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 2 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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 07-16-2012, 05:45 PM
 
1,202 posts, read 1,524,674 times
Reputation: 818

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by supermanpansy View Post
I hate to do it, but I have to disagree with you about the history of sizing in beauty. Marilyn Monroe didn't look fat, so she wouldn't have been called fat. She truly was curvy. The way the word was meant to be. Nicole ritchie is or has not in any way shape or form become the pitch women for this decades body size. I think personally that thin girls with perky/ cute/ slightly small buts were what we (society) considered pretty for about an eighty year gap...This has been the "traditional standard" of beauty since atleast the fifties, some could argue the twenties. It was only til Jay-Lo came onto the scene with a but that was oversized yet tight, that society started to shift towards bigger back sides. Kim Kardashian would not have been considered pretty (body wise) in the nineties. Much of the change has alot to do with eating habits and how much bigger people are today. Society is shifting simply put because people are much bigger today. I take my nephew for example. The kid is only ten years old and he weighs 140 pounds. I didn't weight that til I was a junior in highschool. When I was his age, I would have been glad to weigh eighty pounds. People are eating out too much and they just aren't eating healthy home cooked meals anymore. Plus, I remember the days, when drinks, french fries, etc were all one size. That size today would be considered kid size..So all of these "popular" girls today with big backsides works with the shifting demographics of the size of the people. Can Kim K be a model today. Only because of her notoriety. However, if no one knew her in the nineties when it was the sheek/ waife look, she wouldn't have been considered..Times a changing..That's my theory.
I disagree with you in a way. In mainstream society--yep I'd say that you're spot on about what was attractive and the type of body that was coveted by the "average" american. However in the black and Hispanic communities curvy thicker women with big butts had been the "in" thing in the nineties and late 80's even. Matter of fact J-Lo grew up in such a community where her curves and "butt" were the norm not the exception. So when she "came out" and glamorized "curves", they had already been glamourized in the black/latino communities. I think white people were the ones that made the hooplah about J-Lo's body.

For the most part "thicker", curvy women have always been coveted and seen as the ideal body-type, in latino/black communities(Sir Mix A lot-"baby got back"). Thin women weren't and still aren't the "trend" in the black and latino communities. But I know that in the white community thin women were coveted for quite a while(and they still are in a way).

So while Kim K may have been considered fat to mainstream society and hollywood back in the early ninities, to black and latinos she would have been considered what she is today--which is sexy and attractive and ideal.

That being said, it looks like the rest of society has caught up and now you have women of all ethnicities and sizes claiming they have "curves", "big butts", etc. It's the "in" thing. For how much longer? Who knows?
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-16-2012, 05:59 PM
 
Location: in my imagination
11,019 posts, read 18,111,374 times
Reputation: 7663
I just wish I had better luck with meeting and connecting with a curvy voluptuous woman.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-16-2012, 06:06 PM
 
Location: The Jar
20,071 posts, read 13,754,906 times
Reputation: 36712
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ascension2012 View Post
lady obviously? WTH does that even mean? Is nutrition gender based or am i missing something?
Do your own research, and come back and thank me for providing you with correct information. Youj can admit or not that you were wrong, I couldnt care less. Stop giving bad advice based on no longer accurate information, because that really isnt helping anyone. Thanks.

