Big is NOT beautiful...

I don't know where some of you live but I walk around and see 90% of the woman cleary having some type of serious overweight problem.

Alot of them are clearly obese and do not indicate that they have some type of medical disorder that might be responsible for their problem.

The media has spent so much time focusing on anorexia and bulimia that they have ignored for far too long obesity and how very unhealthy it is. Only recently has awareness been raised about obesity.

Sadly, in the U.S., there is an ongoing campaign to "accept yourself" as you are thus ignoring the dangers surrounding obesity. There is an individualistic streak that runs through Americans and it is usually a good thing but in this case, it can mean disaster for millions of women.

Aside from the medical aspects of this issue, the more aesthetic issues really bring the problem into serious focus.

Contrary to what some people think, beauty is not a learned behavior. There was a study done a few years ago that showed that babies preferred to be cared for by attractive women vs. unattractive women. So the study proved that beauty is instinctive and that society only adds it's own trends to that basis.

So there needs to be a national recognition of the problem and steps taken to get both women and men, but most importantly women since they are the ones bearing children and are most likely to pass on health issues, conscience and active about proper dieting and exercising.

On the flip-side, if every woman looked like Kim Basinger or Pamela Anderson, we'd never get any work done.

 

I don't know where some of you live but I walk around and see 90% of the woman cleary having some type of serious overweight problem.

I've lived all over the country, and there's a rule to this: if the women are fat, so are the men. If the women are skinny, so are the men. Perhaps you haven't noticed it's all the same because you don't check out males.

Alot of them are clearly obese and do not indicate that they have some type of medical disorder that

Ah, interviewed them all, have you? Spoken to every one, so you'll know? And also determined they don't have a medical problem they're unaware of? Dr. Watson has told me so much about you, Mr. Holmes. It's an honor to meet you.

There was a study done a few years ago that showed that babies preferred to be cared for by attractive women vs. unattractive women.

How could the study prove that? Attractive is relative - did the infants explain who they thought was a hottie?

You might want to take "studies" with a grain of salt, as most studies are just a way for professional students to live off government or corporate grants. Studies have shown that tobacco is harmless and not addictive. Studies in the 80's showed that women who had careers were more likely to miscarry, and that single women over 35 had almost no chance of marrying. Both studies were later retracted because, in both cases, neither was finished when its alleged "findings" were reported to the press. Women with careers are no more likely to miscarry than stay-at-home moms, and women over 35 still have a reasonable chance of marrying.

So there needs to be a national recognition of the problem and steps taken to get both women and men, but most importantly women since they are the ones bearing children and are most likely to pass on health issues, conscience and active about proper dieting and exercising.

Actually, since you're fond of studies, there was a good one done a few years ago that the press doesn't like to report, and if it were common knowledge, we'd have a lot lower infant mortality rate. They gave drugs - alcohol, heroin, etc. - to female mice in various stages of pregnancy as well as not pregnant at all. Then they gave them to male mice at various points in their breeding. What they found - and this correlates with humans because all of the relative organs function the same way in mice and humans - was that females only need to knock off the birth-defect inducing substances DURING pregnancy, because before that the genetic material in the egg is protected (only after entering the womb are eggs subject to mutation). But since males are always making new sperm, the use of substances can cause sperm mutations for a very long time AFTER the substance use has stopped. They extrapolated (i.e., educated guess) the duration of substance effects on sperm in mice onto human males, and concluded that human males need to stop using birth-defect inducing substances 5 years prior to becoming fathers to ensure non-defective offspring. Even if they're wrong about the 5 years, it's an important point that males need to knock off substance usage PRIOR to conceiving children - you should be more concerned about billions of men thinking they can drink, smoke and shoot up the whole time they're trying to father children, so long as the mother stops those things while she's pregnant. Those male actions - conducted in ignorance provded by a media that doesn't report what people don't like to hear - are causing more trouble for infants than any amount of obesity.

 

"Sadly, in the U.S., there is an ongoing campaign to "accept yourself" as you are thus ignoring the dangers surrounding obesity."


Yes, that is true.

It's also convenient that everyone who is overweight has some kind of problem that they can't control.


And a lot of people, I've noticed, seem to have misunderstood the "Big is not beautiful" title of this thread. It's not saying that overweight people can't be pretty/attractive. It's saying that a lifestyle of being overweight is unhealthy, and that people should be encouraged to loose weight, for their own good. Sure, not everyone who ever gets fat will die from a heart attack or something, but if you weren't fat to begin with, your chances would be reduced even greater. And I also said earlier, the opposite of this (extremely underweight) is just as bad, but not as big/wide-spread of a problem.

 

I have an eating disorder. I ate small things, in long periods of time. I never really sit down Breakfast Lunch and Dinner to eat. I just eat snack constently. The Doctor said you can be skinny, and still have an eating disorder.

 

It's also convenient that everyone who is overweight has some kind of problem that they can't control.

My point is being missed too. I had a problem and nothing any doctor told me to do helped. I knew better than to fool with fad diets, but I thought, "Eat right and exercise - of course that'll work". It didn't because "eating right" is not the same for every individual and I doubt doctors will ever be able to advise you as well as you can advise yourself, with a little self-education.

For me, cutting out fat means nothing. Cutting out sugar cured my depression, my inability to lose weight, my constant tiredness, my allergies.... I tried EVERYTHING, and just simply cutting out sugar changed my life. No doctor ever suggests that - they think sugar is harmless, unless you eat tons of it (which I never did). They are wrong.

A lot of fat people don't have a wild medical problem - they have a normal reaction to the horrid American carb-laden diet, and their doctors don't know what they need to slim down.

 

I don't know where some of you live but I walk around and see 90% of the woman cleary having some type of serious overweight problem.

I have a nearly exactly opposite problem. I live in a prodominately-multi-cultural area of Seattle, where there are people of all backgrounds. Most of the Asian people are quite thin, the Latin people are curvier (in much better ways than me), etc. There are heavy people, of course, but many of the people in my area are not.

Sadly, in the U.S., there is an ongoing campaign to "accept yourself" as you are thus ignoring the dangers surrounding obesity. There is an individualistic streak that runs through Americans and it is usually a good thing but in this case, it can mean disaster for millions of women.

I believe you've misunderstood this. The "accept yourself" was more of a "stop going on potentially-lethal diets, get yourself some exercise, and don't be surprised if you don't instantly drop to a size 5" thing. I don't sit around thinking how wonderful I am while I eat another bag of pork rinds. I doubt anyone does.

I know why I have a lot of fat. I'm a size 13-15. I like ice cream, cookie dough to be precise. But I'm teaching myself to stop eating it all the time. I'm also addicted to Starbucks. Again, I've reduced my Starbucks consumption. I work in retail, which means walking for up to 8 hours several times a week. I walk the 4 blocks to work now and then. I know why. And I know what to do about it. For many, like me, it's just doing it that is the problem.

JediFarfy

 

TreeCave:

I've lived all over the country, and there's a rule to this: if the women are fat, so are the men. If the women are skinny, so are the men. Perhaps you haven't noticed it's all the same because you don't check out males.

Yes, so what's your point. That's obvious.


Ah, interviewed them all, have you? Spoken to every one, so you'll know? And also determined they don't have a medical problem they're unaware of? Dr. Watson has told me so much about you, Mr. Holmes. It's an honor to meet you.

I can only go by the stats. Very few obese women are so because of some type of disorder that won't allow them to lose weight. You should be aware of that if you're going to address this issue.


How could the study prove that? Attractive is relative - did the infants explain who they thought was a hottie?

Without getting deep into the study, they took extremely unattractive women as determind by the scientists and extremely attractive women and then recorded the response of the babies to them. Very simple and straightford examination proved what we should already know: Beauty is instinctive.


You might want to take "studies" with a grain of salt, as most studies are just a way for professional students to live off government or corporate grants. Studies have shown that tobacco is harmless and not addictive. Studies in the 80's showed that women who had careers were more likely to miscarry, and that single women over 35 had almost no chance of marrying. Both studies were later retracted because, in both cases, neither was finished when its alleged "findings" were reported to the press. Women with careers are no more likely to miscarry than stay-at-home moms, and women over 35 still have a reasonable chance of marrying.

I consider who performs the study, who is involved, the length, etc. before I accept its' conclusions. You may wish to use the same guidleines to help you through the jungle of studies so that you don't inadvertently dismiss some very appropriate ones.


Actually, since you're fond of studies, there was a good one done a few years ago that the press doesn't like to report, and if it were common knowledge, we'd have a lot lower infant mortality rate. They gave drugs - alcohol, heroin, etc. - to female mice in various stages of pregnancy as well as not pregnant at all. Then they gave them to male mice at various points in their breeding. What they found - and this correlates with humans because all of the relative organs function the same way in mice and humans - was that females only need to knock off the birth-defect inducing substances DURING pregnancy, because before that the genetic material in the egg is protected (only after entering the womb are eggs subject to mutation). But since males are always making new sperm, the use of substances can cause sperm mutations for a very long time AFTER the substance use has stopped. They extrapolated (i.e., educated guess) the duration of substance effects on sperm in mice onto human males, and concluded that human males need to stop using birth-defect inducing substances 5 years prior to becoming fathers to ensure non-defective offspring. Even if they're wrong about the 5 years, it's an important point that males need to knock off substance usage PRIOR to conceiving children - you should be more concerned about billions of men thinking they can drink, smoke and shoot up the whole time they're trying to father children, so long as the mother stops those things while she's pregnant. Those male actions - conducted in ignorance provded by a media that doesn't report what people don't like to hear - are causing more trouble for infants than any amount of obesity.

Sounds like an intereesting study but my point wasn't to absolve men of any responsibility in the matter, only that women need to mindful of their health at all times in an effort to improve the quality of their life while not pregnant and while pregnant. It's a simple idea and I'm surprised you missed my point.

 

Yes, so what's your point. That's obvious.

My point was that your assertion was ignoring an entire gender, and therefore very out of context.

I can only go by the stats. Very few obese women are so because of some type of disorder that won't allow them to lose weight. You should be aware of that if you're going to address this issue.

PPOR. There are stats that indicate just the opposite, and you're obviously quite ignorant of them. Furthermore, there are plenty of experts who believe doctors are not understanding the role certain types of carbs and fats play in weight gain and loss, and therefore cannot give the best advice to everyone who tries to lose weight.

I've also personally witnessed many people stick to a diet carefully and still fail to lose weight. The problem is the diet, not the dieter.

Without getting deep into the study, they took extremely unattractive women as determind by the scientists and extremely attractive women and then recorded the response of the babies to them.

I can't believe you think that's straightforward!! Attractive as determined by scientists?? A standard IQ test years ago pictured two faces for a question and asked which was the beautiful one. One looked Anglo female, and the other looked African female. So the "right" answer according to those scientists was that Africans are ugly. I guess this is the real reason African babies go hungry - mom is SO ugly they don't want to breastfeed.

Don't forget - in the Rennaissance period, women we'd consider fat were considered the apex of beauty. Beauty is relative.

You may wish to use the same guidleines to help you through the jungle of studies so that you don't inadvertently dismiss some very appropriate ones.

Hahaaha! Look how much detail I gave on the mice study, and how little detail you can provide on your study. I think my standards are demonstrably well and above yours.

 

"PPOR. There are stats that indicate just the opposite,"


Look back on the top of page 3.

 

FYI: This is about as brief as I can get it. Please don't nitpick small details because I'm going into small details

The studies that have looked into "beauty" are not picking arbitrary standards. The studies focus on facial symmetry, which is basically how well one side of your face mirrors the other.

The idea is that the more symmetrical the face is, the more attractive people will find it. Symmetry studies have also looked at other body parts, but facial symmetry seems to be the greater marker for attractiveness. The idea is that facial and bodily symmetry in some instances signal that a person has suffered a disease or may have genetic defects (ie poor genes). Because of this, people have evolved a preference for symmetry in their mates because the chances that a person has genetic disorders or has had health problems are less than a person who is less symmetrical.

Now I am not into writing up big huge posts explaining stuff, so if you would to read some studies on this topic, I will post them.

 

Sharkdawg, thanks for the referral. However, I still think this is a ludicrous stat, and I'll give you one simple example that shows why:

It does not appear this doctor counts diabetes as an "underlying cause" of overweight problems, because if he did, there's no way he'd have gotten 95%. About 60% of Americans have diabetes now - it's risen dramatically in the past decade or so. There is an overlap of around 30% between diabetics and overweight Americans. So that right there brings the underlying cause stat from 5% to a minimum of 30%. Now, SOME types of diabetes can be controlled by diet. But a lot of diabetics are still not diagnosed as such - doctors are learning to test for it more often, but in the past it was so much less common that they didn't immediately think of it as a posible cause for the symptoms (which include, but go well beyond weight gain).
So with diabetes alone, you have a lot of cases where people are getting wrong advice on how to lose weight, because the doctor hasn't tested.

Also, for underlying causes, your doctor should have counted birth control pills, anti-depressants and anti-acne steroids, just to name a few. Taking any of those causes weight gain of 5 to 30 or more pounds.

 

there are some guys out there who like large women (one of my uncles is one of them). but on the whole, being overweight is unhealthy and unattractive.

the weight of the person is just a physical thing though. if they don't care about health problems and don't mind the way they look, then it's their choice and it's ok. you shouldn't judge people by their weight but you don't have to agree with the "big is beautiful" line either.

i think it's best if people try and stay at a healthy/attractive weight throughout their lives. it's not very hard with a little will power and it will make your life longer and most likely happier.

 

I'm 13, 6 foot, and about 75 kilos, which isn't overweight at all for my build.

Yet...
I seem to be more attracted to kinda chubby girls rather than skinny.

Big is beautiful!

 

TreeCave:

My point was that your assertion was ignoring an entire gender, and therefore very out of context.

I disagree. If you had read down my post you would have found reference to men needing to get on the ball as well. But the primary aspect of my post was geared towards women since there has an incredible rise in heart disease related to obesity. Do you mind if we focus on women's issues for a moment?


PPOR. There are stats that indicate just the opposite, and you're obviously quite ignorant of them. Furthermore, there are plenty of experts who believe doctors are not understanding the role certain types of carbs and fats play in weight gain and loss, and therefore cannot give the best advice to everyone who tries to lose weight.

I'm not going to spend unlimited time in this area going back and forth with you. You know as well as I do those stats exists so please don't pretend as though they don't.


I've also personally witnessed many people stick to a diet carefully and still fail to lose weight. The problem is the diet, not the dieter.

Yes, in cases, but not all.


I can't believe you think that's straightforward!! Attractive as determined by scientists??

Determined by a study in of itself. Look, my object is not to sit here and argue through every detail of the study but instead to indicate that such a study exists and has been well documented and nothing to the contrary has ever been made.


Don't forget - in the Rennaissance period, women we'd consider fat were considered the apex of beauty. Beauty is relative.

PPOR.


Hahaaha! Look how much detail I gave on the mice study, and how little detail you can provide on your study. I think my standards are demonstrably well and above yours.

Try real hard not to be insulting. I'm talking about studies in general not just the two we discussed. You're more apt to discard studies simply because you've never heard of them and question their motivation. I'm not. I'm keeping an open mind, won't you join me in this?


About 60% of Americans have diabetes now

PPOR. According to "The Diabetes Center", only 16 million Americans have it so your figures are far out of whack.

 

Don't forget - in the Rennaissance period, women we'd consider fat were considered the apex of beauty. Beauty is relative.

In the Rennaissance era it was better to be bigger. Why? Because it showed that you had the wealth/money to afford to eat good food. It also meant that you had plenty of food. It separated you from the peasant and lower classes because you could eat, they couldn't always afford to.


I'd love to post proof, however I can't because I gleaned the above information from many sources including newspapers and books. However, I'd suggest going and looking at Rennaissance paintings. All the women are what would now be considered "Big". They were considered attractive (hence why they were painted) at that time.

Beauty is completely relative (apart from facial symmetary which seems to extend across all countries). It depends mainly on culture. How else can you explain that fact that Scarification of the body on purpose is considered horrific by westerners (who seem to detest imperfections of any kinds) and yet by the tribes that perform them they are considered beautiful.

Kit

 

America the Fat

How did we get so fat?

That's right, you read it correctly, I said the "F" word.

As a society, we're getting fat - a bold, politically incorrect statement to be sure, but candy-coated phrases like, "Weight-Challenged," or "Gravitationally-Challenged" just don't cut it. Fat is a better word because it's short, to-the-point and conjures up the correct image.

Those of you who wish to challenge my "unsubstantiated, anecdotal" data can simply do your own "Fat Check." Next time you're in line to get a "Biggie" McDonald's fries, or a "Big Gulp" at the 7-11, take a look at your fellow man - See how many people are, generally speaking, fat.

But, don't take my word for it, listen to what the National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys says:

33.4% of US adults, 20 years of age or older are estimated to be overweight.

That would be one in three of US. I'm including myself in this diatribe because there are half a dozen pants hanging in my closet that I can no longer button.

Obesity has strikingly increased during the last decade, as touted in the US National Health Interview Survey:

From 21.6% in 1983 to 24.0% in 1985, 27.5% in 1990 and 33.4% in 1993.

Okay...we're getting fat. But why? The odd thing is, we've got more low fat and low, or NO-sugar foods available than ever. Obesity researcher Jules Hirsch from the Rockefeller University estimates that there were about 500 foodstuffs available to Americans 100 years ago, compared with more than 50,000 today.

We've also got thousands of diet-of-the-hour books telling us what culinary combination is our friend or enemy. Almost every news program has a "Health" section as part of their broadcast.

If that isn't enough, we can turn on numerous exercise programs, or buy videos that tell us new ways to do all the stuff we learned in second grade. Come on, folks, with all that, we should be positively rail-thin by now! But we aren't.

We're getting F-A-T, FATTER, FATTEST!

Personally, I think the answer is multi-layered, but not that complex. For starters, somewhere along the way, we stopped eating REAL food. As a child growing up in the 60's, my after school snacks consisted of Space Food Sticks, Tang and Wonder Bread, so I speak from experience. Where did these foods come from?

Foods got more complicated because food manufacturers developed more sophisticated techniques to process food. Can't you just hear the dialogue going on in the Keebler board room?

"Hey, maybe we should put pink sprinkles on top?"

"Good idea, Jenkins! Let's add some swirly-wirlies too!"

I guess things like fruit and veggies just got too darn boring. They weren't sweet enough, or salty enough, or pretty enough. Maybe food SHOULD be boring. The more we jazz it up, the more we want to consume. Perhaps our grandparents had it right when they were greeted at the breakfast table by pulpy, bland Oatmeal. If I were King of the World, sales of Lucky Charms wouldn't be allowed before noon any day of the week.

Let's face it, you don't need a nutritional label on a good Fuji apple.

Even candy, after a while, couldn't be just sugar. It had to become red-colored sugar (remember Red Dye #5?) or Banana-flavored sugar. Why not just eat a Banana? No, it's got to be Zots, or Twizlers or, God forbid, Circus Peanuts.

It also seems that we no longer eat because we're hungry. We eat because there is no end to the amount and variety we can get our hands on - we eat because we can - 24 hours a day. We eat when we're depressed or anxious or stressed. My response to this is: find out what torments you and deal with the root problem - don't kid yourself that consuming an entire box of Little Debbies is gonna do it.

Let me dive into a few more scary facts about what we eat and drink. Thirsty? We all like frothy beverages. Who doesn't? The average person consumes about 129 gallons of fluid per year. This includes water, milk, colas, etc. The following is the breakdown:

44.5 gallons of soft drinks.

44.3 gallons of water.

Whoah

 

I'm not going to spend unlimited time in this area going back and forth with you. You know as well as I do those stats exists so please don't pretend as though they don't.

But they're cancelled out by other stats. Numerous studies show tobacco is harmless and non-addictive. Should we trust those, or throw all tobacco studies out? The best way to evaluate contradictory stats and studies is to check into who funded them, who might have an agenda?

Determined by a study in of itself.

Are you actually suggesting that you can quantify beauty? That it's scientifically measurable, like an eye color or height? Especially when you're dealing with a subject in the experiment who can't even tell you what s/he is attracted to. And you weren't even alleging the "attractiveness" was limited to weight status, so it's not all that relevant anyway.

Don't forget - in the Rennaissance period, women we'd consider fat were considered the apex of beauty. Beauty is relative.

PPOR.

Kit' handled this one for me. An additional example, proving that beauty is relative, is that Marilyn Monroe had huge hips in a few films, and no one suggested she should would look better shaped like Twiggy. While I'm aware of no culture that thought people as big as Jabba were attractive, the "best" look for females has ranged within about 40 pounds for a giving height/body type. The painfully skinny, no-muscle-tone women of the 80's would have looked hideous to most cultures in most eras, and is probably more dangerous than being 30 pounds or less overweight. That was the standard then.

I happen to think the current standard is about right - muscle tone is encouraged, slim but not bizarrely skinny. But as recently as the 60's, big hips (like Marilyn's) were quite acceptable. So beauty is definitely relative, and there is just simply no way to sscientifically quantify it.

You're more apt to discard studies simply because you've never heard of them and question their motivation. I'm not. I'm keeping an open mind, won't you join me in this?

You're smug and sarcastic - I'm just sarcastic. My tone is no more "insulting" than yours. I did not discard your study because I hadn't heard of it - I discarded it because you haven't given appropriate detail for me to evaluate it, and just from what you did give, common sense shows up a lot of logic flaws. I bothered to demonstrate why my study makes sense AND explain why yours doesn't on the basis of what you're giving me to work with - but you return the courtesy by expecting me to accept your study because you say so.

This argument is not worth continuing. Everyone can evaluate it for themselves.

 

Also, for underlying causes, your doctor should have counted birth control pills, anti- depressants and anti-acne steroids, just to name a few. Taking any of those causes weight gain of 5 to 30 or more pounds.

Do you mean the pills themselves make you gain weight? Or that they are appetite stimulants which makes you gain weigh? If it's the latter than I'll mention that Effexor is an anti-depressent that is an appetite suppresent instead of a stimulant so if you had weight problems and depression you could always try that...

Ask yourself if you're happy. If you are, make sure your answer isn't the result of some external thing, like that new dress, or new car, or that "extra-strength" anti-depressant.

I kinda get the impression from this that he's one of those people who thinks depression isn't a real disease. Since depressants correct brain chemicals it's not really an external thing...

 

Do you mean the pills themselves make you gain weight? Or that they are appetite stimulants which makes you gain weigh?

They themselves make you gain. Fat cells are ruled by hormones, mostly estrogen, so taking stuff that affects your estrogen level has an effect on your fat retention. Likewise, being more than 20-30 pounds overweight (beyond chubby and into fat) has a marked effect on many women's periods and hormonal balance/imbalance.

Yes, brain chemistry is a physical component of the human body. While a lot of people being given anti-depressants shouldn't be - because they're suffering normal "situational depression" brought on by normal problems and tragedies - there IS such a thing as "biochemical depression" in which no matter how good life is and no matter how positive your outlook, you simply can't feel good because the brain chemicals that MAKE you feel good aren't being made in high enough quantities.

To argue that all depression can be modified by behavior only would be tantamount to arguing that all cancer can be modified by behavior only.

 

I was visiting my g/f at her work (an indoor amusement park) and there was this one woman who had a little kid with her. Kid must have been no older than 3, and was HUGE! I swear, she could have eaten my dog! Freaked me out.

 

OK, I just have to post here.

First of all, I have NEVER EVER heard the message that "it's OK to be heavy" aimed at American women. I ought to know, I am one. I have heard, however, plenty of conscious and subconscious messages to the contrary, however, that were mostly aimed at women.

Secondly, it's NOT all in what you eat, there are other factors, namely environmental ones: what kind of job you have, your level of stress, your economic situation (poor people tend to eat foods that aren't as nutritious because that is what they can afford, and cheap food is mostly fat and starch, ironically), where you live, your overall health, and your family genetics.

I am 5' 10" and have been a size 14 for a loooooong time. I am also a vegetarian, and yet, I've been told, even when I had a 27" waist that if "you just lost a few more pounds, you'd be really hot."

Why is this? Because I was normal but not bone thin? Because I wasn't a size 3? If someone my height was a size 3, they would likely resemble a concentration camp victim, and anyone who thinks that skeletal/anorexic females are attractive needs to get a clue.

For most women, extreme thinness isn't a natural state.

And why all this obsession about women's weight? Who cares? Why make an issue of it? Why is our society fixated over how much the women weigh? This isn't going on in other countries, so why are we doing it here?

Sadly, men seem to care. That's what too many of them seem to care about. How much does she weight...is she "fat." And "fat" is such a subjective concept as it is.

It's ironic to me that in the US, the personals placed by men (and I know this because I did project in college examining personal ads) list a woman's looks as the most important feature. How do I know this?

It's what they list FIRST when the "you should be..." part of the ad comes. Some of those men even had the audacity to tell women how tall we need to be and how much we should WEIGH, to the POUND.

If that isn't living in fantasy land, I don't know what is. And if that is how I am going to be judged, always by my looks first, and valued as to whether or not I am a bloody "pound too much," then I don't see why I can't demand that any male who thinks he is GOOD enough to ask me out must be:

1) 6'5"
2) EXACTLY 200lbs and not a BLOODY POUND MORE
3) Have washboard abs and bulging muscles
4) Perfect hair, nothing thin or receding
5) Professionally tanned all over
6) Look like my favorite actor on any given month

Rolls eyes, sighs, and HOPES that people understand that the real problem here is that women are still MOSTLY valued for their appeances, and that THIS is what the real issue is here. It hurts women alot, and it's going to inversely hurt alot of men along the way, too.

 

Dont forget to mention that some diseases also cause obesity! Such as Diabetes!! I should know, my mother has Diabetes and she's overweight. It is very difficult for people with Diabetes to lose weight, even if they do eat right and exercise.

 

"It's what they list FIRST when the "you should be..." part of the ad comes. Some of those men even had the audacity to tell women how tall we need to be and how much we should WEIGH, to the POUND."

They aren't necessarily saying that you have to be that exact height and weight, that's just what they're looking for. Women do the same thing. They aren't going to bring a scale with them and say "well, your 5 pounds over the weight I wanted, see ya later".


And I'm not exactly sure when this turned into a discussion only concerning women, as this seems to have turned into, but I'm referring to all over weight people, not just women.

"Dont forget to mention that some diseases also cause obesity! Such as Diabetes!! I should know, my mother has Diabetes and she's overweight. It is very difficult for people with Diabetes to lose weight, even if they do eat right and exercise."

Yeah, we talked about that.

 

sharkdawg asks: "And I'm not exactly sure when this turned into a discussion only concerning women, as this seems to have turned into, but I'm referring to all over weight people, not just women."

Through the orginial post in the topic (with regard to my own comments, at least):

"I'm sorry, but I don't understand why people (mostly women) are told that being overweight can be beautiful - it isn't!" --The_Emperors_Foot

 

If that isn't living in fantasy land, I don't know what is. And if that is how I am going to be judged, always by my looks first, and valued as to whether or not I am a bloody "pound too much," then I don't see why I can't demand that any male who thinks he is GOOD enough to ask me out must be:

1) 6'5"
2) EXACTLY 200lbs and not a BLOODY POUND MORE
3) Have washboard abs and bulging muscles
4) Perfect hair, nothing thin or receding
5) Professionally tanned all over
6) Look like my favorite actor on any given month

The height requirement has been explicitly stated by many women in personal ads. It seems that most women prefer someone taller than them and that the average woman prefers someone taller than 5'10".