Originally Posted by lightsky
principles, slim. not "body types".
indeed, nowhere have i even implied, much less said, that there is "one universally attractive body type". in fact, i acknowledged that there are several. for example:
Originally Posted by lightsky
your average guy around the world prefers women built more like j lo than ms lima. latin guys, black guys, arab guys - they all like da big booty. it's only the skinny white guys in the us and europe that lust after skinny adolescent chicks. the rest prefer real women.
Well, actually, what you did was throw out sweeping generalizations
as to what "cultures" and "average guys" find attractive. And you also stated that there is such a thing as a "real woman" which everyone in the world outside of the US and Europe who is not skinny and white find attractive. Which is patently untrue, because I am an average guy, and so are most of the other people here. (nor am I skinny OR white)
What you meant to say was, SOME PEOPLE prefer women build more like J Lo. Because what you are otherwise implying with the above statement is that anyone who disagrees with you is not normal or has deviant tastes, which is untrue to the extreme. If your "average guy" around the world prefers women "built like J Lo" then you are obviously arguing that J Lo has a universally appealing body. The fact that you often contradict yourself, backtrack, and change your position has no bearing on the fact that you have been wrong from the get-go, and have not gotten any closer to being right over the course of 16+ pages.
do these women all have the same body type? NO! yet they all have wide appeal to many men.
Wait a minute... now you are contradicting yourself again. See Below.
Originally Posted by lightsky
some well known gals who are built like real women
What you meant was that "real women" aren't built like anything. A real woman has female reproductive organs. As I have offered evidence (believe it or not, its more proof than you've offered on anything) that the women you posted have extremely varying body types, you can have NO POSSIBLE POINT with the post you made. You might as well throw Adrianna Lima on you list, because she also has wide appeal to many men. DO YOU HAVE A POINT???
like you said, slim: first, learn to read; then argue.
It would be a lot easier to read your posts and respond to them if you had a discernible point that didn't change every five minutes.
i said that there are principles specific to individual cultures, and i believe models are an example of this. they are a recent cultural
phenomenon and a direct result of the unusual affluence of our times. however, the widespread aversion to the uber-thin profiles of models is the result of principles laid down by evolution that have obtained since man's earliest steps on this blessed planet.
But you have yet to address the point I raised eariler that only a small minority of Supermodels
have been "uber-thin", which is a subjective measurement anyways, seeing as what is "thin" to you may be "normal" to someone else, therefore the whole "history of the world" crap you keep bringing up is meaningless. Supermodels are not for the most part malnourished looking, nor are they generally unhealthy looking to most people. We are not discussing "models", BTW as you keep referring to. We are discussing the 30 or 40 women (and two men) in the history of the modern world classified as SUPERMODELS.
proportion is one principle. but it isn't the only one, as you seem to think, or even the overiding one. there are times when it is superceded by more important ones.
I know, this is what I've been trying to tell you for like 18 pages now. I'm glad you finally agree. Good lord.
also, i said there are principles specific to individual cultures. for example, many cultures prefer women with curvy hips and butts. kim k would be considered very attractive to those people. the japanese culture, otoh, prefers women who look like boys (with short, stocky, crooked legs). and so they
don't find kim k attractive.
Here you go again with "many cultures". A meaningless and incorrect stereotype, it has no bearing on our conversation at all, and yet you keep coming back to it. We are not discussing your broad over generalizations of the "many cultures" that you think you know about. Each individual person has a different idea of what he finds attractive. There are doubtless as many people in the world who find Kim Kardashian's butt grotesque as those who would find it attractive. There is certainly a split opinion in our own little microcosm of the forum. There are Africans, Cubans, Mexicans, Americans, Asians, Europeans, and etc. who like a variety of different body types, sizes, hair colors, cup sizes, facial features and etc.
sure. and that would explain why YOU spent $$ and at least 40 minutes of your time watching that kim k video
care to explain that little contradiction?
Actually, I spent exactly $0 on it, allow me to introduce the concept of the internet. Things that other people pay for are available free here, for people like me who choose to violate copyright laws which generally are not enforced or enforcable rather than support the inane spending habits of spoiled D list celebrities and porn distributors that buy the rights to the videos for a couple million bucks. (even though it usually works)
And one doesn't have to subject himself to all 40 whatever minutes of boredom, its called a "slider" it resides at the bottom of most electronic video viewing applications and allows you to fast forward, reverse, jump ahead or back, and occasionally watch things at high speed.
the golden rule would be one example of the principle of proportion. but, like i said, there are other principles that can and do supercede it. in this case, it is the principle that there should not be so much (or so little) body mass that it impairs an individual's chances for survival and reproduction.
Purely subjective. Supermodels obviously have no such impairment They survive, have children, and etc. just like (or perhaps better) than many other women. Your point?
in the types of environments in which we evolved, "morbid obesity" would have done just this, affecting not only a person's mobility, but also his ability to secure enough food to sustain his larger body mass. in warmer climes, a large body mass would have hindered heat transfer and significantly increased the chances of heat related death. and then there are the health issues associated with being too fat, especially for women and its effects on childbearing.
"morbid obesity" did not have positive survival value; therefore, it was not considered physically attractive.
Yes, as we've scientifically determined, morbidly obese women are generally not considered attractive in this day and age. Thanks for the update.
now, most of us don't live in the conditions that our ancestors did, but nevertheless we've inherited their "prejudices" because they proved to be so reliable for so many years.
hence, the common aversion to very fat people.
the same principle and a similar argument apply to people who are too thin. up until this century, the struggle to secure food has been a perennial problem. most people lived on the verge of starvation and famines were not at all uncommon. (this situation still exists in some parts of the world.) people who were too thin did not have the bodily resources (ie, fat, etc) to survive the inevitable episodes of scarcity. they were literally one step removed from death.
therefore, an AVERSION to thinness evolved as as a natural defense against this vulnerability. (the fact that thin people tended to die more quickly and in larger numbers also helped to prune their representation in human populations.)
in short: people found an excessive thinness UNATTRACTIVE because it had negative survival value.
