HISTORY OF THE FEMALE "IMAGE IDEAL"
Replies
-
Came across this yesterday:
Now, granted, my eyes are green, not blue, my hips are pretty wide, I do have some body hair and I'm quite pale, and my arms are all flabby, but for the rest, go me, lol!0 -
You know, it's not just women who have this problem. I have only recently accepted that I have a massively huge frame and can never look or be lightweight. Back when I was young, I ordered a pair of pants online from a niche boutique. I had them ship me a pair of XL pants to me - the waist turned out to be 28". The smallest I have ever been was a 36. I could squeeze into a 34 if it was a large cut, but 28? No way. Even if I were anorexic, my hips are too wide, it would be impossible.
Even through most of my athletic life, I felt as if I was too big. I kept on hearing about cyclists who were the height as me, but weighed 150 lbs or less. The lightest I imagine I could be, and still carry some muscle, is 170. Now, the numbers on the scale aren't important to me. I realize now that BF% is much more important, and I do want to have *some* muscle. Not "The Rock" muscular, but enough that I can do stuff like handstands, planks, and pull-ups fairly easily. I expect to end up around 180, which is at the upper end of the BMI scale.1 -
Oh, didn't you know? We can't make fun of fat people but it's acceptable to call people "toothpicks!"As soon as they said Brittany Murphy looked like a toothpick, I quit reading. That is blunt and straight out body-shame, and it's ridiculous that someone who took their time write an article to try and get women to celebrate their bodies would make fun of someone because their's is, in the author's opinion, 'too thin'.
tl;dr - This article is dumb and hypocritical. Have a nice day ladies!1 -
Read this thread and most of the article because I love social history. However, when I started reading the paper, I was disappointed.
What this paper is trying to say is in many ways correct. People ARE too fixated on media. The “ideal body image” HAS changed over the years. The paper makes a few good ATTEMPTS at making a point and the topic is good, but honestly it’s not a very well written or reliable paper. It appears to be a psychology paper written by what I would hope to be a first or second year student (too many mistakes and it's just poorly written). I wouldn’t title it “the History of ...” anything because it’s DEFINITELY not a history paper. There are so many holes in the time periods; it’s just all around too sketchy to be a history paper (or at least one that was graded very well). I’m sure that this topic has been properly discussed (beaten into the ground) in other articles published by academic sources (academic journals and professional articles reviewed by a board of experts) that would be more reliable. It is a very interesting topic and, honestly, I think I might do some research on it from a historical and psychological POV.
I just got to the “toothpick” part of the article and my observations have just been reaffirmed because the terminology in this paper is just that ridiculous.1 -
I personally took the whole student report with a pinch of salt...what I found interesting was to learn/visualise how the definition of "attractive" or "ideal" has evolved so much over the decades.
Ejean....where did you order those TINY pants from (as in a niche boutique based in which country?) I agree, that's hardly what anyone would call XL even in women's clothing terms! Hope you sent them back!0 -
It was an American boutique. And by "niche," I mean very, very niche. Not exactly mainstream clothing.
I sent them back. This happened years ago.0 -
Thank you so much for sharing.....0
-
Tina Fey FTW.0
-
Oh, didn't you know? We can't make fun of fat people but it's acceptable to call people "toothpicks!"As soon as they said Brittany Murphy looked like a toothpick, I quit reading. That is blunt and straight out body-shame, and it's ridiculous that someone who took their time write an article to try and get women to celebrate their bodies would make fun of someone because their's is, in the author's opinion, 'too thin'.
tl;dr - This article is dumb and hypocritical. Have a nice day ladies!
^ annoyingly this -_-1 -
It took awhile but I read the entire article. It explains a lot about my self image. But even so, I cannot help but think, "Can we truly blame the media for the unrealistic body image?" Think about it, the media could not have been successful at seducing us unless we were attracted to the image in the first place. The real question is why are we attracted to and desire to have such an unrealistic and unhealthy body?
The women in the paintings grossed me out. It was like looking in a mirror. The artist even detailed the folds and cellulite. Marilyn's photo was attractive. I could just shoot myself, I had a figure similar to hers at a size 10. Unfortunately, I was stuck in my thinking that I needed to be a size 8. I have a hunch if I had got down to a size 8, I would have thought I needed to be a size 6. That has been my pattern how about you?
My journey is more than just having a healthful habits. For me it is about learning to appreciate who I am now, inside and out. I have to be honest, I am not doing so well in this area. My thinking is still skewed.
In closing, perhaps it is not so much the media that puts the unrealistic thinking into our brains as encouraging what we were already thinking. I am going to do my best to change my thinking. It will begin with limiting any images and audio that contradicts a factual healthy lifestyle, for mind, body, and soul.0 -
That Tina Fey quote was great, simply great!1
-
I personally think the days of the anorexic look are over. If you look at the really popular actresses, models, and singers now, most of them fall into the "healthy" look.
