REAL women

I completely agree with what you've said.
And, personally, I tend to prefer girls with "curves" as opposed to skinnier ones. [I am bisexual].

However, i'm also very hypocritical. I preach health and curves and natural beauty and inner beauty, yet I absoloutly despise myself, and struggle with a mild eating disorder.
*shrug*. Perhaps that just proves your point, even more.

 

Though really, runway models don't even look female anymore. They are meant to be sexless clothes hangers XD. Thin as possible because just like it the store, the dress/shirt/pants always look better on the hanger than the person.

Unrealted fact, though ironic: Unilever, the company who owns Dove, is the same company who owns Pond's and the skin-whitening cream sold in India and far east south-east asian countries. It's great that they have these campaigns and such, but its slightly odd to see the same "over company" selling products for the opposite effect half a world away.

But yeah, I think everyone has body concerns, but I find the best "comfort" is just looking at the people around me and seeing how NOT plastic they are. I feel worlds better then.

Though whats with this whole tanning thing? I've never found the BBQ coloured skin looks that nice on anybody. Makes people look like teriyaki chicken.

 

I think women should just be comfortable if they are very thin or obese or in between. That goes for men too.

 

Aesthetics are all learned (fake). People like what they are taught to like. Now the problem is they spend too much energy and frustration on that, instead of more meaningful things.

 

It's a simple fact, they'll push whatever brings in profit, and if it makes them look good in the eyes of the public in the process, even better.

They are just trying to market their products by appealing to a different populace this time around. 'Real' or 'fake', it doesn't really matter, as long as the money keeps pouring into someone's pockets.

 

Typically, the designation "real woman" is used in the backlash against thinness. I think that's what Dove was going for, since they clearly were not trying to promote skin blemishes and similar flaws.
It does make a lot more sense to use "real" as a contrast to the artificial beauty that modern technology enables.

 

Depends on what is called natural. And I've met exceptions.

 

Oh, I wholeheartedly agree. That's why I'm putting together a campaign to end brainwashing of infants.

 

Not all of it is fake. There are several things encoded within us that we are told to prefer, naturally, but yes we do learn a lot of it and we can have those natural codes overwritten.

http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/002338.html

Nice one Mohican, we referenced the same link .
​

 

I don't see how this contradicts with what I said. There is a lot of brain development before birth.

There are people who like asymmetric and edgy patterns - visual and auditory. It could be perhaps about what they've been exposed to very early, I don't know, but I've met such people.

The conclusion from such studies is rather cultural. And I'm glad that apart from all its mess, our culture still is more related to symmetry than not. That makes me happy.

 

Yeah, I can't 100% agree either... maybe 85%. We ARE taught what to be attracted to to a very large degree, being malleable creatures... but there's also a strong undercurrent to be attracted to obvious signs of health and self-care (both of which tend to lead to a modest figure). Then again, why people like stick figures is beyond me. It's not healthy either.

 

How can a fetus be taught what to like? It's rather dark in the womb.

 

Uhm... but learning suggest outside forces teaching the unborn babies what beauty is and thats just... well pretty damned hard to do if not impossible. Not sure what you're getting at.

 

Do not take the word "taught" literally. No one is performing teaching consciously in this case. Otherwise, yes, what I said would be certainly false.

Symmetry is about signal patterns, and a fetus is exposed to a lot of signal patterns in the womb. The study shows that (within our culture!) a baby is more likely to be exposed to more symmetrical signal patterns, than not - and that made me happy.

There was another study that shows the language most used around the pregnant mother is being learned by the baby easier.
http://pss.sagepub.com/content/early/2010/01/28/0956797609360758.abstract
Just to illustrate that this phase is not unimportant.

 

Good thread. Check out this video as well:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2gD80jv5ZQ"]Evolution of a Model[/ame]

It just makes me sick. She is perfectly attractive to begin with - she doesn't even look like herself by the end!

 

I know, I'm saying that your usage makes more sense than the standard.

I can only speak for myself on this: visual attractiveness has little or nothing to do with my sexual orientation. I think some men are attractive to look at, even though I am not sexually attracted to them.
Furthermore, I would split sexual attraction into two categories. I can be sexually attracted to a person without remotely wanting to have sex with that person (if that makes any sense). Some sexual attraction is driven solely by visuals and instinct; other sexual attraction develops over time, fueled by awareness of personality and such, and is part of wanting to develop an actual relationship.