to choose between living with ONLY the VS models or ONLY the Dove chicks, I'd go with the Dove ones. Sure, some of them are a little too chubby (not fat), but they look friendly, whereas the VS models looks cold and cavalier.
However, the above statement is based on looks alone, which is not a good way of judging someone. Some of the most friendly, fun, and just plain cool women I know are, or used to be, equally or more skinny than the VS models. The same goes for the Dove models. And I have known plenty of women who are beautiful but idiotic/rude/vicious. And the VS/Dove pictures don't represent the middle-ground or athletic women.
In the end, and given enough time, it is possible to find anyone attractive based solely on their personality and not their physical appeal.
I'd go along with that. I genuinely believe personality is more important - I've been out with (well, slept with) very physically attractive girls who were dull as dishwater, or else totally psychotic. Of course, they're not all like that, in fact most of them aren't, but I find a good personality sexier than the physical side, definitely.
Albatross wrote:I'd go along with that. I genuinely believe personality is more important - I've been out with (well, slept with) very physically attractive girls who were dull as dishwater, or else totally psychotic. Of course, they're not all like that, in fact most of them aren't, but I find a good personality sexier than the physical side, definitely.
I've said that its a matter of "thresholds" or "degrees."
You need to be cute enough, and be interesting enough (in combination), but not necessarily superfluous in either sense.
Albatross wrote:I'd go along with that. I genuinely believe personality is more important - I've been out with (well, slept with) very physically attractive girls who were dull as dishwater, or else totally psychotic. Of course, they're not all like that, in fact most of them aren't, but I find a good personality sexier than the physical side, definitely.
I've said that its a matter of "thresholds" or "degrees."
You need to be cute enough, and be interesting enough (in combination), but not necessarily superfluous in either sense.
See, I can only deal with a deficit in looks. I can't deal with boring people at all, ugly or beautiful, to an almost pathological degree. I've literally started banging my head on the table in frustration when trapped in conversation with a boring person before now. I guess it's my condition. It probably goes some way towards explaining my behaviour on these boards sometimes.
Albatross wrote:I'm just of the opinion that, as many of us here fall in to the category of being obese, massively obese, ridiculously skinny and weedy, fantasists (and borderline fantasists), social misfits/rejects, chronic virgins, conspiracy theorists, nazi viking fixaters, black/tech/symphonic metal fans, plastic paddies, emotionally and/or physically underdeveloped teens, being severely acne'd, having delusions of grandeur or an atrociously hairy back (not looking at anyone in particular, Matty ), not to mention having a hobby that is only slightly more socially acceptable than collecting child pornography, we should probably not be so quick to point fingers at people and go 'ugh, fatties!' or 'ugh, anorexic!'.
People's sexual preferences do vary, you know. There isn't something wrong with you if you fap to different women than I do. I'm sure there are some guys with fetishes for morbidly obese women, some guys with fetishes for dead women, some guys with fetishes for dangerously underweight women and some guys with fetishes for one legged women, and there's nothing wrong with that (even if it sounds kinda weird). As long as whatever they're doing is consensual, I don't flip out at them for having different tastes than I do.
LoneLictor wrote:People's sexual preferences do vary, you know. There isn't something wrong with you if you fap to different women than I do. I'm sure there are some guys with fetishes for morbidly obese women, some guys with fetishes for dead women, some guys with fetishes for dangerously underweight women and some guys with fetishes for one legged women, and there's nothing wrong with that (even if it sounds kinda weird). As long as whatever they're doing is consensual, I don't flip out at them for having different tastes than I do.
A mixture, the top looks rather thin and some on the bottom are rather fat.
If you find someone in that middle section there's the best group of women, which are the average in this society.
and heres a video of her warm up dance 
