| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/17/2002 06:15:22 AM · #51 |
Ruth,
I'm tired of people treating beauty like it's some product of a bad modern society. The fact is, we are naturally attracted to beautiful, thin, women who are in good physical shape. It's all about mate selection at a certain level, even if it's not realistic - the attraction is the same. We can't help it, it's in our genetics. I think the real reason people moan about this "issue" is because of their own fear of not getting selected.
Just my $0.02..
--Steve |
|
|
|
09/17/2002 06:28:02 AM · #52 |
swaits, that is not true in the slightest. The fact is that the ideal of feminine beauty has changed over time, and it varies from one culture to the next. African American women, for example, do not suffer the same kind of pressure that white American women do to be thin, because culturally black men dig chicks with curves.
Thinness does not equate to health. Any woman with a body mass index between about 18 and the mid twenties is medically healthy, but models generally have a body mass index that is 18 or below. My BMI is in the higher end of that, and I'm very healthy, but I wouldn't be considered "beautiful" by your standards at all.
If you think I have a fear of being "selected" because I object to your stance, think again! I've been in a steady relationship for 7 years. Nyaaaah to you.
* This message has been edited by the author on 9/17/2002 10:27:11 AM.
|
|
|
|
09/17/2002 06:52:49 AM · #53 |
You know what? I decided to do some research on this.
Your body mass index is calculated by dividing your weight in kilograms by the square of your height in metres. Medically, a healthy weight range is between 18.5 and 24.9. Here are some BMI's of some supermodels, using statistics from supermodelguide.com (unfortunately, not many have weight measurements):
Christy Turlington - 17.1
Elle Macpherson - 17.4
Claudia Schiffer - 17.9
Kate Moss - 16.9
Any men who find these women's bodies attractive blow the theory of "being attracted to healthy bodies" out of the water, because they are all medically unhealthy and should not be good motherhood material!
|
|
|
|
09/17/2002 06:55:25 AM · #54 |
OMG, I actually agree with Lisae on a point. (Quick, write it down, it may never happen again!!:-)) I disagree that all men are attracted to thin, slender, perfect-bodied women. If that were the case, my husband would not have married me. I am, as lisae put it, in the upper range, adn having had a baby 8 months ago, not in the best physical shape. There are things about my body that i would like to change, not to please the men around me (gag) but because i know I am not as healthy as I should be. :-)
About John's pic, if anyone gets tired of seeing nude or partially nude pics, it is me. BUT, setz's was done in an artistic way and if i have to look at a nude picture (if you didn't like this one, don't even go to photosig!), i would prefer to look at somehting like this. When I saw it, my first impression was not "bad message to little girls and boys" (though I do agree with Ruth that the media and our society rewards those with perfect bodiesand sends many mixed messages to young people about a variety of things), but a two-fold one. First, the original sin thing. Secondly, because of where the apple was placed, the photog could look but not touch, therefore, the "fruit" was forbidden to him/her. |
|
|
|
09/17/2002 07:15:36 AM · #55 |
Originally posted by mci:
Originally posted by Ruth Skidmore:
[i]PS: on the subject of sexuality and beauty--do you young guys on here realize that your grandparents still have sex.
If they do, then that is messed up, because 3 of the 4 are dead.
[/i]
LOL Yeah, all of mine are. |
|
|
|
09/17/2002 07:15:38 AM · #56 |
Yikes! I agree with her too!?! And I happen to be a man to boot. "All" men are not attracted to self destructive women with eating disorders. Actually I would have to honestly say that what attracted me to my wife had NOTHING to do with her physical appearence, since we met on the internet and I was fairly certain I loved her before we saw each other.
|
|
|
|
09/17/2002 07:36:41 AM · #57 |
Perhaps you all should refer to "late 20th century idealized" bodies instead of "perfect" bodies, as you are otherwise accepting and perpetuating the stereotype to which you object.
I also believe that much of what you are objecting to is the media's representation of "our" attitudes. Women of all shapes, sizes, and personalities are found attractive by men (and women) of a similarly diverse nature.
Also remember that, in Eden, sex was neither forbidden nor sinful, and that the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil was almost certainly NOT an apple. |
|
|
|
09/17/2002 07:54:09 AM · #58 |
These numbers are ridiculous. Many pro-athelets fall into the obeses catagory because of their muscle mass. These number are just meant as a guideline.
Originally posted by lisae:
You know what? I decided to do some research on this.
Your body mass index is calculated by dividing your weight in kilograms by the square of your height in metres. Medically, a healthy weight range is between 18.5 and 24.9. Here are some BMI's of some supermodels, using statistics from supermodelguide.com (unfortunately, not many have weight measurements):
Christy Turlington - 17.1
Elle Macpherson - 17.4
Claudia Schiffer - 17.9
Kate Moss - 16.9
Any men who find these women's bodies attractive blow the theory of "being attracted to healthy bodies" out of the water, because they are all medically unhealthy and should not be good motherhood material!
|
|
|
|
09/17/2002 08:03:55 AM · #59 |
Zeiss - for people who are on the heavier end of the scale, waist measurement comes into it... if your BMI is high but your waist is under a certain measurement (different for men and women) you are still considered healthy.
However, on the low end of the scale, there's no mitigating factor. If you have too little mass for your height, you are underweight. There's no way it can magically be healthy.
|
|
|
|
09/17/2002 08:31:49 AM · #60 |
Methinksthis has strayed a bit from the original category!!
Forget about numbers, what's healthy and all that crap. I think 'sexy' is way more important than any numbers you can spit out. Beauty is a contributing factor no doubt, but I think it's more about attitude. As for all the crap about negative contributions to society.... that's reaching. Media is a lot to blame for that crap...like the Dateline's of the world. Give your kids some self-confidence and a positive self image and they can go a long long way without letting everything they see affect them in a negative way.
|
|
|
|
09/17/2002 04:44:14 PM · #61 |
I sure would like to have sex when I reach 75, (pause and reflect here) should start stocking up on Viagra now? On the subject of sexuality and beauty I cant think of no other two words that describe John picture better, so please do me a favor and leave the apple were it is, comprende?
Hey John can I be your assistant??? I promise I wont look :)
Originally posted by Ruth Skidmore:
PS: on the subject of sexuality and beauty--do you young guys on here realize that your grandparents still have sex.
|
|
|
|
09/17/2002 05:30:33 PM · #62 |
I think Ruth has volunteered for that position already... she says I need to be censored...
|
|
|
|
09/17/2002 06:38:53 PM · #63 |
Bull, these are not exact figures, they are guidelines. All of the supermodels are withing 10% of the low number. How can dropping half a pound suddenly make you unhealthy? Oh gosh, I don't weight enough, I should go eat a cube of butter and a hershey bar. There are many factors involved besides weight. Just as being within the BMI numbers does not make you healthy. You also would need to believe that the weight and height they give is 100% accurate. DON'T BELIEVE THE HYPE!
Although I would say many of these women are pushing the edge, and I really do not find that attractive. Bone is not one of my favorite body features.
Originally posted by lisae:
Zeiss - for people who are on the heavier end of the scale, waist measurement comes into it... if your BMI is high but your waist is under a certain measurement (different for men and women) you are still considered healthy.
However, on the low end of the scale, there's no mitigating factor. If you have too little mass for your height, you are underweight. There's no way it can magically be healthy.
* This message has been edited by the author on 9/17/2002 10:40:24 PM.
* This message has been edited by the author on 9/17/2002 10:41:14 PM.
* This message has been edited by the author on 9/17/2002 10:43:46 PM. |
|
|
|
09/17/2002 06:52:32 PM · #64 |
| This thread has certainly taken an intersting turn. I just wanted to chime in on the original topic and say that I love this photo, especially the bw/red apple version. Ooo la la! I love selectively colored photos... |
|
|
|
09/17/2002 07:36:08 PM · #65 |
| Yes John's image is overtly sexy and beautiful. Less overt but twice as sexy was the majority of the other entries. Think about Maplethorp and the anatomical purpose of Fruit and you may realize how subjectively stimulating those banana's and kiwi are. *wink* |
|
|
|
09/17/2002 08:13:57 PM · #66 |
~will NEVER look at her grandparents the same again~
|
|
|
|
09/17/2002 08:21:29 PM · #67 |
Ruth, your logic reminds me of the "modern" little league, where all teams are winners, and we let kids keep swinging until they hit the ball. In your world, Ruth, we'd soon all be sterling symbols of mediocrity. God forbid we should judge some people attractive, and others not so much so. Or some people smarter than others. Or more creative. Heaven forbid we should we should value and revere the human qualities that inspire emotion and make us feel something. Better to just bash the best until they're just like all the rest... eh?
|
|
|
|
09/17/2002 08:28:15 PM · #68 |
| Don't forget the "zero tolerance" policies where kids get thrown out of school for using a fishstick like a weapon, or having cold medication. Where is Susan Pouter when you need her? STOP THE INSANITY! |
|
|
|
09/17/2002 08:59:49 PM · #69 |
You guys are way off of the deep end here and on this politically correct spiel that i have to end it.
Look, a model looks best when she's tall. It's very simple what that is: the clothes fits better (for fashion), the curves is LONGER (for nude photographs), etc. Any guy who says they don't desire a woman that looks like this photo, is either crazy, or stupid, or lying, or all three :)
Now, the fur on that photo is what I'd call "Negative Space"!
|
|
|
|
09/17/2002 09:06:33 PM · #70 |
| I don't have any scientific studies on hand to back this up, but I think it's Americans who are messed up. Other countries are much more open about sex and nudity and don't seem to have a lot of the problems that we do. I saw parents picking out a porn flick with their kid alongside when I was in Sweden. I also agree that we have bigger problems such as violence against women and teenage pregnancy. Maybe we should demystify sexuality and see where it leads. |
|
|
|
09/17/2002 09:09:23 PM · #71 |
This is so lame.
A supermodel has to WORKOUT a ton. They basically have to be semi-athletes, so low BMI count isn't that bad.
Stop this politically correctness! Argh!
Men ARE pigs :-) we can't help it. Some men like really petite women and some like tall women. But, not a lot of men are attracted to WIDE women. You'll never make a career as a glamour photographer if your portfolio consists of 5'2" women @ 160 lbs. If you did, i'll be very impressed indeed.
Originally posted by lisae:
You know what? I decided to do some research on this.
Your body mass index is calculated by dividing your weight in kilograms by the square of your height in metres. Medically, a healthy weight range is between 18.5 and 24.9. Here are some BMI's of some supermodels, using statistics from supermodelguide.com (unfortunately, not many have weight measurements):
Christy Turlington - 17.1
Elle Macpherson - 17.4
Claudia Schiffer - 17.9
Kate Moss - 16.9
Any men who find these women's bodies attractive blow the theory of "being attracted to healthy bodies" out of the water, because they are all medically unhealthy and should not be good motherhood material!
|
|
|
|
09/17/2002 09:28:23 PM · #72 |
Originally posted by paganini:
You'll never make a career as a glamour photographer if your portfolio consists of 5'2" women @ 160 lbs.
only because of the modern trend toward the tall & slender - check out the classical "Rubenesque" women in art 500 years ago - you'd be hard pressed to find ANY of your Cindy Crawford/Claudia Schiffer/Heidi Klum-types on canvas -- they were all pretty much of the 5'2" 160 lb variety
AND they were - ARE - beautiful
|
|
|
|
09/17/2002 09:33:05 PM · #73 |
Paganini, you're confusing your personal taste with some kind of weird absolute idea of what is "right" and "wrong" in photography. Here are some cases in point of women who people love to photograph: Sophie Dahl, the 6', size 14 model; and Kylie Minogue, the 5'1" Australian/UK superstar.
As for making money through "glamour photos" of short, fat women, do a search on google for "boudoir photography" and see how many results you get. It's a huge industry. People of all sizes can and do look beautiful in photos, and they will pay to have them done.
But I can always tell when an argument is futile if someone labels me "politically correct" so they can dismiss my arguments as though they're irrelevant. It's the most convenient term for people to hide behind when they can't actually justify what they're saying other than through asserting "this is just the way it is, live with it". The fact is, you've been brainwashed by the advertising industry, which uses thinness as an aspirational feature, because if you marginalise the majority of society and teach them to feel that there's something wrong with them, they'll pay money to correct it and feel better. It makes financial sense. If you want to go along with that, fine... but there are many people who would rather not.
|
|
|
|
09/17/2002 09:36:25 PM · #74 |
Pretty much until the "Industrial Age" when infectious disease, malnutrition, and sanitation began to be dealt with somewhat effectively, the "average man" stood about 5'4" and lived fewer than 40 years*...Sir Lancelot and Claudia Shiffer would have made (to our modern eye) quite the odd couple...
*Probably 2 or 3 BILLION people live under similar circumstances today.
* This message has been edited by the author on 9/18/2002 1:37:31 AM. |
|
|
|
09/18/2002 04:27:30 AM · #75 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
Thanks to everyone for the votes and great comments this week... Special thanks to Kim for letting me do this photo :)
I would really have loved to post THIS PHOTO instead but I couldn't find a legal way to do it...
Thanks :)
John, you're obviously a troublemaker. Look at what you started just by saying thanks! ;)
Mark |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/14/2025 10:43:38 AM EDT.
