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
-
singingflutelady wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »You are the only one in control of if you feel inferior or not.Yeah, but it makes people feel better than having to accept responsibility for their own actions.
That's kind of BS. In the end we're all in control of ourselves, but for person A's circumstances, maintaining that control may be 100x harder than for person B's circumstances. For example, let's say you were sexually abused as a child. The trauma you've experience from that may distort your body image in ways that you or I will never understand. Personal responsibility is only part of the equation, no matter how much you'd like to stick your head in the ground and pretend every success you've achieved came to you purely on merit. It seems worthwhile to value the fact that we all come from different places, and our environment and circumstances matter.
Sexual abuse?!?! How does that have anything to do with what we are talking about?!?
You're getting really worked up about this. You and another poster were making the point that individual responsibility trumps all else. Sexual abuse is an example of how not everything is as easy for some people as for others.
Okay, let's go with your example. I know someone who was sexually abused by her father. She told me once that it made her feel weird sometimes to hear about people that had good and safe relationships with their fathers, a type of relationship that she could never have. She felt sorrow and she felt envy.
She realized that these were useful things to discuss with her therapist (and sometimes with a few close friends) so she could work through them.
She knew the solution wasn't for other people to create bad relationships with their loving fathers or to pretend those relationships didn't exist so they didn't upset her.
Those are appropriate boundaries, that's what you get when you combine personal responsibility with the complexity of different life situations.
We control ourselves and our reactions. We can't expect other people to constantly life a different type of life so they don't upset us or remind us of things we don't like about ourselves or our life. We have to find a way to manage those emotions so they don't own us.
25 -
You're drawing false conclusions. Feeling inferior about how much you can squat is no different than feeling inferior about how well you can write, or how well you can speak, or how well you can play basketball. Feeling inferior because who you are and what you look like does not conform to societal ideals is not the same.
Here's where I'm having trouble following your logic - you are assigning virtue to motives rather than actual accomplishments. How does a power-lifter who lifts purely because they like the way they look when they're at the top of their game fit into the virtue/selfish paradigm you've created?
I haven't created any such paradigm. You all are taking this so personally. Forget about the individual. You can do whatever the F you want. This is a philosophical question about whether society is better or worse off from bodybuilding existing at all. Not banning, not taking away your rights or your Fing guns. The question is just whether bodybuilding is a good thing, considering the aesthetic ideals it collectively promotes and how that impacts people in the world on the whole (e.g. boys and adolescents who feel like to be a "man" they need to look like Arnold).1 -
"Is bodybuilding inherently bad for society?"
No. If bodybuilding is bad for society, then the Olympics and gymnastics, and marathons are too.
"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."
To be a true bodybuilder, you basically must compete. It's like saying your a marathon runner and never running in a real race. People who lift to look like bodybuilders are not true bodybuilders, but are people who want to be athletic and push their bodies to an extreme. But without competing, they can never be true bodybuilders.
Verdict: everything can be bad for society
5 -
singingflutelady wrote: »You are the only one in control of if you feel inferior or not.Yeah, but it makes people feel better than having to accept responsibility for their own actions.
That's kind of BS. In the end we're all in control of ourselves, but for person A's circumstances, maintaining that control may be 100x harder than for person B's circumstances. For example, let's say you were sexually abused as a child. The trauma you've experience from that may distort your body image in ways that you or I will never understand. Personal responsibility is only part of the equation, no matter how much you'd like to stick your head in the ground and pretend every success you've achieved came to you purely on merit. It seems worthwhile to value the fact that we all come from different places, and our environment and circumstances matter.
I still don't understand. Why would anyone's circumstances justify changing an entire population of people with all kinds of their own circumstances to appease someone? Why is one person's pain more important than another's? Why is it okay to want others who find joy or even solace in any certain activity to feel bad in order to change the way someone else feels about something? Would forcing others to give up their activities change the psychological damage caused by circumstances?9 -
You're drawing false conclusions. Feeling inferior about how much you can squat is no different than feeling inferior about how well you can write, or how well you can speak, or how well you can play basketball. Feeling inferior because who you are and what you look like does not conform to societal ideals is not the same.
Here's where I'm having trouble following your logic - you are assigning virtue to motives rather than actual accomplishments. How does a power-lifter who lifts purely because they like the way they look when they're at the top of their game fit into the virtue/selfish paradigm you've created?
I haven't created any such paradigm. You all are taking this so personally. Forget about the individual. You can do whatever the F you want. This is a philosophical question about whether society is better or worse off from bodybuilding existing at all. Not banning, not taking away your rights or your Fing guns. The question is just whether bodybuilding is a good thing, considering the aesthetic ideals it collectively promotes and how that impacts people in the world on the whole (e.g. boys and adolescents who feel like to be a "man" they need to look like Arnold).
You're actually debating whether or not society is better or worse if there is any achievement that can't be replicated by all.
Bodybuilding is what you're starting with, but if your argument is carried through it is eventually going to include any sort of accomplishment. Because people can feel bad about everything. And if you're right, if our individual circumstances can forever keep us from achieving certain things and others own responsibility for the negative feelings that may arise from that, then you have to consider all activities that may inspire those feelings.
Including just bodybuilding makes no sense.
Not all achievements are open to everyone. That's reality. Do you think society would be better off without achievement then?8 -
You're drawing false conclusions. Feeling inferior about how much you can squat is no different than feeling inferior about how well you can write, or how well you can speak, or how well you can play basketball. Feeling inferior because who you are and what you look like does not conform to societal ideals is not the same.
Here's where I'm having trouble following your logic - you are assigning virtue to motives rather than actual accomplishments. How does a power-lifter who lifts purely because they like the way they look when they're at the top of their game fit into the virtue/selfish paradigm you've created?
I haven't created any such paradigm. You all are taking this so personally. Forget about the individual. You can do whatever the F you want. This is a philosophical question about whether society is better or worse off from bodybuilding existing at all. Not banning, not taking away your rights or your Fing guns. The question is just whether bodybuilding is a good thing, considering the aesthetic ideals it collectively promotes and how that impacts people in the world on the whole (e.g. boys and adolescents who feel like to be a "man" they need to look like Arnold).
And this is where I have a problem with basic premise of this discussion - I grew up and live in one of the largest metropolitan areas in the US and I don't know a single person who wants to look like Arnold, not even in the gym that I frequent 5-6 days a week.8 -
singingflutelady wrote: »You are the only one in control of if you feel inferior or not.Yeah, but it makes people feel better than having to accept responsibility for their own actions.
That's kind of BS. In the end we're all in control of ourselves, but for person A's circumstances, maintaining that control may be 100x harder than for person B's circumstances. For example, let's say you were sexually abused as a child. The trauma you've experience from that may distort your body image in ways that you or I will never understand. Personal responsibility is only part of the equation, no matter how much you'd like to stick your head in the ground and pretend every success you've achieved came to you purely on merit. It seems worthwhile to value the fact that we all come from different places, and our environment and circumstances matter.
So what's your point? That everybody should consider that others can't do what they can do, and we should all settle for the lowest common denominator so we don't run the chance of offending anybody? I don't buy that at all. It goes back to the "everybody gets a trophy" mentality, which doesn't in any way resemble how real life works.
What's my point? I was responding to your point, which seemed like it was that outcomes don't matter, because everybody has individual responsibility. My point is that outcomes do matter. If 80% of people hate their bodies because magazines airbrush supermodels, we should look at whether it makes sense to airbrush supermodels, not tell those 80% to suck it up (though at an individual level, of course they should do the best they can to deal with their self-esteem issues).
They didn't come to you purely on merit, but they came to you from hard work and sacrifice? You realize that IS merit? No luck was involved at all? You probably think Bill Gates is rich strictly because he's a smart, hard working dude who put his mind to it and made sacrifices?Any successes I've had in life didn't come to me "purely on merit" - they came to me because I put my mind to it and worked damn hard and sacrificed for them. I don't sit around waiting for things to fall into my lap or worrying about what others have that I don't. If I want something, I know I have to earn it, and that's what I do.6 -
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.
I think self-image becomes an issue in societies that reach a point where more fundamental needs have been addressed, or in sub-groups where that's structurally true.
My paternal grandmother had little energy or time to worry about body image. She was busy giving birth to 9 children (and I have no idea how many miscarriages, but I'm sure there were some), and trying to feed and clothe them, as the woman in a subsistence farm family. Just covering her own needs for food, warmth, safety, and that of her family, consumed all her energy. Certainly in her social group there was pride, and neurosis, and there would've been peers who felt bad that they didn't make as good a pie for the threshing crew, or sew up the feed-sack cloth into as pretty of quilts or dresses, or whatever. Relatively little thought about body image, though, I believe . . . from knowing her and some of her peers.
Nowadays, in the US and many other industrialized countries, we have most basic needs covered, for most people (sadly, not for everyone). People who are wired - by genetics or upbringing or society, I dunno - to be prideful, or neurotic, or to compare themselves to others and feel bad - are more likely to be focusing on things like body image, not whose dinner the threshing crew enjoys most.
Yes, historically, women wore corsets so tightly-laced they created disease and disability, or ate arsenic to make their complexions attractively pale, or bound their feet to make "lotus feet", or any of hundreds of other dysfunctional things, so this is not completely new. But who did this? Women in the well-to-do classes, by and large. (Bodybuilding seems like an improvement, mostly, health-wise, BTW.)
If there's a higher incidence of poor body image today, I suspect it's predominantly because we're well-off, secure, and comfortable enough that more people have the luxury of time to dwell on the issue, and few other more basic-security-oriented needs that become the outlet for neurosis, pride, and self-criticism.
By the way, all sexes have risky plastic surgeries, have inks needled into their skin, have body parts pierced, all in the interest of appearance or self-expression. Should people stop getting beautiful tattoos because I don't have the money to afford them, or I'm afraid to get them, or I can't find a good tattoo artist, or I don't have the type of body that looks nice with tattoos? Can I feel triggered or resentful or inadequate because I see someone with beautiful ink?
Body image issues are not new, and they may or may not be "increasing exponentially". But the idea that some individuals would be making a morally more appropriate choice to avoid something they enjoy, because another person feels triggered or resentful or hurt by their resulting appearance? I'm pretty sure that's a fairly recent invention.11 -
You're drawing false conclusions. Feeling inferior about how much you can squat is no different than feeling inferior about how well you can write, or how well you can speak, or how well you can play basketball. Feeling inferior because who you are and what you look like does not conform to societal ideals is not the same.
Here's where I'm having trouble following your logic - you are assigning virtue to motives rather than actual accomplishments. How does a power-lifter who lifts purely because they like the way they look when they're at the top of their game fit into the virtue/selfish paradigm you've created?
I haven't created any such paradigm. You all are taking this so personally. Forget about the individual. You can do whatever the F you want. This is a philosophical question about whether society is better or worse off from bodybuilding existing at all. Not banning, not taking away your rights or your Fing guns. The question is just whether bodybuilding is a good thing, considering the aesthetic ideals it collectively promotes and how that impacts people in the world on the whole (e.g. boys and adolescents who feel like to be a "man" they need to look like Arnold).
It seems more like it's a philosophical question about whether or not popular media creates unrealistic expectations in people.7 -
janejellyroll wrote: »
You're drawing false conclusions. Feeling inferior about how much you can squat is no different than feeling inferior about how well you can write, or how well you can speak, or how well you can play basketball. Feeling inferior because who you are and what you look like does not conform to societal ideals is not the same.
Here's where I'm having trouble following your logic - you are assigning virtue to motives rather than actual accomplishments. How does a power-lifter who lifts purely because they like the way they look when they're at the top of their game fit into the virtue/selfish paradigm you've created?
I haven't created any such paradigm. You all are taking this so personally. Forget about the individual. You can do whatever the F you want. This is a philosophical question about whether society is better or worse off from bodybuilding existing at all. Not banning, not taking away your rights or your Fing guns. The question is just whether bodybuilding is a good thing, considering the aesthetic ideals it collectively promotes and how that impacts people in the world on the whole (e.g. boys and adolescents who feel like to be a "man" they need to look like Arnold).
