U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Fashion and Beauty
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
View Poll Results: What body types look more attractive for both genders/more reasonable?
The painting 26 76.47%
What is idealized today 8 23.53%
Voters: 34. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-11-2012, 09:18 AM
 
Location: Northern Appalachia
2,447 posts, read 2,154,121 times
Reputation: 2289

Advertisements

I find this discussion humorous. Comparing the figures in the painting to "stick think women with artificial balloon-like breasts, and bulky men who look a lot thicker than their women," is ridiculous for a couple of reasons. First, not many people are in the "stick thin women with artificial balloon-like breasts, and bulky men who look a lot thicker than their women" category. I don't see many stick think women and I see a lot of women who are a lot thicker than their men. Second, posters are criticizing the couple in the painting for not being buff enough. The male and female in the painting are much more fit looking than the average person on the street in the US. I think many people think the models they see on TV and in magazines are reality and not the people you see in Walmart. Spend some time at any high school and see if the boys are as fit as the male in the painting or if the girls are as slim as the female in the painting.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-11-2012, 09:57 AM
 
Location: The western periphery of Terra Australis
24,691 posts, read 19,680,978 times
Reputation: 11862
Quote:
Originally Posted by villageidiot1 View Post
I find this discussion humorous. Comparing the figures in the painting to "stick think women with artificial balloon-like breasts, and bulky men who look a lot thicker than their women," is ridiculous for a couple of reasons. First, not many people are in the "stick thin women with artificial balloon-like breasts, and bulky men who look a lot thicker than their women" category. I don't see many stick think women and I see a lot of women who are a lot thicker than their men. Second, posters are criticizing the couple in the painting for not being buff enough. The male and female in the painting are much more fit looking than the average person on the street in the US. I think many people think the models they see on TV and in magazines are reality and not the people you see in Walmart. Spend some time at any high school and see if the boys are as fit as the male in the painting or if the girls are as slim as the female in the painting.
Idealized, I didn't say typical. That's why they are saying that Cupid isn't buff enough, bulky men are idealized. One poster even thinks Psyche is fat.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-11-2012, 03:29 PM
 
Location: Wherever women are
19,022 posts, read 14,474,354 times
Reputation: 11309
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trimac20 View Post
Hopefully the nudity won't offend, since it's a painting:



Stumbled upon this idealized depiction of Cupid and Psyche by chance (no not the cherub baby like figure he became later)...forget mythology, what do you think of the body types portrayed in this painting? Psyche has a very womanly figure, her thighs are full but not fat, although her hips are a tad wide. Her breasts are perky but not huge (is she a teenager?). I think her figure is very appealing. As for Cupid, he is not 'buff' generally slim but muscular, his arms and legs are of natural sizes. I'm not sure if these portray adolescents or adults (Cupid's face looks young), but besides the point.

How do you think this compares to today's idea: stick think women with artificial balloon-like breasts, and bulky men who look a lot thicker than their women?

Also the comparison between male and female. Women are supposed to have curves, not be skinny with fake ****. Men are like the hulk while women are like spindly birds. At least here they seem more equal in weight. For males weight is concentrated in the muscles and for women as fat. Fat itself isn't terrible - breasts are mostly fat tissue, and a lot of the curviness comes from padding as well as frame.

Personally I prefer the depiction in this painting.
My area

Women painted in all Renaissance images were HOT. Ever heard of the term rubenesque? It's the natural state of the feminine body, before it was ruined by the fitness baloney of the post-2000 era. I still think women looked pretty feminine prior to 2000. It's just been sold as a new idea in the noughties and beyond that "athletic and toned"ism is the ultimate model for the feminine form. Well, 2 decades are not gonna change 2 millennial concepts of feminine figurines.

Dude in the painting has a good body. Muscle mass or body fat has an adverse effect on otherwise awesome clothing. A man needs body like in the image in the OP to wear clothing like this. Posting it from my other thread. Any other body shape does no justice to a good suit


http://www.indochino.com/images/prod...imary.main.jpg
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-11-2012, 04:54 PM
 
Location: On the Ohio River in Western, KY
3,322 posts, read 3,293,048 times
Reputation: 3066
Change her hair color to dark brown/black, and give Cupid MUCH less hair and you pretty much have my husband and I.

And while SOME of you might think I am "fat" or out of shape, and my husband a scrawney thing; we are in the top 10% of fit people for our area.

I think it's MUCH better to promote this body type/image, than VS models or Playboy, or Jay Cutler.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-11-2012, 05:00 PM
 
Location: Planet Eaarth
8,958 posts, read 8,542,670 times
Reputation: 7193
As it is said.....Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Not much else matters anyway..........
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-11-2012, 05:06 PM
 
Location: Wherever women are
19,022 posts, read 14,474,354 times
Reputation: 11309
Ok, one of my all time favourites. Peter Paul Rubens' "The Three Graces". Watch the masterful brushstrokes in the texture of their bodies and the presence of natural fat in their hips, buns and overall figure.

These women will be considered obese by today's garbage spouted in the media. But this is the epitome of feminine beauty


http://www.museumsyndicate.com/images/1/1815.jpg
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-11-2012, 05:17 PM
 
410 posts, read 204,116 times
Reputation: 243
I think muscular fit looking bodies are better looking. that's just me though.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-11-2012, 05:21 PM
 
Location: Wherever women are
19,022 posts, read 14,474,354 times
Reputation: 11309
More classics from the Renaissance. Two of my other favourites. I love Botticelli's birth of venus, it's rich in detail. but Venus is somewhat disfigured


http://www.paintinghere.com/uploadpi...of%20Venus.jpg

But Alexandre Cabanel and William Bougereau are bull's eye on Venus in prime art form. Doesn't get any better. This is the type of body that has to be encouraged, all natural and no fakeness and muscular abs on women


http://www.femme-classic-art.com/Ven...-Art-large.JPG


http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_08hGZukB9A..._of_venus2.jpg
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-11-2012, 05:29 PM
 
6,193 posts, read 4,514,459 times
Reputation: 3323
All are definitely fat - women, cherubs, angels and the rest of the gang. They've probably stuffed their faces too much with cupcakes, chocolate or whatever they eat in heaven.
But dude in a suit - looking good, yeah...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-11-2012, 05:47 PM
 
Location: Wherever women are
19,022 posts, read 14,474,354 times
Reputation: 11309
Quote:
Originally Posted by erasure View Post
All are definitely fat - women, cherubs, angels and the rest of the gang. They've probably stuffed their faces too much with cupcakes, chocolate or whatever they eat in heaven.
But dude in a suit - looking good, yeah...
That's the body I've diligently striven to attain and been maintaining primarily for dress shirts. 14.5 neck is quite tight and a little muscle mass will deem 14.5 unwearable.

How about the Taio Cruz chick. She's definitely undone the bad reputation thudded upon the zone by Borat She is an all round package. Great face, appreciable boobage and good body (especially some natural fat in the hips, and not totally ripped). But most of the gym rat women are borderline unattractive with masculine faces and abs.
Moderator cut: image removed

Last edited by Marka; 01-10-2014 at 03:58 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $84,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Fashion and Beauty
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top