Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Is bodybuilding bad for society, from a body positivity perspective?
Replies
-
cwolfman13 wrote: »
Not at all. Just questioning whether people should go to the gym to get fit and strong, or to look good. I know there's a lot of overlap between those two things, but bodybuilding indexes on looking good.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.
Wait, whut???
Are you actually arguing that people should let themselves get fat and unfit to spare the feelings of the people around them???
"look good" is in the eye of the beholder. I really don't think the body of a bodybuilder is being espoused as the "ideal body" either.
Not that male bodybuilders aren't sometimes exposed to this too, but female bodybuilders tend to get a lot of blow back on the way they decide to look. You hear men talk about how they don't like women with bigger muscles than they have, women refuse to lift anything because they don't want to look like them, their gender is questioned/policed, etc . . . they're not exactly drifting along with society's beauty standards.9 -
singingflutelady wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »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 bodybuilder suffer from a poor self image and have major body insecurities.
You're looking for the solution in the wrong place, it's starts inside not outside.
Where does the poor self-image come from though? Surely you would agree that when it comes to body image, in the last 100 years the problem has gotten exponentially worse. The root cause for the heightened incidence is outside, not inside. Saying everybody should look inwards or see a therapist does not acknowledge systemic issues that have worsened the problem greatly. It's like saying, if you get sick from drinking contaminated water, you should go to the doctor for treatment -- yes, of course, but society should also find a way to avoid having contaminated water in the first place, or at least to have it less often, like we used to.
Do you have any data to back up the bolded?
You do know women used to nearly kill themselves wearing super tight corsets and lbs of wig, right? They actually carried smelling salts to revive themselves when they passed out due to lack of oxygen. And tribal women who stretched their necks with bands? Ancient Asian women cramming their feet into smaller and smaller slippers? Tribes that poked holes in different body parts, female mutilation, body tattoos, all to look like/be like everyone else?
ETA: Rather than trying to create the first society to not value some kind of physical attribute, or limit people's pride in their "form" accomplishments, we should be doing a better job of teaching young people what about them is valuable, what their potential is, and how to feel confident regardless.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/articles/199702/body-image-in-america-survey-results
That article was written in 1997
Fine, here's another one. These aren't hard to find. I'm more shocked than anything that people are questioning that body image issues are getting worse, not better.
https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/beauty/face-body/womens-body-confidence-becomes-a-critical-issue-worldwide-dove-global-study-indicates/news-story/5bf063c6a19c838cee9464a248af6bff8 -
janejellyroll wrote: »
Not at all. The point is whether we should endeavor to have society value what we can do more than precisely how you look. Power lifting vs. bodybuilding. Nobody ever said anything about embracing poor health and being sedentary.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.
It often comes to what we see as good in mating partners, but what "good" is has changed dramatically over time in our culture, and is completely different in many other cultures.
So is the point that we should endeavor to have society embrace being fat, out of shape and sedentary as the ideal, so all those people don't get hurt feelz?
But why pick on bodybuilding? I do endurance running and that (combined with calorie control) results in a body type that is closer to society's ideal than the bodies of some other people. Why should a bodybuilder forgo their sport to make others feel better but not me?
Many kinds of activity -- combined with appropriate calorie intake -- result in bodies that are widely viewed as more aethetically pleasing than the body that is the typical result of a sedentary lifestyle and an excess of calories. There's no point in focusing only on bodybuilding here.
The only reason is that marathon running is functional -- you are training your body to do something. Bodybuilding is training your body to have a certain look. The look is the purpose, not the byproduct. Not saying I agree with that, but that's the distinction.
I don't think a marathon runner is getting more functional value than a bodybuilder is. The average person has a better chance of needing to pick up something heavy than needing to run for two hours straight :huh:12 -
I agree that body image is getting BETTER lately, not worse. The "ideal" is moving more towards healthy and fit vs. extremely thin. (Which is better for sure, however I do disagree that there is one ideal, we all have different body types and we are all ideal to different people) On top of that we are seeing a lot of different body types represented in clothing ads these days which never would have happened 20 years ago... I think bodybuilding is not mainstream enough to be considered as having that much of an impact to society.4
-
singingflutelady wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »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 bodybuilder suffer from a poor self image and have major body insecurities.
