Re: Why Skinny = Beautiful

[Guest guest]

Interesting thoughts.

To be honest, I don't think it is MEN who perpetuate the " skinny woman "

thing--it is women. We strive for that and we measure ourselves against it.

Most of us don't look like that, most men AREN'T married to women who look like

that. I think we do this to ourselves.

Sobering thought, hmmm?

Cheryl

[Guest guest]

Wow. That is really incredibly an interesting theory. It does seem

to be perfectly logical. I wonder if anyone is/has done research on

this...

>

> Okay, this is the conclusion I've come to. It's just a theory, but

> for a while I've been trying to figure out why the current beauty

> ideal is the way it is.

>

> Basically, the human species does things to adapt to its

> environment. 'Pro-survival' qualities are the ones that are most

> glorified in society. Having children is an example of a pro-

survival

> quality, and if your ancestors come from a time that had a lot of

> famine and starvation, insulin resistance is another 'pro-survival'

> quality for your specific gene line.

>

> Now, it is scientifically proven that disease breaks out when

> populations get too numerous; it's a way of keeping the population

> under control, from 'Mother Nature's' perspective. In the past few

> years, we've also seen booms in populations and likewise outbreaks

of

> numerous new diseases. Every time we cure one, a bigger one pops

up.

> We're over populating the earth, and soon the earth won't be able

to

> sustain us, so it makes sense. We've also seen a rise in

> homosexuality. Is it because it's more accepted now, or perhaps

could

> it be something that's come up as a biological way to control the

> population? I'm not makeing any kind of moral judgement on

> homosexuality whatsoever, I'm just saying...it would make sense.

>

> So here's what I'm getting at:

> A lot of men no longer find fertility attractive. They find women

who

> are so thin they can't menstruate attractive. This is anti-

survival,

> but...it would help keep the population down.

>

> Is that a weird connection? lol...that's the conclusion I came to.

>

[Guest guest]

---I don't know if any studies have been done into this but there has

been some basic surveys done on the need for " class. " Basically a

society needs someone to " look " down on. Now that racism is no longer

socially acceptable (although it still happens its not done in a

socially sanctified way) society has turned to different ways to

stratify the community. We need someone to be better than or to say

at least I'm not ______. (Fat,Black, Christian, etc.)

One way this is done and has always been done is through appearance.

At times and still in certain areas of the world affluence and money

was measured by your clothes and your girth. Today its still the same

but in contrast to other areas and times its now the lower your girth

and the better your fashion the more wonderful you are.

I think that the fertility aspect may be an interesting component but

I think that diseases such as HIV and Avian Bird Flu are mother

natures current poisons. Tastes, such as skinny women vs. fertile

earth mamma are social trends, not biological trends. And as

important as population control is, I don't think society is

enlightened enough as a whole to be making these choices consciously.

[Guest guest]

Actually, I think that men preferring women who looked " fertile " (large

breasts, round/plump hips and thighs, and a bit of a belly) was a

biological trend. Living through childbirth wasn't a given like it is

today, so men wanted someone who could bear more than one child to

carry on the genes.

> I think that diseases such as HIV and Avian Bird Flu are mother

> natures current poisons. Tastes, such as skinny women vs. fertile

> earth mamma are social trends, not biological trends. And as

> important as population control is, I don't think society is

> enlightened enough as a whole to be making these choices consciously.

>

[Guest guest]

Actually, I think that men preferring women who looked " fertile " (large

breasts, round/plump hips and thighs, and a bit of a belly) was a

biological trend. Living through childbirth wasn't a given like it is

today, so men wanted someone who could bear more than one child to

carry on the genes.

> I think that diseases such as HIV and Avian Bird Flu are mother

> natures current poisons. Tastes, such as skinny women vs. fertile

> earth mamma are social trends, not biological trends. And as

> important as population control is, I don't think society is

> enlightened enough as a whole to be making these choices consciously.

>

[Guest guest]

I think you have made a connection that has merit. I also think that

men are turning towards a 'girl' look instead of a 'woman' look due to

the heavy and unnatural pressure for youth youth youth. The only time

most of us were 'thinner' was when we were about 12 years old and

growing up faster than filling 'out'.

