Couple quick points. 7% isn’t always a huge difference. When I used the term “huge”, I was referring to the height difference in males between 5’7" and 6’2". (70% of 8’ versus 77% of 8’.) That is indeed a huge difference; ask any 5’7" guy.
I’ve never heard the classic figure as being 36-26-36. I’ve most often heard 36-24-36, but that was back in the eighties. More recently, I almost never hear of classic measurements, but when I do, it’s usually 36-25-36, which is 69.44% WTH ratio.
Queen Latifah is indeed considered physically attractive, most notably since she was told by her doctor that she would die from complications caused by obesity, and so went on a lifestyle-altering dietary change which allowed her to lose a significant amount of weight. Now that she has, she is considered attractive. Before that? Not so much.
Yosemite, you seem to be arguing that 3 inches difference in waistline on a larger woman is of minimal importance, because that can be easily camouflaged by clothing. If it’s camouflaged, it’s not noticeable by definition. Look at the same woman naked after dropping 3" from her waistline, and it’s a pretty safe bet that the average man will find her more attractive.
No, you certainly aren’t, and many others certainly aren’t, but I’m not so sure that no one here is saying that. If they’re not saying it, they seem to come pretty close to incredulous (at least that’s what I’m getting) at the concept that heavier women are actually perceived as attractive. (The statement “No woman looks good at 200 pounds” or something like that being one example.)
Sure, sure, I don’t think that’s any secret. It’s just the incredulous, shocked, astonished reaction (okay, so perhaps I exaggerate a little with the reactions on this thread) that some bigger women are considered attractive, or at least not hideous. It seems like this has not really occurred to some people. Not that they should feel obliged to consider these women attractive—because no one should expect that of anyone. But to act as if no one could find them attractive, well, that’s just incorrect and ignorant. Just as incorrect as if some woman said that "No women could find short men attractive." Well, I’m living proof that it isn’t so, and I’m far from being the only one. Getting on a tangent for a moment, PaulFitzroy mentions that he’s a “face man,” well, I’m a “face girl.” I think that short, tall, chubby, thin are all okay, but the one with the nicest (not necessarily the handsomest) face gets my vote. Well, end of that tangent, since it, well, is a tangent.
I get it, I get it. There’s going to be women in that middle ground, where the highest percentage of people will find them attractive. I think the thing that some of us are trying to say is that the higher end (let’s say the size 20 to 26 in sewing sizes) of women are not only admired by, let’s say, .01% of the average male sample. The percentage is quite likely much higher than that, (perhaps 20%?) no matter how many people find it incomprehensible. And yes, some of these size 20-26 (sewing size) women probably are over 200 pounds, and yet they’re still deemed attractive, shocking as that may seem to some.
Sure, and it goes the other way around, too. And there’s a double standard, I think, that goes with that. A thin woman with a pig-ugly face might still be considered more attractive (to some) than a plus-sized model with an angelic face, simply because the pig-ugly-faced woman has a trimmer figure. Not all thin, or fat, women have beautiful faces. A plain thin woman will probably be considered more attractive than a plain fat woman, but I swear, if you ask some people (but obviously not PaulFitzroy ;)), the pig-ugly thin woman somehow still has an advantage over the bigger girls with the beautiful faces. It’s all a matter of taste and preference, so whatever floats everyone’s boat and all that, but speaking for myself only, that sort of thinking doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.
Sure, sure. Just like being shorter (if you’re a man) decreases the chance of being considered attractive. That’s just the way things are. But they’re not absolute. And I know that you (Abe), aren’t saying that, and haven’t ever said that on this thread. But alas, some people come really close to thinking that way.
This is a good time to bring up Obsidian’s somewhat neglected (but profoundly great) post: she says there is a standard out there that says it’s either perfection or nothing. So many women are made to feel like if they can’t be perfect, they might as well not bother, because they’ll never measure up. Here, to requote her:
This is how a lot of us are made to feel. Let’s say a woman wants to lose 50 pounds. She loses 35 pounds. She looks great, she thinks. She feels great, she thinks. But people around her (well, not everyone, but many) will still treat her like she’s a fat cow, like she doesn’t measure up, even though she’s actually made great progress and feels great.