You're looking for the solution in the wrong place, it's starts inside not outside.
Where does the poor self-image come from though? Surely you would agree that when it comes to body image, in the last 100 years the problem has gotten exponentially worse. The root cause for the heightened incidence is outside, not inside. Saying everybody should look inwards or see a therapist does not acknowledge systemic issues that have worsened the problem greatly. It's like saying, if you get sick from drinking contaminated water, you should go to the doctor for treatment -- yes, of course, but society should also find a way to avoid having contaminated water in the first place, or at least to have it less often, like we used to.
Do you have any data to back up the bolded?
You do know women used to nearly kill themselves wearing super tight corsets and lbs of wig, right? They actually carried smelling salts to revive themselves when they passed out due to lack of oxygen. And tribal women who stretched their necks with bands? Ancient Asian women cramming their feet into smaller and smaller slippers? Tribes that poked holes in different body parts, female mutilation, body tattoos, all to look like/be like everyone else?
ETA: Rather than trying to create the first society to not value some kind of physical attribute, or limit people's pride in their "form" accomplishments, we should be doing a better job of teaching young people what about them is valuable, what their potential is, and how to feel confident regardless.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/articles/199702/body-image-in-america-survey-results
That article was written in 1997
Fine, here's another one. These aren't hard to find. I'm more shocked than anything that people are questioning that body image issues aren't getting worse, not better.
https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/beauty/face-body/womens-body-confidence-becomes-a-critical-issue-worldwide-dove-global-study-indicates/news-story/5bf063c6a19c838cee9464a248af6bff
Dove's entire schtick is a faux-questioning of beauty standards so they can sell products to fulfill those standards to us via feel good ads. They've got several horses in this race.13 -
Perhaps you need to lay off of the media...6
-
janejellyroll wrote: »
Not at all. The point is whether we should endeavor to have society value what we can do more than precisely how you look. Power lifting vs. bodybuilding. Nobody ever said anything about embracing poor health and being sedentary.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.
It often comes to what we see as good in mating partners, but what "good" is has changed dramatically over time in our culture, and is completely different in many other cultures.
So is the point that we should endeavor to have society embrace being fat, out of shape and sedentary as the ideal, so all those people don't get hurt feelz?
But why pick on bodybuilding? I do endurance running and that (combined with calorie control) results in a body type that is closer to society's ideal than the bodies of some other people. Why should a bodybuilder forgo their sport to make others feel better but not me?
Many kinds of activity -- combined with appropriate calorie intake -- result in bodies that are widely viewed as more aethetically pleasing than the body that is the typical result of a sedentary lifestyle and an excess of calories. There's no point in focusing only on bodybuilding here.
The only reason is that marathon running is functional -- you are training your body to do something. Bodybuilding is training your body to have a certain look. The look is the purpose, not the byproduct. Not saying I agree with that, but that's the distinction.
I don't think a marathon runner is getting more functional value than a bodybuilder is. The average person has a better chance of needing to pick up something heavy than needing to run for two hours straight :huh:
It's all useless until the zombies come . . . we'll have the last laugh then.21 -
singingflutelady wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »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 bodybuilder suffer from a poor self image and have major body insecurities.
You're looking for the solution in the wrong place, it's starts inside not outside.
Where does the poor self-image come from though? Surely you would agree that when it comes to body image, in the last 100 years the problem has gotten exponentially worse. The root cause for the heightened incidence is outside, not inside. Saying everybody should look inwards or see a therapist does not acknowledge systemic issues that have worsened the problem greatly. It's like saying, if you get sick from drinking contaminated water, you should go to the doctor for treatment -- yes, of course, but society should also find a way to avoid having contaminated water in the first place, or at least to have it less often, like we used to.
Do you have any data to back up the bolded?
You do know women used to nearly kill themselves wearing super tight corsets and lbs of wig, right? They actually carried smelling salts to revive themselves when they passed out due to lack of oxygen. And tribal women who stretched their necks with bands? Ancient Asian women cramming their feet into smaller and smaller slippers? Tribes that poked holes in different body parts, female mutilation, body tattoos, all to look like/be like everyone else?
