Sir, no one has ever asked you to appologize for what you like. Please by all means like any particular subset of anything which pleases you. The only thing I am asking is that you not speak for all or even most men.
While I’m at it though, please don’t speak for all or even most women.
Thanks.
Well, I can’t speak for all women, but as a young woman with an eating disorder (bulimia) the overwhelming assumption is that less weight will always be more attractive. I’ve ranged from 220lbs down to 120lbs and now I’m about 145lbs (about a size 10). I’ve lived at just about every weight increment inbetween for a decent amount of time. The lower weight I am, the more male attention I get, which just validates for me (and others in similar circumstances, I expect) that men want thinner women. And I imagine that it’s easy to get carried away with this and keep trying to get just a little thinner and just a little thinner- which I suppose I would have done at the time if I could have.
Anyway, a funny story- I’m dating a guy right now, the first one I’ve dated since I gained some weight. When we first started fooling around, he’d slap my ass, which carries most of my extra weight, and I’d take it as a horrible downer. But it’s since become obvious that he finds my ass a big turn-on, which I never EVER would have imagined could turn anyone on in a million years. So us women are not always the best judges of what real, individual men might find sexy or attractive.
Between white and black, super-skinny and super-fat, there seems to be a lot of variation. I don’t know if it’s possible to generalize as much as people have been generalizing in this thread. I mean, look through the engagement pictures in the papers… those girls are not all super-skinny, and yet, they’ve managed to find men who are willingly (presumably) going sexually-exclusive with them. Who woulda guessed?? :eek:
I think that one sentence is the real answer to the OP’s question.
Bah, wishful male thinking, my friend. That is what is attractive to women. Difference is, woman are much more realistic.
Gosh, what a train wreck this is becoming. Let me first get something out of the way, because I think we have a few needlessly offended sensibilities here:
is there anyone at all in this thread who claims that larger women can under no circumstance be attractive?
I don’t think there is, but please correct me if I’m wrong.
I refer you again to the previous body of posts and, indeed, this entire thread. Do you disagree with any of the following:
Women (and men) want to be thin – not extremely thin as you state, but comparatively thin, particularly by the standards of modern American society, where a clear majority of men and women are overweight (at least 64%). Europe is much the same, except that people there are not overweight to the same degree as Americans. And, as I mentioned earlier, if you throw China and India in the mix, wanting to be slim is a pretty visible global trend. I realize in certain cultures – many African ones, some Middle Eastern ones, Pacific Islanders, certain rural locales where there are more pressing concerns, etc. – the preference might actually lean towards the large, fat or even obese, but I’m talking about worldwide preferences as determined by scientific studies, not selected locales.
I’d say the reason that some women want to be extremely thin is that they are not able to consider the situation and expectations realistically, and simply go overboard striving to achieve what they believe or what they have been indoctrinated to think is perfection. Plus, of course, we have to consider whatever factors cause such maladies as anorexia and bulimia, which do not necessarily have anything to do with the popular standards of beauty, as Duke ably related to us a few posts back.
Actually, what we ended up discussing was how and why a certain range of body type and body weight is considered so attractive, and why others might on average be considered less attractive (e.g., impact of a lot of excess weight on WHR and BMI, which have been statistically argued to correlate with physical attractiveness). These are not blanket statements, they are discussions into examining what lies beneath popular trends.
Again, I would like to see where these alleged blanket statements are. So far I have read more suggestions along the lines of “big is beautiful” than anything else. Big is not necessarily beautiful. As I have repeated a number of times, what is beautiful ultimately depends on each individual case, big or small. We may, however draw on existing research to support the claim that generally speaking a slim, healthy body is more likely to be considered attractive than an overweight one.
That doesn’t necessarily say anything about Queen Latifah, Anna Nicole Smith, any of the ladies posting in this thread, or the type of woman readers here may or may not prefer. And it’s pretty hard to challenge scientific research with personal anecdotes.
nyctea scandiaca: almost lost in a number of insults, you say that “Queen Latifah is georgeous. She is a Revlon model, fer chrissakes. She is featured in fashion magazines for her beauty and sense of style.” I have no argument with that, but I would invite you to comment on all the remaining Revlon and fashion models with “beauty and sense of style” who are obviously rather thin. Queen Latifah is an exception in the industry, sort of like Anna Nicole Smith was when she entered the scene modelling for Guess and caused a furore with her abundant curves.
If I should meet your definition of a hot man, does that somehow magically entitle me to disparage you and your body type?? Come on, this is Great Debates, please season your anecdotes and outrage with real arguments.
I would like to add that most of the women we are talking about so far (and the ones Yosemite linked) tend to be in two dimensions. We have no idea what they actually look like in person*, either the heavy or the thin ones. This is also a limitation of the various research conducted in attractiveness – ultimately we are talking about what subjects find attractive in a two-dimensional representation (photograph or video), not in real 3D life and gorgeous womanhood. Since (and if) the camera famously adds at least 10 pounds, it makes some sort of sense for models and TV stars to be somewhat thinner than normal. But I agree that the starved look is not inherently attractive (except inasmuch as it signals a state of non-pregnancy and therefore readiness to mate).
I don’t expect you to. Everyone has their tastes, and there’s very little we can do about what turns us on. I just meant your comments proved my point about there being no cultural grey area between thin and fat. When you eliminate the whole range of “healthy”, the area where those models would fall, women have no goal to aim for BUT thin.
Let me ask you something, though, that I think is very important to the topic. What do you consider slim and in shape? What do you consider fat? This isn’t a personal attack, but relevant curiosity.
For example, what I picture when I imagine your image of slim and in shape is the size 2 range. Someone of my height (5’4") and say 110 lbs. By 135 lbs and a size 6, she’s already a little chubby.
This is what slim means in my head. Thin. Petite. Tiny. And if this matches your idea of slim, them your statement about most men prefering a slim woman is off base. However, a quick poll of some guy friends revealed that my idea of slim and in shape was way off base. As one of them said “Have you looked at Playboy lately” (Uh, no, actually). Women hear just enough such comments to make them believe that to be attractive they must be thin, their definition being drastically different from what the male population means.
Or maybe you are like Howard Stern and I just made a useless point. I have no idea.
(I also think, as an aside, that the reason why people are getting so pissed off is that many people find it socially acceptable to openly insult a woman about her weight, no matter what it is. I prefer muscular guys, but wouldn’t refer to guys with less than perfect pec definition as scrawny weaklings in general conversation. Saying “I don’t like curvy women” and calling said women “sloppy fat” are not the same thing. I don’t understand why some people are incapable of discussing weight/size topics without resorting to derogitory terms.)
I don’t think anyone has said that in so many words, but yes, I do think that a few here have seemed quite resistant to the idea that bigger girls are attractive to anything other than a small percentage. Here’s the answer I gave you earlier in this thread:
Add to that this today from msmith537: (Bolding mine.)
Gee, I wonder why that caused a reaction from some people? 
Now, I’m not really trying to rag on msmith, though he hasn’t really clarified his “fat sloppy girls” comment. He’s perfectly entitled to not prefer these girls, and he’s certainly not alone in the world. But there seems to be some definite resistance from him (and from prisoner-whats-his-hame) to admit, straight-up, that these girls are more than just a “statistical outliers” (msmith’s words).
You might be right, but I can’t help thinking that even msmith’s couple of careless comments don’t necessarily seem intended as insults. Perhaps I am being incredibly naive here, but a “curvy” woman to me suggests attractive, since I (and I guess most men) like curves. Voluptuous. But sometimes the terms “curvy” and “voluptuous” are co-opted as euphemisms for “rather overweight” or “obese”.
The term “Sloppy fat” to me conjures images of way too many chins, a ball shape, and waddling instead of walking. In other words, someone who is in all likelihood morbidly obese, and not at all the same thing as “curvy”. Not even the same thing as “chubby” or “plump”. Nor “a bit overweight”. However if the statement was intended as meaning that a girl is sloppy because she is fat then I agree with your objections.
Likewise, slim does not equal thin. Petite does not necessarily equal thin or slim, although someone can be both petite AND slim/thin, just as they can be bigger and still slim/thin. A lot of these terms seem to be interchanged, so that may be giving rise to misunderstandings.
By the way, Obsidian, I don’t think modern Playboy is a serious indication of standards of physical beauty. Those pictures of Playmates have more computer-generated special effects than the Lord of the Rings trilogy.
I don’t see terrible malice in his posts, no. However, the only visual examples we’ve shown here are of “curvy” big girls. The discussion here, and the questions directed at msmith (pointed questions) have been discussing these specific plus-sized models. Big girls with pretty faces. And so when he comes up with a statement like he did, making mention of “sloppy fat girls with pretty faces,” we have to wonder, “Where? Who? You mean the girls we’ve been discussing, right?” All he’s been shown, and all he’s been asked to comment on directly, are these plus-sized models. So you have to wonder—where does the “sloppy fat” come from, and why did he bring it up? He still hasn’t answered whether or not the models we’ve been discussing are “sloppy fat” or not.
Thank God I’m not a woman.