You're actually debating whether or not society is better or worse if there is any achievement that can't be replicated by all.
Not at all. Again, I'm debating whether we should consider something an "achievement" as a society that promotes unrealistic body image. Yes, idealized body images are not attainable by all, just like elite athletic performance or elite academic performance. But neither of those two things have anything to do with body image, which seems to be a serious psychological problem in our society. Don't conflate that with "everyone gets a trophy" arguments. You could, however, compare it to beauty pageants.2 -
janejellyroll wrote: »
You're drawing false conclusions. Feeling inferior about how much you can squat is no different than feeling inferior about how well you can write, or how well you can speak, or how well you can play basketball. Feeling inferior because who you are and what you look like does not conform to societal ideals is not the same.
Here's where I'm having trouble following your logic - you are assigning virtue to motives rather than actual accomplishments. How does a power-lifter who lifts purely because they like the way they look when they're at the top of their game fit into the virtue/selfish paradigm you've created?
I haven't created any such paradigm. You all are taking this so personally. Forget about the individual. You can do whatever the F you want. This is a philosophical question about whether society is better or worse off from bodybuilding existing at all. Not banning, not taking away your rights or your Fing guns. The question is just whether bodybuilding is a good thing, considering the aesthetic ideals it collectively promotes and how that impacts people in the world on the whole (e.g. boys and adolescents who feel like to be a "man" they need to look like Arnold).
You're actually debating whether or not society is better or worse if there is any achievement that can't be replicated by all.
Not at all. Again, I'm debating whether we should consider something an "achievement" as a society that promotes unrealistic body image. Yes, idealized body images are not attainable by all, just like elite athletic performance or elite academic performance. But neither of those two things have anything to do with body image, which seems to be a serious psychological problem in our society. Don't conflate that with "everyone gets a trophy" arguments. You could, however, compare it to beauty pageants.
But the reason that they started the whole participation trophy thing was to avoid bad feelings and damaging Johnny's self image because if he didn't get a trophy then he was a loser and that damaged his self esteem which prevented him from excelling at something (and on and on and on), so the argument on psychological damage from some external event is the same and holds true.6 -
I don't know where most of your questions came from or what we're even talking about any more. Very off track from the topic.amusedmonkey wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »You are the only one in control of if you feel inferior or not.Yeah, but it makes people feel better than having to accept responsibility for their own actions.
That's kind of BS. In the end we're all in control of ourselves, but for person A's circumstances, maintaining that control may be 100x harder than for person B's circumstances. For example, let's say you were sexually abused as a child. The trauma you've experience from that may distort your body image in ways that you or I will never understand. Personal responsibility is only part of the equation, no matter how much you'd like to stick your head in the ground and pretend every success you've achieved came to you purely on merit. It seems worthwhile to value the fact that we all come from different places, and our environment and circumstances matter.
I still don't understand. Why would anyone's circumstances justify changing an entire population of people with all kinds of their own circumstances to appease someone? Why is one person's pain more important than another's? Why is it okay to want others who find joy or even solace in any certain activity to feel bad in order to change the way someone else feels about something? Would forcing others to give up their activities change the psychological damage caused by circumstances?3 -
janejellyroll wrote: »
You're drawing false conclusions. Feeling inferior about how much you can squat is no different than feeling inferior about how well you can write, or how well you can speak, or how well you can play basketball. Feeling inferior because who you are and what you look like does not conform to societal ideals is not the same.
Here's where I'm having trouble following your logic - you are assigning virtue to motives rather than actual accomplishments. How does a power-lifter who lifts purely because they like the way they look when they're at the top of their game fit into the virtue/selfish paradigm you've created?
I haven't created any such paradigm. You all are taking this so personally. Forget about the individual. You can do whatever the F you want. This is a philosophical question about whether society is better or worse off from bodybuilding existing at all. Not banning, not taking away your rights or your Fing guns. The question is just whether bodybuilding is a good thing, considering the aesthetic ideals it collectively promotes and how that impacts people in the world on the whole (e.g. boys and adolescents who feel like to be a "man" they need to look like Arnold).
You're actually debating whether or not society is better or worse if there is any achievement that can't be replicated by all.
Not at all. Again, I'm debating whether we should consider something an "achievement" as a society that promotes unrealistic body image. Yes, idealized body images are not attainable by all, just like elite athletic performance or elite academic performance. But neither of those two things have anything to do with body image, which seems to be a serious psychological problem in our society. Don't conflate that with "everyone gets a trophy" arguments. You could, however, compare it to beauty pageants.
Then society (whoever they are) needs to get their heads right.
It isn't any individual's moral duty to conform to mediocrity any more than it's any other individual's moral duty to conform to a popularized body image.
I could make the same observation about the popularization of Kim Kardashian's huge butt, and how it's become an image many women seem to strive for. So should we outlaw huge butts? Is it Kim Kardashian's moral duty to lose 50 pounds and get rid of that thing because it's creating image problems for many women?9 -
Anyway, bodybuilders are the first who will tell you that their body isn't something they can maintain their entire life, and that it's not the most healthy thing. Personally, I don't give a flying squirrel what you look like, or want to look like as long as you're not claiming it's healthy. And you Can't be healthy at any size.
As for unhealthy for society; we do not have a bodybuilder epidemic. We have an obesity epidemic.10 -
janejellyroll wrote: »
You're drawing false conclusions. Feeling inferior about how much you can squat is no different than feeling inferior about how well you can write, or how well you can speak, or how well you can play basketball. Feeling inferior because who you are and what you look like does not conform to societal ideals is not the same.
Here's where I'm having trouble following your logic - you are assigning virtue to motives rather than actual accomplishments. How does a power-lifter who lifts purely because they like the way they look when they're at the top of their game fit into the virtue/selfish paradigm you've created?
