Fri, Jun-24-11, 23:03
|
Senior Member
Posts: 151
|
|
Plan: Maintenance
Stats: 267/160.8/170
BF:
Progress: 109%
Location: United States
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by freckles
I disagree. What we tend to find most appealing is what we are sold in the media...and that is thin rail and NOT realistic. If you look back in history what you will find is that women were curvacious...large hips, chests, bellies...because women are built to have children....and historically these curvacious women were revered. It wasn't until VERY recent modern times that it was <expected> that women should be rail thin. But it is still not realistic. Just because our times dictate that women should be thin doesn't make it so - even if all the tv shows and ads use all these rail thin women.
|
I second this, and was thinking of a response along the same lines as well.
The concept that a woman should be "toned" is quite recent, and frankly not a natural state for most women.
There are many different body shapes, sizes, etc. and in different cultures (different parts of the world, different time periods) different attributes are considered beautiful. What is most "beautiful" in a culture tends to be that which is most beneficial (signs of fertility, health, wealth, wisdom). Thinking about the stick-thin models and over-painted celebrities that are shoved at us as role models, and the implications for what this means society expects from us...well, it kind of makes me shudder.
Sorry for the mini-rant.
|