If I believe the media, the ideal woman is bony but with large implants, peroxided hair, overinflated lips (with black lipliner!), orange skin and three inches of makeup. I saw about ten of these in two hours of television viewing last night, and it was scary.
If I believe the fashion industry, women should alter their bodies to fit the clothes rather than forcing designers to come up with clothes that fit their bodies.
And AFAICT, most women seem more worried about what other women think about how they look than what men think about how they look.
How do you women cope?
Ach, this thread is depressing. It’s taken me three attempts to read it all the way through, because it was making me so miserable.
I try so hard not to worry about my weight. I tell myself that in the grand scheme of things, it’s such a tiny thing (no pun intended) to waste energy worrying about it. Also, when you think of all the awful things happening in the world, and of the number of people who simply don’t have enough to eat, it seems an enormously shallow and superficial concern. Also, I know, in an intellectual sense, that I don’t have much to worry about, really. According to my BMI (yes, I know, not necessarily accurate!) I’m a healthy weight. I’m also lucky enough to have nice hair, a pretty face, good skin and more to the point, everything functions they way it should - I’m fit and healthy…I try to be grateful for my good bits and not concern myself too much with the bad.
And yet…I see all these stunning women with amazing figures (I’m not talking about catwalk models, who are thinner than I would like to be), but the Kylies and Beyonces and J-Los - these are the women who look the way I want to, and it depresses me far more than it should. I used to have great confidence in my body, but then I quit smoking and since then I’ve gained about 2 stone. I don’t look awful, I don’t think, but neither do I look good. I couldn’t tell you the last time I felt sexy.
I’m rambling here, sorry. I don’t know why women want to be extremely thin, but maybe it comes more from an continuous attempt to just feel good about ourselves. We focus on our weight because that’s an aspect we can control, or think we can. I think it’s too simple to say we do it to attract men, or impress other women.
My girlfriends about 5’5" and 135 lbs. I would consider her a little “chubby” at that weight but not unattractively so. In all fairness though, she was 110lbs when we met. Somewhere in the middle is about ideal for her.
I have to say, though, that I do find that reality show “The Swan” disturbing. Not so much because of the idea of turning ugly women beautiful but because they turn them into ridiculous Barbie characteritures.
They aren’t the same thing. There are plenty of women who are “big boned” but not unattractive - like many girls who play softball or rugby or the “plus” girls someone linked to. That is not the same thing as a woman who has double chins and love handles and a big gut, waddling around with her fanny pack full of Munchkins and oversized T-shirt. And the unfortunate fact is that most guys would rather have a girl with an ok face and a nice body than a large pretty girl.
Of course if you ate 1000 calories a day and exercised eight hours every day for years, you too could look like that. Never mind that you couldn’t have a job or social life or that you’d be hungry and miserable all the time – just think of the figure you’d have!
OTOH, as it is you already look better in my hat than Kylie would. 
Thank you Gyrate.
I R blushing.
yes.
Yes, however and that’s what I may have missed in this thread is that figure doesn’t equal a size 4. That women of all weights can be that figure and not neccessary be of equal thinness, nor be what some people would consider thin.
I didn’t say a few repeat customers, I say a large percentage of repeat customers. According to this site only 5-10% of people are successful in their diets, the rest try and try again. That seems to me that we have 90% of the same people trying to lose weight over and over again. Diet
I was merely asking why the thread which was concerned with extreme thinness as asked by the OP…not me; seemed to go from a society/cultural issue to one tossing out BMI and WHR numbers.
Bolding mine…Does that count as a wooly covering?
Three years ago, my wife and I were in South Beach, Miami-home of the ubermodels! WE were having lunch at a trendy sidewalk cafe-on Ocean Ave. I think it was early summer. Anyway, four gorgeous models sat down at the table next to us, their lunch was as follows:
-drinks: each girl had a bottle of perrier water, wth ice and a slice of lime.
-food: green salad with a sliced tomato, vinergar dressing (no oil)
-dessert: they shared a tiny piece of mango flan-each had a small spoonful of it
Now I understand how those gals get so thin…but surely this is no way to live…how on earth do you do a 2-hour gym workout after eating so little?
J_Kallick, it is not my place to speak to your specific situation. But if you will allow, I have a couple questions.
Just thinking about this logically, though, it is not true. Clearly if you weighed 20 pounds you would not be attractive. Look at some of the old photographs from the concentration camps or even those from the civil war prison camps for what I mean.
This is the question. Is it possible that when you weighed less, because of the assumption you had above, that you were more confident? Perhaps dressed a little more provocatively? Perhaps were more willing to be in situations which garnered men’s attention? Is it possible that your perception of your own body allowed you to be more receptive to attention when you weighed less?
