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.
To equate liking/disliking obese women to a blonde/brunette preference is absurd. While most people may have a preference on hair color, they don't find another's preference strange or irrational. You don't see the difference? And yes, society in general does in fact find obese women repulsive. You don't have to believe me. Just take your wife to the beach in a bikini and ask for some honest feedback. It'll be virtually unanimous.
Absurd? Hence my questioning of your understanding of the concept of attraction. Also, I'm not sure how you intend to support your claim about "honest feedback." I do know even before she lost weight my wife got hit on steadily. That seems to fly in the face of your claim.
I don't know what criteria you used to choose your wife. From what you're saying, it would seem strictly on appearance.
Not so. I had a long list of things I wanted in a woman. Actually, "looks" were the last thing to be added as a must-have. For a long time, I thought that it was the noble thing to do, going for a woman for all of the other reasons instead of looks, because one can hardly control one's looks. For example, though I always dated fat women since age 17, there are different types of fat women. Some are fairly well-balanced, proportionally speaking... some are unusually large in the chest, some unusually large in the stomach, some unusually large in the butt and thighs. I've dated all three types. I could give you my reasons why I don't prefer "boob girls" or "belly girls"... but it hardly matters as there are men who prefer those girls over my "butt girls". So essentially it was something like this for me: "okay, she's a 'belly girl' and she doesn't have the best-looking face... but she has a lot of other good things going for her, so maybe I will eventually be able to overlook the physical aspects that I don't like". I was like that until age 26. Noble though my intentions were, I could not circumvent the fact that I was a visual person, as most men are, and I prefer "butt girls". Right around the time I turned 26, I said to myself that I would never again date a woman I didn't find gorgeous, no matter what else she had going for her.
Two weeks later I met she who became my wife. Interesting timing, that was.
However, to continue, I can tell you there's a lot more that I got in my wife. I got a woman who thinks smoking and drugs are repulsive, who sings well and wants to perform music as her livelihood, who is on board with the idea of "survivalism", who is very physically affectionate, who has no nasty habits, who prefers the country to the city, who likes old cars, who likes about the same kind of music I like, etc. I could go on and on. I got all of this... in an incredibly gorgeous package. But would I have turned it all down if it wasn't in a gorgeous package?
Yes. Shallow though it makes me sound, I would have. I tried the "no" option and it didn't work for me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Mysterious Benefactor
When I chose my wife, I was looking for a lifetime partner, not just a fantasy girl to look at. As such, I had to consider everything about her. She's beautiful, but she isn't perfect. I can't imagine why you would find this illogical. I've never met anyone who married someone strictly because they were physically ideal for them.
That's because you've never met me in person. I have nothing to gain by telling you or anyone that my wife is the most beautiful woman I've ever seen. She rarely, if ever, sees my posts on City-Data. But I can assure you that I married her because, among other things, she was physically my idea of perfection.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Mysterious Benefactor
My point was that these nations are not influenced much by Western culture yet still have the same disdain for obese women. Thus, disproving your claim.
Not influenced "much"... I agree. But look it up for yourself - don't take my word for it. The influence comes in the form of entertainment media such as music and movies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by elvira310
You seem to think that "society" has a hive mind.
I have to step up and defend The Mysterious Benefactor here. Society does have a hive mind. It's very easy to influence people. All you have to do, to bear witness to this, is look at how society has influenced people's views on gay marriage. 20 years ago, most people were against it. Heck, even less than 10 years ago, most people were against it. These days the majority is for it. How did that happen? People were influenced. You may call it "awakened to the truth"... maybe... but it was still influence, regardless of its outcome.
Quote:
Originally Posted by elvira310
Much of society values education and having some sort of identity, rather than indulgent idleness. I think most women do, unless they themselves aspire to trophy wife status.