Take into account Jennifer Anniston, Beyonce, JLo, Kim Kardashian, Rachel McAdams, etc. These are all very "normal sized" girls. There are still some models that fall into the too-skinny category, but it seems to be moving away from that, which is a good thing in our society.0 -
People tend to forget WHY other (read bigger)bodies were seen as attractive and ideal before, because it meant they had money. Money to purchase food and live well. Not because the actual bodies were attractive. albeit I do not find size 0s to be attractive either, and personally I think a size 4 or 6 is "ideal". But then again ideal is relative.....0
-
I personally think the days of the anorexic look are over. If you look at the really popular actresses, models, and singers now, most of them fall into the "healthy" look.
Take into account Jennifer Anniston, Beyonce, JLo, Kim Kardashian, Rachel McAdams, etc. These are all very "normal sized" girls. There are still some models that fall into the too-skinny category, but it seems to be moving away from that, which is a good thing in our society.
Aniston is 5'8 and 110lbs (underweight)
her measurements are 34 -23 -35.
rahcel mcadams is 5'4, 112lbs (lower end of normal/bordering underweight)
julia stiles, 5'7, 110lbs. (underweight)
Kim is 5'3 and fluctuates but is about 125lbs. normal weight.2 -
I personally think the days of the anorexic look are over. If you look at the really popular actresses, models, and singers now, most of them fall into the "healthy" look.
Take into account Jennifer Anniston, Beyonce, JLo, Kim Kardashian, Rachel McAdams, etc. These are all very "normal sized" girls. There are still some models that fall into the too-skinny category, but it seems to be moving away from that, which is a good thing in our society.
Aniston is 5'8 and 110lbs (underweight)
her measurements are 34 -23 -35.
rahcel mcadams is 5'4, 112lbs (lower end of normal/bordering underweight)
julia stiles, 5'7, 110lbs. (underweight)
Kim is 5'3 and fluctuates but is about 125lbs. normal weight.
Huh? Jen A is 5'5" and 110-115, but I think she looks great. She has an athletic body, not bony or rail thin.
Rachel doesn't look "thin" to me. She looks healthy.
Again I didn't say ALL, of course there are some thin ones out there but the majority of the real popular ones seem to be healthier these days. Healthier than say, 10 years ago. At least what I have seen from watching movies and reading celeb magazines.
To each his own, I weigh 113 and am 5'4" but still have fat on my thighs and butt (not that I mind, but I do). No anorexia here!
0 -
The info on aniston is what is online so of course that could be wrong.0
-
I remember my sister watching a documentary on body image and using Monroe as an example, claiming she was a size 16. So (me being a Monroe fanatic) my sister said to me 'do you realize Marilyn Monroe was a size 16?!'.... I had to try and explain what has been put so brilliantly here. Kind of annoys me when people try and say she was a size UK 16 (todays 16) because like someone else said, they just want to think that to justify their own bad habits. And like another person said, you only have to look at photos of her to see she wasn't a size 16 of todays standards.
I'm a size UK 6-8, and my waist measures 25". Bigger than Marilyn's 22-23".
Wow yeah, she really was fat, wasn't she??? Lol
Although I will be fair and say not everyone realise the difference in sizing from the 50's to now - but as I also said, its easy to see in pics she was never a size 16 (today time) if she was, she must have been hidden away during that time with no photos captured of her :P0 -
And for a while now, I feel thin people get a lot of stick... This article seems to confirm that. Just like there are healthy and unhealthy big body types, there is also healthy and unhealthy thin body types. I don't think its fair for us thin girls to be plumped into the same category as someone suffering with anorexia!!! I weigh 109lbs, my measurements are 31-25-35. However, I eat my usual junk (aswel as healthy food) I just do more, I run a lot and lift light weights. Also, I come from a genetically petite family. I'm only 5ft tall, my mom is 5ft 1 (and when she was my age she weighed 95lbs!!) But not one picture of her from when she was my age do I think she looked unhealthy, far from it. It's just that was her body type.
If you know YOU are healthy and are happy, then try not to listen to ideal body types, whether its an article putting down the bigger body or the smaller body.0 -
I have learned to not care about the number on my clothes. I have size 8s to size 14s ... I am an hourglass shape, no where near Marilyn, of course, but I learn to look in the mirror and the scale and worry about that. The size on my pants won't change what I look like.
To add, Marilyn when up and down in her weight, she was bigger ( and still looked sexy) and very tiny at other times, (and still looked sexy) google photos, she looked very different from year to year.0 -
Very interesting! Thank you for posting.0
-
The women in the paintings grossed me out. It was like looking in a mirror. The artist even detailed the folds and cellulite.