What is all the hub-ub about meal timing? Do I need to eat every 2-3 hours?
This has been a hot topic for decades. Bodybuilders of the past believed that it was imperative to eat ever 2-3 hours, but is this really the case?
Let’s examine what frequent eating proponents say:
Skipping Meals causes:
1) Decrease in T3 hormone
2) Insulin levels to be all over the place (negatively effecting fat loss)
3) Protein tissues to break down, causing muscle loss
4) Slowing of metabolism
Does it really? Is there any evidence which backs this up? Not much, what you’ll see is anecdotal evidence. People will follow this method because that’s the way bodybuilders of old (and mostly of present) do it. They follow it because some jacked guy at the gym does it and says that is his secret to success.
Fortunately though, as of late, we have seen a gradual shift in this thinking. Recent studies indicate that the most important aspect of a diet is adhering to the diet, and hitting your caloric goals, NOT how often you eat. In fact there is a new revolution happening in bodybuilding called Intermittent Fasting. There are many variations of it, but the basic premise of it states that you eat all or nearly all of your calories within a small window, say 4-8 hours. The rest of the day you ‘fast’. You can drink water, but you don’t eat. What type of results are being reported? Just Google ‘eat stop eat, or leangains and see. People are getting as ripped with this method as they are with the old, eat every 3 hour method.
In fact, there are numerous studies that back up the whole meal timing theory is a fallacy. A great article ‘debunking’ these myths can be found at leangains.com.
Bottom line, do what will allow you to follow your diet, and stick to it. If that means you eat every 3 hours, then go for it. If that means you eat once per day and save all your calories, then do it! Just don’t expect one to be the ‘silver bullet’ if you will.
Consistency to a diet & exercise program is the key to sustained fat loss, and obtaining the body of your dreams.

Go to leangains.com to find references to about 20 different RECENT studies confirming this position. Learn something new every day. Isnt it nice?

So, how is this working for you??? LOL!!!! Pics, please, Ma'am!

I can dig up multiple sources, including huge studies done non-profit, to refute your fitness pal's propaganda/ money-making scheme.

You and I both know that you will just go on and on-- Why??? It's clear that you and a few other devouts have bought the whole thing: hook, line, and sinker.

Get the guy some REAL credentials and then we'll talk.

BTW, Everyone has a book out.

Perhaps try finding gurus with credentials from reputable schools of higher learning???

You know the ones--right?!

Hmmm...Harvard Med. School ring any bells???

Advice for everyone else??? Pay attention to REAL science and NOT pseudo science! Research!

Last edited by picklejuice; 07-16-2012 at 06:19 PM..
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-16-2012, 07:27 PM
 
Location: Australia
4,004 posts, read 5,086,888 times
Reputation: 6767
I'm going to tell you something your mother never will.

Curvy or "fat" women have better vaginas.

Skinny and bony women have skinny, hollow vaginas. A woman with a decent amount of body fat (most of us) have soft, huggy vaginas.

The more body fat, the smoother and tighter the fit.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-16-2012, 07:43 PM
 
3,517 posts, read 5,444,482 times
Reputation: 5566
Quote:
Originally Posted by MsAnnThrope View Post
It's all just a judgement call, furthermore changes with each generation.

Marilyn Monroe would be considered "fat" by almost all standards these days...the girl was a good, hefty size 14 with a damn good appetite.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MsAnnThrope View Post
I'm going to tell you something your mother never will.

Curvy or "fat" women have better vaginas.

Skinny and bony women have skinny, hollow vaginas. A woman with a decent amount of body fat (most of us) have soft, huggy vaginas.

The more body fat, the smoother and tighter the fit.
Haha! Wow you are full of MsInformation, MsAnnThrope. No, Monroe was never a modern size 14. Though her weight fluctuated, I'd guess her largest size (post childbirth) was size 10. Normally, she was closer to a size 4. She also had a totally flat butt and would probably get criticized endlessly on threads like this for not being womanly enough.

And no, there is no correlation between vaginal size and weight. The vagina is padded by muscle, not fat, which is why women are advised to do kegals to tighten things up. Whatever man told you that a fat vagina was a more pleasurable vagina was either kidding you or himself.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-16-2012, 08:26 PM
 
775 posts, read 954,956 times
Reputation: 1425
Quote:
Originally Posted by UnexpectedError View Post


And no, there is no correlation between vaginal size and weight. The vagina is padded by muscle, not fat, which is why women are advised to do kegals to tighten things up. Whatever man told you that a fat vagina was a more pleasurable vagina was either kidding you or himself.
Where the hell do people come up with this stuff? That doesn't even make sense. I wonder if she still believes in the shoe size/penis size correlation. Jeeze....14 year olds shouldn't be having sex anyway.