I have to break rank with you here. If society valued education, there would be reality shows focused on the most educated among us. But that isn't the case. Instead you have shows thinly disguised as entertainment talent shows, such as "American Idol", "America's Got Talent", etc... none of which have to do with education. We have shows like "The Real Housewives Of ________", and if that is not a testimonial to indulgent idleness, I don't know what is. Same goes for "Keeping Up With The Kardashians". I could go on and on. Art imitates life. If people were really that interested in individual identity and education, they wouldn't watch these shows... the fact that the shows remain on the air means that they get a lot of watchers. We all know what an airhead Kim Kardashian is, but "Keeping Up With The Kardashians" has been on the air for seven years already.
Quote:
Originally Posted by elvira310
I realize that some men think that as long as a woman is thin and beautiful, nothing else is looked for or expected of her. Some men base their relationships on that alone. I realize that a lot of society values thinness. But it doesn't mean that a lot of society also values empty-headed, indulgent idleness, which is what a "trophy wife" is.
Are you sure about this? Again, there is a lot of evidence out there attesting to how people are quite interested in those among us whose lives could very easily be described as empty-headed indulgent idleness.
Quote:
Originally Posted by elvira310
What I think most of society values is that women be capable and beautiful. Not just beautiful. And, some of society, especially when they mature, realize that attractiveness rates lower than being capable, because attractiveness fades, but being capable carries you through your entire life. Show me someone at age 50, 60, or 70 who is still obsessing on looks and nothing else, and I'll show you someone who is pitied and laughed at. And also miserable.
Again, not always the case. Example: Hugh Hefner. Does he REALLY think that his 20-something "girlfriends" or "wives" actually love him for who he is and want to spend the rest of their lives with him come richer or POORER, SICKNESS or health, better or WORSE? Would they date an 85-year-old man if he weren't a gazillionaire and also fabulously famous? I guarantee they wouldn't. Men can obsess about looks no matter how old they are as long as they have enough money to support the indulgent idleness of the trophy ladies they get into their lives. Women obsess about it too. We've all seen the ladies who keep getting plastic surgery as they age, so that they won't be looking as old as their less wealthy counterparts.
We might laugh at Hugh Hefner but he's bedding multiple trophy 20-somethings on a regular basis. Lots of guys would kill to have half of his romantic success.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Mysterious Benefactor
To equate liking/disliking obese women to a blonde/brunette preference is absurd. While most people may have a preference on hair color, they don't find another's preference strange or irrational. You don't see the difference? And yes, society in general does in fact find obese women repulsive. You don't have to believe me. Just take your wife to the beach in a bikini and ask for some honest feedback. It'll be virtually unanimous.
This depends upon where you go. The question is WHY does society find obese women repulsive? My wife has found that she gets a disproportionate amount of attention from black men. The simplest explanation for that is that black women tend to have big butts, and since people tend to be attracted to characteristics of "their own", it stands to reason that black men would generally prefer a big butt on a woman. So if I took her to Newport, RI to see what the public opinion was, she'd be laughed out of town... but if I took her to the Gulf Coast in a state like Mississippi or Louisiana, man, I'd have to have a weapon... because the guys would be flocking to her.
Society's view of women changes. My mom was 5'6" and 115 when she was younger... she was captain of the majorette squad and had a physique that would blow most guys away these days... but she claimed that she got picked on a lot for being too thin. These days she sure would get a much warmer reception. For a long while, very recently, the "in thing" was women being as thin as possible. Then I recently read an article about how society's opinion on big butts on women has been changing dramatically in recent times because of the influence of celebrities who are touting the big booty (cited examples were Nicki Minaj, Jennifer Lopez, and Kim Kardashian). Why do you figure this is happening? Well, now all of these ladies who for the last few years thought "thin was in" are now going to try to plump up their booties... meaning more money for the gyms where booty-building classes are offered... and most importantly, more money for the apparel companies which have already re-tooled their Vietnamese and Bangladeshi factories to pump out clothing meant for ladies with fuller rear ends. When a lady has to change out her wardrobe because something else is "in"... this means big bucks for the fashion industry! If all ladies were like the average man, who wears his clothes for 15-20 years or however long it takes them to wear out completely and then replaces them with whatever's on sale at the local department store, the apparel companies would not be raking in the huge sums of money they make. It is ALL ABOUT MONEY. There is no other logical reason why preferences would change so dramatically so frequently.
