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.
Kate Upton = Not Curvy in my book. She is busty. That's it. That doesn't mean she is unattractive. I think she is really cute. For a portion of women, she is an attainable body ideal. For those of us who have hips or a more defined waist, not so much.
Actually, here's a pic of Kate Upton when she is not posing, and I would say she has what's commonly called the "apple" shape, as opposed to "pear". But I would call her curvy, simply because she has.....curves. Also, she has short legs for a model. When she's not posing and being photographed by a professional photographer, it seems her body type is one you see on a lot of women, at least more women than the first two models I started this thread with.
Actually, most women in other parts of the world (like Europe, Japan) don't really try to emulate anything.
That's approximately what the NORMAL (not skinny) woman looks like in those parts of the world.
The problem lies with the american women who try to push OBESITY as normality. They like to say that they're "curvy" and "healthy." The truth is that most of them are obese and their obesity is unhealthy.
Real anorexia is so rare that's actually a non-problem compared to obesity.
Hundreds of millions of women from all over the world prove the fact that the "standard" is not unrealistic at all.
Why do you think the fashion industry doesn't want to promote "curvier" models in their US catalogs or fashion magazines? What could they "gain" from promoting "unrealistic" body types? That looks like a very, very bad business decision. The same holds true for men's magazines: why aren't they full of "curvy" girls if men prefer them?
The truth is that the "unrealistic" standard is pretty much the natural standard for beauty, something that's probably in our genes. And I'm not talking about the runaway models that are sometimes too thin or downright ugly, but about girls/women like Megan Fox (before getting pregnant,) Pamela Anderson in the past (though she still has a nice body) and so on...
I acknowledged there is a universal standard in an earlier post see bold: Because the upscale fashion models, as a few others have pointed out, are not there for pleasure of men. They are there to be 'living breathing mannequins', draped in their creations, to prance and preen like puppets. These 'creations' are analogous to the flambouyant architect who designs a building for external show and with little regard for function. Thus, if you look at models of clothing which is designed more for function (say, catalog print models, in everyday fashion wear) you will see a broader range of healthy looking women.
Personally, the 'prison camp' look is disturbing, and fitness and health is what men prefer overall. It's not the height, weight that matter but rather composition, displacement, comportment and tone. The whole "Curves" adjective is too lazily applied to have meaning in the absence of composition, displacement, comportment and tone. Seems more the 'politically correct speak' equivalent of 'vertically challenged' (short) and 'big boned' (large) - for (needs to lose 30 pounds).
On the 'curvy that men prefer', Anthropologocial studies have consistently showed that men typically are most attracted to a women in nurturing mode, a la, full firm hips/buttocks for erotic delight and easy childbearing, as well as young nursing mother's fuller breasts - whatever their particular shape and size.
Yes, there are universal qualities of beauty: balance, symmetry, proportion (1.618 Fibonacci sequence) and kinesthetic which occurs in nature (fluid movements - like a cat versus an elephant). My main point is humans need to recognize these various “industries” are looking first to make $$ catering to a very small percent of population via human 'mannequins', and at same time ply gullible minds and grow demand by making people feel as if they need their product and for most of them it is often an unrealistic ideal.
The “Industries” of Fashion / Hollywood / Advertising etc… bombard females with an ideal to strive for without taking into account certain aspects “body type and frame” that are unchangeable, unless one wants to give cosmetic surgery industry business. Although I cracked up at the woman comment on tampons as I recall an ad a few years ago for tampons that specifically addressed this very issue (varying body types).
Getting to your questions.
The 'curvy' you are referencing is NOT an ideal - it is a whole separate category (plus size) so we agree. Perhaps as someone else alluded too, it is a corporate decision to use the minimum of material for prototypes.
The disconcerting thing about the “Industries” is they prey upon the malleable minds of females (and this doesn’t preclude males). The “Industries” in the ‘search for market demand creation’ want to $ell $tuff. So often in the pursuit of $elling $tuff they have no regard for how those young women, who for lack of parenting and poor judgment think the images they see are realistic for them (often airbrushed etc..) with no regard for body typology.
It is analogous to the so called ‘Health Industry’ that appeals to lazy people to look / feel their best by absolving them of personal responsibility. Because things like ‘portion control’ (calorie intake) and activity levels (burning off calories) doesn’t $ell more $tuff i.e – “Eat Less Exercise More”. The “Indu$trie$ would rather $ell the weak minded on an easy solution (like a pill / medication/ surgery) rather than LIVE a healthier lifestyle.
When I’ve been to Europe (various countries), my impression is women there (generally) work towards looking their best, they are active, they are confident in their own skin, and to your point - there is significantly less obesity than in America, although they are getting more undue influence of USA exporting its unhealthy food Indu$trie$
The thing is beauty isn't relegated to one particular body type and can be seen in any of the first four basic shapes. Jennifer Lopez (pear) Gina Carano (apple) Amanda Righetti (banana) Salma Hayek (hourglass) , Halle Berry (hourglass) etc..
Some models are too thin for my tastes. One of the main reasons why they are is that, that is the size the clothes designers want and want to make their clothes sizes in.
Actually, here's a pic of Kate Upton when she is not posing, and I would say she has what's commonly called the "apple" shape, as opposed to "pear". But I would call her curvy, simply because she has.....curves. Also, she has short legs for a model. When she's not posing and being photographed by a professional photographer, it seems her body type is one you see on a lot of women, at least more women than the first two models I started this thread with.
I agree, she is definitely and apple, and there are many apples out there.
But for me, curvy is 100% related to the waist-hip-ratio. If you are an apple or inverted triangle shape, and have big breasts, that's busty, not curvy.
Just a reminder of what the average American woman looks like:
According to a survey conducted by the National Center for Health Statistics from 1999-2000, the average height and weight of women in America is 5 feet, 3.8 inches and 163 pounds respectively.
I agree, she is definitely and apple, and there are many apples out there.
But for me, curvy is 100% related to the waist-hip-ratio. If you are an apple or inverted triangle shape, and have big breasts, that's busty, not curvy.
Here's a website that agrees with you ----it also equates curvy with hour-glass and says bust size is "secondary", i.e. you could be hour-glass with a small or medium bust, and says that only 8 % of women have this body type.
And further that the defining criteria for having an 'hour-glass' figure is to have well-developed shoulders and hips that are about equal in width, and a comparatively small waist that is usually at least 10" less than your hips. I think that is a good description of an hour-glass figure. And it could include individuals of many different weights, from thin to heavy.
Most models don't look emaciated, just thin, and their expression on the runway is what the designers want. If the designers wanted them to walk down looking happy and friendly (which sometimes they do), then they would.
Meh. One person's emaciated is another's thin. Sort of like fat vs full-figured.
And like I said: the designers are mostly sissies anyway. They're just jealous that they can't wear the clothes.
The deep dark eight hundred pound gorilla here of course is that some men like slender, willowy sylphs; others like women who are built like a Ferrari Testarossa -- just as some women like brainy pot-bellied nerds with thick glasses and pockets full of ballpoints and others prefer macho dudes with pronounced buttocks, chest rugs and gold chains.
A wise man once said that character is what you do after the lights are off. I sometimes wonder if maybe our standards of beauty might benefit form that kind of thinking...
Just a reminder of what the average American woman looks like:
According to a survey conducted by the National Center for Health Statistics from 1999-2000, the average height and weight of women in America is 5 feet, 3.8 inches and 163 pounds respectively.
That's not a good thing. I realize you didn't say whether it is or not, just making a statement. It's too heavy.
That's not a good thing. I realize you didn't say whether it is or not, just making a statement. It's too heavy.
Agree!
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 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.
