Originally posted by roughrider
Her huge boobs, plus the fact she has no extra chins or neck fat, complete her into looking like a Jessica Rabbit who enjoys a burger. She's big sexy, not someone I would consider overweight.
Originally posted by snowdragon
They do use a simple BMI on the internet but not your general physician. And the general healthiness of a person can be measured in their diet which reflects on their frame.Who mentioned anything about attraction here?
In my experience doctors can be quite simplistic in their approach to weight as well. And even diet is not a good indicator of health either. Really we as a society need to look much more at the individuals in question, rather than make blanket statements on a handful of variables.
Roughrider in his OP, and One Big Mob in his reply both mentioned attraction, and it's always an underlying topic in the discussion of weight, particularly women's weight (or would you disagree in your experience?)
Originally posted by Bardock42If you look like you have too much fat, then you could be healthier. I'd say around 20 percent body fat for men and 25 percent body fat for women give or take and you really shouldn't have to worry about health complications from being overweight. At that stage it's purely cosmetic.
In my experience doctors can be quite simplistic in their approach to weight as well. And even diet is not a good indicator of health either. Really we as a society need to look much more at the individuals in question, rather than make blanket statements on a handful of variables.Roughrider in his OP, and One Big Mob in his reply both mentioned attraction, and it's always an underlying topic in the discussion of weight, particularly women's weight (or would you disagree in your experience?)
Also a good diet is a great indicator of health depending on the time stuck to that diet. A good diet will take away the overweight factor and will show you're doing everything you can to be healthy in the food aspect so therefore something else must be wrong.
My "attraction" had nothing to do with her weight since she's a special case - if she looks that way then her weight is irrelevant to me, though a relevant topic to bring up to others to show again that she eats a lot. By all means her height and weight should make her huge, but she works out a lot so she's not, and good genes, and eating at maintenance though (still a lot). The "kilos" are irrelevant. It's the body fat percentage that becomes about "attraction" ignoring faces.
Iskra isn't fat. She's beautiful, curvaceous, normal. If people were happy with normal, Big Fashion and Big Diet couldn't sell you much, so they've successfully brainwashed the majority into believing sticks are the way to go. They aren't. What's being pushed is emaciation. The body image problems this causes are well-known, widespread, and good for business.
Side note: google 'obesity paradox,' and discover another reason why being a stick is no healthier than being genuinely, severely overweight (which Iskra certainly isn't). Though if one exercises and eats right, this does extend the range of healthy further down either end of the Bell curve.
I don't like body shaming, but we also have this sort of sick thing going on where people act like fat is beautiful, when no..it's just unhealthy. Doesn't mean anyone who is a little overweight is in danger,but yeah..this "it doesn't matter at all" is BS and why so many f*cking people are obese.
You should be proud of your body, you should not be proud of your obesity or act like it's not an issue.
Originally posted by Bardock42
If the issue is unhealthiness then what many of us call fat doesn't really indicate that. Additionally you can be unhealthy and considered beautiful as well. Really the two are only marginally related, and beauty has a lot more to do with societal expectations than medical considerations.
Yes, but the issue is some women are essentially preaching the message that your body is beautiful no matter what. Which on the surface seems like a positive thing, but then when you look at the numbers for obesity, the health risks, etc. it's a somewhat dangerous narrative to put out there.
A few days ago I was watching a video about women complaining that mannequinns in stores don't resemble "real women".
Originally posted by Surtur
Yes, but the issue is some women are essentially preaching the message that your body is beautiful no matter what. Which on the surface seems like a positive thing, but then when you look at the numbers for obesity, the health risks, etc. it's a somewhat dangerous narrative to put out there.A few days ago I was watching a video about women complaining that mannequinns in stores don't resemble "real women".
Actually accepting ones body and generally self love is linked with higher self esteem, which in turn is one of the best things linked with actually getting healthy or losing weight, so even if you disagree with the message, the practical effects are exactly what you seem to desire as well.
And mannequins do not represent any women. Not even the most skinny women. Making them a more general and realistic body shape seems like a reasonable thing to do, no?
Originally posted by Bardock42
Actually accepting ones body and generally self love is linked with higher self esteem, which in turn is one of the best things linked with actually getting healthy or losing weight, so even if you disagree with the message, the practical effects are exactly what you seem to desire as well.
But it doesn't mean the narrative can't also be potentially harmful.
And mannequins do not represent any women. Not even the most skinny women. Making them a more general and realistic body shape seems like a reasonable thing to do, no?
Actually no it doesn't seem reasonable. Women come in all shapes and sizes, correct? So what..stores should build dozens of mannequinns that conform to the various shapes and sizes? Since no, you can't really just say they should change it to a single body type because women do not have a single body type. So then who decides which body type should be created?
Or like I said, should they make a mannequinn for every single body type? Also wait, some women do have a body type very similar to mannequinns. It's certainly not all women or even a majority, but you said no women at all look like that.
Originally posted by Surtur
But it doesn't mean the narrative can't also be potentially harmful.Actually no it doesn't seem reasonable. Women come in all shapes and sizes, correct? So what..stores should build dozens of mannequinns that conform to the various shapes and sizes? Since no, you can't really just say they should change it to a single body type because women do not have a single body type. So then who decides which body type should be created?
Or like I said, should they make a mannequinn for every single body type? Also wait, some women do have a body type very similar to mannequinns. It's certainly not all women or even a majority, but you said no women at all look like that.
What I think should happen is that newly build mannequins come either in multiple, more representative, sizes, or if they don't come in multiple they should come in a size that is not unattainable for virtually all women, so more between skinny and fat than on the skinniest side of skinny.
Making women aware of the issue is a good way to assert consumer pressure on the shops, who in turn can demand better mannequins from the manufacturers. Cause capitalism.
What I don't understand is that you seem against the love your body movement, cause fatties are too unhealthy, but that for most women, maybe even all, trying to attain the body that mannequins have is extremely unhealthy...why aren't you against that as well?
Okay but like I just said..women come in more then just 2-3 sizes. So they'd either need to have dozens of mannequinns to fit every body type(which is ridiculous) or they'd have to take it upon themselves to decide which single body type represents women. Which you know that in itself is a shit storm waiting to happen, right? Since the women who didn't measure up to the size they chose would freak out.
Originally posted by Surtur
Okay but like I just said..women come in more then just 2-3 sizes. So they'd either need to have dozens of mannequinns to fit every body type(which is ridiculous) or they'd have to take it upon themselves to decide which single body type represents women. Which you know that in itself is a shit storm waiting to happen, right? Since the women who didn't measure up to the size they chose would freak out.
Yes, and more and more women are telling them that their choice of skinny on the very end of the bell curve is not the right choice...why is that a problem?
Originally posted by Surtur
I'm asking you how you determine what the right choice is. How do they decide which body type should represent women? How do you do so without offending the women who don't fit into the size chosen?
Why is that our problem, they are in the mannequin making business. I'm sure they don't spend time thinking about how you can please your customers in your line of work.
As a thought experiment though, if I was in charge I would probably see what my realistic manufacturing methods are...can I make three body type mannequins? Maybe it's easy to make more. Then i'd maybe co opt the movement, put the three body sizes to a vote...or you know have my designers decide on three, get a feel of the customer base. Could be a huge marketing win.