REAL women

[DoveAlexa]

VH, you are entirely missing the point.

I am not talking about men and their attractions.

That's not the purpose of this thread.

Yeah and this too.

 

[88chaz88]

If "real women" were naturally attractive the media wouldn't bother to gloss them other and there wouldn't be any controversy.

 

[slant]

If "real women" were naturally attractive the media wouldn't bother to gloss them other and there wouldn't be any controversy.

That's not possible. It's a logical inconsistency. You're saying that there is one type of person that is considered beautiful by the majority, therefore, what 'real' women look like isn't attractive, that fakeness is supported by the majority of people.

It's such a small percentage if looked at the world on a wide scale. There is a different idea of beauty in African countries as well as in Asian countries.

It's a cultural thing, meaning that it is not set in stone as well as there is not one definition of actual beauty.

It's up to the culture to change their cultural norms, not to just, embrace them and move on with life.

These cultural norms are wrong.

 

[VH]

Yeah, I know. My point is that females have a legitimate personal gripe when their insufficiently pretty looks send their relationship prospects down the toilet. Males, however, need only apply themselves better if they want to appear more attractive in terms of success and power. It can't really be helped, but I would not begrudge those unlucky females a bit of fist-shaking at the heavens.

This is not an entirely valid argument. There are a lot of women who could be attractive if they would apply themselves. In fact, most women who are considered 'attractive' work for it by going to the gym and using 'beauty' products, like hair and make up. The girl I'm dating now is absolutely gorgeous when she gets herself 'fixed up', but when she's not wearing make up, hasn't done her hair, and isn't wearing well chosen clothes that are flattering, she's less attractive than average. I'd also like to add that the only thing stopping most women from this course of applying themselves is themselves... as opposed to relying upon others to make a success of one's self, which is what men must do when they apply themselves to be successful. To be successful, you have to convince others to help you be successful whether that means getting the right job, making the right sale, getting the right loan, making a business work, getting a recording contract. Success is more difficult than personal grooming and knowing how to dress (which I might add successful men have to also do). Furthermore, there are about as many men who are born with the innate qualities required to truly succeed as there are women who can be truly beautiful when they apply themselves. A lot of men are just unlucky enough to not have what it takes to be successful as part of who they are.

You know what, this is the first time I'm going to have to tell you, VH, to piss off.

Yeah, the two first guys in these pictures were quiet cute looking, and I love gaming. I couldn't get along with a guy who didn't. The two guys on the right in the last picture are cute as well.
I look for a connection first, and attraction to them is part of that, but they don't have to be gods. I would never marry or even look twice at a rock star, or a lawyer, they are just bad news. The rockstar would be more likely to be constantly cheating, drinking and doing hard drugs then doing any good for either of us. Lawyers just make me weary and wary.

If we are offended by fake women, and the culture surrounding it, why would you assume we were then perfectly fine with male stereotypes?
Would you call Chaz some kind of male stereotype? I love him to death and I find him perfect for me and what I want for the future.

I think its another stereotype that women are shallow greedy whores. Those are the women in Shai Gar's thread, not the ones arguing about them.

You're definitely not a typical female, and no one would accuse you of that.

However, I find it very interesting how vocal some women can be about their frustrations with being jealous of other women. The female competition instinct is a very strong instinct indeed. Honestly, sometimes I wonder if this is really as simple as on a subconscious level, women are afraid that somehow these 'perfect beauties' are going to somehow steal their men because their men find them attractive.

 

[DoveAlexa]

However, I find it very interesting how vocal some women can be about their frustrations with being jealous of other women. The female competition instinct is a very strong instinct indeed. Honestly, sometimes I wonder if this is really as simple as on a subconscious level, women are afraid that somehow these 'perfect beauties' are going to somehow steal their men because their men find them attractive.

God knows I've been betrayed by enough female friends. I'd have to agree with you on this, even to the point of saying our instincts against one another are stronger than the male infighting instincts. When I see a group of female friends getting along I laugh, thinking, "I wonder how much they actually like each other".