Yes, it is a taboo, but I wonder if perhaps it’s the “small town” mentality (with all their pettiness and gossip) that was more the culprit. I find that middle America (or at least the corners of it that I’ve been to) is far more forgiving than my hometown of L.A. (well, Glendale, but close enough). Appearances were deathly important, and still are, but they don’t seem to be so much here in Hooterville (middling-big unnnamed midwestern town). And one of my friends, who has lived in the South all his life, well, he was astonished and pretty much didn’t believe me when I told him about the attitudes regarding weight in L.A. He’d never heard of such a thing. Not to say that weight isn’t an issue everywhere—it certainly is—but in some places it’s slightly more forgivable than in other places.
That’s all true, but we’re not talking about men’s height, we’re talking about women’s waists. Not the same thing.
Sure, some. But I doubt that his reaction to her somewhat thicker waist (but on a figure that is still decidedly hourglass) will be quite the dramatic reaction that many women have towards a 6’2" man compared to a 5’7" man. The two women, by comparison, look pretty much the same in most clothes, and both have attractive hourglass figures—just one has a little more “hourglass” to her figure than the other. This in no way compares to the difference (that can never be camouflaged) between a tall and short man, which can be a quite a big deal to the short guy, as you have already mentioned.
Only, it doesn’t originate with your peers, really. It originates with Hollywood, with the same clothes designers whose idea of a bride looks like a ceiling lamp, and with the makeup industry, but we buy it.
If you ask women in Spain how do they like men, and there are other women around, the vast majority will claim to prefer tall, athletic blonde guys with zero body hair and light eyes. Using the numbers from my old dorm, since I remember those but not the national statistic, we’d be talking 53 out of 70, that’s a 75%; the other 25% were always told we were “weird” when we claimed to like anything else - or even gasp to find some Great Official Sex Symbol revolting.
Segue to the statistics from yahoo.es and you find that over 90% of female users want guys with dark hair; half don’t mind bald spots; fat is out but cuddly is definitely accepted; more than 1/3 will take Yogi Bear’s hairy brother. Methinks the people selling those laser depilation treatments weren’t very happy with the last figure
Same happens with your own figure. JLo isn’t particularly curvy by Spanish standards: she looks nice but is definitely on the slim side. I make her look flat, and have so since I “grew out” at age 12. One day in class (9th grade) we talked about this same issue of weight and shape and stuff, and when the nicest guy in the class declared that he actually liked “something to grab onto while I walk” (making a gesture clearly aimed at hipsides, not butts or breasts) and the rest agreed, us girls cheered wildly. We certainly came out of that class feeling a lot better about our… grabbables.
Way too many women have never been exposed to such an experience.
What evidence? Some survey done with housewives? How does the marketing for diets, equal that most women want to be extremely thin? I’ll say again, you ask Rural, African, Latin, East Indian American women about their weight and see what answers you get. It seems to me the Diet industry is being fueled by a large percentage of repeat customers. Wanting to lose a full pounds isn’t the same as wanting to be thin.
There’s a difference between wanting to lose a few pounds and wanting to be a size 2. There’s a difference between being a full figured person and being obese and I don’t see any of those differences in this thread…only the two extremes, which the majority of people don’t fit.
I not talking personal predilections, accept when someone makes a blanket statement that ALL men don’t find X attractive or that ALL women want to look like X.
Whoa. The OP asks why women want to be extremely thin, that’s a different kettle of fish, than slimness or being fit or losing 20 pounds or obesity. That’s where I’m coming from and I’m not talking obesity; as there’s nothing to talk about.
Queen Latfia in the Revlon commericals is not a size 2, 4, or even a 8 I would guess. However she is still attractive, do we know what size she is? Is she obese in those commericals?
The full size models I though were attractive, I didn’t consider them obese as in rolls of fat or being unable to move…but they were big girls. The question is, are they unhealthy? They didn’t look unhealthy to me. They didn’t look sloppy or weak-willed to me…all the things that fat people are ‘supposed’ to be. Are they obese? A general rule is just that, general…
I think the thread has gotten a bit of track with the numbers and not focusing on the rationale. Teenage girls looking at the Olsen twins aren’t thinking about their BMI numbers. Howard Stern telling a 5’10" woman that she’s too heavy at 130 and needs to be 115 lbs. isn’t thinking about her BMI numbers or how her heart is doing.
Using young girls as models of “slimness” is more than a bit dishonest as those girls are tossed out as soon as they loose their girly form and grow into their womanly bodies.
Hell according to some, Jlo STILL has a big ass. Peer pressure? Bah, it more like Fear pressure.
No, but a thin in shape girl is a lot more universally attractive than a plus-size. The simple fact that they are called “plus-size models” instead of just “models” indicates that their size is out of the normal range.
Market forces. Big cities like LA and NY have a much higher number of thin attractive women so there’s more competition. Unlike Smalltown, USA you don’t know everyone personally since birth so superficial first impressions are more important. Every small town high school has a group of half a dozen girls every year who are the “hottest girls in school”. Every guy fawns over them because they are the best looking thing around. Move to NY and their just another good looking girl on the street.
Look, there’s no question that a woman who’s in shape is better looking than a sloppy fat girl with a pretty face. The question is “why do women want to be super thin” to the point where they endanger their health or their appearance for that matter.
IMHO it’s the same phenomenon as guys who really play any sports seriously but use steroids to get super-huge at the gym. Something just gets stuck in their head like a money in one of those banana traps.
She’s lost weight but she also had a breast reduction.
I thought she was hot before the change; I’d take her pre-surgery/diet body ANY DAY and screw anyone who wouldn’t agree that I was the sexiest thing on earth.
You know, it really was just a simple yes or no question. Would you be astonished if one of your friends was dating one of those pretty plus-sized models that I linked to before? Yes or no? Yes or no? The fact that you can’t give a short, simple answer, but have to carry on about how, “a thin girl is more universally attractive.” Well, NO SHIT SHERLOCK. Abe has been saying that, I’ve been saying that, (only I’d perhaps say “Girls of average size are more attractive,” which could include girls with a little more padding but still in the “average” range).
It seems so ingrained in you to carry on about the thin girls that you can barely focus on the question, which is that to many people, these fuller-figured girls are very attractive. So what if the thinner girls are more “universally attractive”? Someone is always going to be more universally attractive—but not everyone has to be.
Let’s re-phrase the question: Would you be astonished if one of your friends confessed that he thought this girl (same plus-sized model again) was “prettier” than a thinner girl, and that if he had to choose, he’d choose this size of girl over a thinner (let’s say size 4 or 6) girl? Would you find this incomprehensible or bizarre? And remember, it’s just a yes or no question. Just yes or no.
No, I don’t think it’s just that. Where I am currently exiled (Hooterville), is a biggish town. Suburban sprawl. There is no “small town” here. The suburban sprawl here isn’t all that different (except for the lack of Trader Joe’s markets) to my hometown of Glendale. But the attitude about appearance is vastly different. I used to commute back and forth from Hooterville to L.A., back and forth, back and forth, for several years, and the differences between the two places really smacked me in the face.
Sheesh, now that was just mean-spirited, and I think really reveals where your mind is in this. Are you saying that the plus-sized models I’ve linked to are “sloppy fat girls”? Is there any other kind of bigger girl to you, other than “sloppy fat girls”?
So, I guess you’re saying that, for everyone, the thinner girl is automatically better looking? That’s it, right? Everyone will agree that the thinner girl is going to be better looking than some ol’ “sloppy fat girl”?
Preach it, yosemite. I’m proof of this. I’m about a size 14 and I have absolutely no problem attracting guys: handsome, attractive, nice, successful, smart guys. Just in the past month, I’ve dated about 5 different guys; there’s just so many I don’t know what to do with them all! Several of the guys I have dated couldn’t stop telling me how they were especially fond of my round ass and curvy hips. My whole life, I’ve never had any lack of male admirers.
I really don’t know what kind of crack prisoner6655321 and some of the other guys in this thread are smoking. The models in those photos are fucking hot. They don’t have fat stomachs/bellies, double chins, rolls of fat or anything of the sort. They are beautiful. I seriously doubt any of the aforementioned crack smokers could ever gate a date with a girl as attractive as those models.
Dude, get thee to drug rehab, or an eye doctor. Queen Latifah is georgeous. She is a Revlon model, fer chrissakes. She is featured in fashion magazines for her beauty and sense of style.
Let’s turn it around on you, buddy. You seem to think only the skinniest, hottest babes are worthy of you. Really, huh? Are you at least over 6 feet tall? Have all of your hair? Have a chiseled body, and 6-pack abs? Have a chiseled, angular face, strong jawline, handsome browline? I seriously doubt it. You’re probably so eager to bust on curvy chicks because you’re bitter that none of 'em will go out with you because you’re a short, balding, pudgy dork.
I know this is a quote from the first page, but I think my reply will be germane to the rest of the thread. (Plus I’m ending a board exile, to try to lead a Pit-free posting life, so bear with my tardiness.)
As some of you know, my ex-wife was a recovering anorectic. She was committed to a hospital (not by herself, but by her parents), and spent almost a year in the hospital and in halfway houses. She was very sick–obviously she didn’t die, but she wasn’t that far off. She knew other people in the ward who did die. Like the women Sam’s wife cares for, she was afraid to eat, afraid to “get fat” even when her body was skeletal, even when she had lost the energy to function normally. After her stay in the halfway house, she did eventually resume fairly normal eating habits, and kept up her recovery with regular meetings with other recovering anorectics.
I asked her once whether she thought that “culture”–the desire to be attractive to men, or to look like a fashion model or TV or movie star–had an effect on her disease. She didn’t, which I wasn’t surprised to hear in her case. (The skewed religious beliefs she held during her illness wouldn’t have let her read Cosmo or be attractive to men anyway. Don’t ask.) What did surprise me was that she thought that cultural stigmas didn’t cause anyone to start starving themselves. Her experience, and that of the other women she knew, was that anorexia was first and foremost an issue of control of one’s body–that the (mostly) teenage girls that had the disease felt powerless at home, at school, and in other phases of their life, and that the only thing they felt they had control over was the amount of food that they ate or how thin they were getting. The weight they were losing was a tangible form of that control. If my ex in her starving days weighed herself and had lost a few hundred grams–well, that was measurable success. Something she had done, in some twisted way, had had a visible effect.
She also felt that anorectics weren’t starving themselves to look “attractive” because frankly they weren’t trying to look attractive. Anorexia messes up one’s hormones rather fiercely–my ex went seven years without having a period, long after she had otherwise recovered. On top of that anorectics often get, as Sam’s wife would attest, rather oblivious to the emotions and concerns of those around them. Trying to attract a man, or even trying to look attractive, was long beyond my ex’s concerns when she was sick.
My ex believed that an unhealthy obsession among teenage girls with stick-thin fashion models and other examples of cultural bias certainly existed, but that they didn’t cause anorexia. She argued that people believed they did because (1) they were a constantly-visible target, (2) it was easy to make a connection between “teenage girls=obsessed with fashion” and “teenage girls=most likely to be anorectics”, but most importantly (3) it’s a lot easier to blame Cosmo and Marie Claire than to address the real issues. No teenager is going to admit to their parents that “I am starving myself because I hate you.” For the most part that’s why my ex did it (by her own admission), but even as an adult she would not tell her parents that the root cause of her problems were family-related.
I’ve gone on too long here. FTR I will say that I don’t think most men find “thin” women attractive–actually quite the opposite.
Am I the only one thinking that the girl in yosemite’s link isn’t REALLY plus sized?
She looks about a size 10 to me. And she’s gorgeous. Any guy who would turn her down (because of her size) has something strange going on upstairs.
Don’t ask me where the line between “normal” (ha!) and plus sized is, but that girl isn’t in any way overweight in my book. She looks like a woman should look.
Some women are just naturally tiny and it’s not because they starve themselves. They are blessed and well, I kinda hate them. Let’s face it, though: some models are itty bitty because they work out for hours a day and live on vitamins, water, and lettuce to the point that they’ve probably stopped having periods. Not healthy.
What I’m trying to say is it’s amusing, yet sad, that women like the girl in the link are considered out of the norm, while the walking skeletons are seen as something to emulate.
IME, guys who only want tiny women are more unusual than guys who don’t mind a little (or a lot) of meat on a girl’s bones. The only times I have lacked a boyfriend since hitting puberty are the times that I wanted to lack a boyfriend and I haven’t been a size 14 in years. I’ve never lacked for a guy who thought I was hot.
Look at her thighs. Yes, she’s plus sized. She’s on the lower end, but plus-sized. I’m guessing she’s somewhat tall, and perhaps size 14. I agree, she has a nice hourglass figure and seems perfectly lovely to me and to many others, but I am also sure that some guys will look at her (msmith certainly did) and say, “Pretty, but definitely too big for me.” Many might go on to say, “I’d never date a girl that size.” Or, they’ll say, “Sure, she’s okay I guess, but she’d look so much BETTER if she lost XX pounds and I really think she should lose weight.” I’m sure that plenty of guys would say that. (Now, just so it’s clear, I am not saying that she’d look worse if she lost some weight—I think she’d look lovely at a different range of weights.)
I’d be also curious to hear whether msmith (or some of these other guys) thinks she’s one of those “sloppy fat girls.”
Yeah even after having read Yosemite’s reply to your post I’m still really confused, for me too these women do not look at all fat, overweight, plus sized or whatever.
Only thing is, I don’t think what you’ve described here is the universal standard for an attractive man in this country the way the thin models seem to be a universal standard for women. While pudgy is never a good thing for guys, I’m not so sure about the height thing. Tom Cruise, for instance, isn’t very tall…neither are a lot of “Hollywood hunks,” and probably a lot of male models. Hair’s always good, but if a guy has a receding hairline he can always shave his head, a look which is considered sexy by a lot of women. I doubt many people would prefer that Vin Diesel had hair, for example. As far as the face goes, I think there’s more leeway there too.
Look through a catalog full of male models and you’ll see a ton of variation among the men. Look through a similar catalog full of females and you’ll see almost none.
I think that a chiseled body and strong facial features will always be considered attractive for men, but there are way more variations in what women will go for in guys than what guys will go for in women.
Forgive me, but this must be because you are fixating. The variation of the female form is almost endless. Try looking through that catalog again and compare the models one at a time to each other.
It helps if you do this in a non, shall we say, excitec state?
msmith and co. are proving my point. I look at yosemite’s pictures, and then hear people call THAT woman fat, what hope is there for me?
I’ve seen this a few times on this board. I remember a thread a while ago where some guy was complaining that women who weren’t very skinny should never reveal their stomachs. People post with the conviction that if you don’t wear a size 2, you’re enormous. They are so adamant of this, I almost beleive it. These guys (I think they’re guys anyway) are walking examples of why some women are obsessed with being extremely thin. Our social norms about what constitutes thin is so grossly out of touch with what is normal that it’s not even funny. We as a culture are so obsessed with youth that we idolize women who look like girls, and call anyone with a woman’s body fat.
I wouldn’t consider them fat either, but they are big compared to a “thin girl.”
Now, I could be completely wrong about msmith and prisoner-whatever, but I’ve linked to that picture of that girl several times, and neither of them has said, “But that’s girl’s not big!” msmith particularly said that the models I linked to (which included this girl) were too heavy for his tastes.
Whether or not it seems right or normal to a lot of us, that girl is “plus sized.” That’s what the low end of “plus sized” can look like. According to a lot of fashion standards (sewing patterns, clothing stores), plus size starts at size 14 or even size 12.
Now, granted, I think a pretty decent percentage of guys would not find size 12/14 girls to be unattractive, but alas, we’ve heard tales on this thread and elsewhere of people who were probably not at all overweight, probably in the 12/14 size range, and yet they were constantly being told that they needed to lose weight—that they were too big. That’s how it is.
Those women yosemite linked to were very sexy indeed.
I personally would not count myself lucky to be on a date with any one of them.
Of course that is because I am married and my wife would do horrific things to me the likes of which even I cannot imagine.
Change my state to single, however, and I might have made inappropriate overtures to yosemite in an attempt to get their numbers.
Now, I am certainly not claiming to speak for all men. But please do not take the word of any of the posters in this thread that they do either. Sexiness is an attitude even more than it is a physical attribute. The problem, of course is that you cannot “act sexy” in the same way you “act happy”.
Yes, as a matter of fact I do. Why do you think I thanked yosemite for here links?
Hey, I’m not going to appologize for what I like. I’m about 5’10" and have always had a thin to medium build so I tended to avoid dating girls who are excessively bulky. It works both ways. I don’t hink most women want to date a guy smaller than them.
My girlfriends a little on the heavy side compared to what my friends date so it’s probably not a good example. But I wouldn’t be astonished if someone else dated them.