Edith Head wrote that the human body is 2/5th above the waist and

3/5th below. Yet ever see a model or Vegas show gal that didn't have

way longer legs in proportion to her overall height? And yet these are

the images that the rest of us try to obtain No matter how 'slim'

we make ourselves, we are going to be the same basic body type and

size overall.

>

> Okay, this is the conclusion I've come to. It's just a theory, but

> for a while I've been trying to figure out why the current beauty

> ideal is the way it is.

>

> Basically, the human species does things to adapt to its

> environment. 'Pro-survival' qualities are the ones that are most

> glorified in society. Having children is an example of a pro-survival

> quality, and if your ancestors come from a time that had a lot of

> famine and starvation, insulin resistance is another 'pro-survival'

> quality for your specific gene line.

>

> Now, it is scientifically proven that disease breaks out when

> populations get too numerous; it's a way of keeping the population

> under control, from 'Mother Nature's' perspective. In the past few

> years, we've also seen booms in populations and likewise outbreaks of

> numerous new diseases. Every time we cure one, a bigger one pops up.

> We're over populating the earth, and soon the earth won't be able to

> sustain us, so it makes sense. We've also seen a rise in

> homosexuality. Is it because it's more accepted now, or perhaps could

> it be something that's come up as a biological way to control the

> population? I'm not makeing any kind of moral judgement on

> homosexuality whatsoever, I'm just saying...it would make sense.

>

> So here's what I'm getting at:

> A lot of men no longer find fertility attractive. They find women who

> are so thin they can't menstruate attractive. This is anti-survival,

> but...it would help keep the population down.

>

> Is that a weird connection? lol...that's the conclusion I came to.

>

[Guest guest]

By Biological you mean the biological consequence: progeny

(biological offspring). For this they preferred women who were at

that time socially acceptable as fertile, hardy/healthy women. Today

if you sat a fat person next to a skinny person and asked who was

more hardy/healthy and thus more likely to bear children, most would

tell you the skinny person. This is where the thin line <no pun

intended> between what is biological (instinctive or intuitive) and

social (taught or observed) is hard to discern.

If your arguement is that this is purely biological, that somehow men

are now being born with DNA that says " Skinny Women Only Please... "

then how do we account for the differing mentalities around the

world, such as Africa, the Caribbeans, or many European countries.

Have these men not " evolved " this new DNA code?

The evolution of new instincts and survival tools takes generations.

What is the supporting evidence that this has been happening for

genterations? There is evidence that women have been getting thinner

for hundreds of years, but this can also be tracked to trends

(fashion) and the spread of wealth both on a social and personal

level. There is also evidence of our population getting fatter and

fatter and our population rising and rising.

If men are in fact developing new genes, why aren't women? Our genes

still welcome and accept fat men as sexy. The competitve nature of

evolution and procreation in general would mean that the female body

would work quickly to catch up with the male's. Again this is done

over many many generations.

Historically population has been controlled through disease and lack

of food, not evolution. Evolution is quite the opposite. Evolution is

the sum total of what has worked for the survival of the parents.

Ex: Rattlesnakes will continue to have rattles because the few born

without the " rattle " gene are quickly eaten and unable to reproduce,

thus the " no rattle " gene is lost. So 99.9% of rattlesnakes have

the " rattle " gene and only once in a blue moon do the " non-rattler "

genes meet and procreate.

This is supported in another way by an uber simplified take on

Darwinism. It is the point of living organisms to procreate. Once we

have filled an environment beyond capacity there is a natural decline

in life because the environment is unable to support it. But

organisms are driven to produce... That is why as anorexics withhold

calories the bodies shut down reproduction. W/O food and nutrients

for the mother, the body instictively knows there will be none for

the offspring so the calories that would be expended to support this

function can be saved while the calories needed breathing and

continuing survival are more important.

The definitions of our Society and its mores (norms deemed necessary

to the wellbeing of society) is vastly different from those of other

parts of the world. As mentioned before the Caribbean and many

European countries are not nearly as hard on different shapes and

sizes as the U.S. (Personally I don't find this surprising because we

have the biggest movie/celebrity hotspot in the world==Hollywood== in

our own backyard.)