ETA: Rather than trying to create the first society to not value some kind of physical attribute, or limit people's pride in their "form" accomplishments, we should be doing a better job of teaching young people what about them is valuable, what their potential is, and how to feel confident regardless.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/articles/199702/body-image-in-america-survey-results
That article was written in 1997
Fine, here's another one. These aren't hard to find. I'm more shocked than anything that people are questioning that body image issues are getting worse, not better.
https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/beauty/face-body/womens-body-confidence-becomes-a-critical-issue-worldwide-dove-global-study-indicates/news-story/5bf063c6a19c838cee9464a248af6bff
Says you.
Continue to see the glass as half empty. Nothing we say (apparently) will change that. You can find "articles" to back up any opinion.
If you want to stay unhappy and enmeshed, have at it.8 -
janejellyroll wrote: »
Not at all. The point is whether we should endeavor to have society value what we can do more than precisely how you look. Power lifting vs. bodybuilding. Nobody ever said anything about embracing poor health and being sedentary.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.
It often comes to what we see as good in mating partners, but what "good" is has changed dramatically over time in our culture, and is completely different in many other cultures.
So is the point that we should endeavor to have society embrace being fat, out of shape and sedentary as the ideal, so all those people don't get hurt feelz?
But why pick on bodybuilding? I do endurance running and that (combined with calorie control) results in a body type that is closer to society's ideal than the bodies of some other people. Why should a bodybuilder forgo their sport to make others feel better but not me?
Many kinds of activity -- combined with appropriate calorie intake -- result in bodies that are widely viewed as more aethetically pleasing than the body that is the typical result of a sedentary lifestyle and an excess of calories. There's no point in focusing only on bodybuilding here.
The only reason is that marathon running is functional -- you are training your body to do something. Bodybuilding is training your body to have a certain look. The look is the purpose, not the byproduct. Not saying I agree with that, but that's the distinction.
But outside of the marathon itself, who actually *needs* to do that thing (that is, run 26.2 miles)? Why is this any less self-indulgent than training to lift heavy stuff?
Also, I don't just run. I also control my calories so I can have the look (and speed advantages) of a typical endurance runner. Yes, there is training. But there is also a specific look that I (and other runners) are trying to achieve. So again, why focus on bodybuilding?
4 -
singingflutelady wrote: »An ad like this would not have been acceptable in the past, even the recent past. It only got a few negative comments when before people would have commented about how gross it is. But body image is getting worse?
Reposting this. How many times have you seen a mainstream clothing company using a model showing an ileostomy? This would never have happened in the past. There is A LOT more stigma surrounding ostomies than there is about not having the "ideal" body size. The fact that advertisers are using models with ostomies means society has taken a huge step forward.7 -
janejellyroll wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »
Not at all. Just questioning whether people should go to the gym to get fit and strong, or to look good. I know there's a lot of overlap between those two things, but bodybuilding indexes on looking good.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.
Wait, whut???
Are you actually arguing that people should let themselves get fat and unfit to spare the feelings of the people around them???
"look good" is in the eye of the beholder. I really don't think the body of a bodybuilder is being espoused as the "ideal body" either.
Not that male bodybuilders aren't sometimes exposed to this too, but female bodybuilders tend to get a lot of blow back on the way they decide to look. You hear men talk about how they don't like women with bigger muscles than they have, women refuse to lift anything because they don't want to look like them, their gender is questioned/policed, etc . . . they're not exactly drifting along with society's beauty standards.
A quick read through the MFP forums will reveal plenty of posts by women (and even some men) wanting to get in shape who say they don't want to get "bulky". (As if that's something which 'accidentally' happens after a few weeks in the gym, but that's a different topic.)
The bodybuilder physique is far from the societal ideal. Anecdotally, I know plenty of people who think that a bodybuilder/physique competitor aesthetic is "gross" or otherwise undesirable.
I'd add that "fit shaming" should be no more acceptable or ethical than "fat shaming". Yet people who make derogatory comments about fat people often get shouted down and made to feel that they're cruel, while fit shamers more often get a pass and don't feel there's anything wrong with their opinion.11 -
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.