I haven't created any such paradigm. You all are taking this so personally. Forget about the individual. You can do whatever the F you want. This is a philosophical question about whether society is better or worse off from bodybuilding existing at all. Not banning, not taking away your rights or your Fing guns. The question is just whether bodybuilding is a good thing, considering the aesthetic ideals it collectively promotes and how that impacts people in the world on the whole (e.g. boys and adolescents who feel like to be a "man" they need to look like Arnold).
You're actually debating whether or not society is better or worse if there is any achievement that can't be replicated by all.
Not at all. Again, I'm debating whether we should consider something an "achievement" as a society that promotes unrealistic body image. Yes, idealized body images are not attainable by all, just like elite athletic performance or elite academic performance. But neither of those two things have anything to do with body image, which seems to be a serious psychological problem in our society. Don't conflate that with "everyone gets a trophy" arguments. You could, however, compare it to beauty pageants.
Most fitness related pursuits require a particular physical trait to be able to excel at. My brother topped out at 5'7, so he was never making the NBA. My cousin wanted to pursue gymnastics, but she was tall and developed early and was embarrassed that she didn't have the ideal gymnast body type. EDs are a problem in classical dance, as there is a very thin body type expected.
I'm sorry OP, but I don't think you've made the philosophical point you're trying to make clear. Why are you specifically singling out bodybuilding for aesthetics? What about all the other physical pursuits that idealize a specific body? Especially since there are plenty of other benefits to bodybuilding (and most people can do it, at least recreationally), even if some are only seeking a physical change? After 7 pages, I still don't understand your point, or why you are so adamant about it.7 -
I halfway understand the point. I am not a fan of bodybuilding competitions and beauty pageants. I don't like them because I don't think that they are very healthy for the PARTICIPANTS (both physically and mentally/emotionally). I do not believe they are detrimental to society, or everyone else's body image issues.2
-
janejellyroll wrote: »
You're drawing false conclusions. Feeling inferior about how much you can squat is no different than feeling inferior about how well you can write, or how well you can speak, or how well you can play basketball. Feeling inferior because who you are and what you look like does not conform to societal ideals is not the same.
Here's where I'm having trouble following your logic - you are assigning virtue to motives rather than actual accomplishments. How does a power-lifter who lifts purely because they like the way they look when they're at the top of their game fit into the virtue/selfish paradigm you've created?
I haven't created any such paradigm. You all are taking this so personally. Forget about the individual. You can do whatever the F you want. This is a philosophical question about whether society is better or worse off from bodybuilding existing at all. Not banning, not taking away your rights or your Fing guns. The question is just whether bodybuilding is a good thing, considering the aesthetic ideals it collectively promotes and how that impacts people in the world on the whole (e.g. boys and adolescents who feel like to be a "man" they need to look like Arnold).
You're actually debating whether or not society is better or worse if there is any achievement that can't be replicated by all.
Not at all. Again, I'm debating whether we should consider something an "achievement" as a society that promotes unrealistic body image. Yes, idealized body images are not attainable by all, just like elite athletic performance or elite academic performance. But neither of those two things have anything to do with body image, which seems to be a serious psychological problem in our society. Don't conflate that with "everyone gets a trophy" arguments. You could, however, compare it to beauty pageants.
I'm having trouble with the idea that society does consider bodybuilding an "achievement". Most straight women I know think male bodybuilders look gross, not attractive. (They may often think that kind of lightly muscled athletic looking men are attractive, but that's way different.) Virtually everyone I know thinks female bodybuilders look absolutely grotesque.
(I'm not endorsing those perspectives, BTW, but to the extent I've ever heard anyone talk about it, that's what I've heard.)
At best, as far as I can tell, people I know think of it as a weird niche hobby. Even those with body issues - women who feel insecure, triggered by people talking about weight loss, triggered by "fitspiration", etc. - don't seem to feel bad that they don't look like bodybuilders. They feel bad because they don't look like photoshopped models and actresses.
(I'm talking about women here, because I can't recall ever talking with any men about their body insecurities, but I have heard men say in conversation that they think male bodybuilders don't look a way they'd want to look - usually expressing that less politely.)
I could get on board with the idea that popular culture (at least in the US) promotes idealized versions of completely useless superficial qualities, and glorifies traits that weaken society if/when widespread, while being all kind of "meh" about accomplishments/traits we'd be better off if more people pursued, like health, strength, good character, kindness, hard work, etc.
But worrying that popular culture glorifies bodybuilding, or considers it an achievement, to the extent that that materially affects insecure people? I think that's pretty close to fiction.7 -
I think a lean in harneska's favor (since I've pretty much argued against everything she said), is that we have gotten away from anorexic models as ideals of beauty, which helps people not pursue such unhealthy practices. So maybe that can be done for other types of hard to attain standards, like bodybuilding.
But what have we replaced the tiny model with? The Kardashians? Is that any more attainable? Every one of them have had plastic surgery (or many surgeries) to achieve that look.
The fact of the matter is, the fashion industry has ALWAYS, yes ALWAYS made the "ideal" very hard to achieve for the normal joe or jane, so the masses can keep spending money to try to acheive it. And once a certain amount of people have been able to get it, the ideal is changed.
You once wanted to have a smaller butt, so you paid for pills and workout videos. Now, that same woman wants a larger butt, so she pays for implants and injections. They do it with fashion, makeup, tvs, phones, home appliances and decor, etc. They keep changing the standard to the opposite of what they told you that you should strive for to keep you insecure and spending money.
Instead of "all that," be body positive. So that there isn't one "ideal," but rather individual tastes. What never goes out of style is a confident person at peace with their choices. They enjoy their body, their style and accept people who have a different body type or style and can compliment them on that kind of beauty even if that wasn't the standard they strove for themselves.
I think that would be a higher ideal to strive for as a society.
But...humans.
5 -
janejellyroll wrote: »
You're drawing false conclusions. Feeling inferior about how much you can squat is no different than feeling inferior about how well you can write, or how well you can speak, or how well you can play basketball. Feeling inferior because who you are and what you look like does not conform to societal ideals is not the same.