We bombard our young men and women everyday with what is desireable

in a mate. We tell them through our own self-hating behavior that

their genes will never be good enough without surgery, dieting and

excessive gym time and thousands of dollars worth of beauty product.

It is hardly surprising then that the normal adult in our society

will gravitate towards mates that are close to " ideal. " This is

purely social, not biological.

Although the results are biological in who " breeds " with who, the

psychology behind is not.

This arguement may be further pushed by saying that many men, given

protection from their peers and judgement, will admit that they like

a woman with a little meat on her bones, or a " thick " girl. So

perhaps, intuition, or biology speaks the other way and its the

social pressures that peek interest in the " ideal. "

The idea behind Mother Nature taking this new social trend towards

anorexic women is an interesting one, and certainly pressing. There

is one proverbial wrench that can gum up the works as stated

above :God = Mother Nature= Higher Intelligence. You throw " god " into

it and science will leave you stranded at the alter to figure it out

yourself.

We would have to regulate ourselves from overpopulating the earth,

our genes will not do that for us. Women still menstrate 12 times a

year and men are still fertile until they are 80+. Biologically we're

still ready ro roll.

The social trend towards " unfertile " less hardy/healthy women may

have unforseen consequences on our number of offspring, but our

bodies are formed by DNA our social perspectives are formed by

society.

So, we are on the same page again, using different terminology

Biolgoy vs. Society. My reply was meant to be informative, not

snitty. Sometimes that is hard to convey on the internet where tone

is moot. I've studied this extensively and although I don't ever plan

on writing a book about it I am active in the education system and

scientific community with these hot issues, so I do feel I speak from

a platform.

>

> > I think that diseases such as HIV and Avian Bird Flu are mother

> > natures current poisons. Tastes, such as skinny women vs. fertile

> > earth mamma are social trends, not biological trends. And as

> > important as population control is, I don't think society is

> > enlightened enough as a whole to be making these choices

consciously.

> >

>

[Guest guest]

By Biological you mean the biological consequence: progeny

(biological offspring). For this they preferred women who were at

that time socially acceptable as fertile, hardy/healthy women. Today

if you sat a fat person next to a skinny person and asked who was

more hardy/healthy and thus more likely to bear children, most would

tell you the skinny person. This is where the thin line <no pun

intended> between what is biological (instinctive or intuitive) and

social (taught or observed) is hard to discern.

If your arguement is that this is purely biological, that somehow men

are now being born with DNA that says " Skinny Women Only Please... "

then how do we account for the differing mentalities around the

world, such as Africa, the Caribbeans, or many European countries.

Have these men not " evolved " this new DNA code?

The evolution of new instincts and survival tools takes generations.

What is the supporting evidence that this has been happening for

genterations? There is evidence that women have been getting thinner

for hundreds of years, but this can also be tracked to trends

(fashion) and the spread of wealth both on a social and personal

level. There is also evidence of our population getting fatter and

fatter and our population rising and rising.

If men are in fact developing new genes, why aren't women? Our genes

still welcome and accept fat men as sexy. The competitve nature of

evolution and procreation in general would mean that the female body

would work quickly to catch up with the male's. Again this is done

over many many generations.

Historically population has been controlled through disease and lack

of food, not evolution. Evolution is quite the opposite. Evolution is

the sum total of what has worked for the survival of the parents.

Ex: Rattlesnakes will continue to have rattles because the few born

without the " rattle " gene are quickly eaten and unable to reproduce,

thus the " no rattle " gene is lost. So 99.9% of rattlesnakes have

the " rattle " gene and only once in a blue moon do the " non-rattler "

genes meet and procreate.

This is supported in another way by an uber simplified take on

Darwinism. It is the point of living organisms to procreate. Once we

have filled an environment beyond capacity there is a natural decline

in life because the environment is unable to support it. But

organisms are driven to produce... That is why as anorexics withhold

calories the bodies shut down reproduction. W/O food and nutrients

for the mother, the body instictively knows there will be none for

the offspring so the calories that would be expended to support this

function can be saved while the calories needed breathing and

continuing survival are more important.

