• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Being happy the way you are vs. changing

Booko

Deviled Hen
Faint said:
That's not the same standard. Brown hair does not lead to high cholesterol, heart disease, knee-joint problems, increased diabetes complications, etc. Being overweight on the other hand...

Being overweight does not "lead" to these ailments. Being overweight is correlated with these ailments. The same endocrine system inbalances that will lead to high cholesterol, heart disease, etc. will also lead to being overweight. Weight does not "cause" disease -- it is a symptom of an underlying problem. Heal the problem, and the metabolism adjusts, and the weight comes off.

Without exercise.

It often involves some big dietary changes, though, but NOT in the form of a simplistic "calories in/calories out" formula. If you believe that, you're stuck in the medical stone age.

Anyone who does not burn more calories than the consume will put on weight. Period. Whether that has to do with thyroid/metabolism or sitting around all day and shunning exercise depends on the individual.

I lost 25 pounds in a couple of months while absolutely sedentary, and while consuming MORE calories per day.

Explain that.

An endocrinologist would have an easy time of it. I'll be interested to see what you come up with.

I know obesity is sometimes a result of a medical condition. But I would be willing to bet money that the majority of overweight women in this culture are heavy due to factors that they can control...but refuse to. It's so much easier to blame one's failings on some outside agency like a genetic predisposition to conserving fat. I'm not pointing fingers, just saying that's how people tend to think. I hear it all the time.

Sure you're not pointing fingers -- except at overweight women, of course. I mean, we're all just such weak-willed fools, compared to men. We must be! For when we hit middle age we're so much more likely to put on weight and be unable to take it off, no matter how much we cut back on calories or exercise.

Excuses excuses! Is it easy for me to go to the gym five days a week? No...but I do. And if I didn't value my health/appearance, it would be so easy to find excuses not to. "Oh, I need to do laundry" or "I'll just go tomorrow" or "I'm too tired" or "Oh I wanna watch 'Top Model' first" etc.

How about this excuse? My doctor said "Hell no! You're shutting down your adrenals! Stick to basics like cleaning and gardening, and NO cardiovascular exercise at this time.

Or maybe you have more degrees in medicine than she does?

Those with legitmate medical conditions should of course be treated and we should be sympathetic. But when a fat man/woman tells me they're big because of a medical issue, meanwhile they're eating large quanties of junk food every day, and seem to never have time to do cardio or join a gym--I'm not going to be very empathetic about their "condition". You know?

I don't expect empathy from anyone. But I do expect them to at least know what they're talking about when they claim not to be "pointing fingers" and then proceed to "point" them. :sarcastic

I can't think of a seriously overweight woman in my circle of acquaintances who doesn't have a genuine medical reason for what's going on. And in only one case could I say preponderance of junk food has made that person's problem worse.

My husband's overweight too, but I suppose that's because he's only slept 4 hours a night for the 20+ years we've been married, and he skips meals. All that abuse takes it's toll -- usually when you hit your 40s. It certainly isn't because he doesn't get "exercise." What a crock!
 

Booko

Deviled Hen
FeathersinHair said:
Faint, you asked "I don't know...is this girl underweight? She looks healthy to me...but women know women's bodies better than I do." You were asking people for their frank accessment and they gave it to you. Inferring from people answering you honestly that these people are envious... Why would you do that?

Now there's an interesting question. ;)
 

lilithu

The Devil's Advocate
Faint said:
I understand perfectly well the difficulty it takes to stay in shape. I'm not defending the "below the healthy weight" look, but I'm also not saying it's a good idea to be overweight when you can do something about it. Yes, it takes effort, willpower, self-respect, endurance, etc. I admire the television stars/models/etc. who have such self-control.
That and personal trainers.
 

Bastet

Vile Stove-Toucher
First off, I'd like to thank C1, because she's saved me a lot of typing. I'll just point to her post and say "What she said." Actually, all those responding to Faint's quite frankly disturbing, not to mention disgustingly uninformed posts have my applause and frubals. Bravo. :)

I'd just like to add something about fashion models. There was a Spring fashion show or something of the like here (in Australia) recently, and one team of designers literally plucked women off the streets to be their models. They were ordinary women, not stick figures - with the normal curves the average woman has. The designers had to fight like hell for the organisers to actually "let" them use these women to model their clothes. The rather refreshing idea of the designers, was that if real women saw what the clothes (and I'm talking swimwear, btw), looked like on other real women, then they'd be more likely to buy it. Sounds like a rather sensible idea to me, but it caused quite the uproar and made all the news stations. So did the model who was so skinny her tights fell down her legs while she was walking down the runway. I know which out of those women I'd rather be looking at.
 

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
lilithu said:
Why can't there be more than one idea of beauty?

Heretic! Blasphemer! The Holy Fashion Industry ordained there should be only one idea of intelligence, only one idea of personality, only one idea of body type, and only one idea of beauty. That's why Nature, in Her infinitely narrow minded wisdom, created only one kind of intelligence, only one kind of personality, only one kind of body type, and only one kind of beauty. Sheeesh! Repent of your silly notion that all of reality overwhelmingly suggests it's a narrow minded fool who sees just one kind of beauty in this world!
 

lilithu

The Devil's Advocate
Sunstone said:
Heretic! Blasphemer! The Holy Fashion Industry ordained there should be only one idea of intelligence, only one idea of personality, only one idea of body type, and only one idea of beauty. That's why Nature, in Her infinitely narrow minded wisdom, created only one kind of intelligence, only one kind of personality, only one kind of body type, and only one kind of beauty. Sheeesh! Repent of your silly notion that all of reality overwhelmingly suggests it's a narrow minded fool who sees just one kind of beauty in this world!
I confess and repent of my sins. :badger::badger::badger::badger:
 

PureX

Veteran Member
There are a lot of issues being rolled together regarding people's weight and looks, and it tends to easily become overwhelming, I think.

First, the weight itself: I think we should approach this as a health issue. Some extra fat on the body is good for us, and is quite natural. Some people's bodies naturally retain more fat reserves than others, and so for those bodies it's right that they carry a little more fat than others. And some people's bodies are built in such a way that even relatively minimal fat reserves will create an appearance of more than is there. All these things are natural and normal and should be taken that way (contrary to the cultural idealizations we now have).

On the other hand, physical obesity is a genuine health threat, and should be considered as such, and not minimized by platitudes and excuses. There is something wrong with a body that is carrying large amounts of excess fat. Either the body is not working right or the personality inhabiting that body has become destructively distorted and is mistreating their body. And in either case, the problem should be addressed and corrected.

As to cultural ideals on beauty, however, I believe we've been sadly poisoning ourselves with our own greed for a long time, and one of the ways we do this is through our dishonest, self-serving, and unhealthy advertising. The sad truth is that advertisers need to make us feel bad about the way we look so they can sell us their "solution" to our ugliness. They need to make us feel bad about the way we smell so they can sell us the "solution" to our body oder problem. They need to make us feel unnoticed, and unappreciated, and disrespected, and ignored, and generally unfulfilled in every way, so that they can then sell us an veritable avalanche of foolish and useless products that promise to "correct" our endless flaws and empty lives. And pretty much all of us who are now living in industrialized nations have been raised from the day we were born seeing and hearing an endless parade of negative messages, and the promised "solutions" to our shortcomings, for so long that we have completely internalized them, and believe in them as if they were as real as gravity.

But they are mostly all lies.

I began to become aware of this when I was taking some nude drawing classes in college. Before taking the classes, I naturally assumed that all the models would look like Playboy bunnies and so I was quite looking forward to having an excuse to ogle them for hours as I drew images of them on paper. And in some cases this was true (though I was shocked and embarrassed to discover that some of the models were male "Playboy binnies"). But often they weren't "Playboy bunnies" at all. The nude models were just other college students, of all shapes and sizes, who happened not to be hung up about posing nude, and who could make some extra money for school by modeling for the art classes.

Sure, I ogled the "Playboy bunnies" for the first few minutes, but soon grew bored of that and began to realize that they often were not very interesting subjects to draw. The models that I liked drawing were the models with the more interesting bodies, and their bodies were more interesting because they were more unique. Some of them were heavy, some were very thin, some had very striking facial features and some were very tall, or short, or stocky. And it was these kinds of distinguishing features that made them expressive body structures, and it was that expressiveness that made them fun to draw - and fun to look at.

I began to realize that even after the class was over, and I was just walking around campus, I would catch myself looking at people's body structures, and at the way they walked, and at the expressions on their faces, and find myself appreciating how wonderful and interesting and expressive they really were. I remember seeing a very tall, and powerfully built woman walking down the street in Chicago and just being in awe of the majestic way her body moved, with her shoulders back, and the way she carried her head up. And she was not a woman that we would ever see in a fashion magazine. She was way "too tall", had a longish face, a wide mouth, and a strong powerful body rather than the petite kind we see in magazines. Yet she was stunning! I would've liked to have told her how amazingly interesting and beautiful I thought she looked (but of course we don't say those things to strangers in this society).

But from then on I began to look at people differently. I have nothing against the men and women I see in the magazines. They're pretty, too, though we see so many of them that they become a bit generic. But I often wish I could tell people I see on the street just how great they really look. Especially the ones that don't look like magazine models. Because I suspect a lot of them wrongly believe that they're ugly, when in fact they're often far more beautiful than the magazine models. And it's not just the "look", but the bearing, and the attitude, and the way people move through the world around them.
 

Faint

Well-Known Member
Circle_One said:
I feel that having being uncomfortable with oneself and making others feel uncomfortable with themselves and the way they are is more damaging than anything. People should be happy with who they are and the way they are. Anyone who tells them different or makes them feel bad about themselves is not worth talking to. Forcing low self esteem on someone just so they can try and make themselves look the way someone else wants them to look is disgusting.


Circle_One said:
People should be taught that we're ALL beautiful, no matter the size of our bust or our waist, our age, the color of our hair, our skin, our eyes, how tall we are, etc. Everyone is beautiful in their own way and THAT is what we should teach our society. Not that they should strive to achieve something that is unattainable.
Do you think that some people are and can be considered more beautiful than others? And if EVERYONE is beautiful, doesn't that essentially make the term meaningless? Like saying "everyone is blonde" or "everyone is young"? We might be using the term beauty in different ways...I'm using it strictly in a physical sense...regardless of personality.


Circle_One said:
EVERYONE is beautiful and we should not lead our society to think different.
There are evolutionary reasons that some people are perceived as more beautiful than others. I'd love to see anyone attempt to remove this predisposition from our species.

Circle_One said:
Yes, I do. I think they are unnecessary. Why make yourself appear different than you actually are? If someone isn't impressed with your actual appearance, then they aren't worth your time anyway, so why bother?
I definitely agree with that...just as I'm against the "MySpace angles" that so many people use.

lilithu said:
That and personal trainers.
Yes, they have those, but that has little to do with it. A personal trainer isn't going to make a lazy person move or eat properly. For example, I had a (heavy) friend who was selected to do a "before/after" exercise program. FREE personal trainer and FREE nutritionist were both provided to her...all she had do do was follow their diet/workout plan for six weeks...but she couldn't complete or maintain the program because she didn't have the will power.

Bastet said:
First off, I'd like to thank C1, because she's saved me a lot of typing. I'll just point to her post and say "What she said." Actually, all those responding to Faint's quite frankly disturbing, not to mention disgustingly uninformed posts have my applause and frubals. Bravo.
Please explain precisely how my posts are uninformed.

PureX said:
On the other hand, physical obesity is a genuine health threat, and should be considered as such, and not minimized by platitudes and excuses. There is something wrong with a body that is carrying large amounts of excess fat. Either the body is not working right or the personality inhabiting that body has become destructively distorted and is mistreating their body. And in either case, the problem should be addressed and corrected.
Exactly.


PureX said:
But from then on I began to look at people differently. I have nothing against the men and women I see in the magazines. They're pretty, too, though we see so many of them that they become a bit generic.
Yes, the industry has gotten stale. To set the record straight here...I prefer women with healthy (slender) bodies to the anorexic look. There is a shift in this direction as the fashion industry goes, just as there is also a shift back towards more "manly" looking models on the male side (you'll be seeing more chest hair & broader shoulders in the coming months as opposed to the feminine-looking dudes who are the current vogue). We've had what you can call "genre overload" with the underweight models. There is not trend towards heavy girls (there probably never will be, sorry), but you may already have noticed that most models are not as thin as they have been the last decade.

PureX said:
But I often wish I could tell people I see on the street just how great they really look. Especially the ones that don't look like magazine models. Because I suspect a lot of them wrongly believe that they're ugly, when in fact they're often far more beautiful than the magazine models. And it's not just the "look", but the bearing, and the attitude, and the way people move through the world around them.
A lot do wrongly believe they're ugly. I often shoot girls (photo wise) who have been passed up by modeling agencies because SOMEONE didn't think they had what it takes. But that's part of the art...finding the beauty that IS there, and catching that on film. HOWEVER...there are definitely some people who are more beautiful than others...and these gorgeous individuals are far easier to work with than others, which is why some people are actually paid to model. They require less prep, less strategic concealment, less retouching, etc.






 

Circle_One

Well-Known Member
Faint said:
Do you think that some people are and can be considered more beautiful than others? And if EVERYONE is beautiful, doesn't that essentially make the term meaningless? Like saying "everyone is blonde" or "everyone is young"? We might be using the term beauty in different ways...I'm using it strictly in a physical sense...regardless of personality.
1) Of course I have to agree that there, obviously, varying degrees and types of beauty and that there are some who are more beautiful than others, but that doesn't mean that that should give anyone leave or excuse to make others feel less beautiful or to degrade them because they're "less" than someone else.

2)No, I don't think it makes the term meaningless at all. Why should it? What's the harm in every person having some form of beauty or everyone believing they are, in fact, beautiful in some way? Wouldn't you think it'd be much more harmful in making each person thinking they're less than they actually are because they're not as "beautiful", according to society, as someone else?

3)No, we're not using the term in different ways. I DO in fact believe that every human being on this earth has something physically beautiful about them. And they should all believe so too.

4)And just for the sake of argument, who's exactly to say just WHAT beautiful is? Each generation has a different view on what makes someone beautiful. Now it's long legs, a large bust, tiny waist, etc. But years ago large, voluptuous women with big, full curves were considered the height of beauty and were the object of every painter's art. Who are we to judge what is and what isn't beautiful?


There are evolutionary reasons that some people are perceived as more beautiful than others. I'd love to see anyone attempt to remove this predisposition from our species.

Coule you please explain and expand on this statement for me. What exactly are the evolutionary reasons for some people to be more beautiful than others?
 

lilithu

The Devil's Advocate
Faint said:
Do you think that some people are and can be considered more beautiful than others? And if EVERYONE is beautiful, doesn't that essentially make the term meaningless? Like saying "everyone is blonde" or "everyone is young"? We might be using the term beauty in different ways...I'm using it strictly in a physical sense...regardless of personality.
If everyone thought that everyone is physically beautiful then yes, the word beautiful would lose it's meaning.

But if some people think that skinny model types are beautiful and some other people think that saftig women are beautiful and some other people think that muscular athlete types are beautiful... then no, the word would not lose it's meaning. Then we would know that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, a subjective experience, instead of thinking that it's an objective reality.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
lilithu said:
If everyone thought that everyone is physically beautiful then yes, the word beautiful would lose it's meaning.

But if some people think that skinny model types are beautiful and some other people think that saftig women are beautiful and some other people think that muscular athlete types are beautiful... then no, the word would not lose it's meaning. Then we would know that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, a subjective experience, instead of thinking that it's an objective reality.
"Beauty" is a vague and general term. For me, one person might be beautiful in the way that their body expresses strength and compitence and self-assuredness. While another person is beautiful in the way that their body expresses an air of childlike innocense, vulnerability and playfulness. While someone else might be beautiful in the way that their body expresses experience and wisdom and trustworthiness. They would all be beautiful, yet each is expressing a different way of being.

The magazines look for specific body types that will best enable them to sell whatever products they want to sell. Some of these models are uniquely beautiful, but too often they are chosen to function as manikins, or chosen by a thoughtless 'herd mantality' that results in the models all tending to look alike, and to appear personality-less. I't often much more fun to look through a high school yearbook than it is to look at a collection of professional model's head shots. It isn't that the models are bad looking, it's just that they are all trying to present the same idea, and so they all tend to look alike, and to look anonymous and uninteresting as a result.
 

lilithu

The Devil's Advocate
PureX said:
The magazines look for specific body types that will best enable them to sell whatever products they want to sell.
Yeah, but why are they trying to sell products that won't look good on most of the women to whom they're trying to sell their products? And why do women buy into that?
 

lilithu

The Devil's Advocate
Flappycat said:
Rich girls who can afford tummytux and botox; that's why.
Quoth_The _Raven said:
I just don't get botox.:areyoucra
That's because you aren't rich enough. :biglaugh:


Seriously tho, the current ideal of beauty is unattainable to most women except by plastic surgery, rake thin but with big boobs.
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
Faint said:
Questions:

1) Do you think overweight people should feel comfortable with how they are? Or is it a better to let them feel some pressure to diet & exercise as this will benefit their health?
That all depends upon how overweight a person is. Excess weight definitely can be detrimental to one's health. There's no reason to feel comfortable with that fact.

2) Do you think our current standard of beauty is unfair? Can it even be altered in a way so that everyone (including those we currently call "fat" or "ugly" or "old") can be considered beautiful (and if so, how)?
Sure it's unfair, but I doubt very much it's going to change. Society has put a great deal of emphasis on beauty for about as long as it has existed. The standard for what's considered beautiful may change but there will always be an "ideal" out there.

3) Do you think plastic/cosmetic surgery is generally misogynistic? Is it comparable to female genital mutilation?
I see nothing wrong with it. I've had liposuction and, if I could afford it, I'd have a face lift.

4) Do you think the fashion industry (specifically advertisements and runway events) are generally misogynistic or unfair in their depictions of "beauty"?
Probably, but they don't really bother me.

5) Do you think shows like "Top Model" and "The Swan" that glorify a certain type of appearance do more harm than good (for either society or the contestants)?
I think they're pointless beyond belief, but that's about all.

6) Do you think digital cameras with slimming effects reinforce negative expectations of appearance?
Wow! I've never heard of these. Where can I get one and how much will it cost me? ;)
 

PureX

Veteran Member
lilithu said:
Yeah, but why are they trying to sell products that won't look good on most of the women to whom they're trying to sell their products? And why do women buy into that?
They don't care what the product looks like on us. They only care that it looks good on the model. Apparently, most of us can't accurately imagine what the product will look like on us, and so presume that if it looks good on the model it will look good on us. Keep in mind that the advertisers goal is to sell a product, not necessarily to make us look or feel better. They don't care what we look like. They only care that we think that if we buy their product we will look, feel, and be "better" people. They pretend to be on our side, and to be acting in our best interest, but they aren't.
 

Quoth The Raven

Half Arsed Muse
lilithu said:
That's because you aren't rich enough. :biglaugh:
You got me there...if I had the cash I'd be spending up big on getting something so lethal that 100 grams of it could wipe humanity off the planet injected into my face.
Oh, except for my morbid fear of needles.:cover:


Seriously tho, the current ideal of beauty is unattainable to most women except by plastic surgery, rake thin but with big boobs.
Lucky for me my other half prefers perfection to the current 'ideal'.:p

Seriously though, I've known people who've said they'd get liposuction over having to sweat...how stupid is that?:areyoucra
 

lunamoth

Will to love
PureX said:
They don't care what the product looks like on us. They only care that it looks good on the model. Apparently, most of us can't accurately imagine what the product will look like on us, and so presume that if it looks good on the model it will look good on us. Keep in mind that the advertisers goal is to sell a product, not necessarily to make us look or feel better. They don't care what we look like. They only care that we think that if we buy their product we will look, feel, and be "better" people. They pretend to be on our side, and to be acting in our best interest, but they aren't.
I have long believed that there is such a thing as pure evil in this world it can be found in the women's fashion industry. There is no compassion to be found there...:D .
 

lilithu

The Devil's Advocate
PureX said:
They don't care what the product looks like on us. They only care that it looks good on the model. Apparently, most of us can't accurately imagine what the product will look like on us, and so presume that if it looks good on the model it will look good on us.
Yeah, I understand that part and have even fallen for it. I'll see something that looks really cute on a sz 2, but then I try it on and it doesn't look so cute on me. So I DON'T BUY IT. That's the part I don't understand. The fashion industry doesn't care about our well being and I'm not expecting them to (tho that too is sad), but if all they care about is selling their products, they would make products that looked good on normal women IF normal women would stop buying the stuff that doesn't look good on us. WHY do we keep buying into what we're sold?
 
Top