Here's where I'm having trouble following your logic - you are assigning virtue to motives rather than actual accomplishments. How does a power-lifter who lifts purely because they like the way they look when they're at the top of their game fit into the virtue/selfish paradigm you've created?
I haven't created any such paradigm. You all are taking this so personally. Forget about the individual. You can do whatever the F you want. This is a philosophical question about whether society is better or worse off from bodybuilding existing at all. Not banning, not taking away your rights or your Fing guns. The question is just whether bodybuilding is a good thing, considering the aesthetic ideals it collectively promotes and how that impacts people in the world on the whole (e.g. boys and adolescents who feel like to be a "man" they need to look like Arnold).
You're actually debating whether or not society is better or worse if there is any achievement that can't be replicated by all.
Not at all. Again, I'm debating whether we should consider something an "achievement" as a society that promotes unrealistic body image. Yes, idealized body images are not attainable by all, just like elite athletic performance or elite academic performance. But neither of those two things have anything to do with body image, which seems to be a serious psychological problem in our society. Don't conflate that with "everyone gets a trophy" arguments. You could, however, compare it to beauty pageants.
I'm having trouble with the idea that society does consider bodybuilding an "achievement". Most straight women I know think male bodybuilders look gross, not attractive. (They may often think that kind of lightly muscled athletic looking men are attractive, but that's way different.) Virtually everyone I know thinks female bodybuilders look absolutely grotesque.
(I'm not endorsing those perspectives, BTW, but to the extent I've ever heard anyone talk about it, that's what I've heard.)
At best, as far as I can tell, people I know think of it as a weird niche hobby. Even those with body issues - women who feel insecure, triggered by people talking about weight loss, triggered by "fitspiration", etc. - don't seem to feel bad that they don't look like bodybuilders. They feel bad because they don't look like photoshopped models and actresses.
(I'm talking about women here, because I can't recall ever talking with any men about their body insecurities, but I have heard men say in conversation that they think male bodybuilders don't look a way they'd want to look - usually expressing that less politely.)
I could get on board with the idea that popular culture (at least in the US) promotes idealized versions of completely useless superficial qualities, and glorifies traits that weaken society if/when widespread, while being all kind of "meh" about accomplishments/traits we'd be better off if more people pursued, like health, strength, good character, kindness, hard work, etc.
But worrying that popular culture glorifies bodybuilding, or considers it an achievement, to the extent that that materially affects insecure people? I think that's pretty close to fiction.
I think she was talking about the bodybuilding an actor might do, as opposed to a competitive bodybuilder. There are levels to this.1 -
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.
Certainly the only opinion that matters.5 -
There might be people who feel intense pressure to try to alter their bodies to look like a bodybuilder, actor or model. I don't think it is making society unhealthy or an ideal body aesthetic is a new thing.
I have never felt bad about myself because I did not look muscular or like a Barbie doll either. Real people I know come in all shapes and sizes and fitness levels and people seem to value themselves and others based on more than appearance. I think most people have a natural mental seperation between themselves (real people) and those they see in the media.2 -
IHaveMyActTogether wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »
You're drawing false conclusions. Feeling inferior about how much you can squat is no different than feeling inferior about how well you can write, or how well you can speak, or how well you can play basketball. Feeling inferior because who you are and what you look like does not conform to societal ideals is not the same.
Here's where I'm having trouble following your logic - you are assigning virtue to motives rather than actual accomplishments. How does a power-lifter who lifts purely because they like the way they look when they're at the top of their game fit into the virtue/selfish paradigm you've created?
I haven't created any such paradigm. You all are taking this so personally. Forget about the individual. You can do whatever the F you want. This is a philosophical question about whether society is better or worse off from bodybuilding existing at all. Not banning, not taking away your rights or your Fing guns. The question is just whether bodybuilding is a good thing, considering the aesthetic ideals it collectively promotes and how that impacts people in the world on the whole (e.g. boys and adolescents who feel like to be a "man" they need to look like Arnold).
You're actually debating whether or not society is better or worse if there is any achievement that can't be replicated by all.
Not at all. Again, I'm debating whether we should consider something an "achievement" as a society that promotes unrealistic body image. Yes, idealized body images are not attainable by all, just like elite athletic performance or elite academic performance. But neither of those two things have anything to do with body image, which seems to be a serious psychological problem in our society. Don't conflate that with "everyone gets a trophy" arguments. You could, however, compare it to beauty pageants.
I'm having trouble with the idea that society does consider bodybuilding an "achievement". Most straight women I know think male bodybuilders look gross, not attractive. (They may often think that kind of lightly muscled athletic looking men are attractive, but that's way different.) Virtually everyone I know thinks female bodybuilders look absolutely grotesque.
(I'm not endorsing those perspectives, BTW, but to the extent I've ever heard anyone talk about it, that's what I've heard.)
At best, as far as I can tell, people I know think of it as a weird niche hobby. Even those with body issues - women who feel insecure, triggered by people talking about weight loss, triggered by "fitspiration", etc. - don't seem to feel bad that they don't look like bodybuilders. They feel bad because they don't look like photoshopped models and actresses.
(I'm talking about women here, because I can't recall ever talking with any men about their body insecurities, but I have heard men say in conversation that they think male bodybuilders don't look a way they'd want to look - usually expressing that less politely.)
I could get on board with the idea that popular culture (at least in the US) promotes idealized versions of completely useless superficial qualities, and glorifies traits that weaken society if/when widespread, while being all kind of "meh" about accomplishments/traits we'd be better off if more people pursued, like health, strength, good character, kindness, hard work, etc.
But worrying that popular culture glorifies bodybuilding, or considers it an achievement, to the extent that that materially affects insecure people? I think that's pretty close to fiction.
I think she was talking about the bodybuilding an actor might do, as opposed to a competitive bodybuilder. There are levels to this.
The amount of workout most of those people do, and the results they achieve, are within reach of any able-bodied person, and some disabled ones (I've known some). The only genetic limitation on achieving that kind of fit appearance is that those people (actors, models) started out cuter than the rest of us - better proportioned, or whatever. The appearance difference from initial cuteness may be unfairly distributed, but looking fitter is more generally accessible.
It takes a lot of hard work to look fit. But it doesn't take more hours of work than the average person spends weekly watching TV or gaming ((if you believe survey data).
IME, people who don't pursue fitness (functionally or for aesthetics) tend to overestimate the time investment, or underestimate the results they personally could get if they made the investment. I'm well aware that I could look lots better physically, by investing a few hours a week. I don't choose to, because I don't much care how I look.
If makeup or dressing nicely are OK because everyone could do it if they want to, then "low level" bodybuilding (if there is such a thing) is OK, too.
The OP said: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.
So, if the standard is the everyday appearance of handsome actors (of either sex), we're arguing that people shouldn't train (say) 5 hours a week for aesthetics only, because people who don't spend that 5 hours would suffer psychological harm on account of (1) their own choice not to spend that time, and (2) the supposition that if they did spend that time they would achieve somehow inferior results . . . or what?
Or is it that hobbies about pure body aesthetics are immoral/unethical/unkind in a society that over-values body aesthetics, but would be OK in society that over-valued, say, being good at representational oil painting (presumably in the latter society it would be immoral/unethical/unkind to paint beautiful representational paintings, unless maybe for income, because not everyone is artistic . . ?).
2 -
IHaveMyActTogether wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »
You're drawing false conclusions. Feeling inferior about how much you can squat is no different than feeling inferior about how well you can write, or how well you can speak, or how well you can play basketball. Feeling inferior because who you are and what you look like does not conform to societal ideals is not the same.
Here's where I'm having trouble following your logic - you are assigning virtue to motives rather than actual accomplishments. How does a power-lifter who lifts purely because they like the way they look when they're at the top of their game fit into the virtue/selfish paradigm you've created?
I haven't created any such paradigm. You all are taking this so personally. Forget about the individual. You can do whatever the F you want. This is a philosophical question about whether society is better or worse off from bodybuilding existing at all. Not banning, not taking away your rights or your Fing guns. The question is just whether bodybuilding is a good thing, considering the aesthetic ideals it collectively promotes and how that impacts people in the world on the whole (e.g. boys and adolescents who feel like to be a "man" they need to look like Arnold).
You're actually debating whether or not society is better or worse if there is any achievement that can't be replicated by all.
Not at all. Again, I'm debating whether we should consider something an "achievement" as a society that promotes unrealistic body image. Yes, idealized body images are not attainable by all, just like elite athletic performance or elite academic performance. But neither of those two things have anything to do with body image, which seems to be a serious psychological problem in our society. Don't conflate that with "everyone gets a trophy" arguments. You could, however, compare it to beauty pageants.
I'm having trouble with the idea that society does consider bodybuilding an "achievement". Most straight women I know think male bodybuilders look gross, not attractive. (They may often think that kind of lightly muscled athletic looking men are attractive, but that's way different.) Virtually everyone I know thinks female bodybuilders look absolutely grotesque.
(I'm not endorsing those perspectives, BTW, but to the extent I've ever heard anyone talk about it, that's what I've heard.)
At best, as far as I can tell, people I know think of it as a weird niche hobby. Even those with body issues - women who feel insecure, triggered by people talking about weight loss, triggered by "fitspiration", etc. - don't seem to feel bad that they don't look like bodybuilders. They feel bad because they don't look like photoshopped models and actresses.
(I'm talking about women here, because I can't recall ever talking with any men about their body insecurities, but I have heard men say in conversation that they think male bodybuilders don't look a way they'd want to look - usually expressing that less politely.)
I could get on board with the idea that popular culture (at least in the US) promotes idealized versions of completely useless superficial qualities, and glorifies traits that weaken society if/when widespread, while being all kind of "meh" about accomplishments/traits we'd be better off if more people pursued, like health, strength, good character, kindness, hard work, etc.
But worrying that popular culture glorifies bodybuilding, or considers it an achievement, to the extent that that materially affects insecure people? I think that's pretty close to fiction.
I think she was talking about the bodybuilding an actor might do, as opposed to a competitive bodybuilder. There are levels to this.
But that's part of what I don't understand. Most people who are bodybuilding in the sense that they are trying to put on muscle so they can look better, aren't chasing some unrealistic ideal. Most people can get a more muscular look, but it takes hard work, time, and patience. And I do think the ideal of "strength training so you look better" is a growing trend. But I don't see it chained to any specific unrealistic body shape that an average person couldn't attain. I just think most people are scared to go into the weight room, and not patient enough to give it the years it can take. I do know some guys who are embarrassed by their bodies, but they know if they committed to losing weight and hitting the weight room after work, it could get better, they just don't do it. I don't think it's society's fault they haven't prioritized it but still feel bad about it. In life, you have to either put in the effort or let a goal go.12 -
janejellyroll wrote: »
You're drawing false conclusions. Feeling inferior about how much you can squat is no different than feeling inferior about how well you can write, or how well you can speak, or how well you can play basketball. Feeling inferior because who you are and what you look like does not conform to societal ideals is not the same.
Here's where I'm having trouble following your logic - you are assigning virtue to motives rather than actual accomplishments. How does a power-lifter who lifts purely because they like the way they look when they're at the top of their game fit into the virtue/selfish paradigm you've created?
I haven't created any such paradigm. You all are taking this so personally. Forget about the individual. You can do whatever the F you want. This is a philosophical question about whether society is better or worse off from bodybuilding existing at all. Not banning, not taking away your rights or your Fing guns. The question is just whether bodybuilding is a good thing, considering the aesthetic ideals it collectively promotes and how that impacts people in the world on the whole (e.g. boys and adolescents who feel like to be a "man" they need to look like Arnold).
You're actually debating whether or not society is better or worse if there is any achievement that can't be replicated by all.
Not at all. Again, I'm debating whether we should consider something an "achievement" as a society that promotes unrealistic body image. Yes, idealized body images are not attainable by all, just like elite athletic performance or elite academic performance. But neither of those two things have anything to do with body image, which seems to be a serious psychological problem in our society. Don't conflate that with "everyone gets a trophy" arguments. You could, however, compare it to beauty pageants.
