The Model & Celeb Weight Thread [Read post #1 before posting] #1

[Fontenrose]

Women (and especially teens) are way too hard on themselves. The (straight) guys are not too hard to please.

When girls are about 14, they are ALL so beautiful. And they have no idea. (sigh)

[papa_levante]

Women (and especially teens) are way too hard on themselves. The (straight) guys are not too hard to please.

I love this! Thank you for sharing your opinion. That's usually the case A LOT of the time.

[matthaeus123]

I've seen it happen first hand and it's just sad.

[mkd1187]

Originally Posted by Fontenrose

The (straight) guys are not too hard to please.

(sigh)

So true. I think I have mentioned this before, but it is odd that gay guys love really skinny girls, ones that the straight guys deem too-skinny.

This is purely based on observation btw

[papa_levante]

I've seen it happen first hand and it's just sad.

I apologize because it seems we're no longer talking about weight any longer, but this ought to be the last comment. Promise!

I wish Sex Ed was pushed more in during middle school (in the US) because if guys and girls both understood what was happening to their bodies, suicide rates wouldn't be so high in young teens, drama like dating and crushes wouldn't be occurring as if the Apocalypse were tomorrow, etc.

So true. I think I have mentioned this before, but it is odd that gay guys love really skinny girls, ones that the straight guys deem too-skinny.

I think that's because homosexual males think skinny girls embody the male body type: straight up and down.

[youarearockstar]

Originally Posted by Jane Loves Marc

i don't understand why people in this thread defend the super-skinnies so rabidly....it's sad how people have this attitude, it really enables this kind of disordered behavior.

and then when someone says that this girl or that girl has a healthy body, people accuse them of looking like porn stars.
its sad when people view a healthy woman's body as something 'vulgar'.

Do we know if the "porn star" body is a smoker? Do we know if she has had any complications from her plastic surgery? Is her implant leaking silicon? Does she eat all her fruit and vegetables each day? Does she drink? Is she extra careful about exposure to UVa and UVb rays when tanning? Does she work out enough to stay in shape, but not enough to be consider an exercise bulimic?

The point being: how in the world can you diagnose her as being "healthy" based on an image?

Is anyone ever going to stop using 'healthy' as a modifier in this thread? No one here (I repeat no one except the model themselves or their primary care physician), knows anything certain about a model's physical or mental health. To judge one girl as being healthy from the shape of her body in an image, is about as logical to me as trying to guess her cholesterol or blood pressure.

I just do not understand how an image equates in totality that very person's physical and mental health. You can prefer one type of body to another, deem one too skinny or too fat for your personal tastes, all without creating inferences masquerading as certain diagnoses about someone's health. Maybe a model has a preexisting heart condition and dangerously high blood pressure? What about a model who was born with diabetes; one who has a myriad of psychological problems? Would any one of these be healthier than a model who was genetically born skinny, and upon her last physical examination was deemed to be in good health?

Too often we ignore just how many factors are included in the term 'healthy' and conveniently use it as some umbrella term to juxtapose disordered eating. Yes, not having an eating disorder is considerably healthier than having one. However, that does not mean that everyone who is skinny is unhealthy, because it precludes too many factors and makes too many assumptions.

Look, I cannot force anyone to be more selective with their word choices; and given everything that has been said in the past 10,000+ posts it would likely go back to a Vlada debate anyhow. I really just think that its so fundamentally flawed to judge someone's mental and physical wellbeing based upon the most 'shocking runway photo of the day.' There are so many better ways to express what weight, body type, amount of visible bones, amount of muscle tone, size of hips, size of breasts, that you yourself find aesthetically pleasing without making baseless inferences.

[mkd1187]

Amen Papa =)

[mademoiselle_]

Originally Posted by Fontenrose

Women (and especially teens) are way too hard on themselves. The (straight) guys are not too hard to please.

When girls are about 14, they are ALL so beautiful. And they have no idea. (sigh)

Truth, but that depends alot American and Latin guys like women to be more full cause latin and american women are more likely to have bigger boobs and butt while europeans, asiatics, etc are more slim

[Fontenrose]

I think that's because homosexual males think skinny girls embody the male body type: straight up and down.

Yes. The designers' aesthetic does not embrace the female form.

[Fontenrose]

American and Latin guys like women to be more full cause latin and american women are more likely to have bigger boobs and butt

The (straight) guys everywhere like the girls everywhere! Good thing for our species!

The northern Europeans are more likely to have the hip measurements for modeling. It's those flat butts. Either that or very slim hips, at 5'11" you have to have one, take your choice.

[This is a bit off topic, but I hope everyone has seen the Gilbert and Sullivan mix of "I like big butts" on YouTube. Sirmixalot if I recall, I almost died laughing. Weird Al's version of "I like small butts" is funny too.]

[iluvjeisa]

Originally Posted by mkd1187

I think phrased my last comment badly. I believe from personal observation (not from a psych perspective) on the large waist-hip ratio as a sexual idea. In my experience, guys (straight ones) are generally attracted to women with a small waist and prominent hips.

However, people on this thread have talked about how they heard that men are attracted to a mathematical formula of waist:hips ratio. Someone mentioned a while back that Marilyn Monroe and Kate Moss have the same ratio, and that is why they are both sex symbols.

While the body type deems to be attractive to many males, the basis of this theory has to do with a radical view that man's subconscious belief is to seek a female with a "perfect ratio" in hopes of reproducing himself, thus spreading his own genes as a last resort. This is "explained" on the human brain (and head) growing in the last few thousand years, leading females to require a larger hip region to provide a safe birth.

The same inventor of this theory explains homosexuality as forgoing ones genes towards being an "ideal uncle/aunt" towards the spread of his/her siblings genes...

Again, sorry if irrelevant, just wanted to give the background of the whole "ratio" argument in this forum

I think the hip/waist ratio is genetic, personally. The recent studies supporting this are reasonably strong - at least that's my verdict after having briefly reviewed the papers. What the reason for this preference is, on the other hand, is more obscure.

I don't think this tangent is irrelevant - it goes to the core of why different body shapes are idealized. What I find very interesting in this context is how the sexual revolution in the 60s coincided with a change in body ideal - ie towards the stick thin shapeless figure and away from the slender hour glass.

[iluvjeisa]

Originally Posted by youarearockstar

Do we know if the "porn star" body is a smoker? Do we know if she has had any complications from her plastic surgery? Is her implant leaking silicon? Does she eat all her fruit and vegetables each day? Does she drink? Is she extra careful about exposure to UVa and UVb rays when tanning? Does she work out enough to stay in shape, but not enough to be consider an exercise bulimic?

The point being: how in the world can you diagnose her as being "healthy" based on an image?

Is anyone ever going to stop using 'healthy' as a modifier in this thread? No one here (I repeat no one except the model themselves or their primary care physician), knows anything certain about a model's physical or mental health. To judge one girl as being healthy from the shape of her body in an image, is about as logical to me as trying to guess her cholesterol or blood pressure.

I just do not understand how an image equates in totality that very person's physical and mental health. You can prefer one type of body to another, deem one too skinny or too fat for your personal tastes, all without creating inferences masquerading as certain diagnoses about someone's health. Maybe a model has a preexisting heart condition and dangerously high blood pressure? What about a model who was born with diabetes; one who has a myriad of psychological problems? Would any one of these be healthier than a model who was genetically born skinny, and upon her last physical examination was deemed to be in good health?

Too often we ignore just how many factors are included in the term 'healthy' and conveniently use it as some umbrella term to juxtapose disordered eating. Yes, not having an eating disorder is considerably healthier than having one. However, that does not mean that everyone who is skinny is unhealthy, because it precludes too many factors and makes too many assumptions.

Look, I cannot force anyone to be more selective with their word choices; and given everything that has been said in the past 10,000+ posts it would likely go back to a Vlada debate anyhow. I really just think that its so fundamentally flawed to judge someone's mental and physical wellbeing based upon the most 'shocking runway photo of the day.' There are so many better ways to express what weight, body type, amount of visible bones, amount of muscle tone, size of hips, size of breasts, that you yourself find aesthetically pleasing without making baseless inferences.

Yeah, I agree. Also, it's really important to keep in mind that all studies about what is healthy and not are based on statistics. And sometimes, not even very stringently applied statistics. Therefore, there is an imminent risk of just reinforcing general opinion, and of inspection bias, when researchers present results. And applying the knowledge - i.e. BMI < 17 in an adult decreases the predicted life span by, say, 7 years, is probably true in, say, 99.7% of the population, but then there is that 0.3% where it doesn't have any effect.

[bryanboy]

Originally Posted by papa_levante

but the majority of men love hourglass shapes and women with thick butts and thighs.

hollywood true story right there. who am i kidding. most guys look at tits first!

there's this huge online forum i go to and 99% of the people who go there are heterosexual suburban american males and every once in a while, i'll troll the forums and make threads like "WOULD YOU HIT IT?". They do the same with people like jessica alba or what's her face biel or hayden panetttiere or megan fox () or random "jailbait" myspace girls whatever. So whenever I post pics of my fave models, say, natasha poly, EVERYONE is quick to say things like "that's ugly" or "404 tits not found" or "that's a guy!!!!" (pertains to agyness) or "bitch needs to eat a cheeseburger" or "i would hit that with a sandwich" or "that's an alien!!" etc.

it's crazy but it's fascinating reading their reactions. it's just disappointing though that they are NOT more accepting that beauty comes in various shapes, looks and sizes.



source: ONTD_fashinfags

[sbey]

Admittedly a little off topic but this is quite a good article about what scientists have discovered about what men like in women and vice versa:

http://www.livescience.com/health/06...ion_rules.html

Oh and by the way, I think the waist/hip ratio thing is still going strong.

[Zoely]

i hope that nicole wont return that thin like before her pregnacy.. She looks already thin after just 2 weeks of giving birth