 

[TheLastMohican]

This is not an entirely valid argument. There are a lot of women who could be attractive if they would apply themselves.

And there are also a lot of women for whom no amount of makeup and exercise will do the trick. The outliers don't really affect the validity of the argument. The point is the fundamental difference: beauty is a physical trait, and success is created by action. If a woman was naturally beautiful but destroyed her looks with years of meth use, then no, she wouldn't have much to complain about. Likewise, if a man is stuck with a variety of afflictions that keep him from succeeding in the business world, then he does have something to complain about. But in a large-scale, cultural context, there is a difference between physical beauty and success.

 

[88chaz88]

That's not possible. It's a logical inconsistency. You're saying that there is one type of person that is considered beautiful by the majority, therefore, what 'real' women look like isn't attractive, that fakeness is supported by the majority of people.

It's such a small percentage if looked at the world on a wide scale. There is a different idea of beauty in African countries as well as in Asian countries.

It's a cultural thing, meaning that it is not set in stone as well as there is not one definition of actual beauty.

It's up to the culture to change their cultural norms, not to just, embrace them and move on with life.

These cultural norms are wrong.

I'll grant you that ungodly thin isn't a desired characteristic. This was only brought across because of the fashion industry wanting their clothes to be modeled on a blank canvas i.e. a stick.

However two things that are ingrained in our heads as "beautiful" on women are big breasts and wide hips. This is not of course 100% true for everyone, but it is true for the majority (I don't like big breasts btw, never have, never will). This is because of reproduction capability. Wide hips are an indicator that the female is fertile and able to give birth, big breasts are an indicator of being able to provide sustenance for the child. No matter what culture you're from, these things are all apparent.

There's also a reason why women see men the way they stereotypically do but I'm sure you don't want to hear about that.

 

[enfp can be shy]

@TLM : the process of protein synthesis is fine, but how is it related to people/babies ending up liking certain things more than others?

Why do cultures vary so much in their preferences, and why are genetically different people so easy to train within another culture?

 

[88chaz88]

Honestly, sometimes I wonder if this is really as simple as on a subconscious level, women are afraid that somehow these 'perfect beauties' are going to somehow steal their men because their men find them attractive.

This jealousy exists on a subconscious level because in the time it takes a woman to concieve one child, a man could potentially father hundreds.

There's an ancient reason for everything we do, and it's usually linked to survival.

 

[Tamagochi]

I do not really get the purpose of such campaigns - except for it's marketing value of course. For me a real woman is someone, who exists in this 3-dimensional space we call reality. The skinny, the fat, even the anorexic - they are ALL real. Why do those "real" women fret so much over what is shown on television/adds/magazines anyway? Why assume that our young generation is so stupid that they will not be able to discern synthetic images from real people?

Often the real problem lies within: the person has low self-confidence. Thus he or she then justifies their failures in life by media being evil or by gender stereotypes.

My suggestion: just ignore it and be happy.

 

[slant]

This is not an entirely valid argument. There are a lot of women who could be attractive if they would apply themselves. In fact, most women who are considered 'attractive' work for it by going to the gym and using 'beauty' products, like hair and make up. The girl I'm dating now is absolutely gorgeous when she gets herself 'fixed up', but when she's not wearing make up, hasn't done her hair, and isn't wearing well chosen clothes that are flattering, she's less attractive than average. I'd also like to add that the only thing stopping most women from this course of applying themselves is themselves... as opposed to relying upon others to make a success of one's self, which is what men must do when they apply themselves to be successful. To be successful, you have to convince others to help you be successful whether that means getting the right job, making the right sale, getting the right loan, making a business work, getting a recording contract. Success is more difficult than personal grooming and knowing how to dress (which I might add successful men have to also do). Furthermore, there are about as many men who are born with the innate qualities required to truly succeed as there are women who can be truly beautiful when they apply themselves. A lot of men are just unlucky enough to not have what it takes to be successful as part of who they are.







You're definitely not a typical female, and no one would accuse you of that.

