Originally Posted by lightsky
j lo, for example, has curvy hips. curvy hips, as i've already explained, are nature's signal to men of a woman's sexual maturity, her ability to concieve, carry and give birth. it is THIS aspect of j lo that interests me, because it is precisely this aspect of j lo that has universal appeal to men, and NOT j lo herself or her "body type". in other words, virtually all men will agree that hips that stand out from the waist is an attractive feature in women, even if they don't like j lo's body type or how far her hips stick out. it's the underlying principle of "shapely hips" that is germane, not the individual women, type, or hips.
So what you are saying that "hips that stick out" is a completely subjective measurement
. There are lots of guys who think Adrianna Lima's hips stick out enough to be attractive ( I don't think I've ever seen a non plus-size model who's waist and hips were the same dimension). Maybe you should just come right out and tell me what the whole point of putting down supermodels is, because its obvious that the above post has nothing to do with it. You just it yourself.
the other thing you fail to understand is that to the extent i think there are any body types that have a "universal" appeal, it is NOT a body type that is "universally attractive" - because there are many body types that have widespread appeal (see my list) - but rather body types that are universally UNATTRACTIVE. the excessively skinny chick
is, i believe, universally unattractive. yes, there will be some men who have a fetish for this kind of thing and there may be the odd culture which appreciates it because it has survival value in their unique environment
; but by and large the vast majority of men will find this body type repugnant. why? because they violate the principle of insufficient body mass that i laid out earlier. ditto for the "morbidly obese" body type.
I wish you'd stop beating around the bush and give us what your HARD definition of excessively skinny is. In my, and many, many other people's minds, supermodels are not
excessively skinny. In my opinion, Nicole Ritchie
at one point was excessively skinny. And yet, someone still managed to impregnate her, leading one to believe that my version of excessively skinny isn't shared by at some people, and its not stopping her from bearing children. I have never seen an excessively skinny supermodel.
You can say, "the vast majority of men" find excessively skinny women repugnant, but I am telling you that the vast majority of men have extremely divergent opinions on what excessively skinny looks like
, and I'm willing to bet that at least half of them don't consider Supermodels to be excessively
I don't find excessively skinny women attractive either, for the record.
reread this if you have to. i am interested in the underlying principles of beauty, the reasons why we find some women beautiful and not others. i'm not interested in particular women or types except insofar as they do or do not represent these principle(s).
Thats the problem, your ideas regarding "underlying principals" are flawed by your assumption that everyone shares your values. They don't.
Originally Posted by lightsky
now, to answer your points in detail.
but you said i claimed there was "one universally attractive body type". so now you admit you were wrong, and you're backtracking to cover up your mistake. shame on you, slim!
that women built more like J-lo were considered more attractive than women built like Adrianna Lima everywhere except the US and Europe. That is
what you said. If you weren't referring to her body type
, your choice of the words "built like" were VERY POOR. If I were to say that a woman was built more like like Oprah Winfrey, what would you think that I meant?
The "underlying principals" of physical beauty (at least the ones you've mentioned which all happen to be below the neck) and her "body type" in regards to any woman, are the SAME DAMN THING.
"women built more like j lo than ms lima" is a reference to the many real women around the world who men find appealing
, and NOT to j lo herself. and the emphasis on "built like" is no accident. the point wasn't that j lo is a "real woman" who has universal appeal. it is that j lo embodies some qualities that many real women share
and that many
Oh, so now we are down to "many", not "normal", "regular", "all
latin, black, and arab guys", "most" or "a vast majority" as before.
I must be getting to you. You are becoming more realistic with every change in your position.
not only is that what i meant to say, that is what i did say:
Its pretty clear what you said from the quote I posted. Everyone got it but you.
the "average" guy doesn't represent "every" guy, slim. if the average japanese guy is 5'5", that doesn't mean that all japanese guys are 5'5"!
"average guy" simply means "many", and sometimes even "most", guys.
this is so obvious, only someone playing with words would bring it up.
Actually, using your analogy the way you are using it, it doesn't mean "many" or even "most". It just means that over the RANGE OF HEIGHTS RECORDED, you can add up the sum and divide by the total amount of numbers and get the height of 5'5". It is the rough median of a widely divergent group of numbers, hardly representative of any actual physical data more specific than that. I'm sure that many Japanese men are
5'5" - but due to the effect of standard deviation from the mean, there are going to be at least as many, if not more people
that are over and under 5'5" than are exactly that height.
It's a little different when you aren't measuring quantitative
numbers. Which is why your opinion that "average" people like anything
cannot possibly be true, considering that nobody has ever bothered to analyze or define what is considered "attractive" in that area on more than the most basic level. Yes, women with hips larger than their waists are considered attractive. BUT HOW MUCH LARGER is purely subjective, and to the best of my knowledge has never been measured on a person by person basis of any large and diverse control group by a credible source besides the extremely limited studies on the "golden ratio" of waist to hip proportion. Which most supermodels fall squarely into, (including Kate Moss and Adriana Lima), Marylin Monroe, Twiggy, Sophia Loren, Jennifer Lopez, and most other attractive women. The other study that you might want to look at is the various BMI attractiveness studies. From the preliminary indications, BMI has more precise bearing on attractiveness than the waist to hip ratio.
The women found most
attractive have a BMI index of 17 to 20. The average BMI of a Western supermodel is 18 which means that most people studied found them attractive, thus again disproving your argument that most people don't find them appealing.
huh?! so if the average japanese guy is 5' 5", that means the 5'7" or 5'1" guys are "deviants"?!
That is what you seem to be implying. What you implied was that people who didn't find large hips and asses attractive were not "average". (which we must assume that you just "made up" since to the best of my knowledge no such study exists)
well, if you say so, pee wee. you're japanese, not me.
I'm as Irish as I am Japanese. And in reality I'm neither, I'm an American.
do you have a point?
so long as "universal", when speaking about "body types", is not misinterpreted to mean "everyone", then i've ALWAYS maintained that some women have widespread appeal. just look at my list.
Yes, your list is quite convincing. I don't doubt that many men find J-Lo and Kim Kardashian attractive. That is not what we have been arguing. I personally think J-Lo is pretty hot, and Kim K horrible. But the fact remains that your list of women with widespread appeal is not complete
. You are only listing the women with "widespread appeal" that YOU happen to agree with, and not the ones that actually happen to have widespread appeal. So your list is wrong. Every scientific study available proves my point (supermodels are indeed attractive) and disproves yours (that most people find supermodels unattractive) I could give a rats ass about your personal preferences. You are wrong about "most people".
the only things that are truly "universal" and appeal to (virtually) everyone are the underlying principles. and these are based on the time-tested survival value of evolved human qualities and attributes.
get it, now?
I have gotten it much better than you, apparently.
i've been consistent from the get-go, saying that it is the underlying principles that are germane. you continue to miss this point. see above.
No, YOU see above.
compare a sm to the average woman of that height, and you will find she is alarmingly slight. compare a sm to the average woman with those measurements, and you will find she is amazingly tall.
Again, your point is moot. They are Supermodels, not average women. They are also not "alarmingly slight" they have BMI's below the mean average, but within
the category found "most attractive" by the most males studied.
The size 0 woman is typically 5'4". yet she has the same hips as a much taller sm!
I'd like to see you come up with any REAL evidence to prove that this means anything or that it is anything other than made up nonsense. Women's clothes manufacturers do not have a standardized "0" size, and they lie like dogs in order to flatter their clients, so I have no idea how you can with a straight face, say "typically", an assertion which can not be accurately proven on a scale outside a particular store and may have nothing at all to do with what a supermodel wears. A person who wears a size 0 at Banana Republic or Old Navy is wearing what is probably a size 2, 4 or even 8 at another store.
sms are freakishly skinny by the standards of the average woman. they lie way out on the end of the distribution.
if they are a little bigger than some models, well, that's great. but most models (at that level) are uber thin. so being a little bigger than uber thin is like the guy with the 75 iq saying that he isn't dumb at all because the guy next to him is a 65!
You are freakishly obsessed with "average" which still actually means nothing in the context you are using it in.
The "average" AMERICAN woman between the ages of 17 and 30 in various studies done in the past few years is static right around 23 on the BMI chart. (BMI is generally lower for tall people, higher for short) Which is within 2-3 point of the supermodel's average BMI of 18 considering that the average modern supermodel's height puts her amongst the top 5% of measured women.
a 5'10" 125lb under
35 year old woman is quoted as "desirable" and "healthy" with a BMI of 18 on the US index chart.
Originally Posted by lightsky
so you're saying there are no differences at all between cultures? that, for example, japanese men prefer the same things as black men in america?
everyone knows this is nonsense.
Oh really? I'd like to see you prove that. Otherwise, I'll stick with this
Originally Posted by North American Association For The Study Of Obesity
Participants were 801 women and 428 men: 23% Asian, 45% Hispanic, 17% black, and 15% white. The figure rating scale was used to rate: body dissatisfaction, attractive male and female shapes, acceptable female size, and perceptions of underweight to obese female figures.
In summary, when controlling for age, BMI, and educational level, for men there were no ethnic differences in perceptions of attractive and acceptable figures, and for women there were very few ethnic differences. White women did think that men preferred a thinner figure, but this difference was small.
in fact, just to give you one example, i read the summary of a study that looked at the preferences of black and white men in the states. there was a measurable and statistically significant difference between these racial groups. not surprisingly, the black guys preferred bigger women than the white guys, confirming the common stereotypes.
Find it. We'll see who's study is more credible.
despite wide invididual variation, culture, in the main, has predictable effects on individual preferences and choices.
Yes, very predictable, just not necessarily in the way you mean.
and you think the distributions of africans, cubans, mexicans, asians would be exactly the same within each of these groups?
Yep. As shown in the aforementioned study.
you think just as many japanese as africans will find her butt attractive?
Maybe, but since I have come up with proof, and you have come up with nothing but stereotype, supposition, bias, bullshit, and static for dozens of pages now, maybe YOU are the one who's insane.
i see. so you're a principled thief? how salutory.
I think you misunderstand the point of my post. I didn't steal on principal, I steal because I have contempt for the principals.
and if you feel so strongly about these "scum", why do you even bother to WATCH THE VIDEO? or talk about these people on public boards (which only generates more buzz)?
How do you know they are scum? I implied no such thing. I said that Kim Kardashian was a spoiled debutante who got paid 2 million dollars to sell her sex tape to people who would exploit her level of minor celebrity to try and get even richer than they already are. All of which is true.
but WTF are YOU even watching this in the first place??? you think her butt is "grotesque"! why are you watching a PORN video of a chick with a "grotesque butt"?
you're a f*&$&) holier-than-thou hypocrite, slim.
Really? I'm a hypocrite? Fascinating. You are an idiot. Have you ever eaten food that tasted so bad that you spit out? Why did you put it in your mouth if you didn't like the taste of it? Hypocrite!!! God, you are so dumb. How was I supposed to know her ass was faker than a 3 dollar bill before I watched the video? Its not like she was famous BEFORE that..
And if you are going to swear when you call me names, don't be such a pussy about it.
at least i don't look at sms. i've never even seen these girls before this thread.
Funny, you seem to be plenty famiiar with them. You mentioned Cindy Crawford, Kate Moss, and etc. by name and generally know what they look like. Are you just guessing about all this stuff or just making it up? That may explain why you don't know what the hell you are talking about.
no it's not "purely subjective". if sms types have no problems surviving, why the hell aren't there many, many more of them? why hasn't evolution selected for this type if they are so beautiful and healthy?
you have never answered this question.
You seem to misunderstand the concept of evolution, genetics, and pretty much everything. I'm getting tired of explaining things to you which you ignore and move on to your next inane point (or repeat the same one several times, and then change it so that you don't look like an idiot when I get around to properly addressing it)
If it makes you feel any better, humans HAVE been evolving to be taller over the course of history (which also means proportionately thinner and with longer extremities than, for example, our olde medieval ancestors.)
Give it time, man, time. If things keep progressing along the same scale as they have in the past, a few hundred years or so, we will all be seven plus feet tall and some idiot will be bitching about how the 250lb models are way underweight and look like little boys. And you and I will likely still be having this argument.
and if we humor you and consider this point, then the images that come to mind are nude paintings from europe and classical greek sculptures, and the figures of feminine beauty there were NOT thin at all, but actually quite fat by our modern standards.
but since this is your claim, go ahead and prove it. go and fetch the citations that show everything you're claiming here.
You are so lazy you are going to make me do this myself aren't you. Well, not tonight pal. Look it up your damn self. Take the time periods I mentioned and examine the body shapes prevalent in the artwork of the period.
You will see the ideal body shape portrayed in media go from fat to thin to fat to thin to fat to thin about a half dozen times, with stops on the way for curvaceous, and the strange "emaciated pregnancy" period, where you weren't considered feminine unless you were gravid and malnourished.
you never got started, slim.
Not only did I start, I FINISHED ALREADY and am waiting for you to catch up. Obviously you are so convinced you are right, you refuse to acknowledge how overwhelmingly one sided my argument against you is. You have given me nothing to prove your points. I have given you at least half a dozen threads with at least a kernel of factual information in them to prove mine. When are you going to start backing up your position with more than bullshit and juvenile tactics?
when exactly do you think human evolution started, slim? in 10,000 bc?!
Again, you are an idiot. No. This is when people started creating and storing lasting
art, sculpture, and etc. specifically of the female form for future generations to peruse, which is the best indication we have of the idealized female form of the day, which WAS THE ENTIRE POINT of the post you just ignored, and this very reason for this thread!
this is easy to explain. people adapt to the environments in which they find themselves. sumer, babylon, etc lie in cooler climes where a larger body helps preserve precious body heat. conversely, egypt and africa lie in warmer climes where smaller bodies assist in heat dissipation. thin is better in warmer climates. but TOO thin is not good anywhere.
Oh really? I hate to point out your further ignorance, but observe the following map:
Look at Iraq. See Baghdad and Al Hillah. Ancient Sumeria was right near the present day Baghdad, Babylon was near present day Al Hillah. Most of the major seats of power of the Egyptian empire, which were only roughly 900 miles away on nearly the same latitude.
There's a reason why all the cities in that area were built near rivers. THE WHOLE AREA IS A HOT ASS DESERT.