Basically what I’m asking is whether or not you are sure that the weight and the weight alone changed your percieved amount of male attention. Again, it is not my place to speak to your personal experience. But before you conclude that weight is so all fired important, examine if there might not be a couple other factors in what you noticed.
I think you might have missed a few crucial posts. In my discussion with yosemite I pointed out a number of times that different-sized women could have the ideal 0.7 WHR. However, I noted, substantial weight gain typically means greater accumulations of abdominal fat tissue, which means an increase in WHR well beyond 0.7 or 0.8, in fact sometimes above 1.0 (which is when the waist becomes wider than the hips, as happens in some overweight men). This alone is strong indication that body fat is negatively correlated to female attractiveness at least in specific ranges, though not necessarily for all women, rather depending on each individual case, level of overweight, body type, tendency to accumulate fat where, etc. However, when we talk in terms of statistics we are forced to generalize, which may be what is depressing some people. Other research that is perhaps less substantial indicated a clear link between a specific BMI range and attractiveness (see link in a previous post) though I am not aware of how much weight (heh) that particular line of thinking has accumulated so far (i.e., replication of results).
Ah yes, but a few things. The weight loss industry is more than just diets – it includes health clubs, meal replacement, diet or low-calorie products, weight loss supplements, under- or over-the-counter medication, etc. Also, we have to put it in perspective. At $40 billion a year in the US alone, this industry is worth well over half the considerable economic costs of obesity and inactivity in the US (as of 1999, before the announcement of the obesity epidemic). It’s four times the worth of the considerable video games industry. It is worth substantially more than the global music industry at $32 billion. Finally, it is an industry that is expected to grow at a fast 5.6% annual clip (not a scientific cite, which I couldn’t immediately link for free, but contains a fair summary of the information).
All this suggests that the concept of losing weight/staying slim is hotter than ever, and is not necessarily restricted to a specific audience (IIRC, the global weight loss industry is growing more quickly than the somewhat more mature US market). As for repeat customers, I am not sure that has any real significance in this case – after all, car buyers tend to be repeat customers too, since most of them owned other vehicles previously, but that means relatively little in terms of how many people want to own a car.
Yes indeed, as do one or two other statements – I guess I forgot about those in my valiant efforts to bring a bit of science to a debate fraught with anecdotal evidence and opinion. In fairness though the poster has been taking a different direction the last pages of this thread, and seems to realize the silliness of making categorical claims about something as subjective as attraction. Heck, it’s not unheard of for some people to prefer skeletal anorexic or grossly obese women (we should examine the market for “BBW” pornography) so it’s clear there is an extremely broad range of preference.
[QUOTE=Abe However, when we talk in terms of statistics we are forced to generalize, which may be what is depressing some people. [/quote]
Of course it would. The scientific data shows that a woman who is 0.7 is universally desirable. The next step in thinking, is that a woman who isn’t; isn’t attractive because the data says she can’t be and (b). any man who finds such a woman is a deviant.
I realize I’m pushing the envelope here, but it seems to me that this statistical ‘generalization’ creates other issues. You have women with such low self-esteem at being over/under-weight, wondering what’s wrong with a guy who finds them attractive. Even isolated tribes in South-America like a woman with a 0.7 ratio, the data says so. So what’s wrong with this guy? as she feels she’s not worthy of the attention. You don’t fix that problem with an “generally” speaking foot-note.
I simply think that when it comes to human interactions, using statistical data to ‘prove’ somethings may create more problems, than they solve. I’m sure you know, the saying…
Buying a car is different, because there’s no expectation of not having to replace the car. Whether it’s because of accident, age, technology whatever. Very few people purchase a car, or clothes, or food without knowing that sooner or later they are going to have to replace them…even looking forward to doing so.
Losing weight, by the definition; is a desire… to well, loose it. There is no expectation or desire to loose 10 pounds and regain 20. However that’s the reality of trying to loss weight. I don’t think many people look forward to gaining more weight than they tried to lose and having to start over again.
I’m sorry, but the entire ‘Diet’ industry is designed around people who buy treadmills and use them as clothes-racks, or purchase gym memberships and never go or spend hundreds or thousands of dollars on “special” replacement meals, loose the weight; then regain it, once they stop the shakes. It’s designed for the ‘quick’ fix. If you just buy this, all your weight problems will be solved. Oh, that didn’t work, well try this…again and tell your friends.
The Weight Loss industry is the Tobacco industry of our generation, only it’s customers are dying at a much slower rate.
I like the post, holmes, but I simply cannot resist. Loose = not tight. Lose = get rid of. I apologize for this annoying post.