Absurd? Hence my questioning of your understanding of the concept of attraction.
Yes, absurd. If you claim to like blondes, those who prefer brunettes can still understand your preference. But most people simply can't understand how you can possibly find a grossly obese woman physically attractive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by iknowftbll
Also, I'm not sure how you intend to support your claim about "honest feedback."
I don't intend to support it at all. You don't seem to believe me, so I'm inviting you to do the research and confirm/refute my theory. My guess is that you won't even have to ask for feedback. You'll probably hear a lot of it unsolicited.
Quote:
Originally Posted by iknowftbll
I do know even before she lost weight my wife got hit on steadily. That seems to fly in the face of your claim.
Diplomatically I'll say: I find this very difficult to believe.
And yes, society in general does in fact find obese women repulsive. You don't have to believe me. Just take your wife to the beach in a bikini and ask for some honest feedback. It'll be virtually unanimous.
What a nasty thing to say to someone about their SO. Do you feel better now?
I assume that if your wife were to take you to the beach and asked other women for honest feedback, that the women would all be swooning at your incredible physique? I have to ask, because we don't know what you look like (of course).
Like some other men on CD, you feel entitled to judge women's looks while you have no pics posted of yourself. How convenient.
I have to step up and defend The Mysterious Benefactor here. Society does have a hive mind. It's very easy to influence people. All you have to do, to bear witness to this, is look at how society has influenced people's views on gay marriage. 20 years ago, most people were against it. Heck, even less than 10 years ago, most people were against it. These days the majority is for it. How did that happen? People were influenced. You may call it "awakened to the truth"... maybe... but it was still influence, regardless of its outcome.
You partially have a point here, but I think that a lot more people buck "society," but they keep their heads down, so we don't hear about them. I think their numbers are higher than we may be aware.
Quote:
I have to break rank with you here. If society valued education, there would be reality shows focused on the most educated among us. But that isn't the case. Instead you have shows thinly disguised as entertainment talent shows, such as "American Idol", "America's Got Talent", etc... none of which have to do with education. We have shows like "The Real Housewives Of ________", and if that is not a testimonial to indulgent idleness, I don't know what is. Same goes for "Keeping Up With The Kardashians". I could go on and on. Art imitates life. If people were really that interested in individual identity and education, they wouldn't watch these shows... the fact that the shows remain on the air means that they get a lot of watchers. We all know what an airhead Kim Kardashian is, but "Keeping Up With The Kardashians" has been on the air for seven years already.
More and more people are turning off their TVs and going for online options, because they find TV is not serving their interests. Gone are the days when we had four networks and everyone either watched what was on them, or didn't watch anything. I don't think we can assume that TV ratings are the sole way to determine what "society" values.
If "society" didn't value education, then no one would be going to college. No one would be talking about the problems of student debt, because there wouldn't be enough students in debt to worry about. No one would be reading books, buying Kindles. "Society" can be separated into a few factions.
The Mysterious Benefactor claimed that "Trophy wives" who had never had a job were a "status symbol" in this society. A "trophy wife" is something quite different than a stay-at-home mom, would we not all agree? A trophy wife doesn't work, not because she is devoting her time to taking care of the kids, but because she's beautiful arm candy and this reflects on the man. A wife who stays home to take care of the kids may be very hard-working, may not be glamorous or especially hot, though hopefully her husband finds her attractive. She's not automatically looked at as a "status symbol."
Do you think that all of society either aspires to be a trophy wife, or to have a trophy wife? I don't believe it. I don't believe that the women of "society" all want to live that kind of life, to never have held a job, to never have an exciting career, to just relax at home and do NOTHING other than exist and be pretty. And I don't believe that the men of "society" all want their wives to be pretty but empty-headed.
I don't doubt that many women would like to live a life where they don't have to worry about finances due to a successful spouse (who wouldn't?) and where they could have some time for fun and leisure. But to never have a job (career), to live a life of only indulgent idleness, go to spas and waste their days? Really? No. Maybe the lowest common denominator thinks they want that, but most know better.
I think society values people who DO things. They helped win the game, starred in that fun movie, sang that catchy song, landed that plane in the storm. Some of the things they do may be a bit silly, but it's still at least DOING something. (Here's an article which explains that better. http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-harsh-...better-person/ Warning, some language in there!)
Quote:
Are you sure about this? Again, there is a lot of evidence out there attesting to how people are quite interested in those among us whose lives could very easily be described as empty-headed indulgent idleness.
"Interested" isn't the same as "wanting to be just like"! Probably most people laugh at their antics, but don't admire them or look up to them.
Quote:
Again, not always the case. Example: Hugh Hefner. Does he REALLY think that his 20-something "girlfriends" or "wives" actually love him for who he is and want to spend the rest of their lives with him come richer or POORER, SICKNESS or health, better or WORSE? Would they date an 85-year-old man if he weren't a gazillionaire and also fabulously famous? I guarantee they wouldn't. Men can obsess about looks no matter how old they are as long as they have enough money to support the indulgent idleness of the trophy ladies they get into their lives. Women obsess about it too. We've all seen the ladies who keep getting plastic surgery as they age, so that they won't be looking as old as their less wealthy counterparts.
I said looks and only looks. I don't think that people magically stop caring about looks at age 50 or above. But I think that unless they want a life of emptiness, they realize that there must be more to life than that.
Quote:
We might laugh at Hugh Hefner but he's bedding multiple trophy 20-somethings on a regular basis. Lots of guys would kill to have half of his romantic success.
I don't think anyone begrudges Hugh Hefner his romantic success, nor do I think that everyone stops caring about romance after a certain age. But I think that most people eventually learn that there's more to life than that. Career, family, maybe spiritual things. Not just looks. If all you've ever focused on your whole life is looks, and you're 85, that's pretty sad, and I think most of "society" realizes that, either sooner or later.
Last edited by elvira310; 11-14-2014 at 08:19 PM..
What a nasty thing to say to someone about their SO. Do you feel better now?
I assume that if your wife were to take you to the beach and asked other women for honest feedback, that the women would all be swooning at your incredible physique? Of course, we don't know for sure, because we don't know what you look like.
Like some other men on CD, you feel entitled to judge women's looks while you have no pics posted of yourself. How convenient.
Whoooaa, calm down, Dixie. Try to follow the thread and understand what I said in context. I didn't say anything nasty about anyone. He's already acknowledged that his wife is obese. This is all I know of her. She may be beautiful in his eyes, your eyes, or my eyes. That isn't the point. I'm saying that, fair or not, society in general will view her as repulsive.
There's a lot of talk about how society view fat/obese women as being the bottom of the totem pole when it comes to beauty but to be perfectly honest fat people of both genders are dogged out equally these days. I'm pretty sure a relatively fit woman would get the same comments if she were dating a fat/obese man (in the rare as a unicorn occasion that it happens.)
I would go on to venture that in today's society fat men are actually seen as more repulsive than fat women.
You partially have a point here, but I think that a lot more people buck "society," but they keep their heads down, so we don't hear about them. I think their numbers are higher than we may be aware.
Sure, because bucking society has its consequences. When I was a kid, for example, I got picked on because I didn't know who Pat Riley was and because I didn't follow sports. Of what consequence is following sports? None. But I still got harassed for not doing so. If this isn't society's influence and "hive mentality" at work, I don't know what is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by elvira310
More and more people are turning off their TVs and going for online options, because they find TV is not serving their interests. Gone are the days when we had four networks and everyone either watched what was on them, or didn't watch anything. I don't think we can assume that TV ratings are the sole way to determine what "society" values.
Not the sole way, but certainly a good barometer thereof. Though it is true that people are turning off the TV, I think it's more because they're sick of paying out the wahzoo for cable than because they find that the TV isn't serving their interests. With over 1,000 channels, I'm SURE there's always SOMETHING on, for everyone. Regardless, shows like "Keeping Up With The Kardashians" remain on the air. This means they attract enough viewers to entice advertisers to pay big bucks for commercial space during that show... and all it takes for a show to stay on the air is that it makes good money for the TV station / network.
Quote:
Originally Posted by elvira310
If "society" didn't value education, then no one would be going to college. No one would be talking about the problems of student debt, because there wouldn't be enough students in debt to worry about. No one would be reading books, buying Kindles. "Society" can be separated into a few factions.
We don't have tons of people going to college because society values education. We have tons of people going to college due to a phenomenon called "degree inflation" - basically where jobs that used to require only a high school diploma now require a 2-year or 4-year college degree, jobs that used to require a bachelor's degree now require a master's, jobs that used to require a master's now require a doctorate, etc. Knowledgeable people have told me that this is only happening because the employers want to pare down on the number of resumes they get... not because the extra education is really necessary to perform the essential duties of the job. The mountains of student debt are because the openings for students at colleges are not keeping pace with the number of people who want to go to college... so colleges jack prices way up for two reasons: 1) to equate supply and demand, and 2) to pay for purchasing more property, erecting more buildings, and hiring more staff so that they can handle the increased demand for college education.
If you think society values education over everything else, I invite you to explain why celebrities and athletes make millions of dollars every year, and teachers make less than $100,000 per year. There are extremely few teachers who crack six figures, and those who do are living in extremely expensive areas, teaching in high-pressure schools, etc. Most college professors don't even make six figures. Entry-level teachers, the ones who work the hardest because they don't yet have their lessons/tests/quizzes/assignments done up and stored away in filing cabinets so they can simply be pulled out and reused year after year, are lucky to make over $30,000 per year. Yet, professional athletes make well into the six figures even if they're at "league minimum". Movie stars command several million dollars per picture. Celebrity entertainers make huge amounts of money per show - more in one night than a teacher will make in a year, or two, or maybe even ten. I fail to see how this can reconcile with a statement that society values education over something like celebrity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by elvira310
The Mysterious Benefactor claimed that "Trophy wives" who had never had a job were a "status symbol" in this society. A "trophy wife" is something quite different than a stay-at-home mom, would we not all agree? A trophy wife doesn't work, not because she is devoting her time to taking care of the kids, but because she's beautiful arm candy and this reflects on the man. A wife who stays home to take care of the kids may be very hard-working, may not be glamorous or especially hot, though hopefully her husband finds her attractive. She's not automatically looked at as a "status symbol."
I'm with you on this one. I remember having two music students - brother and sister. Their father looked like a bit of a redneck, drove a 12-year-old SUV, and commuted almost 100 miles each way every day to work. His wife drove a brand new SUV and seemed to spend all of her time in the "GTL" lifestyle when she wasn't taking care of the kids. She was definitely playing the part of his trophy wife, though she was also doing the stay-at-home mom thing. Sometimes she had her mother stay with the kids while she went to the private club or beach or spa or gym or whatever. Plus, she was a stuck-up blankety-blank when you tried to interact with her. It was sickening.
Quote:
Originally Posted by elvira310
Do you think that all of society either aspires to be a trophy wife, or to have a trophy wife? I don't believe it. I don't believe that the women of "society" all want to live that kind of life, to never have held a job, to never have an exciting career, to just relax at home and do NOTHING other than exist and be pretty. And I don't believe that the men of "society" all want their wives to be pretty but empty-headed.
Not ALL of them, but ask a random crowd of 1,000 single women aged 22 through 40 how many of them would like to marry a man who was rolling in money and wanted nothing more from them than to do whatever they could to remain as pretty as possible for them, and scorch the sheets with them every night... and I guarantee you that you would have lots of takers. After all, it's a pretty good life, wouldn't you say? Get everything your heart desires, and spend your days at the salon or the spa or the gym.
Quote:
Originally Posted by elvira310
I don't doubt that many women would like to live a life where they don't have to worry about finances due to a successful spouse (who wouldn't?) and where they could have some time for fun and leisure. But to never have a job (career), to live a life of only indulgent idleness, go to spas and waste their days? Really? No. Maybe the lowest common denominator thinks they want that, but most know better.