See, this is what I'm talking about. You present this stuff as if its FACT when in FACT it is not.
It is relatively common (provable!) knowledge that throughout known history the body type presented as the ideal in art, literature, and etc. (whether personal taste was different or not) by these "cultures" you are so fond of generalizing varies as much (or more) than the current opinions on this thread. How can "evolution" explain the fact that the idealized female body in Europe went from exceedingly obese in 10,000 b.c., to lithe and even muscular in the second century b.c., to emphasis on the shapely buttocks and waist with a modest bosom in 100 b.c., to being extremely thin and boyish and lithe in the 800's to the voluptuous ideal of the 1400's to being portly again in the 1600s, to extremely thin again in the 1700's (women went so far as to surgically remove some of their ribs to try and meet the physical ideal of the time), back to curvaceous at the end of the 1700's, back to voluptuous,portly, heavy and rotund in the mid 1800's? Should I continue? Europe is easy because of the excellent preservation of art, literature, and documents that surpasses that of almost any other culture on earth. Although to some extent he case can also be made for what is currently the Middle East and Africa. Look at the women depicted in terracotta reliefs from Sumer, Babylon and Mesopotamia. Curvaceous. And yet, the body types found in hieroglyphs, statues, and reliefs throughout Egypt and Africa during the time of the Pharaohs? Thin. Damn near all of them.
now, turn the clock forward to modern times. the industrial revolution has pretty much solved the food supply problem in the west. people here no longer face the specter of starvation as a real threat. and being skinny, therefore, no longer represents a health risk.
hence, the emergence of the modern, uber skinny model as the new ideal of feminine beauty.
but you can't erase thousands of years of famine and disease. this is etched into our dna, and our cultural and (if you're into jung) our collective consciousness.
hence, the persistent and widespread aversion to skinny models.
you'll never be accused of writing elegantly, thinking concisely, or arguing cogently, slim. i can guarantee you that.
You'll never be accused of being able to grasp fundamental concepts of history, art, or science. You will also never be accused of making sense, having a cohesive argument (or knowing one when it hits you in the head), or knowing when you are wrong and should shut up before digging a hole you can't talk your way out of.
you're trying too hard, slim. the last time you got this worked up you walked right into a trap and told everyone about your wee wee thing. you don't wanna repeat that mistake again, now, do you?
Actually, this is your poor reading comprehension at work again. I never said anything about the size of my penis other than that I was comfortable with it. It was you who first insinuated it was smaller than yours, regardless of your protestations to the contrary, you have proven your true intentions with your continued attempts at provocation. You continue to assert that yours is bigger, which I said I had no problem with you doing because it obviously makes you feel better about your annoying personality, lack of any discernible intelligence, and poor grasp of reality.
stating something is not the same thing as proving it. you've done none of the latter, and far too much of the former.
Perhaps you need reading glasses. I have provided at least 100% more solid evidence to support my position than you have yours. If ANYONE reading this thread disagrees, please draw my attention to anything I may have missed.
no. in their case, it's because they've been out-argued. in yours, it's because you've been out-argued AND outclassed. that's why you can't accept defeat gracefully and keep inventing silly excuses for your inadequate performance.
oh, and then there's also that "little thing". you need to keep up this charade to SAVE FACE, an uber japanese thing.
You make me laugh.
You keep deluding yourself like that (and making judgments on my motives) and you make yourself look like more of a fool than you already have.
A: You have out-argued nobody except in MAYBE your own mind. I have a hard time thinking that even YOU really believe that.
B: I am not really concerned about "saving face". I may look like a Jap, but I sure as hell don't think like one. Remember, I'm the guy who doesn't give a crap that you keep insulting my penis? I'm just having an extremely enjoyable time exposing you as an annoying buffoon, a troll, and a fraud. (I feel like I'm having extraordinary success here!)
Plus I just like to win. I'm a big, hairy American winning machine! Yee Haw!
if you're rhetorical ability is any indication, you don't have the talent, either.
Oh, I'm not sure about that. I think that at least 99.999% of the people in this thread think you are an idiot, just like I do. I'm just waiting until you realize it... then... MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!
well, it is
annoying to lose an argument, isn't it?
I'm not sure, I'll let you know if it ever happens.
when it's a sacred cow that's been sacrificed...
Sacred cow? Whew. Thats a stretch. Are you meaning to say that you think that Supermodels are immune to criticism? Or that the modern feminine body image is? Or maybe just that you think that I'm immune to criticism?
Any way you cut it, none of the above are accurately described as a 'sacred cow'. Plenty of criticism has been leveled at all three things. Many times, by people MUCH smarter than you, and occasionally even with an actual point to make.
another excuse: so everyone who disagrees with you must be a "troll"?. hmm, how droll.
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...
now i can see why the imperial navy was able to recruit kamikazes.
enjoy your mission, slim. cause you're going up in flames, pee wee...
Hey everyone, look how big lightsky's penis is! God gave him that huge penis because he forgot to give him brains, personality, manners, a positive role model, good looks, parents that loved him, grooming habits, common sense, a pleasant or neutral body odor, taste, humility, or any other positive characteristics !
Do you see how utterly juvenile and retarded that sounds? Unfortunately this is what every single argument you make devolves into. Talking about my penis. The only possible reason you keep bringing that up is because its the only thing you can say at that I won't instantly logically refute or prove false. Why? Because honestly, the size of my penis is none of your business, no matter how badly you want to see it.