Last edited by luckynumber4; 07-16-2012 at 09:05 PM..
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-16-2012, 09:58 PM
 
5,485 posts, read 6,075,153 times
Reputation: 5793
Quote:
Originally Posted by picklejuice View Post
So, how is this working for you??? LOL!!!! Pics, please, Ma'am!

I can dig up multiple sources, including huge studies done non-profit, to refute your fitness pal's propaganda/ money-making scheme.

You and I both know that you will just go on and on-- Why??? It's clear that you and a few other devouts have bought the whole thing: hook, line, and sinker.

Get the guy some REAL credentials and then we'll talk.

BTW, Everyone has a book out.

Perhaps try finding gurus with credentials from reputable schools of higher learning???

You know the ones--right?!

Hmmm...Harvard Med. School ring any bells???

Advice for everyone else??? Pay attention to REAL science and NOT pseudo science! Research!
Well, I dont really do leangains or any of the festing, but you should pay attention to where i say in my post, that you can find references to actual medical studies that support this stance. The studies you're going off of, are outdated and no longer accurate. If you want to spout BS advice, educate yourself first, because otherwise you end up looking like a fool. Thanks in advance.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-16-2012, 10:21 PM
 
3,517 posts, read 5,444,482 times
Reputation: 5566
Default Do women understand the meaning of Curvy?

I don't think you can answer that question without first defining curvy. I define it by a WHR of 0.7 or less. Others add to that a necessary softness, that low-muscle fertile look so popular in classic paintings. Others still (men) would throw all of that out the window for a big pair of boobs.

I say boobs and butts and measurements be damned. If a woman's silhouette doesn't look curvy from behind, she's not curvy.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-16-2012, 10:56 PM
 
Location: Australia
4,004 posts, read 5,086,888 times
Reputation: 6767
Quote:
Originally Posted by UnexpectedError View Post

Haha! Wow you are full of MsInformation, MsAnnThrope. No, Monroe was never a modern size 14. Though her weight fluctuated, I'd guess her largest size (post childbirth) was size 10. Normally, she was closer to a size 4. She also had a totally flat butt and would probably get criticized endlessly on threads like this for not being womanly enough.

And no, there is no correlation between vaginal size and weight. The vagina is padded by muscle, not fat, which is why women are advised to do kegals to tighten things up. Whatever man told you that a fat vagina was a more pleasurable vagina was either kidding you or himself.
1. you're "GUESSING" but I'm "WRONG".
2. you know womens sizes are different in Australia, the UK and the US right?
3. you obviously have never shagged a very thin lady. Muscles are muscles but the vagina is full of FLESH and fat OVER the muscles. Think of a bicep...a thin persons toned bicep is gonna be hard, but a fat persons toned bicep is gonna be soft OVER the hard, even if they have muscles underneath. THE FAT MAKES IT SOFT. If you prefer to rub your bits on a scrubbing board rather than a fluffy towel, well, you're going to prefer the skinny girl.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-16-2012, 11:02 PM
 
Location: Australia
4,004 posts, read 5,086,888 times
Reputation: 6767
Quote:
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
I just wish I had better luck with meeting and connecting with a curvy voluptuous woman.

You know those curvy and voluptuous women are all at home grabbing their curves and wondering why they cant be a size 2, don't you?

Thank the media for that one. They even trim the thighs of SUPERMODELS by photoshop for goodness sake....what chance does an ordinary woman have in a world that tells us even too skinny is not thin enough?

Bring back the curves, I say...I love that Scarlett, Rihanna, Beyonce, yes even Kim Kartrashian, are all bringing the booty back.
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.


 
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 $104,000 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
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, 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, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top