Your viewpoint on this issue is just as bad as the magazine editor who always chooses size 00 models.
You are not imposing a "standard of beauty." You are imposing a "standard" of mediocrity.
If a woman wants to wear no makeup, and she takes care of her skin and feels her best being a natural beauty, then she should be able to without judgement.
There are other women who feel they need some help in that department and slather it on, in copious amounts, and they feel most beautiful and should be able to do so without judgement.
And there are women who wear some but not a lot of makeup and she feels most beautiful like this and should be able to do so without judgement.
But, there will always be people who judge a woman for it:
1) She wears no makeup:
She's not cute, does not take care of herself, needs to put on some makeup
OR
That's the way every woman needs to do it to fix society
OR
She's morally superior
OR
She's unfeminine/socially inferior
2) She wears a lot of makup
She's not cute, what is even under there
OR
Her makeup is immaculately and skillfully applied, why can't woman make an effort like her
OR
She must have some self esteem issues
OR
She has too much time on her hands or is incredibly vain/high maintenance
3) She wears some but not enough makeup
Arguments 1 and 2 (because some people will think it's not enough and some will think it's too much)
At ANY POINT, HER CHOICES WLL BE CRITICIZED.
Why can't she just do what makes HER feel her best, since she isn't going to be able to do anything that will make people like YOU satisfied?
DO YOU BOO. Because I'm gonna do me, because there AINT A DANG THING ANYONE CAN DO TO MAKE HATERS HAPPY.11 -
OP, have you really read all the comments and given them any thought? About what makes people feel bad about themselves? About there being people throughout human history who have felt so bad they hurt themselves to fit the ideal? About bodybuilding being functional? About an individual's responsibility to how their life or body makes other people feel? About how many of these people would find something wrong with themselves no matter what we do? Anything?5
-
IHaveMyActTogether wrote: »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.
Your viewpoint on this issue is just as bad as the magazine editor who always chooses size 00 models.
You are not imposing a "standard of beauty." You are imposing a "standard" of mediocrity.
If a woman wants to wear no makeup, and she takes care of her skin and feels her best being a natural beauty, then she should be able to without judgement.
There are other women who feel they need some help in that department and slather it on, in copious amounts, and they feel most beautiful and should be able to do so without judgement.
And there are women who wear some but not a lot of makeup and she feels most beautiful like this and should be able to do so without judgement.
But, there will always be people who judge a woman for it:
1) She wears no makeup:
She's not cute, does not take care of herself, needs to put on some makeup
OR
That's the way every woman needs to do it to fix society
OR
She's morally superior
OR
She's unfeminine/socially inferior
2) She wears a lot of makup
She's not cute, what is even under there
OR
Her makeup is immaculately and skillfully applied, why can't woman make an effort like her
OR
She must have some self esteem issues
OR
She has too much time on her hands or is incredibly vain/high maintenance
3) She wears some but not enough makeup
Arguments 1 and 2 (because some people will think it's not enough and some will think it's too much)
At ANY POINT, HER CHOICES WLL BE CRITICIZED.
Why can't she just do what makes HER feel her best, since she isn't going to be able to do anything that will make people like YOU satisfied?
DO YOU BOO. Because I'm gonna do me, because there AINT A DANG THING ANYONE CAN DO TO MAKE HATERS HAPPY.
You're never going to "win" ("win" = be free from criticism). So you might as well just think it through, make your best choice, and be happy with it.6 -
janejellyroll wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »
Not at all. Just questioning whether people should go to the gym to get fit and strong, or to look good. I know there's a lot of overlap between those two things, but bodybuilding indexes on looking good.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.
Wait, whut???
Are you actually arguing that people should let themselves get fat and unfit to spare the feelings of the people around them???
"look good" is in the eye of the beholder. I really don't think the body of a bodybuilder is being espoused as the "ideal body" either.
Not that male bodybuilders aren't sometimes exposed to this too, but female bodybuilders tend to get a lot of blow back on the way they decide to look. You hear men talk about how they don't like women with bigger muscles than they have, women refuse to lift anything because they don't want to look like them, their gender is questioned/policed, etc . . . they're not exactly drifting along with society's beauty standards.