The definitions of our Society and its mores (norms deemed necessary

to the wellbeing of society) is vastly different from those of other

parts of the world. As mentioned before the Caribbean and many

European countries are not nearly as hard on different shapes and

sizes as the U.S. (Personally I don't find this surprising because we

have the biggest movie/celebrity hotspot in the world==Hollywood== in

our own backyard.)

We bombard our young men and women everyday with what is desireable

in a mate. We tell them through our own self-hating behavior that

their genes will never be good enough without surgery, dieting and

excessive gym time and thousands of dollars worth of beauty product.

It is hardly surprising then that the normal adult in our society

will gravitate towards mates that are close to " ideal. " This is

purely social, not biological.

Although the results are biological in who " breeds " with who, the

psychology behind is not.

This arguement may be further pushed by saying that many men, given

protection from their peers and judgement, will admit that they like

a woman with a little meat on her bones, or a " thick " girl. So

perhaps, intuition, or biology speaks the other way and its the

social pressures that peek interest in the " ideal. "

The idea behind Mother Nature taking this new social trend towards

anorexic women is an interesting one, and certainly pressing. There

is one proverbial wrench that can gum up the works as stated

above :God = Mother Nature= Higher Intelligence. You throw " god " into

it and science will leave you stranded at the alter to figure it out

yourself.

We would have to regulate ourselves from overpopulating the earth,

our genes will not do that for us. Women still menstrate 12 times a

year and men are still fertile until they are 80+. Biologically we're

still ready ro roll.

The social trend towards " unfertile " less hardy/healthy women may

have unforseen consequences on our number of offspring, but our

bodies are formed by DNA our social perspectives are formed by

society.

So, we are on the same page again, using different terminology

Biolgoy vs. Society. My reply was meant to be informative, not

snitty. Sometimes that is hard to convey on the internet where tone

is moot. I've studied this extensively and although I don't ever plan

on writing a book about it I am active in the education system and

scientific community with these hot issues, so I do feel I speak from

a platform.

>

> > I think that diseases such as HIV and Avian Bird Flu are mother

> > natures current poisons. Tastes, such as skinny women vs. fertile

> > earth mamma are social trends, not biological trends. And as

> > important as population control is, I don't think society is

> > enlightened enough as a whole to be making these choices

consciously.

> >

>

[Guest guest]

'If you sat a fat person next to a skinny person and asked who was

more hardy/healthy and thus more likely to bear children, most would

tell you the skinny person.'

Hmm? The 'skinny' I'm speaking of that is anti-survival is the

Richie, Aniston, Angelina Jolie-type skinny. They certainly

don't look 'hardy' or able to bear offspring to me.

Regarding all the 'other countries' that don't have this

standard...you'd be surprised.

The 'platform' I can speak from on this topic is from my studies as a

Cultural Anthropology and International Studies major in college. Our

country's obesity rates and overall amount of overweight people are

the highest in the world. Does this tell you that other countries are

fine with fat?

Also, beleive it or not, in a study of why African girls ages 13-25

were hesitant to take birth control pills that were being supplied by

the government, one of the number one reasons was because they were

afraid it would make them gain weight. Interesting. And don't we see

Africa in a different and somewhat glorified light over here in

America?

How about Eastern Europe? Where do you think all those impossibly

skinny models on the runways COME from? Most of them are not

American. And Europe is QUITE into high fashion nowadays...you'd be

hard pressed to find a plus-sized store over there, and most all of

their media figures and women are ridiculously skinny. Bulgarian

singers, for example, get so skinny and have so much plastic surgury

done (with TONS of make up) after they reach stardome, they are

barely recognizeable.

Italy. When I studied in Italy, some of my fellow American students

were actually 'taunted' for being fat...they didn't understand

Italian, and of course, I didn't translate...they didn't directly

insult them, either, it was to me or I overheard it. Some of those

girls I wouldn't even have considered fat. But Milan is the fashion

capital of the world.

Asia. A LOT of Asians will tell you that they move here, gain 10-

20lbs as is normal for foreigners who come to live or study here,

bringing them from 'underweight' status to 'normal,' only to be

considered 'fat' in their home country.

I would argue to say that only certain parts of Africa and the

Caribbean don't have the sickly skinny ideal going on.

'If men are in fact developing new genes, why aren't women?'

This one's simple. Women are the child bearers. Men can carry enough

sperm to impregnate whether they are fat, thin, or morbidly obese. It

honestly doesn't matter what state of health the man is in at

conception, because he doesn't carry a fetus around for nine months

and then have to be able to breastfeed for months thereafter.

" Historically population has been controlled through disease and lack

of food, not evolution. "

Fair enough, but couldn't psychological illness and distortions also

count in that? I wouldn't necessarily say this is an evolutionary new

strand of DNA. Never did, that wasn't my arguement. I do, however,

think that organisms will display more 'anti-survival' activity when

the population is higher, for whatever reason, 'God', 'Mother Nature'

or otherwise.

" It is hardly surprising then that the normal adult in our society

> will gravitate towards mates that are close to " ideal. " This is

> purely social, not biological. "

Yes, but the ideal itself is biological.

And by the way, I never did say anything about genes. Genes take

generations to cultivate and I would hardly try to argue that my

theory could be supported by genes.

[Guest guest]

'If you sat a fat person next to a skinny person and asked who was

more hardy/healthy and thus more likely to bear children, most would

tell you the skinny person.'

Hmm? The 'skinny' I'm speaking of that is anti-survival is the

Richie, Aniston, Angelina Jolie-type skinny. They certainly

don't look 'hardy' or able to bear offspring to me.

Regarding all the 'other countries' that don't have this

standard...you'd be surprised.

The 'platform' I can speak from on this topic is from my studies as a

Cultural Anthropology and International Studies major in college. Our

country's obesity rates and overall amount of overweight people are

the highest in the world. Does this tell you that other countries are

fine with fat?

Also, beleive it or not, in a study of why African girls ages 13-25

were hesitant to take birth control pills that were being supplied by

the government, one of the number one reasons was because they were

afraid it would make them gain weight. Interesting. And don't we see

Africa in a different and somewhat glorified light over here in

America?

How about Eastern Europe? Where do you think all those impossibly

skinny models on the runways COME from? Most of them are not

American. And Europe is QUITE into high fashion nowadays...you'd be

hard pressed to find a plus-sized store over there, and most all of

their media figures and women are ridiculously skinny. Bulgarian

singers, for example, get so skinny and have so much plastic surgury

done (with TONS of make up) after they reach stardome, they are

barely recognizeable.

Italy. When I studied in Italy, some of my fellow American students

were actually 'taunted' for being fat...they didn't understand

Italian, and of course, I didn't translate...they didn't directly

insult them, either, it was to me or I overheard it. Some of those

girls I wouldn't even have considered fat. But Milan is the fashion

capital of the world.

Asia. A LOT of Asians will tell you that they move here, gain 10-

20lbs as is normal for foreigners who come to live or study here,

bringing them from 'underweight' status to 'normal,' only to be

considered 'fat' in their home country.

I would argue to say that only certain parts of Africa and the

Caribbean don't have the sickly skinny ideal going on.

'If men are in fact developing new genes, why aren't women?'

This one's simple. Women are the child bearers. Men can carry enough

sperm to impregnate whether they are fat, thin, or morbidly obese. It

honestly doesn't matter what state of health the man is in at

conception, because he doesn't carry a fetus around for nine months

and then have to be able to breastfeed for months thereafter.

" Historically population has been controlled through disease and lack

of food, not evolution. "

Fair enough, but couldn't psychological illness and distortions also

count in that? I wouldn't necessarily say this is an evolutionary new

strand of DNA. Never did, that wasn't my arguement. I do, however,

think that organisms will display more 'anti-survival' activity when

the population is higher, for whatever reason, 'God', 'Mother Nature'

or otherwise.

" It is hardly surprising then that the normal adult in our society

> will gravitate towards mates that are close to " ideal. " This is

> purely social, not biological. "

Yes, but the ideal itself is biological.

And by the way, I never did say anything about genes. Genes take

generations to cultivate and I would hardly try to argue that my

theory could be supported by genes.

[Guest guest]

I see your point. My experience is that men find full figured women more attractive. I realize I'm speaking in generalities. Maybe I should say that I am attracting men lately that have more depth and substance. I think it's because I have more depth and substance since I started loving myself fully. I think the men who find unnaturally skinny women so beautiful might be the type of man who is more interested in social status than true intimacy. Although it seems lately that curvy women are more 'in style' than they were a few years back. Susie shaktidance8 wrote: Okay, this is the conclusion I've come to. It's just a theory, but for a while I've been trying to figure out why the current beauty ideal is the way it is. Basically, the human species does things to adapt to its environment. 'Pro-survival' qualities are the ones that are most glorified in society. Having children is an example of a pro-survival quality, and if your ancestors come from a time that had a lot of famine and starvation, insulin resistance is another 'pro-survival' quality for your specific gene line. Now, it is scientifically proven that disease breaks out when populations get too numerous; it's a way of keeping the population under control, from 'Mother Nature's' perspective. In the past few

years, we've also seen booms in populations and likewise outbreaks of numerous new diseases. Every time we cure one, a bigger one pops up. We're over populating the earth, and soon the earth won't be able to sustain us, so it makes sense. We've also seen a rise in homosexuality. Is it because it's more accepted now, or perhaps could it be something that's come up as a biological way to control the population? I'm not makeing any kind of moral judgement on homosexuality whatsoever, I'm just saying...it would make sense. So here's what I'm getting at:A lot of men no longer find fertility attractive. They find women who are so thin they can't menstruate attractive. This is anti-survival, but...it would help keep the population down. Is that a weird connection? lol...that's the conclusion I came to.

Food fight? Enjoy some healthy debatein the Yahoo! Answers Food Drink Q&A.

[Guest guest]

I see your point. My experience is that men find full figured women more attractive. I realize I'm speaking in generalities. Maybe I should say that I am attracting men lately that have more depth and substance. I think it's because I have more depth and substance since I started loving myself fully. I think the men who find unnaturally skinny women so beautiful might be the type of man who is more interested in social status than true intimacy. Although it seems lately that curvy women are more 'in style' than they were a few years back. Susie shaktidance8 wrote: Okay, this is the conclusion I've come to. It's just a theory, but for a while I've been trying to figure out why the current beauty ideal is the way it is. Basically, the human species does things to adapt to its environment. 'Pro-survival' qualities are the ones that are most glorified in society. Having children is an example of a pro-survival quality, and if your ancestors come from a time that had a lot of famine and starvation, insulin resistance is another 'pro-survival' quality for your specific gene line. Now, it is scientifically proven that disease breaks out when populations get too numerous; it's a way of keeping the population under control, from 'Mother Nature's' perspective. In the past few

years, we've also seen booms in populations and likewise outbreaks of numerous new diseases. Every time we cure one, a bigger one pops up. We're over populating the earth, and soon the earth won't be able to sustain us, so it makes sense. We've also seen a rise in homosexuality. Is it because it's more accepted now, or perhaps could it be something that's come up as a biological way to control the population? I'm not makeing any kind of moral judgement on homosexuality whatsoever, I'm just saying...it would make sense. So here's what I'm getting at:A lot of men no longer find fertility attractive. They find women who are so thin they can't menstruate attractive. This is anti-survival, but...it would help keep the population down. Is that a weird connection? lol...that's the conclusion I came to.

Food fight? Enjoy some healthy debatein the Yahoo! Answers Food Drink Q&A.

[Guest guest]

You've obviously thought this out quite a bit (I feel dumb

now...)...it just seems like a start to an interesting theory...

> >

> > > I think that diseases such as HIV and Avian Bird Flu are mother

> > > natures current poisons. Tastes, such as skinny women vs.

fertile

> > > earth mamma are social trends, not biological trends. And as

> > > important as population control is, I don't think society is

> > > enlightened enough as a whole to be making these choices

> consciously.

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

You've obviously thought this out quite a bit (I feel dumb

now...)...it just seems like a start to an interesting theory...

> >

> > > I think that diseases such as HIV and Avian Bird Flu are mother

> > > natures current poisons. Tastes, such as skinny women vs.

fertile

> > > earth mamma are social trends, not biological trends. And as

> > > important as population control is, I don't think society is

> > > enlightened enough as a whole to be making these choices

> consciously.

> > >

> >

>