It's called art... That style is Rubenesque, done by Peter Paul Rubens.
Being 'grossed out' by the women is part of the reason that we as a society have such a horrible self image. Part of the reason that when people look at a fat person they do it with disdain or disgust. When you get slender will you also look at other fat women and think they are disgusting (or do you already?)2 -
I'm confused. How was MM an hourglass? Her waist was only 8" smaller than her hips. Doesn't there have to at least a 10" difference?0
-
Came across this yesterday:
Now, granted, my eyes are green, not blue, my hips are pretty wide, I do have some body hair and I'm quite pale, and my arms are all flabby, but for the rest, go me, lol!
I like Tina Fey, but what is she talking about? KK hasn't got 9 year old boy hips. Far from.0 -
Read this thread and most of the article because I love social history. However, when I started reading the paper, I was disappointed.
What this paper is trying to say is in many ways correct. People ARE too fixated on media. The “ideal body image” HAS changed over the years. The paper makes a few good ATTEMPTS at making a point and the topic is good, but honestly it’s not a very well written or reliable paper. It appears to be a psychology paper written by what I would hope to be a first or second year student (too many mistakes and it's just poorly written). I wouldn’t title it “the History of ...” anything because it’s DEFINITELY not a history paper. There are so many holes in the time periods; it’s just all around too sketchy to be a history paper (or at least one that was graded very well). I’m sure that this topic has been properly discussed (beaten into the ground) in other articles published by academic sources (academic journals and professional articles reviewed by a board of experts) that would be more reliable. It is a very interesting topic and, honestly, I think I might do some research on it from a historical and psychological POV.
I just got to the “toothpick” part of the article and my observations have just been reaffirmed because the terminology in this paper is just that ridiculous.
^0 -
I personally think the days of the anorexic look are over. If you look at the really popular actresses, models, and singers now, most of them fall into the "healthy" look.
Take into account Jennifer Anniston, Beyonce, JLo, Kim Kardashian, Rachel McAdams, etc. These are all very "normal sized" girls. There are still some models that fall into the too-skinny category, but it seems to be moving away from that, which is a good thing in our society.
Aniston is 5'8 and 110lbs (underweight)
her measurements are 34 -23 -35.
rahcel mcadams is 5'4, 112lbs (lower end of normal/bordering underweight)
julia stiles, 5'7, 110lbs. (underweight)
Kim is 5'3 and fluctuates but is about 125lbs. normal weight.
And people still call KK fat .. sigh.0 -
As soon as they said Brittany Murphy looked like a toothpick, I quit reading. That is blunt and straight out body-shame, and it's ridiculous that someone who took their time write an article to try and get women to celebrate their bodies would make fun of someone because their's is, in the author's opinion, 'too thin'.
tl;dr - This article is dumb and hypocritical. Have a nice day ladies!
THIS.0 -
I'm confused. How was MM an hourglass? Her waist was only 8" smaller than her hips. Doesn't there have to at least a 10" difference?
A true hourglass is supposed to have a roughly .7-.75 ratio between their waist and hips. (Divide waist by hips).0 -
I'm confused. How was MM an hourglass? Her waist was only 8" smaller than her hips. Doesn't there have to at least a 10" difference?
A true hourglass is supposed to have a roughly .7-.75 ratio between their waist and hips. (Divide waist by hips).
I just realised I was looking at the wrong post :laugh: it was someone else's measurements, not hers. My bad 0 -
Forget Hollywood. They're all competing with each other, they're all photoshopped, and without the 24/7 nutritionist, personal chef, personal trainer, personal stylist, the cosmetic surgery, the potions and lotions....etc....there is no way us mere mortals can compete.
Personally, I don't care what size Marilyn Monroe was or Bettie Page or anyone else from days gone by. They had curves and they were sexy and they looked healthy. A bit of meat on the bone and a 'softness' about them.
The Tina Fey article was funny! Thanks for posting it.0 -
I find these articles so funny and usually such a waste of time...written in various levels of snark for the writer to push what they find or claim to find attractive by saying , eff all beauty standards...except mine!!! cause it's the best.
as far as the ideal woman? LOL at getting a general consensus on what's attractive....people have different opinions and preferences and some people can appreciate multiple looks or body types...
I guess the only idea image I worry about is my idea of what I think is attractive and how I want to look.Some of which is "mainstream popular" and some of which is very not.
And I totally agree with all the sentiments saying people use the Marilyn Monroe was a size 14 thing as a total BS excuse to justify their unhealthy habits, it's very clear from her pictures, movies and clothing exhibitions that she is in no way anywhere near to a todays American size 14.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.2K 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
- 421 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
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions