Is bodybuilding bad for society, from a body positivity perspective?

harneska

I was having a debate with someone about body positivity and body acceptance, and the topic of bodybuilding came up. My personal view of body positivity (evolving over time as I learn more):

• This is a movement rooted in empathy for others and compassion for one's self
• Because of idealized body images promoted by the media, this has resulted in mistreatment/shaming of people who don't fit that ideal, as well as negative self-feelings and low self-esteem.
• There's work to be done societally, and individually, to undo this form of "othering" and discrimination that hurts so many people (fat, trans, skinny, etc).
• There's nothing wrong with wanting to change your body, lose weight, build muscle, etc. But ideally you start from a place of self love, and aren't creating a condition under which you can only love yourself if you achieve X outcome, or worse, you don't think other people should love you until you achieve X outcome.
• People have very mixed views on the "healthy at any weight" movement -- there are aspects of this that are problematic, though the idea comes from a good place.

Feel free to comment on my baseline understanding as I an open to learning and evolving my perspective on this, but here's my real question:

• Is bodybuilding inherently bad for society?
• To be specific, let's set aside the extremes -- the competitive bodybuilders and ones who use steroids and may experience muscle dysmorphia.
• Instead, when I say "bodybuilding" I'm referring to the other 99% who are simply following a diet plan and exercise plan with the intent of building muscle, mostly for aesthetic reasons, not functional.
• The key difference is form over function.

My debate partner's argument was that because in bodybuilding, one strives for form over function, it is inherently unhealthy -- if not for the individual (who casual bodybuilding might still be a net gain for health-wise, especially if done in a body-positive way), then for society, because emphasis on the aesthetic appearance of one's body causes psychological harm to others who cannot achieve, let's say, chiseled abs or larger chest muscles. That because you are causing harm to other people in this way, by contributing to their self-non-acceptance, we'd all be better off if nobody did bodybuilding.

I'm not sure what to think about this and couldn't find anything online written about this exact angle. I'm curious what this community thinks. If I, as an individual, want to go to the gym to specifically build muscle for aesthetic reasons, is that a bad thing for society? I especially want to hear from those who are well-versed in the body-positivity world or have struggled with body positivity themselves.

janejellyroll

If I achieve any goal, like writing a novel or finishing a marathon or icing a beautiful wedding cake, am I harming those who cannot achieve it?

Francl27

Health-wise, I'm not sure that carrying too much muscle weight is that better for the body as carrying too much fat, frankly. But people can do whatever they want. The problem is when people start making comments about how super muscular types look 'better' than rounded ones IMO (which I've seen here oh so many times, and good luck to you if you don't agree with them). They have their own idea about what looks better and start promoting it... that's the problem.

Again, what people are doing is none of anyone's business. People promoting their own opinions of what looks better as truth is the problem.

harneska

janejellyroll wrote: »

If I achieve any goal, like writing a novel or finishing a marathon or icing a beautiful wedding cake, am I harming those who cannot achieve it?

Not sure these are the best analogies because many elements are missing. For one, those are all external goals based on function (your ability to do or create something) -- not based on the aesthetics of your very body. Second, society does not care how good of a writer you are (though some occupations might). The media does not promote idealized writing styles or glorify good writers. People are not taught from a young age that their self-worth is tied to their ability to write like Hemingway or Homer.

In the same way, I'd leave powerlifting out of this conversation -- because that's about function -- how much you can lift.

singingflutelady

Francl27 wrote: »

Health-wise, I'm not sure that carrying too much muscle weight is that better for the body as carrying too much fat, frankly. But people can do whatever they want. The problem is when people start making comments about how super muscular types look 'better' than rounded ones IMO (which I've seen here oh so many times, and good luck to you if you don't agree with them). They have their own idea about what looks better and start promoting it... that's the problem.

Again, what people are doing is none of anyone's business. People promoting their own opinions of what looks better as truth is the problem.

I've also seen lots of posts about how super muscular people look "gross". That's just as bad. Body positivity doesn't just apply to the more "round" bodies. Body shaming is not acceptable against ANYBODY.

cmriverside

Wait. :huh:


Stay in your own lane. Don't worry about or envy or covet or be jealous or insecure or afraid or whatever perfectionist all-or-nothing thing is going on there...I have never once thought about anything like what you are postulating.

All I can be is who I am.

I could not care any less about what Joe or Jane does with their body. If they ask me I probably would not even have an opinion. If they don't ask me, I stay in my own lane.

Maybe read up on boundaries.

janejellyroll

harneska wrote: »

janejellyroll wrote: »

If I achieve any goal, like writing a novel or finishing a marathon or icing a beautiful wedding cake, am I harming those who cannot achieve it?

Not sure these are the best analogies because many elements are missing. For one, those are all external goals based on function (your ability to do or create something) -- not based on the aesthetics of your very body. Second, society does not care how good of a writer you are (though some occupations might). The media does not promote idealized writing styles or glorify good writers. People are not taught from a young age that their self-worth is tied to their ability to write like Hemingway or Homer.

The point is that if someone has a goal and they achieve it, are they hurting those who cannot achieve that goal (for whatever reason)?

Society generally prefers certain body types, but it's certainly not limited to the specific body type achieved through serious body building. You don't require a six pack to avoid social consequences.

I generally think that people shouldn't limit themselves in order to ensure that others feel good.

If anything, the response should be to value more types of physical fitness, not encouraging certain people to give up on their goals because it might make some others feel bad.

urloved33

absolutely not. normal healthy body builders do NOT flaunt themselves all over society...they quietly live their healthy lives. THE EXTREME you may be thinking of is bad for society like ALL EXTREMES.

sardelsa

Is it still causing harm if someone is naturally beautiful or fit? Or what if they actually go out and get their hair done, nails, makeup, tan, wear nice clothes and jewelry, etc. Should those people not do that either because they will make others feel bad? I am just trying to figure out where we would draw the line here in terms of working/changing aesthetics.

Personally I actually feel much much worse when I see someone who is naturally beautiful in a way I will never be, or has a talent I will never have. If there is a possibility of hard work taking me there I get inspired by others and know it can be done.

harneska

cmriverside wrote: »

Wait. :huh:

Stay in your own lane. Don't worry about or envy or covet or be jealous or insecure or afraid or whatever perfectionist all-or-nothing thing is going on there...I have never once thought about anything like what you are postulating.

All I can be is who I am.

I could not care any less about what Joe or Jane does with their body. If they ask me I probably would not even have an opinion. If they don't ask me, I stay in my own lane.

Maybe read up on boundaries.

You are clearly not somebody who suffers from body positivity issues. You seem like someone with a healthy outlook on yourself. You also seem to feel/think that what you do is your business even if it might negatively impact other people... which is a valid opinion, though certainly not the only one.

janejellyroll

harneska wrote: »

cmriverside wrote: »

Wait. :huh:

Stay in your own lane. Don't worry about or envy or covet or be jealous or insecure or afraid or whatever perfectionist all-or-nothing thing is going on there...I have never once thought about anything like what you are postulating.

All I can be is who I am.

I could not care any less about what Joe or Jane does with their body. If they ask me I probably would not even have an opinion. If they don't ask me, I stay in my own lane.

Maybe read up on boundaries.

You are clearly not somebody who suffers from body positivity issues. You seem like someone with a healthy outlook on yourself. You also seem to feel/think that what you do is your business even if it might negatively impact other people... which is a valid opinion, though certainly not the only one.

If people will be negatively impacted simply by looking at me and seeing what I've decided to do with my spare time, I'm not convinced the problem is me.

janejellyroll

If I am infertile, do people have an obligation not to have babies?

ccrdragon

I understand the argument that you are making, but the problem is not that there are bodybuilders who are willing to sacrifice and spend unending hours in a gym to achieve what they believe are the 'perfect' body (and more than likely damage their health with various illegal substances to achieve their goals). The actual problem is a societal issue with how the bodybuilders are perceived. Banning the 'sport' of bodybuilding will not solve the problem, society would simply move on to the next thing that gets idolized/glorified/etc.

I mean, if you were to ban bodybuilding because it makes some people feel bad about themselves, what gets banned next? Blue eyes, blonde hair, beauty....? You should do a Google search on 'The Twilight Zone' - they actually covered this very topic more than 40 years ago by depicting a society that forced all people who had reached puberty to undergo plastic surgery so that all people would be the same (thus eliminating envy). There have also been a number of SciFi writers who have covered this topic extensively.

janejellyroll

ccrdragon wrote: »

I understand the argument that you are making, but the problem is not that there are bodybuilders who are willing to sacrifice and spend unending hours in a gym to achieve what they believe are the 'perfect' body (and more than likely damage their health with various illegal substances to achieve their goals). The actual problem is a societal issue with how the bodybuilders are perceived. Banning the 'sport' of bodybuilding will not solve the problem, society would simply move on to the next thing that gets idolized/glorified/etc.

I mean, if you were to ban bodybuilding because it makes some people feel bad about themselves, what gets banned next? Blue eyes, blonde hair, beauty....? You should do a Google search on 'The Twilight Zone' - they actually covered this very topic more than 40 years ago by depicting a society that forced all people who had reached puberty to undergo plastic surgery so that all people would be the same (thus eliminating envy). There have also been a number of SciFi writers who have covered this topic extensively.

A classic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrison_Bergeron

amusedmonkey

The act of bodybuilding, no. Being involved in bodybuilding in itself is not a jab at those who aren't. We don't openly criticize people who have great personalities and social intelligence as "bad for society" because they make other people feel bad about themselves.

Promoting bodies achieved through bodybuilding as the ideal, and that every other type of body is inferior is a whole different story, but it doesn't have anything to do with the act of bodybuilding itself. Even though I don't agree with it, I would still argue that even that isn't exactly bad for society. It's a symptom, not the issue. There have always been and will always be idealized body shapes which by default marginalizes other body shapes. If a muscular body isn't it, something else is. We either get all sensitive about it, or we accept it as part of how we evolved as humans.

harneska

sardelsa wrote: »

Is it still causing harm if someone is naturally beautiful or fit? Or what if they actually go out and get their hair done, nails, makeup, tan, wear nice clothes and jewelry, etc. Should those people not do that either because they will make others feel bad? I am just trying to figure out where we would draw the line here in terms of working/changing aesthetics.

Hmm. Perhaps a difference is that anyone can fancy themselves up. That's accessible. Not anyone can achieve idealized physical beauty. So, perhaps it's more similar to a billionnaire flaunting their wealth. You don't become a billionnaire with hard work; you become a billionnaire with hard work + serious luck.

ccrdragon

janejellyroll wrote: »

ccrdragon wrote: »

I understand the argument that you are making, but the problem is not that there are bodybuilders who are willing to sacrifice and spend unending hours in a gym to achieve what they believe are the 'perfect' body (and more than likely damage their health with various illegal substances to achieve their goals). The actual problem is a societal issue with how the bodybuilders are perceived. Banning the 'sport' of bodybuilding will not solve the problem, society would simply move on to the next thing that gets idolized/glorified/etc.

I mean, if you were to ban bodybuilding because it makes some people feel bad about themselves, what gets banned next? Blue eyes, blonde hair, beauty....? You should do a Google search on 'The Twilight Zone' - they actually covered this very topic more than 40 years ago by depicting a society that forced all people who had reached puberty to undergo plastic surgery so that all people would be the same (thus eliminating envy). There have also been a number of SciFi writers who have covered this topic extensively.

A classic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrison_Bergeron

Thanks Jane - I love that story and had a complete brain-fart trying to come up with the title!

cmriverside

harneska wrote: »

cmriverside wrote: »

Wait. :huh:

Stay in your own lane. Don't worry about or envy or covet or be jealous or insecure or afraid or whatever perfectionist all-or-nothing thing is going on there...I have never once thought about anything like what you are postulating.

All I can be is who I am.

I could not care any less about what Joe or Jane does with their body. If they ask me I probably would not even have an opinion. If they don't ask me, I stay in my own lane.

Maybe read up on boundaries.

You are clearly not somebody who suffers from body positivity issues. You seem like someone with a healthy outlook on yourself. You also seem to feel/think that what you do is your business even if it might negatively impact other people... which is a valid opinion, though certainly not the only one.

It's also not my problem if someone has an issue with the way I choose to look or dress or live as long as I'm not being openly disrespectful.

If someone has "body-positivity" issues they need therapy, not help in using their neuroses as battering rams to push forward their special snowflake status.

IMNSVHO

sardelsa

harneska wrote: »

sardelsa wrote: »

Is it still causing harm if someone is naturally beautiful or fit? Or what if they actually go out and get their hair done, nails, makeup, tan, wear nice clothes and jewelry, etc. Should those people not do that either because they will make others feel bad? I am just trying to figure out where we would draw the line here in terms of working/changing aesthetics.

Hmm. Perhaps a difference is that anyone can fancy themselves up. That's accessible. Not anyone can achieve idealized physical beauty. So, perhaps it's more similar to a billionnaire flaunting their wealth. You don't become a billionnaire with hard work; you become a billionnaire with hard work + serious luck.

So then what about super models or actors? That is definitely not accessible to everyone. That is mostly genetics, hard work, and luck.

Or what about those that get plastic surgery?

cwolfman13

I've been in and out of gyms since I was about 16 years old...for the most part, people I've known who lift don't just do it for aesthetics...that's only part of it.

I wouldn't consider myself a body builder in the least, but I do lift and over time my aesthetics have changed. I mostly lift because it's really good for my body from a health standpoint...putting on a little muscle is a really nice bi-product. I don't have a 6 pack and never will, nor do I care to...it's not really a goal I've ever had and I like beer too much.

I am functionally strong and like what I see aesthetically. I don't personally perceive a "body builders" body as being the "ideal" and I've never felt any kind of societal pressure to look a bodybuilder.

harneska

sardelsa wrote: »

harneska wrote: »

sardelsa wrote: »

Is it still causing harm if someone is naturally beautiful or fit? Or what if they actually go out and get their hair done, nails, makeup, tan, wear nice clothes and jewelry, etc. Should those people not do that either because they will make others feel bad? I am just trying to figure out where we would draw the line here in terms of working/changing aesthetics.

Hmm. Perhaps a difference is that anyone can fancy themselves up. That's accessible. Not anyone can achieve idealized physical beauty. So, perhaps it's more similar to a billionnaire flaunting their wealth. You don't become a billionnaire with hard work; you become a billionnaire with hard work + serious luck.

So then what about super models or actors? That is definitely not accessible to everyone. That is mostly genetics, hard work, and luck.

Or what about those that get plastic surgery?

Supermodels certainly contribute to society's idea of ideal body image and many might argue that we'd be better off without that profession. I don't see how actors fit the analogy -- they are doing/creating something, like a writer or baker, not perpetuating an ideal.

Plastic surgery -- idk, that's a topic I know nothing about. I'd imagine some plastic surgery is healthy and some isn't.

ccrdragon

harneska wrote: »

sardelsa wrote: »

harneska wrote: »

sardelsa wrote: »

Is it still causing harm if someone is naturally beautiful or fit? Or what if they actually go out and get their hair done, nails, makeup, tan, wear nice clothes and jewelry, etc. Should those people not do that either because they will make others feel bad? I am just trying to figure out where we would draw the line here in terms of working/changing aesthetics.

Hmm. Perhaps a difference is that anyone can fancy themselves up. That's accessible. Not anyone can achieve idealized physical beauty. So, perhaps it's more similar to a billionnaire flaunting their wealth. You don't become a billionnaire with hard work; you become a billionnaire with hard work + serious luck.

So then what about super models or actors? That is definitely not accessible to everyone. That is mostly genetics, hard work, and luck.

Or what about those that get plastic surgery?

Supermodels certainly contribute to society's idea of ideal body image and many might argue that we'd be better off without that profession. I don't see how actors fit the analogy -- they are doing/creating something, like a writer or baker, not perpetuating an ideal.

Sure they are - they are perpetuating the ideal hair style, facial features, all of that nonsense. How many times do things like fashion, make-up, etc. change just because some actor on a screen did it and now everybody wants to be like that actor?

sardelsa

harneska wrote: »

sardelsa wrote: »

harneska wrote: »

sardelsa wrote: »

Is it still causing harm if someone is naturally beautiful or fit? Or what if they actually go out and get their hair done, nails, makeup, tan, wear nice clothes and jewelry, etc. Should those people not do that either because they will make others feel bad? I am just trying to figure out where we would draw the line here in terms of working/changing aesthetics.

Hmm. Perhaps a difference is that anyone can fancy themselves up. That's accessible. Not anyone can achieve idealized physical beauty. So, perhaps it's more similar to a billionnaire flaunting their wealth. You don't become a billionnaire with hard work; you become a billionnaire with hard work + serious luck.

So then what about super models or actors? That is definitely not accessible to everyone. That is mostly genetics, hard work, and luck.

Or what about those that get plastic surgery?

Supermodels certainly contribute to society's idea of ideal body image and many might argue that we'd be better off without that profession. I don't see how actors fit the analogy -- they are doing/creating something, like a writer or baker, not perpetuating an ideal.

Many people look to actors as an ideal for beauty as well. The way they look, their bodies, how they dress etc.

So beautiful people should just hide? How would we advertise? Not hire anyone? Maybe a computer generated person or robot? That could cause a whole new set of issues.

ccrdragon

sardelsa wrote: »

harneska wrote: »

sardelsa wrote: »

harneska wrote: »

sardelsa wrote: »

Is it still causing harm if someone is naturally beautiful or fit? Or what if they actually go out and get their hair done, nails, makeup, tan, wear nice clothes and jewelry, etc. Should those people not do that either because they will make others feel bad? I am just trying to figure out where we would draw the line here in terms of working/changing aesthetics.

Hmm. Perhaps a difference is that anyone can fancy themselves up. That's accessible. Not anyone can achieve idealized physical beauty. So, perhaps it's more similar to a billionnaire flaunting their wealth. You don't become a billionnaire with hard work; you become a billionnaire with hard work + serious luck.

So then what about super models or actors? That is definitely not accessible to everyone. That is mostly genetics, hard work, and luck.

Or what about those that get plastic surgery?

Supermodels certainly contribute to society's idea of ideal body image and many might argue that we'd be better off without that profession. I don't see how actors fit the analogy -- they are doing/creating something, like a writer or baker, not perpetuating an ideal.

Many people look to actors as an ideal for beauty as well. The way they look, their bodies, how they dress etc.

So beautiful people should just hide? How would we advertise? Not hire anyone? Maybe a computer generated person or robot? That could cause a whole new set of issues.

Yes it would, because again, this does not deal with the problem - it only deals with the symptoms of the problem. The problem is not that people are different, the actual problem is that because people are different, some people get all butthurt because they cannot be THAT person.

kimny72

harneska wrote: »

janejellyroll wrote: »

If I achieve any goal, like writing a novel or finishing a marathon or icing a beautiful wedding cake, am I harming those who cannot achieve it?

Not sure these are the best analogies because many elements are missing. For one, those are all external goals based on function (your ability to do or create something) -- not based on the aesthetics of your very body. Second, society does not care how good of a writer you are (though some occupations might). The media does not promote idealized writing styles or glorify good writers. People are not taught from a young age that their self-worth is tied to their ability to write like Hemingway or Homer.

In the same way, I'd leave powerlifting out of this conversation -- because that's about function -- how much you can lift.

So it's unhealthy to make others feel bad that they don't have the body you worked hard for, but it's fine if other people feel bad they don't have the skills you worked hard for? Because form over function? What about people who are embarrassed that they didn't finish high school, or have to drive a jalopy, or can't swim?

I think it's important to make sure there are role models and pop culture models of all different shapes, sizes, genders, races, etc. And no one should be made fun of or belittled for how they look. But it's impossible to have a society that doesn't occasionally hero-worship a particular aesthetic. That aesthetic will be harder for some people than for others - sometimes life sucks. I'm super fair-skinned. Like albino-vampire fair. For most of my life, being tan has been a cultural ideal here. Sometimes I felt embarrassed that I could never fit that mold, but I got over it. I'd guess everyone in the history of everyone has had physical traits they were embarrassed by or were made fun of at some point.

But I guess I don't really agree with your bolded point that "The key difference is form over function". I have a way better chance of getting a fit, muscular body than I did of magically producing melanin and being able to get a deep tan. I'd put bodybuilding in the function bucket, not form. I might not be able to look like the picture on the cover of the bodybuilding magazine, but putting on some lipstick and eyeliner ain't making me look like Nicole Kidman either. Is she being inconsiderate to me? Should TV and movies and magazines only show people with average attainable looks and builds? Wouldn't that make very fit or tall or beautiful people feel marginalized and bad about themselves? Do you know how many muscular women are still to this day made fun of, can't find clothes that fit right, and get negatively stereotyped?

hesn92

I think it's a ridiculous argument. Same could be said for anyone who does anything to improve the way they look, or any talent that anyone might have. People don't have an obligation to walk on eggshells to cater to people with low self-esteem. Also, I don't believe body builders have the "ideal" or most attractive body type to most people. I don't think *most* people look at a bodybuilder and think "I wish I looked like that." I'm not a huge fan of bodybuilding or figure competitions in general but for none of the reasons given by your friend or whoever.

AnvilHead

I'll start by saying I think that the HAES movement is a bunch of BS, and I absolutely detest the "everybody gets a trophy" and "safe spaces" mentalities.

With that context established, my opinion is that bodybuilding (in the recreational sense) is a net positive for society at best, net neutral at worst. People involved in it are striving for a healthy weight/body composition and better dietary/fitness habits than the average member of society (who in most cases is unfit and overfat).

If that creates problems with unfit and overfat people, that's their problem to deal with. Creating a "lowest common denominator" environment (i.e., that we'd all be better off it nobody did bodybuilding) is ridiculous. People who have body positivity issues also generally have bigger issues with self-acceptance/confidence/self-esteem which go far beyond just the shape of their body. The onus is upon them to work those issues out - not upon fit people to quit working out because their being fit hurts other people's feelings. Should we also posit that we'd be better off as a society if nobody ran marathons/triathlons because many people can't do that either? How about professional sports, since only an infinitesimal percentage of the general population has the talent/abilities/drive to ever attain that level?

Not sure these are the best analogies because many elements are missing. For one, those are all external goals based on function (your ability to do or create something) -- not based on the aesthetics of your very body.

Bodybuilding is an external goal based upon function also, and is directly related to one's ability to do or create something. Creating an aesthetic body takes a lot of discipline and hard work.

Second, society does not care how good of a writer you are (though some occupations might). The media does not promote idealized writing styles or glorify good writers.

The reality is that society, as a whole, couldn't care less how fit one is or is not. That is mostly a made-up fixation in the minds of people with body positivity/self-esteem issues. If we want to re-structure the question and ask if certain branches of the media glorify and focus unduly upon having a certain/"ideal" type of body, that's an entirely different discussion. That frames the issue in a more relevant context than putting the blame upon fit people for hurting other people's feelz by having the drive and self-discipline to do what they do.

IHaveMyActTogether

[quote="harneska;d-10685640"then for society, because emphasis on the aesthetic appearance of one's body causes psychological harm to others who cannot achieve, let's say, chiseled abs or larger chest muscles. That because you are causing harm to other people in this way, by contributing to their self-non-acceptance, we'd all be better off if nobody did bodybuilding.

I'm not sure what to think about this and couldn't find anything online written about this exact angle. I'm curious what this community thinks. If I, as an individual, want to go to the gym to specifically build muscle for aesthetic reasons, is that a bad thing for society? I especially want to hear from those who are well-versed in the body-positivity world or have struggled with body positivity themselves.[/quote]



A person doing their best is not causing harm to anyone else. The person COMPARING themselves to someone doing their best is harming their own self. I have personal experience: I once had a 4 pack. I thought I was fat, because I compared myself to women in MAGAZINES that had 6 packs. Now I have belly fat (thanks kids). I've worked on it for YEARS, and it isn't back at the 4 pack level yet. Now, I have friends IRL with 6 packs. And I am VERY HAPPY with my progress, even though my tummy is nowhere near as slim as what it was when I thought I was fat! The difference is that I stopped comparing myself to those who are farther along. Instead, I compared myself to how I was when I really struggling with my weight.

Not everyone has as their priority an aesthetic body. Maybe their career or family is. Should they not try to advance in their career because NOT EVERYONE can attain CEO status? Or should people not marry because some people can't find a partner?

That is the level of stupidity of this argument.

Sorry to sound so harsh, but it really made me angry. Trying to push down people from their desire to see what their God-given potentional is, (in whatever ethical arena) is really a SELFISH thing to do.

harneska

IHaveMyActTogether wrote: »

Not everyone has as their priority an aesthetic body. Maybe their career or family is. Should they not try to advance in their career because NOT EVERYONE can attain CEO status? Or should people not marry because some people can't find a partner?

Trying to push down people from their desire to see what their God-given potential is, (in whatever ethical arena) is really a SELFISH thing to do.

It would be selfish to ban bodybuilding as a sport, but not selfish for an individual to decide that their participation in the sport was a net negative for society. That would be selfless, IMO. The debate is how we each answer that individual ethical question.

In a similar vein, some women don't wear makeup for the exact same reason -- they don't want to perpetuate the physical ideals that bombard girls in magazines, and they'd rather show an alternative idea of beauty. That's their decision, and not something they're imposing on others. Selfless, not selfish.

amusedmonkey

harneska wrote: »

cmriverside wrote: »

Wait. :huh:

Stay in your own lane. Don't worry about or envy or covet or be jealous or insecure or afraid or whatever perfectionist all-or-nothing thing is going on there...I have never once thought about anything like what you are postulating.

All I can be is who I am.

I could not care any less about what Joe or Jane does with their body. If they ask me I probably would not even have an opinion. If they don't ask me, I stay in my own lane.

Maybe read up on boundaries.

You are clearly not somebody who suffers from body positivity issues. You seem like someone with a healthy outlook on yourself. You also seem to feel/think that what you do is your business even if it might negatively impact other people... which is a valid opinion, though certainly not the only one.

harneska wrote: »

janejellyroll wrote: »

If I achieve any goal, like writing a novel or finishing a marathon or icing a beautiful wedding cake, am I harming those who cannot achieve it?

Not sure these are the best analogies because many elements are missing. For one, those are all external goals based on function (your ability to do or create something) -- not based on the aesthetics of your very body. Second, society does not care how good of a writer you are (though some occupations might). The media does not promote idealized writing styles or glorify good writers. People are not taught from a young age that their self-worth is tied to their ability to write like Hemingway or Homer.

In the same way, I'd leave powerlifting out of this conversation -- because that's about function -- how much you can lift.

So this is a personal question, not a general one. If you widen your perspective to every person who suffers a feeling of inferiority, you would see that the feeling is the same and not to be taken lightly. A struggling writer for whom writing is an integral part of their self suffers just as much as someone who struggles with body image. You can pinpoint the issue right there: the perspective of those who are suffering. Their feelings are not to be taken lightly, and would not be served by changing the world, but by understanding and treating the underlying issues.

If the world woke up one day and every single person on the planet was fat, I can guarantee that those with self-esteem issues would still be suffering, comparing their fat storage patterns to other fat people and feeling negative about their bodies.

Take a stroll through the forums and see how many people have lost all the weight they wanted to lose but still felt fat and unattractive until they started working on the underlying issue. This may be news to you, but some of the most accomplished bodybuilders suffer from a poor body image and have major body insecurities.

You're looking for the solution in the wrong place, it starts inside not outside.

bufger

I haven't met a woman yet who thinks Chris Hemsworth is ugly in Thor.

The fact is genetically we are predisposed to see lean form in males as alpha/prime just like males see female wide hips and big busts as good mating partners. This is in our subconscious because it's been our percieved reality for hundreds of thousands of years. Over time these predispositions fade as ideals change but think of how many thousands of years the Homo sapiens have thought like that... a few generations of alternative thought isn't going to remove that hard wiring.