However, I find it very interesting how vocal some women can be about their frustrations with being jealous of other women. The female competition instinct is a very strong instinct indeed. Honestly, sometimes I wonder if this is really as simple as on a subconscious level, women are afraid that somehow these 'perfect beauties' are going to somehow steal their men because their men find them attractive.

Let me begin to dissect this post. Oh lord....

You are encouraging women to use makeup, beauty products, etc to make themselves beautiful. I agree with the exercise, it's healthy. Since this is just your opinion there is nothing inherently wrong with it. But, my opinion contrasts: I don't think encouraging our males or females that doing these things are the only way to be considered attractive or beautiful. These are superficial things. I am apalled that you would speak of your girlfriend in what I percieve to be such a demeaning manner. She looks LESS THAN AVERAGE without all of these things to hide her flaws and make her look like a photoshopped magazine? Hmm. I wouldn't ever want to date someone who thunk that way of me.

I think, the second part, that wasn't directed at me, was the most offensive. I mean, I suppose I'm not actually offended since it is indeed just an opinion not some sort of law being forced on me, but for you to imply that the only reason for women to be disagreeing with this image of perfection is because they are afraid they are not enough, that they can't live up to the standards so these ugly people are just mad because they aren't beautiful? Jealous that they don't look like these models? Jealous that these 'beautiful' women get all of the men?

If that's what you want to believe, go right on ahead. Women have been using makeup since the Egyptian times, although, when Egyptians used makeup males also used it and it was more of a cultural thing than to make them look more attractive. I personally do not believe that people, male or women, should not think they have to doll themselves up or look like the most attractive person on the planet for people to date them or be interested in them.

I don't think that anyone needs to be objectified by these high standards, and even if they were simple to achieve and anyone could get them---we should not set up society in a way that punishes people who do not want to be a certain way. If a woman doesn't believe in wearing makeup because of religious purposes, doesn't believe in doing anything that isn't natural, does that mean, by your standards, they somehow deserve not to be mated?

 

[slant]

I'll grant you that ungodly thin isn't a desired characteristic. This was only brought across because of the fashion industry wanting their clothes to be modeled on a blank canvas i.e. a stick.

However two things that are ingrained in our heads as "beautiful" on women are big breasts and wide hips. This is not of course 100% true for everyone, but it is true for the majority (I don't like big breasts btw, never have, never will). This is because of reproduction capability. Wide hips are an indicator that the female is fertile and able to give birth, big breasts are an indicator of being able to provide sustenance for the child. No matter what culture you're from, these things are all apparent.

There's also a reason why women see men the way they stereotypically do but I'm sure you don't want to hear about that.

Why do people keep assuming I'm talking about thinness? I already clarified that earlier.

The photoshopping of pictures of women go far beyond making them have big breasts and wide hips in America, though.

 

[TheLastMohican]

@TLM : the process of protein synthesis is fine, but how is it related to people/babies ending up liking certain things more than others?

Protein synthesis is the most basic function of life. I didn't say that you could jump straight from that to infants' cognitive function; but if you have a lot of time on your hands, you could follow the processes from the bottom up.

Why do cultures vary so much in their preferences, and why are genetically different people so easy to train within another culture?

Cultures do not vary much in the preferences that the newborns were exhibiting.


Are you ever going to stop asking irrelevant and redundant questions and start answering mine?

 

[slant]

I do not really get the purpose of such campaigns - except for it's marketing value of course. For me a real woman is someone, who exists in this 3-dimensional space we call reality. The skinny, the fat, even the anorexic - they are ALL real. Why do those "real" women fret so much over what is shown on television/adds/magazines anyway? Why assume that our young generation is so stupid that they will not be able to discern synthetic images from real people?

Often the real problem lies within: the person has low self-confidence. Thus he or she then justifies their failures in life by media being evil or by gender stereotypes.

My suggestion: just ignore it and be happy.

Until the Dove campaign, I was not aware of the extensive photoshopping done to photos that are in magazines. The youth are not always aware of these things, you can't expect them to be aware when no one teaches it to them.

 

[88chaz88]

Why do people keep assuming I'm talking about thinness? I already clarified that earlier.

The photoshopping of pictures of women go far beyond making them have big breasts and wide hips in America, though.

Yes, as having perfect skin makes them look healthier and younger.

I don't agree with the practices of the industry, but most of these things are actually considered naturally beautiful, even if not achieved through natural means.

What exactly is the discussion here though? This whole thread seems to be a mess of people running around in their underwear screaming "rate my poo!".

 

[slant]

Yes, as having perfect skin makes them look healthier and younger.

I don't agree with the practices of the industry, but most of these things are actually considered naturally beautiful, even if not achieved through natural means.

What exactly is the discussion here though? This whole thread seems to be a mess of people running around in their underwear screaming "rate my poo!".

Read the first post. Thank you!

 

[VH]

You are encouraging women to use makeup, beauty products, etc to make themselves beautiful.

...if they are concerned with not feeling pretty enough, then by all means do something about it. If they're comfortable with themselves, then why would they bother? When women complain that the standards of beauty aren't fair, they're expressing their insecurities. You'll never hear a beautiful woman complaining about how unfair it is that she's better looking than everyone else. Therefore, if someone is insecure about something, then do something about it... either by fixing the problem directly or learning to get over the issue.

But, my opinion contrasts:

And I respect that.

I don't think encouraging our males or females that doing these things are the only way to be considered attractive or beautiful. These are superficial things. I am apalled that you would speak of your girlfriend in what I percieve to be such a demeaning manner. She looks LESS THAN AVERAGE without all of these things to hide her flaws and make her look like a photoshopped magazine? Hmm. I wouldn't ever want to date someone who thunk that way of me.

For starters, she's not my girlfriend. She's someone I'm dating. Secondly, I met her when she wasn't 'fixed up', was very attracted to her, and prefer to be around her when she isn't 'fixed up'. She's the one who feels the need to get 'fixed up' because she's got insecurities about her appearance. I'm constantly encouraging her to just go all natural and love herself for who she is.

Next, my wife never (and I mean that literally) wore make up or used any kind of hair product other than shampoo and sometimes conditioner, and never blowdried her hair. She just towel dried it, brushed it, and she was done... she had all manner of 'flaws' in her features... and as far as I am concerned she was the most beautiful woman that ever lived.

I think, the second part, that wasn't directed at me, was the most offensive.

None of it was directed at anyone. I'm simply stating my opinion on the subject in general.

I mean, I suppose I'm not actually offended since it is indeed just an opinion not some sort of law being forced on me, but for you to imply that the only reason for women to be disagreeing with this image of perfection is because they are afraid they are not enough, that they can't live up to the standards so these ugly people are just mad because they aren't beautiful? Jealous that they don't look like these models? Jealous that these 'beautiful' women get all of the men?

Essentially, yes, this is true if these people have issues with the subject. If they have gotten over these issues, then there isn't a problem to worry about.

If that's what you want to believe, go right on ahead. Women have been using makeup since the Egyptian times, although, when Egyptians used makeup males also used it and it was more of a cultural thing than to make them look more attractive. I personally do not believe that people, male or women, should not think they have to doll themselves up or look like the most attractive person on the planet for people to date them or be interested in them. I don't think that anyone needs to be objectified by these high standards, and even if they were simple to achieve and anyone could get them---we should not set up society in a way that punishes people who do not want to be a certain way.

And you'd be right when referring to someone who isn't superficial. Unfortunately, the majority of the population (especially male population) is superficially unable to question their own instincts. Women do the same. They just have different priorities in what their instincts find attractive.

If a woman doesn't believe in wearing makeup because of religious purposes, doesn't believe in doing anything that isn't natural, does that mean, by your standards, they somehow deserve not to be mated?

She absolutely deserves love. Everyone does. I don't think that the question is whether or not someone deserves love, so much as who deserves to be found 'attractive'. By society's standards, it's possible that she might not be found 'attractive'. Is that fair? No. However, there are a lot of people out there who defy the norm, and it is very likely that your example woman will find someone who does in fact find her attractive. The most important thing to mention here is that even though there are pinnacle ideals for attractiveness, people who do not meet them still manage to find love, because not everyone is a supermodel or a rock star. That doesn't change the fact that supermodels and rock stars are more attractive than the rest of us.

 

[88chaz88]

Read the first post. Thank you!

Then I've pretty much explained everything.

Okay, it's not society wants us to think these things are good, but the industry does want us to achieve them through unnatural means.

 

[enfp can be shy]

Protein synthesis is the most basic function of life. I didn't say that you could jump straight from that to infants' cognitive function; but if you have a lot of time on your hands, you could follow the processes from the bottom up.

I'd like to follow the processes from the bottom up. Here's what I expect: the genes dictate the protein synthesis, which builds the brain; from then on this brain learns through interaction. On the first page of the thread I included a study about proven pre-natal learning, but I assume you couldn't see it, since I was editing my posts a few times, before continuing.

From the way you react and interpret things, I assume you are convinced that babies have genetic predisposition to like certain shapes? Why are you so convinced about it?

 

[Quinlan]

Is it possible that this kind of campaign may be counterproductive regarding body image etc. so thin women aren't real women?

As far as I'm concerned an image is no longer "real" once it is being manipulated by photoshop, however how is that different from the lighting and makeup effects the photographer uses (or even his own skill in emphasising certain features), where do you draw the line? Perhaps only our passport photos are real.

As a culture we do seem to chase perfection, but perfection as projected by the fashion industry (flawless) to me is stagnant and boring. We are to quick to point to something as a flaw rather than an important addiction to the character of something. There is a rustic charm in buildings and there is also a rustic charm in people too.

Personally I am very tired of the plastic look, I love to see a natural look.

I thought I would share this, it is from one of the very first "beauty guides" which was published in 1836.

Defects of beauty:

5. If the secreting vessels, being inactive, furnish neither the plumpness necessary to beauty . . . (354)

6. If the neck form not an insensible transition between the body and head, being sufficiently full to conceal the muscles of the neck and the flute part of the throat.

8. If the waist, tapering little further than the middle of the trunk, and being sufficiently marked, especially in the back and loins, by the approximation of the expanded pelvis, be not also slightly encroached on by the plumpness of all the contiguous parts . . . (355)

10. If the abdomen be not moderately expanded, its upper portion beginning to swell out . . .


13. If a remarkable fulness exist not behind the upper part of the haunches, and on each side of the lower part of the spine, commencing as high as the waist, and terminating in the still greater swell of the distinctly separated hips; the flat expanse between these and immediately over the fissure of the hips, being relieved by a considerable dimple on each side, caused by the elevation of all the surrounding parts . . . (356)

14. If the cellular tissue and the plumpness which is connected with it, do not predominate, so as to obliterate all distinct projection of the muscles: because this likewise shows that an important portion of the vital system is feeble, and it deprives woman of the forms which are necessary to love . . . (357)

Nothing else can completely compensate, in woman, for the absolute want of plumpness. The features of meager persons are hard; they have a dry and arid physiognomy; the mouth is without charm; the colour is without freshness; their limbs seem ill-united with their body; and all their movements are abrupt and coarse.
http://www.torrid.com/store/product.asp?LS=0&RN=206&ITEM=531924
18. If the almost entire absorption of adipose substance have finally left the bones angular, the muscles and other parts permanently rigid, and the skin dry; because that indicates decay of the vital system, and characterises age. (357-58)
19. If the skin be not fine, soft, and white, delicate, thin and transparent, fresh and animated; if the complexion be not pure and vivid; if the hair be not fine, soft, and luxuriant; and if the nails be not smooth, transparent, and rose-coloured: because these likewise show the feebleness of that system which is most important to woman. (358)

So basically you needed to be reasonably fat and untanned to be considered beautiful.

It's amazing to see the aesthetic preferences point for point completely invert over the last 150 years.

Back then a double chin was the hottest feature a woman could have.

Now to be thin, bony, angular and tanned is considered beautiful.