A quick read through the MFP forums will reveal plenty of posts by women (and even some men) wanting to get in shape who say they don't want to get "bulky". (As if that's something which 'accidentally' happens after a few weeks in the gym, but that's a different topic.)
The bodybuilder physique is far from the societal ideal. Anecdotally, I know plenty of people who think that a bodybuilder/physique competitor aesthetic is "gross" or otherwise undesirable.
I'd add that "fit shaming" should be no more acceptable or ethical than "fat shaming". Yet people who make derogatory comments about fat people often get shouted down and made to feel that they're cruel, while fit shamers more often get a pass and don't feel there's anything wrong with their opinion.
That's what I'm not getting here at all...2 -
janejellyroll wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »
Not at all. Just questioning whether people should go to the gym to get fit and strong, or to look good. I know there's a lot of overlap between those two things, but bodybuilding indexes on looking good.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.
Wait, whut???
Are you actually arguing that people should let themselves get fat and unfit to spare the feelings of the people around them???
"look good" is in the eye of the beholder. I really don't think the body of a bodybuilder is being espoused as the "ideal body" either.
Not that male bodybuilders aren't sometimes exposed to this too, but female bodybuilders tend to get a lot of blow back on the way they decide to look. You hear men talk about how they don't like women with bigger muscles than they have, women refuse to lift anything because they don't want to look like them, their gender is questioned/policed, etc . . . they're not exactly drifting along with society's beauty standards.
A quick read through the MFP forums will reveal plenty of posts by women (and even some men) wanting to get in shape who say they don't want to get "bulky". (As if that's something which 'accidentally' happens after a few weeks in the gym, but that's a different topic.)
The bodybuilder physique is far from the societal ideal. Anecdotally, I know plenty of people who think that a bodybuilder/physique competitor aesthetic is "gross" or otherwise undesirable.
I'd add that "fit shaming" should be no more acceptable or ethical than "fat shaming". Yet people who make derogatory comments about fat people often get shouted down and made to feel that they're cruel, while fit shamers more often get a pass and don't feel there's anything wrong with their opinion.
I agree1 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »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.
Selfless - really? Not just a meaningless act to make themselves feel morally superior?
Or, it may be just their preference and people read into it more than they should. I never wear makeup. Reason: can't be arsed. Often times it's not a great sacrifice for the good of people at the altar of social justice, but people who care about an issue tend to see the world through their particular glasses.
But you aren't also going around saying you are purposely abstaining from makeup to show the world "an alternative idea of beauty." (Or maybe you are, I don't know you!)
2 -
And since we are talking about body POSITIVITY:
Isn't the WHOLE POINT of body positivity to feel positive about YOUR BODY and not judge others for THEIR BODY?
If a woman feels better and happier with a higher body fat because she prefers to have larger breasts than a thin tummy, the body positivity movement says, you go girl!
But if a woman feels better and happier with thicker legs she attains from bodybuilding we are supposed to say, "no, don't feel good about your body, change it to make the rest of us feel better about YOUR body?"
Where is the logic? There is none. It is HYPOCRISY.
Body positivity premise: you should feel good about your body no matter your size.
Your argument: you should only feel good about your body if it is average.
True body positivity should allow for people's own preferences for themselves, instead of a societal imposition of an ideal.
I've spent enough of my emotional energy on this nonsense. I got some bodybuilding and makeup putting on to go do.
26 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »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.
Selfless - really? Not just a meaningless act to make themselves feel morally superior?
Or, it may be just their preference and people read into it more than they should. I never wear makeup. Reason: can't be arsed. Often times it's not a great sacrifice for the good of people at the altar of social justice, but people who care about an issue tend to see the world through their particular glasses.
But you aren't also going around saying you are purposely abstaining from makeup to show the world "an alternative idea of beauty." (Or maybe you are, I don't know you!)
My comment was not directed at you, but at OP who sees women without makeup and assumes they're fighting the fight, just like they assume everyone who does bodybuilding does it to conform to a perceived society ideal and should feel ashamed.1 -
IHaveMyActTogether wrote: »And since we are talking about body POSITIVITY:
Isn't the WHOLE POINT of body positivity to feel positive about YOUR BODY and not judge others for THEIR BODY?
