Dress Size

[NixAyum]

Even worse is that a lot of the stuff they make nowadays is made using elasticy fabrics, which means they cling. And when they cling, they highlight every single unflattering feature about your body for the world to see.

Spaaaaaaanx.

 

I hate baggy clothes, so usually opt for clingier or flowy things. My lumps are lumpy, and it shows usually. Spanx is a wonder at helping (though for me it tends to roll down a little on my back). I would buy a second in a heartbeat if they were cheaper.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm like a dress size 18-20 (Amurrican) now, and have been on this track for as long as I can remember. Though I'm pretty good at faking it, I actually have a lot of hate for my body and weight/size.

[Sadako]

 

BTW: Very interesting comparisons between the ideal body images of yesteryear and of today-

 

http://workthatmatters.blogspot.com/2012/0...for-todays.html

 

They've taken classic art and photoshopped the body to fit today's standards.

I've been staring at these for like fifteen minutes trying to decide why I think the modern 'beauties' are so very creepy, and I think I've come to a conclusion: the modernized ones have lost an incredible amount of muscle mass and definition--almost as if the current standard of beauty specifically values weakness. It can seem like when we're talking about the difference between a classical painting and a supermodel that we're referring to some extra unhealthy fat tissue, but the women in those paintings seem to be perfectly in shape, just bigger and stronger.

 

It's difficult not to see that as a desire (on a great societal meta level of course) for women to be as weak as possible, so that they're as easy as possible to dominate. Skeevy.

[Rosedamai]

I've been staring at these for like fifteen minutes trying to decide why I think the modern 'beauties' are so very creepy, and I think I've come to a conclusion: the modernized ones have lost an incredible amount of muscle mass and definition--almost as if the current standard of beauty specifically values weakness. It can seem like when we're talking about the difference between a classical painting and a supermodel that we're referring to some extra unhealthy fat tissue, but the women in those paintings seem to be perfectly in shape, just bigger and stronger.

I know! I also found it creepy because the "modern" standards of beauty emphasizes...well, girlishness. Smaller waist, perky breasts, a more "adolescent" look that's hard to achieve by anyone who has ever gone through pregnancy or child-bearing. Maybe I'm being a bit paranoid here, but...I don't know, I don't think that glamorizing something that you can only attain for a very short span of time IS creepy..not to mention disconcerting.

[7Deadly$ins]

I often feel ostracized by these threads, which generally seem to be about how unattractive women that are skinny are.

[auria]

I know! I also found it creepy because the "modern" standards of beauty emphasizes...well, girlishness. Smaller waist, perky breasts, a more "adolescent" look that's hard to achieve by anyone who has ever gone through pregnancy or child-bearing. Maybe I'm being a bit paranoid here, but...I don't know, I don't think that glamorizing something that you can only attain for a very short span of time IS creepy..not to mention disconcerting.

I think that's where a lot of the stigma associated with being a bit-a lot heavier comes from though. The American culture (idk about anywhere else) is hyper-focused on the idea of youthfulness. All of the celebrity plastic surgery, exercise, super dieting, etc. is all a fight against the aging process. Maybe it's a fear of being old and feeble, and the fact that it proves that we're all slowly dying, but all of our mainstream media and pop culture emphasizes youth and equates it with being beautiful.

 

ETA: @7Deadly$ins: I think the emphasis is more on women who are unhealthily skinny for the wrong reasons. If you're naturally slim, that's one thing; but if you're refusing food and exercising to the point of burning off all possible body weight in order to fit into an impossible beauty ideal, that's unattractive.

 

 

Edited February 14, 2012 by auria

[Rosedamai]

I often feel ostracized by these threads, which generally seem to be about how unattractive women that are skinny are.

Let's see, I weigh...let's see...46 kgs and I'm about 166cm tall. That's....about 101.5 pounds and 5 feet 6 inches or so, so I'm waaay thin. You're not the only one that's skinny here-and what I meant on the above post about girlishness was that they're demanding something that's highly hard to get-i.e thin physique and big breasts at the same time-as well as certain physical attributes that are usually noted as girlish. I still think beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. Sorry if you felt ostracized.

[Kestra15]

I often feel ostracized by these threads, which generally seem to be about how unattractive women that are skinny are.

I've never said that ;~) Amy Pond is slender, and I cannot even make jokes about how badly I want her for fear of being outlawed in at least thirteen countries.

[7Deadly$ins]

I think that's where a lot of the stigma associated with being a bit-a lot heavier comes from though. The American culture (idk about anywhere else) is hyper-focused on the idea of youthfulness. All of the celebrity plastic surgery, exercise, super dieting, etc. is all a fight against the aging process. Maybe it's a fear of being old and feeble, and the fact that it proves that we're all slowly dying, but all of our mainstream media and pop culture emphasizes youth and equates it with being beautiful.

 

ETA: @7Deadly$ins: I think the emphasis is more on women who are unhealthily skinny for the wrong reasons. If you're naturally slim, that's one thing; but if you're refusing food and exercising to the point of burning off all possible body weight in order to fit into an impossible beauty ideal, that's unattractive.

That's true, but I more often hear people talk about how unattractive skinniness is these days without qualifying it. I'm all for feeling good about a healthy body image, but I see a lot of stuff about "empowering real women" which usually then go on about how "real" women are, and I am usually not included. I'm not trying to pull a "baaawwww I'm too skinny no one likes me" card, because that's ridiculous. But from other women I do tend to see this sentiment rather frequently.

[Rosedamai]

That's true, but I more often hear people talk about how unattractive skinniness is these days without qualifying it. I'm all for feeling good about a healthy body image, but I see a lot of stuff about "empowering real women" which usually then go on about how "real" women are, and I am usually not included. I'm not trying to pull a "baaawwww I'm too skinny no one likes me" card, because that's ridiculous. But from other women I do tend to see this sentiment rather frequently.

Well, I'd consider their opinion as as soon as I hear the words "real" women. What women aren't real? (Except for the ones in anime or something..) All of us are very real, and we should be entitled to live our lives the way we want.

 

Don't get hurt by stupid people like that. You're worth much, much more.

Edited February 14, 2012 by ylangylang

[7Deadly$ins]

Well, I'd consider their opinion as as soon as I hear the words "real" women. What women aren't real? (Except for the ones in anime or something..) All of us are very real, and we should be entitled to live our lives the way we want.

 

Don't get hurt by stupid people like that. You're worth much, much more.

Well, I agree with you very much so there. Thank you for the sentiment. It doesn't really hurt me, I like myself and I'm pretty confident with myself, but it is an observation I've come across enough for it to feel worth mentioning.

[auria]

This is unfortunately very true, and likely the "real women" card that is commonly pulled out against skinny females is a result of an assumption: anyone who is skinny is doing it on purpose to fit the ideal.

 

True? No.

 

Running rampant through social circles lately anyways? Yep.

 

I get it sometimes too, but not all that often because I'm only 5'1'' and people seem to like assuming I'm 13 instead of 20, which apparently where I live is a license to be scrawny because, "well of course, she's in gym classes and lives in the middle of nowhere, she must work on one of the farms; and she's so teeny, she must not have hit puberty yet."

Edited February 14, 2012 by auria

[NixAyum]

Well, I agree with you very much so there. Thank you for the sentiment. It doesn't really hurt me, I like myself and I'm pretty confident with myself, but it is an observation I've come across enough for it to feel worth mentioning.

There were some images going around comparing models from some years ago with girls who looked unhealthily skinny and asking "when did this (skinny) become more attractive than this (older models)". Rebuttal about how thin-shaming is wrong. Parodies ensued.

[Princess Artemis]

I often feel ostracized by these threads, which generally seem to be about how unattractive women that are skinny are.

This whole thread is about how much that sucks though : (

[SnowWhite]

I kinda feel the need to jump in here. Are we talking about physical attractiveness or just the vague word "beauty"? Because beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but attractiveness is scientific and can be quantified.

 

What is on the inside matters immensely. Don't get me wrong, but you can't help what you actually find physically attractive. Scientific studies have shown that men don't find stick-thin models the most attractive. This is due to the fact that a female with that little body fat wouldn't be able to carry a baby to term let alone feed it once it is born. Plump breasts and wider hips are also attractive because wide hips are good for birthing large-headed babies (which humans are) and plump breasts can feed an infant well. A small waist is attractive because it makes the breasts and hips look larger by comparison. Curves will always be attractive. What changes through the ages is how thin we want women to be.

 

I'm not stick thin; I'm not chubby by any means either. I'm also 5'1" and tiny at around 105 lbs. But the most important thing is that I'm proportional. I think this is the most important thing. Proportions. I have seen larger women who were proportioned well and in the right-fitting clothing rather attractive. Very thin women are rarely correctly proportioned and therefor aren't attractive. If a thinner women is correctly proportioned she can be attractive. Now there is a difference between heavier women and double chins. Doubles chins will never be attractive.

Edited February 14, 2012 by SnowWhite

[Kestra15]

I kinda feel the need to jump in here. Are we talking about physical attractiveness or just the vague word "beauty"? Because beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but attractiveness is scientific and can be quantified.

Proof?

[Rosedamai]

Proof?

^This.

 

Contemplate one of the figures that those classic pictures have. Now let's look at Twiggy.

 

Both were considered very attractive of that time.

 

However, you'll see that Twiggy has almost zero curves compared to, say, Venus in those picture. And-

 

Plump breasts and wider hips are also attractive because wide hips are good for birthing large-headed babies (which humans are) and plump breasts can feed an infant well. A small waist is attractive because it makes the breasts and hips look larger by comparison. Curves will always be attractive. What changes through the ages is how thin we want women to be.

 

Plump breasts were considered vulgar in many time periods over different cultures. Sorry.

[Chiaki]

I think I know what SnowWhite is talking about, there've been studies into face similarity and orientation that found that the majority preferred a certain configuration over the other. Though I always found the idea fairly ridiculous and generally didn't agree with the outcome *shrugs*

 

And we're talking about both physical attractiveness and beauty. I agree with you about being in proportion for the most part, if a shorter person put on a stone it'd be more noticeable then if a 7ft person did.

 

But depending on the type of weight (fat or muscle), body shape and where they gained the extra weight really would depend on the individual and their life style. Nobody wants a fanatical body builder as a nursery teacher... or at least that'd be a fairly odd thing to see...

[Dhevix]

if a shorter person put on a stone it'd be more noticeable then if a 7ft person did.

That almost sounds like smaller people are extra susceptible to weight gain, though... maybe that's not what you were getting at but I feel compelled to clarify isn't the case. If a shorter person gained a stone, and a 7ft person gained the same percentage of body fat in relation to their own height it'd be no more visible... short isn't the same thing as stocky.

 

It's so trendy to take a stand against social expectations... sadly, however that seems to lead to hating on anyone who seems to conform to that expectation, whether it's deliberate or incidental. We see this in a number social settings; heck we've all seen so-named 'indie kids' bashing music the moment it becomes popular and by extension belittling anyone who so happens to listen to their current object of protest. Different situation; same premise.

 

I see so many people who talk about how they're happy being obese, which I suppose is fine as their own opinion but it sickens me when what looks like a growing number of larger men and women try to promote obesity as a lifestyle choice to be accepted as healthy and 'the norm'. That seems to me just as insane as the fashion industry's glamorisation of eating disorders and size 0.

Edited February 14, 2012 by Dhevix

[Alpha1]

Proof?

 

 

 

[Rosedamai]

Nobody wants a fanatical body builder as a nursery teacher... or at least that'd be a fairly odd thing to see...

ZOMG

 

*Just had a mental image of a ballerina with a fanatical body builder's body*

 

And alpha- try fitting that image to, say, this one

 

Classical Chinese painting of one of the four beauties of China

 

We don't even have to go that far, try comparing these two(Disclaimer-I'm not comparing them, just presenting them as two different types of beauty standards and I WILL BE THOROUGHLY UPSET if discussions about beauty standards and such, and how one looks fake and one doesn't and stuff like that comes up. This is NOT a comparison. They're just examples.):

 

Liv Tyler-whom I insanely love

 

An Asian girl-This girl in the photos

 

Both have clearly different facial proportions. Yet, both are clearly conceived as beautiful in their respective cultures-Liv Tyler by Hollywood, and that girl by Asian teenagers.

 

I'm not saying that one is prettier than the other. I'm also not saying that one looks hideous and unnatural whereas the other has some sort of serene beauty or something. They're just that-different standards of beauty with clearly different types of proportions.

 

Personal example: My cousin has a bit more rounder, "cuter" face. I have a more longish face. We're both considered as the pretty ones, at least in my family at any rate. But our facial proportions, like the one given above, are nothing alike.

 

Not everyone has to fit into the bill, and I'd actually prefer it if it weren't that way.

 

ETA: I've got to say this, but...I don't find the woman in the photo very attractive :/ Sorry. I think it has to do with her eyes and lips.

Edited February 14, 2012 by ylangylang

[Dhevix]

And alpha- try fitting that image to, say, this one

 

Classical Chinese painting of one of the four beauties of China

Now I'm not directly siding with the 'perfect proportions' idea here but surely those proportions would vary with culture/race anyway?

 

Incidentally, as I do a lot of sketching of human figures I'm very aware that there is certainly a set point at which a body begins to look anatomically incorrect, 'out of proportion'... the reason for which being is it's become too far removed from our ingrained identification of 'standard human' proportions or facial layout.

 

Apologies, I'm not fantastic at explanation.

[Rosedamai]

Now I'm not directly siding with the 'perfect proportions' idea here but surely those proportions would vary with culture/race anyway?

 

Incidentally, as I do a lot of sketching of human figures I'm very aware that there is certainly a set point at which a body begins to look anatomically incorrect, 'out of proportion'... the reason for which being is it's become too far removed from our ingrained identification of 'standard human' proportions or facial layout.

 

Apologies, I'm not fantastic at explanation.

No, no, I do understand what you're trying to say. BUT I would have preferred it if those differences were highlighted, rather than brushed aside. Also: there's different beauty standards over time.

 

For example: Many people in my country go through many ways to make their eyes look bigger. Yet, around 200 years ago, the description of an ugly woman has the phrase "Big eyes" in it. (Can't really translate thoroughly: More like, "Eyes like huge bells"-which are actually used as a compliment nowadays.)

 

Just a reminder that not everything stays consistent through time.

 

Another example is a comparison between China's famed beauties. I remember Yang Guifei being described as very fat, or at least plump. Whereas Zhao Feiyan(Not one of the four beauties but still) was very thin and slender, enough to "dance on the hands of the emperor" or something like that, and started the trend (or so they say) of foot binding.

 

As you say you sketch human figures though-I've a question: What do you feel when you look at for example extreme tightlacing, or pictures of women who went through the foot-binding procedure? I don't know, they look pretty horrendous to me, but they were revered as beautiful. So...maybe our standards are pretty screwed up as well?

Edited February 14, 2012 by ylangylang

[Kestra15]

Well done, you posted a picture. Feel free to explain it.

[Alpha1]

And alpha- try fitting that image to, say, this one

 

We don't even have to go that far, try comparing these two(Disclaimer-I'm not comparing them, just presenting them as two different types of beauty standards and I WILL BE THOROUGHLY UPSET if discussions about beauty standards and such, and how one looks fake and one doesn't and stuff like that comes up. This is NOT a comparison. They're just examples.):

 

http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~wwu/psychology/attraction.shtml

 

"Cross-cultural Attractiveness Ratings (Langlois 1990, 1994, 2000) > Participants were gathered from various countries, ethnicities and racial groups to rate the physical attractiveness of photographs of equally diverse people. Surprisingly, the perception of beauty is uniform across cultures. To support the hypothesis that there is an evolutionary basis for attraction, infants across cultures were also tested, and they prefer the same photographs that adults prefer. "

 

"Japan & UK Attraction Ratings (D.I. Perrett 1994) > Researchers took photographs of Japanese and Caucasian men and women. Participants in Japan and Great Britain were then asked to rate the physical attractiveness of these photographs. They agreed. The attractive faces had certain features in common. For instance, attractive females had higher cheekbones, a thinner jaw, and larger eyes relative to the size of the face. "

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/...01015140806.htm

 

"The results from a series of confirmatory factor analyses indicate that the physical vanity scale is indeed applicable to culturally diverse countries."

 

 

Well done, you posted a picture. Feel free to explain it.

 

See the studies above...

[Kestra15]

See the studies above...

And in your own words? Again you're simply copying and pasting articles - I'd like to see your summary of what that picture means, as neither of those articles actually use that picture nor explain what those percentages actually mean.