I'm having trouble with the idea that society does consider bodybuilding an "achievement". Most straight women I know think male bodybuilders look gross, not attractive. (They may often think that kind of lightly muscled athletic looking men are attractive, but that's way different.) Virtually everyone I know thinks female bodybuilders look absolutely grotesque.
(I'm not endorsing those perspectives, BTW, but to the extent I've ever heard anyone talk about it, that's what I've heard.)
At best, as far as I can tell, people I know think of it as a weird niche hobby. Even those with body issues - women who feel insecure, triggered by people talking about weight loss, triggered by "fitspiration", etc. - don't seem to feel bad that they don't look like bodybuilders. They feel bad because they don't look like photoshopped models and actresses.
(I'm talking about women here, because I can't recall ever talking with any men about their body insecurities, but I have heard men say in conversation that they think male bodybuilders don't look a way they'd want to look - usually expressing that less politely.)
I could get on board with the idea that popular culture (at least in the US) promotes idealized versions of completely useless superficial qualities, and glorifies traits that weaken society if/when widespread, while being all kind of "meh" about accomplishments/traits we'd be better off if more people pursued, like health, strength, good character, kindness, hard work, etc.
But worrying that popular culture glorifies bodybuilding, or considers it an achievement, to the extent that that materially affects insecure people? I think that's pretty close to fiction.
It may enter into the discussion that many people (and possibly the OP as well) mistakenly have the impression that bodybuilders walk around with that ripped/striated, vascular, "stage-ready" look year-round, which is most definitely not the case. When they're not in competition form, bodybuilders are nowhere near that cut, pumped and veiny. Sure, they're more muscular than the average Joe/Jane walking down the street, but they don't look anything like what they look like onstage at a competition, or for a photoshoot. That's an ephemeral condition which can only be maintained for a few days, tops.
I agree that more people seem to feel bad that they don't look like photoshopped/airbrushed models and actresses. I see a lot more people (especially women) obsessing over cellulite, saddlebags, bingo wings, thigh gaps, bikini bridges, hip dips, etc. than about having big muscles. And many of them seem to have no idea that all those models and actresses have those exact same things too - they're just skillfully edited away in photos, and carefully attired/posed to hide them in videos. So maybe we could talk instead about how post-production editing does a disservice to society in general by creating unrealistic body images.
I don't think it's safe to generalize about society as a whole without one's own perception coloring the image. Aesthetic tastes run the gamut - I've known guys who were highly attracted to morbidly obese women and wouldn't even look twice at one unless she weighed at least 300 pounds. Some guys prefer women who dwarf them physically and some prefer tiny, waifish women. Women's tastes in men are the same, there's no societally universal ideal that everybody (or even most people) adhere to. Some women like big, brawny guys with hairy chests, some like "otters" (the 'swimmer' look), some prefer skinny, 'geeky' looking guys. And so on.
We've obviously never met, lol - and if we did, I'd fall into the 'virtually' category rather than the 'everyone' category. I don't have any one particular female body type that I find attractive to the exclusion of all others, but I've seen some drop-dead gorgeous female bodybuilders who I'd be more than happy to spend some time with. It's not at all an un-sexy look to me.Virtually everyone I know thinks female bodybuilders look absolutely grotesque.5 -
To say: "In the same way, I'd leave powerlifting out of this conversation -- because that's about function -- how much you can lift..."
...leads me to believe that OP doesn't know much about either powerlifting OR bodybuilding.
I'm a competitive powerlifter and care about both form and function. Is my desire to perform well and achieve a certain aesthetic bad for society? I don't know and don't really care about how other people feel about their bodies.
Powerlifting allows me to be strong, feel strong, and look built (the way I choose to look). If the ability and look of my body hurts other people's feelings...that's on them.
10 -
You've mentioned powerlifting a few times now. How is training for powerlifting any more 'virtuous' than training for physique? Both of them are a specific individual end goal. Is it because you think being able to lift a lot of weight won't hurt people's feelings as much as having a good body?
Virtue was your word, not mine. Yes, the point I'm exploring is whether you optimize for having a perfect-looking body, you cause more harm than if you optimize for having a functional body. Power lifters are not perpetuating any kind of aesthetic ideal. Action figures and movie stars do not look like power lifters.
I'll also point out to those that didn't notice, this isn't MY argument. I'm exploring it because I came across it debating someone else, and if I just agree with you all it doesn't do me any good.
Modern power lifters tend to also have good physiques...I don't see the big fat power lifters like back in the day. I know a few...they have pretty awesome physiques...and they also care about their physiques.
If you lift to be fit and strong, you are going to develop a good physique. If you lift for your physique, you're also going to get fit and strong.1 -
You're drawing false conclusions. Feeling inferior about how much you can squat is no different than feeling inferior about how well you can write, or how well you can speak, or how well you can play basketball. Feeling inferior because who you are and what you look like does not conform to societal ideals is not the same.
Here's where I'm having trouble following your logic - you are assigning virtue to motives rather than actual accomplishments. How does a power-lifter who lifts purely because they like the way they look when they're at the top of their game fit into the virtue/selfish paradigm you've created?
I haven't created any such paradigm. You all are taking this so personally. Forget about the individual. You can do whatever the F you want. This is a philosophical question about whether society is better or worse off from bodybuilding existing at all. Not banning, not taking away your rights or your Fing guns. The question is just whether bodybuilding is a good thing, considering the aesthetic ideals it collectively promotes and how that impacts people in the world on the whole (e.g. boys and adolescents who feel like to be a "man" they need to look like Arnold).
I've never felt any such thing...
This *kitten* is all in your head.2 -
You've mentioned powerlifting a few times now. How is training for powerlifting any more 'virtuous' than training for physique? Both of them are a specific individual end goal. Is it because you think being able to lift a lot of weight won't hurt people's feelings as much as having a good body?
Virtue was your word, not mine. Yes, the point I'm exploring is whether you optimize for having a perfect-looking body, you cause more harm than if you optimize for having a functional body. Power lifters are not perpetuating any kind of aesthetic ideal. Action figures and movie stars do not look like power lifters.
I'll also point out to those that didn't notice, this isn't MY argument. I'm exploring it because I came across it debating someone else, and if I just agree with you all it doesn't do me any good.
Wait wait wait wait wait, I missed this. Are you just messing with all of us to get us to give you more ammunition to go back to your other debate with? So your philosophical argument probably doesn't make sense because you don't actually believe it or maybe even understand it? Playing devils advocate on the sly is kind of shady dealing IMHO
9 -
IHaveMyActTogether wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »
You're drawing false conclusions. Feeling inferior about how much you can squat is no different than feeling inferior about how well you can write, or how well you can speak, or how well you can play basketball. Feeling inferior because who you are and what you look like does not conform to societal ideals is not the same.
Here's where I'm having trouble following your logic - you are assigning virtue to motives rather than actual accomplishments. How does a power-lifter who lifts purely because they like the way they look when they're at the top of their game fit into the virtue/selfish paradigm you've created?
I haven't created any such paradigm. You all are taking this so personally. Forget about the individual. You can do whatever the F you want. This is a philosophical question about whether society is better or worse off from bodybuilding existing at all. Not banning, not taking away your rights or your Fing guns. The question is just whether bodybuilding is a good thing, considering the aesthetic ideals it collectively promotes and how that impacts people in the world on the whole (e.g. boys and adolescents who feel like to be a "man" they need to look like Arnold).
You're actually debating whether or not society is better or worse if there is any achievement that can't be replicated by all.
Not at all. Again, I'm debating whether we should consider something an "achievement" as a society that promotes unrealistic body image. Yes, idealized body images are not attainable by all, just like elite athletic performance or elite academic performance. But neither of those two things have anything to do with body image, which seems to be a serious psychological problem in our society. Don't conflate that with "everyone gets a trophy" arguments. You could, however, compare it to beauty pageants.
I'm having trouble with the idea that society does consider bodybuilding an "achievement". Most straight women I know think male bodybuilders look gross, not attractive. (They may often think that kind of lightly muscled athletic looking men are attractive, but that's way different.) Virtually everyone I know thinks female bodybuilders look absolutely grotesque.
(I'm not endorsing those perspectives, BTW, but to the extent I've ever heard anyone talk about it, that's what I've heard.)
At best, as far as I can tell, people I know think of it as a weird niche hobby. Even those with body issues - women who feel insecure, triggered by people talking about weight loss, triggered by "fitspiration", etc. - don't seem to feel bad that they don't look like bodybuilders. They feel bad because they don't look like photoshopped models and actresses.
(I'm talking about women here, because I can't recall ever talking with any men about their body insecurities, but I have heard men say in conversation that they think male bodybuilders don't look a way they'd want to look - usually expressing that less politely.)
I could get on board with the idea that popular culture (at least in the US) promotes idealized versions of completely useless superficial qualities, and glorifies traits that weaken society if/when widespread, while being all kind of "meh" about accomplishments/traits we'd be better off if more people pursued, like health, strength, good character, kindness, hard work, etc.
But worrying that popular culture glorifies bodybuilding, or considers it an achievement, to the extent that that materially affects insecure people? I think that's pretty close to fiction.
I think she was talking about the bodybuilding an actor might do, as opposed to a competitive bodybuilder. There are levels to this.
The amount of workout most of those people do, and the results they achieve, are within reach of any able-bodied person, and some disabled ones (I've known some). The only genetic limitation on achieving that kind of fit appearance is that those people (actors, models) started out cuter than the rest of us - better proportioned, or whatever. The appearance difference from initial cuteness may be unfairly distributed, but looking fitter is more generally accessible.
It takes a lot of hard work to look fit. But it doesn't take more hours of work than the average person spends weekly watching TV or gaming ((if you believe survey data).
IME, people who don't pursue fitness (functionally or for aesthetics) tend to overestimate the time investment, or underestimate the results they personally could get if they made the investment. I'm well aware that I could look lots better physically, by investing a few hours a week. I don't choose to, because I don't much care how I look.
If makeup or dressing nicely are OK because everyone could do it if they want to, then "low level" bodybuilding (if there is such a thing) is OK, too.
The OP said: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.
So, if the standard is the everyday appearance of handsome actors (of either sex), we're arguing that people shouldn't train (say) 5 hours a week for aesthetics only, because people who don't spend that 5 hours would suffer psychological harm on account of (1) their own choice not to spend that time, and (2) the supposition that if they did spend that time they would achieve somehow inferior results . . . or what?
Or is it that hobbies about pure body aesthetics are immoral/unethical/unkind in a society that over-values body aesthetics, but would be OK in society that over-valued, say, being good at representational oil painting (presumably in the latter society it would be immoral/unethical/unkind to paint beautiful representational paintings, unless maybe for income, because not everyone is artistic . . ?).
I see what you did there, and I like it. lol1 -
We've obviously never met, lol - and if we did, I'd fall into the 'virtually' category rather than the 'everyone' category. I don't have any one particular female body type that I find attractive to the exclusion of all others, but I've seen some drop-dead gorgeous female bodybuilders who I'd be more than happy to spend some time with. It's not at all an un-sexy look to me.Virtually everyone I know thinks female bodybuilders look absolutely grotesque.
Don't get me wrong: Personally, I wouldn't mind looking like a female bodybuilder, though I wouldn't pursue muscularity for appearance's sake (appearance is not something I care about - to a fault). If that look were a by-product of pursuing strength or performance, I'd be perfectly happy with it. (And I do know about the competition appearance vs. everyday appearance side of it. I was trying to talk about common perceptions of bodybuilding aesthetics.)
As a 90% sapiosexual, 10% quirky-aesthetics-preference kind of person myself, the whole idea of appearance being the core of sexiness seems kind of alien to me, when it comes to evaluating others. I literally have no idea whether I'm attracted to someone unless I actually know them personally.
The idea of being psychologically wounded by others' hobbies, motivations, or genetics . . . that's kind of alien to me, too.
But I do admit to having happy-childhood privilege in that regard.
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions