Fat People's View on Skinny

[Oli]

But Oli I don't think you understand my point here, in China footbinding became a necessary part in getting a husband for example, the richer you were the smaller the feet were bound so it was also a sign of social status.

Is that the same as universal standard of aesthetics?

At the time it was a cultural ideal that deeply embedded itself in society and it was followed.

So there were no Chinese men who found bound feet less than attractive?

You see oli those pictures you posted also features beautiful women, whether you prefer them to Elle is an entirely different matter and doesn't take away from the fact that Elle is still a beautiful woman

But she isn't.

You still didn't answer whether you found any of those models to be what is called 'ugly'.

You missed this:

Ugly, no.
But Elle McPherson for example has always struck me as bland.

You can agree a woman is beautiful but not have the urge to sleep with her or talk to her because her accent sucks or she speaks rubbish or because she isn't nice nor interesting.

All I can say then is: sue me or send me for psychiatric treatment
Elle McPherson is NOT beautiful to me.
She has a good body, is fresh-faced (or whatever the term is), but strikes me as totally bland.
Agreed about sleeping/ not sleeping, I do distinguish between sexually attractive and aesthetically attractive.

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

There's a difference between mainstream attractiveness and what we individually find attractive. Some men like fat women, but they're idiots if they say this woman isn't attractive and they find her ugly. I'm so tired of people trying to sound "anti-establishment" and "cool" by saying, "Oh, models aren't that attractive." Standards of beauty haven't changed much in Western society since we've had good nutrition/plenty of food available.

I agree

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

Is that the same as universal standard of aesthetics?
So there were no Chinese men who found bound feet less than attractive?.

I'm sure there were but they certainly didn't leave much of a mark. As I noted footbinding is based on a closed cultural phenomenon. Its interesting to note that Manchurians, the clan who were in control over the Hans administratively and socially didn't bind their feet, but in the cultural game overtime it was Han culture that won out and Manchurians began imitating them.

I don't believe that you find Elle ugly or unattractive, you simply don't prefer her.
I am not attractive to Johhny Depp but I would hardly call him hard on the eyes, I prefer the Oliver Reeds and Russel Crowes but it doesn't make Depp ugly nor unattractive, I just prefer the other males. The fact that you acknowlege Elle as 'fresh faced' and having a 'good body' means that you appreciate her aesthetic values even if you think she's bland on the hottie meter. What you honestly cannot do is say she is ugly.

 

[Bells]

I agree

I disagree.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and there are people who did and do find the "super models" of this world ugly and unattractive.

And the Western standards of beauty have changed during the last 100 years. If you look at the models of the past, the standards for "beauty" or what is considered beautiful have changed and altered with time. We've gone from waif thin to very curvy and plump, to tall and stick thin to waif again, and back too many times to count. The public or the 'Western Standard' changes and adapts to what is suddenly considered beautiful.

Models are not just chosen for 'beauty'. They are selected because they are striking and draw attention. They are chosen or become models because they suit whatever style designers want to portray.

So yes, there are some who may consider a woman to be unattractive and ugly while another will consider her to be "zomg stunning". It's what draws the individual eye. Regardless of whether one considers her to be ugly or attractive is quite beside the point at the end of the day. The objective has been fulfilled because people will look at the image regardless because they are struck by it, for different reasons, but they are still struck by it.

 

[Oli]

I don't believe that you find her ugly or unattractive, you simply don't prefer her.

Let's put it this way: if she (or a non-famous lookalike) were in my pub I wouldn't cross the room to talk to her.

I am not attractive to Johhny Depp but I would hardly call him hard on the eyes, I prefer the Oliver Reeds and Russel Crowes but it doesn't make Depp ugly nor unattractive, he just prefer the other males. The fact that you acknowlege Elle as 'fresh faced' and having a 'good body' means that you appreciate her aesthetic values even if you think she's bland on the hottie meter. What you honestly cannot do is say she is ugly.

By "fresh-faced" I just meant no particular blemishes - scrubbed clean bland.
Characterless almost.
I think we had this with Sandy and her comments that Christie Brinkley is "hot".
One_Raven said it first - "white bread" -wholesome but not particularly appealing.

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

Bells unattractive and ugly are two different things and I do not believe anyone would find most of those girls 'ugly', no sorry I have to disagree with you on that one. I already noted in my other posts that standards of beauty change, its the criteria that changes but beauty is still beauty. As I said the standards were once buxom as opposed to thin but those buxom women were no less beautiful than their skinny contemporaries. The fact that at one time blonds were preferred over brunettes or that fair skin was a preference over tan didn't make the 'object' any less beautiful in its own right. As I have previously noted being striking or unusual is a function of a model, yes they are also attractive, they have to be unique in an aesthetically pleasing way. I challenge you to find one who is actually what anyone would call ugly.

 

[Bells]

Bells unattractive and ugly are two different things and I do not believe anyone would find most of those girls 'ugly', no sorry I have to disagree with you on that one. I already noted in my other posts that standards of beauty change, its the criteria that changes but beauty is still beauty. As I said the standards were once buxom as opposed to thin but those buxom women were no less beautiful than their skinny contemporaries. The fact that at one time blonds were preferred over brunettes or that fair skin was a preference over tan didn't make the 'object' any less beautiful in its own right. As I have previously noted being striking or unusual is a function of a model, yes they are also attractive, they have to be unique in an aesthetically pleasing way. I challenge you to find one who is actually what anyone would call ugly.

Beauty is still beauty, but it is also individual. What I find beautiful, you might find ugly. And vice versa. We see what we want to see and only find beauty in what pleases us individually.

 

[Anti-Flag]

That's not a point that's a cliche. I don't think that people go around calling beautiful things ugly, no.

Do you understand the meaning of "subjective"?
It's like arguing what career is best, or car. It's a personal preference and having a different preference to another person is actually pretty normal. I think you don't like that some people would say something you consider beautiful is ugly, as though it somehow makes you wrong, but it's an opinion, there isn't a right or wrong. They're not calling something beautiful ugly, they are saying something which in your opinion is beautiful is in their opinion ugly. Oddly enough the same thing you do to them.

NO not unless they are really young. People who understand style know that the 'must have' items are those that enhance your personal style.

I've noticed it in people up to a certain age, maybe up to their 30's. Ok so they don't understand style(in your opinion), that wasn't the point. They believe the item is a "must have" because they are told so. Is this attitude healthy? Can we agree on anything here?

No one can tell you how to look because 'the look' doesn't represent and isn't designed for everyone. I mean I would look so silly in a Jean Paul Gaultier gown, his clothes are designed for a different personality type, a different kind of aesthetic beauty.

Clearly you are smart enough or experience enough with this topic to know that, but do you believe that applies to everyone? Have you never noticed the young girls who think supermodel thin is the "correct" style ie they believe they "must" look that way or they won't be attractive?

People do do that. I don't know why you assume they do not. Desire is what it is, you cannot manufacture it. When various hues of green where the rage I didn't buy anything in that color because green has never suited my complexion. I buy what ENHANCES not what I am told and thank god that these designers have a variety of attitudes and tastes, what is out there is actually quite diverse, I don't know why you cant see that.

See above. There is clearly an influence and a social pressure on the general public, hell they wouldn't sell any products if there wasn't now would they? I should think it goes for a lot of industries really, we just seem to be on the subject of this one.

Why would you argue about it? The fashion industry doesn't care whether you like it, agree with it, have an opinion about it or not. They don't care if you think that the models are too skinny either they have THEIR aesthetic that they are dealing with. Designers are artists first and they care about quality and beauty, exclusivity and uniquness, whether you like it or not is besides the point. Most cannot afford it anyway! I see fashion but I don't think its being shoved down my throat, its advertising, its selling, its beautiful ads or ordinary ads or shock ads. So what? I'm not bothered by it at all.

I don't care about the industry, I care about the people, I'm concerned at the number of people who come out with dumbass statements like "I must have that, because it's the fashion/others have it". It may very well not apply to you but it seems individuality in others, particularly the young and impressionable is stifled these days, it's all about what others do.

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

Let's put it this way: if she (or a non-famous lookalike) were in my pub I wouldn't cross the room to talk to her.
By "fresh-faced" I just meant no particular blemishes - scrubbed clean bland.Characterless almost.I think we had this with Sandy and her comments that Christie Brinkley is "hot".
One_Raven said it first - "white bread" -wholesome but not particularly appealing.

Didn't you read what I wrote in my previous post to you? IT DOESN'T MATTER IF YOU WOULDN'T GO AND TALK TO HER!! That doesn't make her any less beautiful because you prefer another type. Having no blemishes is a criteria for beauty, when I see someone with many blemishes or facial scares I think 'its too bad that his or her beauty has been marred.' If 'fresh faced' were irrelevant the cosmetic industry and dermatology wouldn't be making so much money.

 

[visceral_instinct]

I disagree.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and there are people who did and do find the "super models" of this world ugly and unattractive.

And the Western standards of beauty have changed during the last 100 years. If you look at the models of the past, the standards for "beauty" or what is considered beautiful have changed and altered with time. We've gone from waif thin to very curvy and plump, to tall and stick thin to waif again, and back too many times to count. The public or the 'Western Standard' changes and adapts to what is suddenly considered beautiful.

Models are not just chosen for 'beauty'. They are selected because they are striking and draw attention. They are chosen or become models because they suit whatever style designers want to portray.

So yes, there are some who may consider a woman to be unattractive and ugly while another will consider her to be "zomg stunning". It's what draws the individual eye. Regardless of whether one considers her to be ugly or attractive is quite beside the point at the end of the day. The objective has been fulfilled because people will look at the image regardless because they are struck by it, for different reasons, but they are still struck by it.

I agree with your post.

I hate how society seems to have just one concept of what is beautiful. People can be good looking in different ways. I can think of someone who is over six and a half feet tall, devastatingly attractive. I can think of someone who is about five feet and heavyset, also very good looking.

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

Beauty is still beauty, but it is also individual. What I find beautiful, you might find ugly. And vice versa. We see what we want to see and only find beauty in what pleases us individually.

And all beautiful women are beautiful in a somewhat individual way. But so what? They are still beautiful. Ugly is never confused with beauty unless we are speaking of a fetish. You still fail to acknowledge that what you refer to is preference not on the intrinsic value of aesthetic beauty. Some prefer jennifer aniston others angelina jolie (sometimes by the same man) but are either of them ugly? NO. Oli might think jen is bland, someone else would say 'whitebread', but so what, she still isn't by anyones standard 'ugly'.

 

[Orleander]

I think Padma Lakshmi's scar makes her MORE beautiful.

 

[visceral_instinct]

Scars on anyone look class. On a woman, they often look cool because they make her look tough, and because they often contrast with the more delicate appearance of a female. On men, they just look dead sexy.

I remember trying to convince my neighbour to keep the facial scars she got in a car crash. They make her look kickass.

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

I hate how society seems to have just one concept of what is beautiful. People can be good looking in different ways. I can think of someone who is over six and a half feet tall, devastatingly attractive. I can think of someone who is about five feet and heavyset, also very good looking.

There isn't one concept of what is beautiful but there is a standard. No one would say a poxy face is attractive, no one would say that someone is ugly solely because they are short or tall. This is besides the point. Beauty is beautiful if its tall or short, size 4 or size 12. Ugly is ugly at 6' as well as 5'. You get the picture.

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

I think Padma Lakshmi's scar makes her MORE beautiful.

I see no scar on that face. As a matter of fact the picture is touched to look FLAWLESS which proves my point.

 

[Bells]

And all beautiful women are beautiful in a somewhat individual way. But so what? They are still beautiful. Ugly is never confused with beauty unless we are speaking of a fetish. You still fail to acknowledge that what you refer to is preference not on the intrinsic value of aesthetic beauty. Some prefer jennifer aniston others angelina jolie (sometimes by the same man) but are either of them ugly? NO. Oli might think jen is bland, someone else would say 'whitebread', but so what, she still isn't by anyones standard 'ugly'.

That's the thing. By someone's standard, she just might be ugly.

 

[Orleander]

...On men, they just look dead sexy.....

Oh hell yeah! :yay: My husband refused to wear shorts when I met him due to the massive scars on his legs. All I had to say was "I want to lick your scars" and he wears shorts all the time now. He'll sit in his easy chair in his boxers and catch me staring. He'll lift his legs like a dancer just for me. show off. LOL

 

[Orleander]

That's the thing. By someone's standard, she just might be ugly.

I bet she is. She thought she would never get a modeling career because of it. It made her unique.

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

Scars on anyone look class. On a woman, they often look cool because they make her look tough, and because they often contrast with the more delicate appearance of a female. On men, they just look dead sexy.I remember trying to convince my neighbour to keep the facial scars she got in a car crash. They make her look kickass.

Yeah right, this guy is simply gourgeous!

http://rosemeritavares.com/images/jpgs/scarredFace.jpg

...As long as your the one dating him!

 

[takandjive]

I disagree.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and there are people who did and do find the "super models" of this world ugly and unattractive.

And the Western standards of beauty have changed during the last 100 years. If you look at the models of the past, the standards for "beauty" or what is considered beautiful have changed and altered with time. We've gone from waif thin to very curvy and plump, to tall and stick thin to waif again, and back too many times to count. The public or the 'Western Standard' changes and adapts to what is suddenly considered beautiful.

Models are not just chosen for 'beauty'. They are selected because they are striking and draw attention. They are chosen or become models because they suit whatever style designers want to portray.

So yes, there are some who may consider a woman to be unattractive and ugly while another will consider her to be "zomg stunning". It's what draws the individual eye. Regardless of whether one considers her to be ugly or attractive is quite beside the point at the end of the day. The objective has been fulfilled because people will look at the image regardless because they are struck by it, for different reasons, but they are still struck by it.

But there are some norms since food supply levels have been steady. Some things have just always been consistent:

1) Waist to hip ratio

2) Clear eyes, good skin, good teeth

3) Proportions

There's a universal standard of beauty with a real biological basis. There will always be deviations, but it's there. People who fit that have a very real advantage. Babies respond more positively to people who are considered "attractive" in a mainstream way. We're programmed to feel a certain way about people because of how they look.