If a woman feels better and happier with a higher body fat because she prefers to have larger breasts than a thin tummy, the body positivity movement says, you go girl!
But if a woman feels better and happier with thicker legs she attains from bodybuilding we are supposed to say, "no, don't feel good about your body, change it to make the rest of us feel better about YOUR body?"
Where is the logic? There is none. It is HYPOCRISY.
Body positivity premise: you should feel good about your body no matter your size.
Your argument: you should only feel good about your body if it is average.
True body positivity should allow for people's own preferences for themselves, instead of a societal imposition of an ideal.
I've spent enough of my emotional energy on this nonsense. I got some bodybuilding and makeup putting on to go do.
^ Yes.
The "body positivity" movement, especially the HAES end of it, is unabashedly hypocritical. You should only feel "positive" if you conform to their ideal, which is to be obese. Many HAES advocates are hatefully critical and derogatory toward normal weight/in-shape people. Their "positivity" and "acceptance" is just exclusionism and shaming from a different perspective.12 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »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.
Selfless - really? Not just a meaningless act to make themselves feel morally superior?
Or, it may be just their preference and people read into it more than they should. I never wear makeup. Reason: can't be arsed. Often times it's not a great sacrifice for the good of people at the altar of social justice, but people who care about an issue tend to see the world through their particular glasses.
But you aren't also going around saying you are purposely abstaining from makeup to show the world "an alternative idea of beauty." (Or maybe you are, I don't know you!)
My comment was not directed at you, but at OP who sees women without makeup and assumes they're fighting the fight, just like they assume everyone who does bodybuilding does it to conform to a perceived society ideal and should feel ashamed.
I assumed that - I just wanted to reiterate the point.
0 -
Not at all. The point is whether we should endeavor to have society value what we can do more than precisely how you look. Power lifting vs. bodybuilding. Nobody ever said anything about embracing poor health and being sedentary.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.
It often comes to what we see as good in mating partners, but what "good" is has changed dramatically over time in our culture, and is completely different in many other cultures.
So is the point that we should endeavor to have society embrace being fat, out of shape and sedentary as the ideal, so all those people don't get hurt feelz?
Even that is discriminatory, and makes people feel bad about themselves. There are people who, because of the way their body is made, will be able to lift a lot more than many who have been lifting for a long time.
Basketball players will be able to play better basketball with a height advantage.
Gymnasts who are short have an advantage over those who are tall.
This goes on and on.
You want to see what REAL body positivity is? Listen to this choreographer at the end of this video:
https://youtu.be/Zy2226V5NYk
The various people, races, and body types and abilities are a lesson in body positivity itself, but if you want to skip the dancing and get to the point, it's at 4:08.
Let me know what you guys think of it if you bother to watch it.
4 -
IHaveMyActTogether wrote: »
Not at all. The point is whether we should endeavor to have society value what we can do more than precisely how you look. Power lifting vs. bodybuilding. Nobody ever said anything about embracing poor health and being sedentary.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.
It often comes to what we see as good in mating partners, but what "good" is has changed dramatically over time in our culture, and is completely different in many other cultures.
So is the point that we should endeavor to have society embrace being fat, out of shape and sedentary as the ideal, so all those people don't get hurt feelz?
Even that is discriminatory, and makes people feel bad about themselves. There are people who, because of the way their body is made, will be able to lift a lot more than many who have been lifting for a long time.
Basketball players will be able to play better basketball with a height advantage.
Gymnasts who are short have an advantage over those who are tall.
This goes on and on.
You want to see what REAL body positivity is? Listen to this choreographer at the end of this video:
https://youtu.be/Zy2226V5NYk
The various people, races, and body types and abilities are a lesson in body positivity itself, but if you want to skip the dancing and get to the point, it's at 4:08.
Let me know what you guys think of it if you bother to watch it.
Her message is absolutely what we should be preaching and not this HAES crap!2 -
In the same way, I'd leave powerlifting out of this conversation -- because that's about function -- how much you can lift.
Sure. Because then people can obsess and feel inferior about how much they can squat, deadlift or bench press, instead of how their bodies look. Seems legit.5 -
And back to the fit shaming topic - if we want to talk about media trying to influence body issues, we need look no further than Planet Fitness' ad campaigns, where bodybuilders are caricatured, stereotyped and made fun of. Portrayed in almost every one of their ads as shallow, stupid, narcissistic "lunks".
I can only imagine the uproar and vitriol it would cause if a 'hardcore' gym chain made similar commercials with a bunch of tan, jacked, muscular trainers making fun of fat people and scrawny pencil necks.18 -
Yes, that was my point. There is nothing special about feeling insecure about one's looks (unless you have albinism and live in Tanzania). It's not worse than being insecure about anything else. Replacing one insecurity with another is not going to make the pain go away.5 -
IHaveMyActTogether wrote: »
Not at all. The point is whether we should endeavor to have society value what we can do more than precisely how you look. Power lifting vs. bodybuilding. Nobody ever said anything about embracing poor health and being sedentary.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.
It often comes to what we see as good in mating partners, but what "good" is has changed dramatically over time in our culture, and is completely different in many other cultures.
So is the point that we should endeavor to have society embrace being fat, out of shape and sedentary as the ideal, so all those people don't get hurt feelz?
Even that is discriminatory, and makes people feel bad about themselves. There are people who, because of the way their body is made, will be able to lift a lot more than many who have been lifting for a long time.
Basketball players will be able to play better basketball with a height advantage.
Gymnasts who are short have an advantage over those who are tall.
This goes on and on.
You want to see what REAL body positivity is? Listen to this choreographer at the end of this video:
https://youtu.be/Zy2226V5NYk
The various people, races, and body types and abilities are a lesson in body positivity itself, but if you want to skip the dancing and get to the point, it's at 4:08.
Let me know what you guys think of it if you bother to watch it.
Her message is absolutely what we should be preaching and not this HAES crap!
I don't know much about HAES. I know I'm fitter than most people who weigh a lot less than I do.
Often obesity is the result of stress. Being obese causes more stress, as does the societal pressure. They shouldn't hate themselves because that causes more stress which contributes to obesity. Body positivity (at any size, even huge), is healthy. You may not love how big your gut is, but you gotta love that you are you, and you can improve you. Often hating oneself is a mental block to improving oneself.
The "Biggest Loser" model, where they mentally tear people down to get them to change out of hatred of their own bodies is, to me, abusive, and not productive for long term change for many people.
Some people need positive encouragement to thrive.
Seriously, though, I really, really have to stop posting now, even though this is (clearly) a passionate subject (almost as much as Crossfit and Planet Fitness). I have bodybuilding to go do!
NOTE: PF, get your act together and get some barbells in there. Even spartan gyms have barbells. Sheesh. Way to discriminate against bodybuilders, aka, the people you judge in your non-judgement zone.
6 -
cmriverside wrote: »Here's an idea.
Stop watching so much TV.
Stop buying Cosmo.
Stop believing that you have to live in fear and -
Comparison is the thief of joy.
If only it were that easy... ha
I do none of those things. But chocking every problem in life up to individual virtue is such a cop out. Not everything is as easy for them as it is for you. Circumstances are different.11 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »
Yes, that was my point. There is nothing special about feeling insecure about one's looks (unless you have albinism and live in Tanzania). It's not worse than being insecure about anything else. Replacing one insecurity with another is not going to make the pain go away.
Yep. When I get into that headspace, there are all sorts of things I might feel insecure about - how I look, how I sound, what I say, my relationship status, my income, my taste in clothes, my social life, how I spend my time. One of those isn't any better or worse than any other. And all of them come from how I perceive what others might think about me. Seeing only people who look like me in the media or out in the world would not change that one bit, it's about what's going on in my head.
8 -
cmriverside wrote: »Here's an idea.
Stop watching so much TV.
Stop buying Cosmo.
Stop believing that you have to live in fear and -
Comparison is the thief of joy.
If only it were that easy... ha
I do none of those things. But chocking every problem in life up to individual virtue is such a cop out. Not everything is as easy for them as it is for you. Circumstances are different.
Blaming everything on society is a cop out9
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions