So you think that you're in shape?

[slcsteve]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/entertainmentfinlandoffbeat

[Obsessed]

:lol:

"Honey, do I feel fat?"

[Fnord5]

And that's when the fight started...

[burnwood]

If the shape is a large beachball, then the answer is yes.

[DaveAri]

i'm in shape, round is a shape.

[Wendy]

I would like to know what defines "in shape" for men and women. I would say my brothers are in excellent shape but what would the doctors say? For some reason women think they have to be 5'7 or taller and weigh less than 105 pounds to be in shape. I bike 16-18 miles every day and run/walk 2 miles but I will say in the public eyes these days I must have my ribs showing to be in shape.

[SepticTank]

... but I will say in the public eyes these days I must have my ribs showing to be in shape.

The public needs an optician then... ladies need curves, not too many curves though - who wants to cuddle a step-ladder? :eek:

[ouch]

In America we have a similar event, sponsored by The National Hernia Foundation.

[nikkuchan]

I wonder what’s more dangerous, this or cheese rolling

[PTurchan]

Reminds me of Wy8hOOvM0t0

[Stubblefield]

That is actually a pretty neat competition. Not strongman by any means, but it is still cool. Carrying another human is somewhat tough, actually.

[Wendy]

The public needs an optician then... ladies need curves, not too many curves though - who wants to cuddle a step-ladder? :eek:

I agree. Stick women seem to be in though. Look at the young girls these days you wonder if they even eat. There are becoming way to many eating disorders in young children.

[Brodirt]

I would like to know what defines "in shape" for men and women. I would say my brothers are in excellent shape but what would the doctors say? For some reason women think they have to be 5'7 or taller and weigh less than 105 pounds to be in shape. I bike 16-18 miles every day and run/walk 2 miles but I will say in the public eyes these days I must have my ribs showing to be in shape.


The public needs an optician then... ladies need curves, not too many curves though - who wants to cuddle a step-ladder? :eek:

This short video says a million words on this topic!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYhCn0jf46U

[Mrs. Chip]

Dove's campaign for real beauty is wonderful and what Tyra Banks is doing is great as well. She is talking about how the beauty industry affects women and how women are so quick to label other women. I watched her show all last summer and it was eye opening. She is trying to have women change their view on the female body...it is very difficult to do!

Here are a bunch of her clips on You Tube, (http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=tyra+banks+show+body+issues&search_type=&aq=0&oq=tyra+banks+show+body+)there are so many to choose between. The first 5 are clips from her show.

[Wendy]

This short video says a million words on this topic!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYhCn0jf46U

I have looked at many pictures of women before and after and it is amazing what makeup, airbrushing and a computer can do. Some of these women are down right unattractive.

[NightLad]

That is very true. I was watching something similar about how body dysmorphia also affects boys, but nobody ever talks about it. 4.4 percent admitted to having used anabolic steroids in High School, though the real number is thought to be much higher, and a large number develop eating disorders that mostly go untreated because they are seen as a "girls issue."

We hear so much about Barbie affecting negative self-image issues with women, but nobody ever talks about GI Joe with his ripped abs and forearms twice the side of his head.

Check out this 1min clip about GI Joe’s evolution from the 60s to 90s, then look at the 2000’s model right at the end. Scary.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkbnRrzt18U

[Wendy]

That is very true. I was watching something similar about how body dysmorphia also affects boys, but nobody ever talks about it. 4.4 percent admitted to having used anabolic steroids, though the real number is thought to be much higher, and a large number develop eating disorders that mostly go untreated because they are seen as a "girls issue."

We hear so much about Barbie affecting negative self-image issues with women, but nobody ever talks about GI Joe with his ripped abs and forearms twice the side of his head.

Check out this 1min clip about GI Joe’s evolution from the 60s to 90s, then look at the 2000’s model right at the end. Scary.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkbnRrzt18U

That clip is so true to todays expectations of the way we must look. I have a 7 yr old step son that I raise and he is already having issues with size. He will be 8 in October and just now weighs 45lbs. My 3 yr old daughter is less than a head shorter than him and can take his little butt down. He has made the statement many times that he wishes he had a bigger mom so he could be bigger.

[Brodirt]

That clip is so true to todays expectations of the way we must look. .

I don't buy the action figure stuff, otherwise think of all the issues these boys would have!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lw17Pb7Nso

[_JP_]

I agree. Stick women seem to be in though. Look at the young girls these days you wonder if they even eat. There are becoming way to many eating disorders in young children.


Some kids just grow up skinny and put on weight later. That's what happened to me, but I never became overweight, I just got up to the weight that the experts say I should be at.

My brother is a different story. He was the scrawniest of us, so much so that Mom considered having him hospitalized but the doctor wouldn't go for that. Today, he is the fat one with his belly hiding his belt buckle. Go figure.

[Kratos]

Bones are for dogs. I don't understand the obsession with being thin, or the tanning bed. Between plastic surgery and steroids, some men and women are turning themselves into caricatures.

[Wendy]

I don't buy the action figure stuff, otherwise think of all the issues these boys would have!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lw17Pb7Nso

I do not think it is action figure based only. This issue starts in the home with the parents teaching that everone is their own person and very special in every way. BUT two adults cannot reverse what society leads these kids to believe. I am not suggesting we should have fat action figures nor models because that is not a healthy lifestyle but "normal" everyday looking people that are not airbrushed to perfection would be nice. My 7 year old niece is so big, not fat but big. Her father is 6'2 and mother 5'9 she weighs in around 75 my step son who is 2 weeks younger is 45lbs. His mother is a tiny 5 footer and father only 5'10. Both of these kids struggle because they are not "normal". They shared the same 1st grade teacher and she was biggest and he was smallest. My son does not have issues because of action figures, he does not play with them, the same as I do not allow my daughter to play with Barbie it is to superficial. The point I try to make is that there are not any "normal" kids in magazines, toys etc. Of the kids programs my children watch one of them has an unattractive heavy set boy. When is the last time you saw a woman in a magazine that was not borderline anorexic? Or a man that does not have the perfect 6 pack and perfect flowing hair?

[Emmett]

This short video says a million words on this topic!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYhCn0jf46U

I find it ironic that Dove is criticizing the cosmetics industry for unrealistic beauty standards when they themselves are part of that industry. The very purpose of cosmetics is to enhance natural features. It seems Dove is saying "We think you are more beautiful than those other companies do, but you are still not beautiful enough. Buy our products to make yourself just the right amount of beautiful."

[Oldhope]

That is very true. I was watching something similar about how body dysmorphia also affects boys, but nobody ever talks about it. 4.4 percent admitted to having used anabolic steroids in High School, though the real number is thought to be much higher, and a large number develop eating disorders that mostly go untreated because they are seen as a "girls issue."

We hear so much about Barbie affecting negative self-image issues with women, but nobody ever talks about GI Joe with his ripped abs and forearms twice the side of his head.

Check out this 1min clip about GI Joe’s evolution from the 60s to 90s, then look at the 2000’s model right at the end. Scary.

(snip)


I blame Arnold Schwarzenegger and Hulk Hogan. When they entered pop culture in the 80's was when cartoons and comic books and action figures really started to change. The gym craze started and soon sports which had always encouraged athletes not to get "too bulky" changed their stance and began encouraging athletes to start weight training for more power. Actors followed suit and soon all our heroes were musclebound.


I recently read a statistic along the lines that in America, the average woman is 5'4" and weighs in the 140's. Conversely, the average model is 5'10" and weighs around 110.

[Mrs. Chip]

I find it ironic that Dove is criticizing the cosmetics industry for unrealistic beauty standards when they themselves are part of that industry. The very purpose of cosmetics is to enhance natural features. It seems Dove is saying "We think you are more beautiful than those other companies do, but you are still not beautiful enough. Buy our products to make yourself just the right amount of beautiful."

I don't think that is what they are trying to say. I think they are trying to make us aware of what is going on around us. They are responding to what is going on around us and what it is psychologically doing to society. They want girls and women to see that they are beautiful and don`t need to strive for `artificial` perfection. They are selling their products as beauty enhancers not beauty creators.

Dove has put real women, of different races and ages, in their ads to make the point. Notice the ads on the buildings. Unfortunately the sound was
disabled due to copyright issues.

O3CBIOZNpfc

Here is another about how age isn`t a bad thing in our society focused on youth.vilUhBhNnQc

[Stubblefield]

I would like to know what defines "in shape" for men and women. I would say my brothers are in excellent shape but what would the doctors say? For some reason women think they have to be 5'7 or taller and weigh less than 105 pounds to be in shape. I bike 16-18 miles every day and run/walk 2 miles but I will say in the public eyes these days I must have my ribs showing to be in shape.Good question. I have to say that in our current culture we equate/confuse 'being in shape' or 'health' with a certain look--thin, six pack, tall/willowy, and for a guy big biceps and chest--but this was not always the ideal. (I would consider you 'in shape' BTW) Before the rise of bodybuilding culture and the commercial big-box gym, the ideal was much different. It was understood that to be in shape meant that you not only looked strong, but were strong enough to perform certain lifts or tasks.

Bill Pearl said it best:
“Bob Hoffman, Peary Rader, Bill Pearl and John Grimek preached the basic idea for many years. They firmly believed that when people add muscle to their frame, they should also enhance their strength. To have huge arms and a massive chest but be weaker than the average man on the street was a shame. And it still is.”

But all that went out the window in the late 50's with the discovery of anabolic steroids and the Weider brothers taking control of bodybuilding in the USA. Before Joe Weider ran bodybuilding, it was controlled by the AAU, which had a points system for competitors. To make max points, you had to earn some of them in an actual sport. Most lifters found it easiest to compete in the Olympic lifts, since they were in the gym anyway. Not only did most competitors of the era look strong, but they were strong, very strong.


I blame Arnold Schwarzenegger and Hulk Hogan. When they entered pop culture in the 80's was when cartoons and comic books and action figures really started to change. The gym craze started and soon sports which had always encouraged athletes not to get "too bulky" changed their stance and began encouraging athletes to start weight training for more power. Actors followed suit and soon all our heroes were musclebound.
Arnold was (mostly) a cog in the machine, and happened to be in the right place at the right time. The movie Pumping Iron helped make him/his ego (and bodybuilding) household words in America, but the person most responsible for the shift to appearance based training (as opposed to strength) is Joe Weider. Joe tossed out the old points system in bodybuilding, meaning you did not have to compete in a sport. Most competitors at that point focused exclusively on their appearance, and did little strength training (Arnold and Franco were two of the exceptions) Also, most competitors found steroids enhanced recovery times and would allow you to train more frequently, which meant you could get bigger faster. Everyone took them back then, except for perhaps Lou Ferrigno. And machines made it possible to focus on specific body parts, thereby divorcing your training from any strength objective whatsoever.

Bill Pearl, again:
“I admit that the idea of athletic points was rather ridiculous, but when Joe got rid of them, he threw out the baby with the bathwater. Bodybuilders gradually stopped doing the quick lifts and heavy overhead presses, and most stopped training with heavy weights altogether. During the ‘70s bodybuilders did have the influence of Arnold Schwarzenegger, Franco Columbu, Ken Waller and Dave Draper, but after that the idea of doing heavy barbell work practically disappeared.
Once muscle-enhancing drugs, both legal and illegal, became readily available to the average bodybuilder he no longer had to be as concerned with training diligently or systematically, or bother with moving heavy weights. Any routine worked better just as long as he took enough of the right stuff or combinations of the right stuff. That mindset would allow a 250-pound man to use only 225 pounds on his basic exercises and still pack on muscle. So what if he was really weaker than some of the female lightweights at the gym? He looked huge and that was all that seemed to matter. “ Full article here, on Anthony Ditillo’s blog. ( http://ditillo2.blogspot.com/2008/06/look-strong-be-strong-bill-starr.html)

You can also blame the rise of the big box gym and the switch to machine –based training (as opposed to barbell based training like the Olympic lifts), and the movie Pumping Iron. But Joe Weider and his publishing company take the lion’s share of the blame.

But there is a light at the end of the tunnel. As far as the fitness industry goes, there does seem to be a reversal in the trend, a moving away from an obsessive focus on appearance, with companies like CrossFit (http://www.crossfit.com/ ) preaching the benefits of strength/fitness based training. Personally, I think the last thing you should be concerned with when training is how you look.

[Emmett]

I don't think that is what they are trying to say. I think they are trying to make us aware of what is going on around us. They are responding to what is going on around us and what it is psychologically doing to society. They want girls and women to see that they are beautiful and don`t need to strive for `artificial` perfection. They are selling their products as beauty enhancers not beauty creators.



At the bottom, they are a company and their aim is to sell product. I am cynical of any advertising that tells people they are good "as they are". Marketing works by making people feel inadequate. If they felt fine they would not need to buy anything to make them feel/look better! I would not give Dove the benefit of the doubt here, but I know opinion on these ads is mixed.

[Kratos]

Good points, Stubblefield. A lot of people don't even squat or deadlift these days. On the weakling steroid users, that is usually not the case these days, at least around here. Most of those clowns are putting up serious weight. The jumps in poundage are part of what tips you off, in addition to the 25lbs in 6 weeks. Oly lifts and kettlebells are getting more popular, so that's a good thing. Crossfit has definitely helped there.
Guys generally don't feel the pressure as much as girls do, but it's still there. I just don't understand why people's self-images are so tied into the media. I want nothing to do with how the 'roid monkeys look, nor metro-sexual little fancy-lads that I see in magazines and on TV. I can pick out nice things in almost every woman I see, and that's just from appearances. Women, most of all, have a lot of UN-learning to do. Even beautiful girls suffer from this. I see women trying way too hard, what with all the slutty outfits, and stage makeup. Come on! You is gorgeous. No need for all that.

[Obsessed]

Crossfit has definitely helped there.

Not to go off on a tangent (then again, how much can we discuss wife-carrying competitions?), but I just started CrossFit last week after I saw our fellow B&B-er The Nid Hog mention it. What a cool program!

[ogopogo]

Stick women... the other side of the coin is the campaign/movement or whatever you want to call it, to make being fat/obese acceptable.

My g/f is 5'7"/121lbs. When she was in high school her weight was 117. She used to wear size 7/8. Now, years later and 6 lbs heavier, she wears size 4. Sometime in the last decade manufactures have moved the size scale. Maybe to make fat women feel better about fitting into a size 8 when years ago that would've been a size 16?

Another thing is changing the meaning of words. Yesterday she showed me this month's issue of a magazine called All You. There was a spread out about finding the perfect shorts. They showed a line up of women and different body types, though all except 1 were overweight. Among them there were two women, one fat and tall, the other bordering on obese and short. They were listed as "Curvy" and "Petite" respectively.

OK, since when does "fat"="curvy"? Marilyn Monroe was curvy. Scarlett Johanson is curvy. But that woman wasn't.
Same thing with petite. It doesn't mean short and fat. It means small, both in frame and height, not shaped like a small beer keg.

[Kratos]

Stick women... the other side of the coin is the campaign/movement or whatever you want to call it, to make being fat/obese acceptable.

My g/f is 5'7"/121lbs. When she was in high school her weight was 117. She used to wear size 7/8. Now, years later and 6 lbs heavier, she wears size 4. Sometime in the last decade manufactures have moved the size scale. Maybe to make fat women feel better about fitting into a size 8 when years ago that would've been a size 16?

Another thing is changing the meaning of words. Yesterday she showed me this month's issue of a magazine called All You. There was a spread out about finding the perfect shorts. They showed a line up of women and different body types, though all except 1 were overweight. Among them there were two women, one fat and tall, the other bordering on obese and short. They were listed as "Curvy" and "Petite" respectively.

OK, since when does "fat"="curvy"? Marilyn Monroe was curvy. Scarlett Johanson is curvy. But that woman wasn't.
Same thing with petite. It doesn't mean short and fat. It means small, both in frame and height, not shaped like a small beer keg.

+1000. "I'm not fat, I'm big-boned." Honey, I've seen Brontosaurus bones that aren't that big." It's all part of that, politically-correct, sugarcoating the truth garbage.

[Brodirt]

S

My g/f is 5'7"/121lbs. When she was in high school her weight was 117. She used to wear size 7/8. Now, years later and 6 lbs heavier, she wears size 4. Sometime in the last decade manufactures have moved the size scale. Maybe to make fat women feel better about fitting into a size 8 when years ago that would've been a size 16?

OK, since when does "fat"="curvy"? Marilyn Monroe was curvy. Scarlett Johanson is curvy. But that woman wasn't.
Same thing with petite. It doesn't mean short and fat. It means small, both in frame and height, not shaped like a small beer keg.

Don't blame it all on a nefarious plan by clothing manufacturers. There is a distinct possibility that you GFs 6lbs, but smaller size, is attributable to a maturing body and a healthier diet than one tends to eat in college.

I would say that without having seen her that your GF sounds like she is a perfectly fit, healthy and normal sized woman...certainly more desirable than being unhealthy and fashionably thin...no?

I find Scarlet Johansen, Kate Winslet and other "normal" size woman far more attractive than the stick figure look. What is most disturbing though is the naturally unachievable look of big breasts and butt and insanely thin. That look may occur in .0001% of the population without plastic surgery, but so many of celebrities are who are popular have this look. Obviously, the surgery allows them to defy the odds. Maybe they become popular because of it. Anyway, selling this look to young girls is despicable...as a parent of 2 young girls I would advise them that the normal look of, say, Katy Perry or even Hayden Panettiere (but she's pretty thin...it seems to be athletic though), is the way too be, rather than someone like Heidi Montag.

[ogopogo]

Don't blame it all on a nefarious plan by clothing manufacturers. There is a distinct possibility that you GFs 6lbs, but smaller size, is attributable to a maturing body and a healthier diet than one tends to eat in college.

I would say that without having seen her that your GF sounds like she is a perfectly fit, healthy and normal sized woman...certainly more desirable than being unhealthy and fashionably thin...no?
I'm not saying is a nefarious plan by manufacturers. But my gf isn't the only person I've heard to have made a similar comment. Try asking the missus: Honey, do you wear the same size now as you did 10 years ago? But maybe that wouldn't be a good idea. :lol:

My GF fluctuates between 121-125, and I think that's the perfect weight for her. I've seen pictures of her wearing her drill team uniform in high school and I think she was too thin then.


What is most disturbing though is the naturally unachievable look of big breasts and butt and insanely thin. That look may occur in .0001% of the population without plastic surgery, but so many of celebrities are who are popular have this look. Obviously, the surgery allows them to defy the odds. Maybe they become popular because of it. Anyway, selling this look to young girls is despicable...as a parent of 2 young girls I would advise them that the normal look of, say, Katy Perry or even Hayden Panettiere (but she's pretty thin...it seems to be athletic though), is the way too be, rather than someone like Heidi Montag.
I don't like that fake/plastic surgery look either. I don't have any daughters, but I can see how this unhealthy pressure on girls can be worrisome for a parent.
I think that Hayden Panattiere is a good example of a healthy and natural "petite" girl. Same for Natalie Portman, but she's probably "too old" now to use as a reference for your two girls:rolleyes:

[Emmett]

My g/f is 5'7"/121lbs. When she was in high school her weight was 117. She used to wear size 7/8. Now, years later and 6 lbs heavier, she wears size 4. Sometime in the last decade manufactures have moved the size scale. Maybe to make fat women feel better about fitting into a size 8 when years ago that would've been a size 16?



Vanity sizing. It gets worse the more expensive the brand.

[Dubbya]

I would like to know what defines "in shape" for men and women. I would say my brothers are in excellent shape but what would the doctors say? For some reason women think they have to be 5'7 or taller and weigh less than 105 pounds to be in shape. I bike 16-18 miles every day and run/walk 2 miles but I will say in the public eyes these days I must have my ribs showing to be in shape.

The BMI formula used by doctors for so long is now coming into question. Opposition to it says, and is right, that it ignores waist size, bone density, and muscle mass.
It seriously only factors for height and weight.

Cycling that much every day, I would say that you are, for certain, in great shape.

[Kratos]

Vanity sizing. It gets worse the more expensive the brand.

I think that is also why men's pants are sized in a much more practical 32 x 34 or 32 long. It makes a lot more sense, but is not very, delusional, I guess I'll say. I always wondered what some women got out of winching themselves into clothing 2 sizes too small so they could say they fit into it.

[Obsessed]

I think that is also why men's pants are sized in a much more practical 32 x 34 or 32 long. It makes a lot more sense, but is not very, delusional.

Especially with my Levi's where they put the waist size on that patch on the back where it's visible to the public! No delusions at all, unfortunately :lol:

[Brodirt]

Explain underwear sizing to me then...briefs in particular. I have CK, 2xist and Hanes. In all three manufacturers 32 is HUGE and 30 is too tight...what are they trying to convince me of?

[ogopogo]

Vanity sizing. It gets worse the more expensive the brand.
I looked it up and I had no idea this was a well known and documented fact. What a silly thing to do.


Especially with my Levi's where they put the waist size on that patch on the back where it's visible to the public! No delusions at all, unfortunately :lol:

You could do like Seinfeld when he scratches off the 32 and puts in 31. "I don't wanna be a 32":lol:

[Sue]

Vanity sizing. It gets worse the more expensive the brand.

That is very true of women's clothes. I'm a tad over 5' 7". For at least 30 years of my adult life I never weighed more than 120. Depending on the price of the clothes I could wear a size 6 to a size 12...go figure. It's stupid, you can't just grab something without wasting time trying on several sizes.

A man's shirt in a 16 1/2 - 35 fits the same, you can buy it folded and neatly packaged without trying it on, why?

Do you guys just not care? :biggrin:
Sue

[Kratos]

Explain underwear sizing to me then...briefs in particular. I have CK, 2xist and Hanes. In all three manufacturers 32 is HUGE and 30 is too tight...what are they trying to convince me of?

There has always been a size gap. I am in a no-man's land as well. What I've always needed is a 30-32, as opposed to 28-30 or 30-32. I don't know WHAT the deal is. Not enough demand, I guess. The Jockey stuff at Wal-Mart is pretty good. It seems to fall between.

[Mrs. Chip]

At the bottom, they are a company and their aim is to sell product. I am cynical of any advertising that tells people they are good "as they are". Marketing works by making people feel inadequate. If they felt fine they would not need to buy anything to make them feel/look better! I would not give Dove the benefit of the doubt here, but I know opinion on these ads is mixed.

The fact is, a brand must advertise and make money AND skin, hair, ect, does look, feel and 'last' longer when taken care of properly. A consumer must be smart too and not believe all what they hear. When choosing a product, an add does play a roll but so does what the brand stands for. Ex. organic, something 'sexy', for an older person ect...


I think that is also why men's pants are sized in a much more practical 32 x 34 or 32 long. It makes a lot more sense, but is not very, delusional, I guess I'll say. I always wondered what some women got out of winching themselves into clothing 2 sizes too small so they could say they fit into it.
Women come in more varried shapes. Most men have up out. Women have many more outs in different places. :)


That is very true of women's clothes. I'm a tad over 5' 7". For at least 30 years of my adult life I never weighed more than 120. Depending on the price of the clothes I could wear a size 6 to a size 12...go figure. It's stupid, you can't just grab something without wasting time trying on several sizes.


+1! I was shopping 2 days ago and a M was too large and in another brand (in the same store) an XL was too short.

[Sue]

The fact is, a brand must advertise and make money AND skin, hair, ect, does look, feel and 'last' longer when taken care of properly. A consumer must be smart too and not believe all what they hear. When choosing a product, an add does play a roll but so does what the brand stands for. Ex. organic, something 'sexy', for an older person ect...


Women come in more varried shapes. Most men have up out. Women have many more outs in different places. :)



+1! I was shopping 2 days ago and a M was too large and in another brand (in the same store) an XL was too short.

Doesn't that just irk you to no end! I don't enjoy trying on clothes at all, especially the same thing several times in different sizes. Then when you 'think' you know the correct size in that name, you're wrong.

Two of my pet peeves are:
knit tops made for anorexic pre-teen girls or 12 year old boys and cut well above your waist

jeans or slacks cut straight with no discernable waist, when you sit down you have a huge gap that sticks out in the back.

I mainly stick with Levi's, the same size jean always fits. Chadwicks also has clothing for women instead of all teenage type.
Sue

[Kratos]

Women do seem to have more variety, but we guys come in many different shapes and sizes as well. Hence the Big & Tall stores. Some jeans fit my waist, but will be too tight around my thighs and seat. Some 32" waists fit more like 30's, and some 30's fit more like 32's. It's just like the inconsisitencies in badger hair grading!

[TstebinsB]

The public needs an optician then... ladies need curves, not too many curves though - who wants to cuddle a step-ladder? :eek:

+ infinity

As my usual Sophia Loren avatar suggests, I'm big on curvy women, no pun intended. A woman without any curves does absolutely nothing for me. (When I say curvy that includes shapely.) I understand that everyone has their preferences but all the most coveted women in history were full-figured. When did it all change? I bet a woman started this "thin is in" trend. Speaking psychologically, a woman uncomfortable in her own skin can do many sad things and no man can change her opinion of herself.

Instead of going to my HS prom, I went to Venezuela with a few friends. I still have family there. One of the guys was so shocked and enamored by the vast amounts of beautiful women that he almost didn't come back with us. His dad had to threaten to cut him off for him to come to his senses. :001_tt1: :001_tt2: :lol:

EDIT: I forgot to add that he was supposed to attend Boston University. He went to the University of Miami instead. Close enough to the real thing, I guess. :lol::lol::lol:

[Brodirt]

+ infinity
all the most coveted women in history were full-figured. When did it all change?

Hence the term "Rubenesque." His Eve, in Adam and Eve, is an ideal representation of the female form for most of the last 500 years, with the last 40 being the exception.

http://goldenstate.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/rubens_-_adam_et_eve.jpg

Now, in the modern era, I understand that we each have our own tastes, but who is more attractive:
Catherine Zeta Jones, pretty close to the ideal:
http://z.about.com/d/shoes/1/7/g/l/Catherine_Zeta_Jones.jpg

or Cameron Diaz, the modern standard:
http://www.denimblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/cameron-diaz-in-j-and-compa2.jpg

for that matter, how about Cameron Diaz pre-binge and purge era, from The Mask, when she was drop dead gorgeous, not likely to drop dead from starvation:
http://img34.picoodle.com/img/img34/4/7/23/f_CameronDiazm_da22089.jpg

[Kratos]

Big ++++1 BroDirt. In the Mask she was at her finest. I didn't know that was her for the longest time. Now she's damn near gaunt.