It would be an interesting case study. I think you'd be shocked at the number of said women who would love to have that lifestyle. After all, a good number of women really want to be wives and mothers. Though most women now work and pursue careers, I still think that the majority of them would prefer to be stay-at-home moms if they were married to men who could provide enough money so that they didn't have to work. My own mom was like this. She got a bachelor's degree and started teaching... but when I came along, that was it for the career. She never wanted to be a full time working person - she wanted to be a wife and a mother. I dated a few girls like this - they worked while they had to, but they wanted to marry a man who would be the primary breadwinner so that they could be stay-at-home moms... and this wasn't restricted to girls without college degrees either. Now, being a stay-at-home mom isn't always about indulgent idleness... but I do state for the record that I believe that only a small minority of "career women" actually WANT to be career women. Give 'em all the chance to be with a rich husband who demands no more of them than to keep on top of personal beauty and rock their world in bed, and you'll see just how many women dig indulgent idleness. Heck, when teenage girls won't date a guy unless he has a car and a job, you know that it's not because they think that only those two conditions make a guy a truly good man who won't mistreat them - it's because they want the guy to lavish gifts, freebies, and unusually extravagant dates upon them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by elvira310
I think society values people who DO things. They helped win the game, starred in that fun movie, sang that catchy song, landed that plane in the storm. Some of the things they do may be a bit silly, but it's still at least DOING something. (Here's an article which explains that better. 6 Harsh Truths That Will Make You a Better Person | Cracked.com Warning, some language in there!)
Society values fame and fortune. Notice how three of the four examples you have talk about disproportionately high-paid people (athletes, movie stars, singers)... even airplane pilots tend to be on the high end of the pay spectrum. If it were just that society values people who do things, there'd be no such thing as celebrity. The value placed upon a person for what he does is dependent upon exactly what he does... and thereby we can see society's values. People want to be entertained. That's their value system. I state for the record that they want to be entertained for one or both of the following reasons:
1) They can't do much with their own lives
2) They don't like what they have to do with their own lives
As a professional entertainer, I see this constantly. Most of the people I entertain fall into the first category, but I hear a lot of stories from people in the second category. When people are working on something, they don't have time to sit around and be entertained - their lives entertain them. People tend to be entertained by one of the following two things:
1) something they wish they could do or be
2) something that speaks to them
The fact that the aforementioned TV shows about women whose lives are "indulgent idleness" manage to entertain sufficiently many people as to remain on the air for years means that indulgent idleness is something to which a lot of people aspire. After all, how many people continue working after they hit the lottery? How many people, if given $10,000,000 all at once, would continue to work? Extremely few. They'd all kiss their jobs goodbye, and start living their dream lives. Those dream lives would probably be unusually indulgent, and mostly idle. They'd "work" only hard enough to avoid getting bored... and many people have a very low threshold for boredom, as is evinced by the number of them who can sit in front of a TV for hours and "binge-watch" shows all day. I'd go nuts with boredom, doing something like that. I can't even sit in front of a TV for a half hour without having something else to do at the same time. Give someone ten million bucks and ask 'em what they'll do.... you'll find that they will usually say things like:
1) Buy a huge house in the country with a bazillion acres of land
2) Pay off my family's debt and buy houses for my relatives who need them
3) Buy my dream car (which is probably a luxury car or something else that's prohibitively expensive for the average working fellow)
4) Travel
So, really, I can't agree with you on this one. Society's values are really convoluted and screwed up. This is why there is so much animosity toward fat women and the men who love them. The entire value scale is screwy. If it were as you have hypothesized, where education is valued above all, then people wouldn't look at a man strangely for the appearance of the woman he chooses. They'd evaluate the men based upon the INTELLIGENCE or EDUCATIONAL ACHIEVEMENT of the women they choose. Trophy wives would have "Doctor", "Reverend" or "Professor" in front of their names... and it would matter not how they look. I WISH that were the way things are... but for now, they aren't. Most men are like Shallow Hal in the movie of the same name - they'd be unable to provide a quick and straight answer to the question of "which would you rather have - a woman with one breast, or half a brain?"
Quote:
Originally Posted by elvira310
"Interested" isn't the same as "wanting to be just like"! Probably most people laugh at their antics, but don't admire them or look up to them.
I read two days ago that Kim Kardashian has over 21 MILLION Instagram followers. I doubt that all of them are laughing at her stupidity. I don't do Instagram but I'm guessing that she could "block" any follower who starts making fun of her. There are people going to doctors to get their bodies sculpted to look like their favorite celebrity. People will buy celebrity-branded anything. Kim Kardashian branded perfume? Come on. She had nothing to do with the chemistry and process of making that fragrance. The perfume company paid her big bucks so that she'd agree to slap her name on it... and it'll sell, because her name is on it... not because it's all that great. There are plenty of celebrities, men and women alike, who have put their names on fragrances... and what a premium you pay for them, indeed!
When it comes to the societal hive mentality on celebrities, they "want to be just like". And why not? Celebrities have fame, fortune, admiration, and lots of fancy things! That sure beats driving your rusty 17-year-old Cavalier to Wal-Mart at 10:45 PM to start your night shift job stocking shelves so that you can afford to continue living in your dumpy one-bedroom apartment where you usually spend your time on your 6-year-old laptop talking on Facebook with the same ten different people!
Quote:
Originally Posted by elvira310
I don't think anyone begrudges Hugh Hefner his romantic success, nor do I think that everyone stops caring about romance after a certain age. But I think that most people eventually learn that there's more to life than that. Career, family, maybe spiritual things. Not just looks. If all you've ever focused on your whole life is looks, and you're 85, that's pretty sad, and I think most of "society" realizes that, either sooner or later.
You'd think ol' Hef would have figured this out by now. Evidently, life is good when you're 85 and lots of "trophy" 20-something women want to bed you. I guarantee that he could have found someone closer to his age who would have been a more mature relationship partner... with his money, he could get pretty much any type of woman. Yet he has chosen, time and time again, to go with the young ones who make him look good and are only after his money. And heck, he has beaten the average life expectancy of someone born when he was, by a good many years. I have to assume that he is happy... because he could buy any change in his life that he really wanted, if he really wanted something to change.
You're trying to apply logic to society. As a man with Asperger's, I can always respect whenever someone is trying to be logical. But almost 35 years of being a logical "Aspie" in an illogical society has taught me much about the way society works and why. If you look at it closely enough, you will see why society does what it does. People are very easily manipulated and controlled if there is enough money and power behind the manipulation. It's all about money. Follow the money. Societal trends have to change continuously so that people will spend huge sums of money keeping up with them. Being thin has to be in vogue at all times so that people will spend huge sums of money on gym memberships, fad diets, exercise DVDs, "slimming" clothing, etc... it's too easy and cheap to be fat.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Mysterious Benefactor
Whoooaa, calm down, Dixie. Try to follow the thread and understand what I said in context. I didn't say anything nasty about anyone. He's already acknowledged that his wife is obese. This is all I know of her. She may be beautiful in his eyes, your eyes, or my eyes. That isn't the point. I'm saying that, fair or not, society in general will view her as repulsive.
Okay, I think we can all concede this. My wife, the most beautiful woman I've ever seen, has been rejected on sight more than once by men she met online who "didn't realize she was that big". Society will, in general, view fat women as repulsive... at least right now. Look at the way fat celebrities like Rosie O'Donnell, Melissa McCarthy, Gabourey Sidibe, et al. get raked across the coals regularly. Look at those Photoshopped pictures on the cover of the supermarket tabloids showing you how many hundreds of pounds Kirstie Alley has gained in the past month and how bad Oprah's cellulite is becoming.
BUT......
I happen to be a novice "prepper". I believe that there will be an economic collapse that will send America reeling... and for quite a while thereafter, at least until we get our collective act together, we'll be living a subsistence agrarian lifestyle a la 200 years ago. At THAT point, we will see a quantum shift in what is viewed as attractive in a woman. Fat women will become sought after, because they will be from a family that prepared for the calamity quite well, managing to survive and thrive. Such a woman would help the man survive as well. Thin women would be seen as people who didn't prepare, and men won't want someone like that because they won't want to work twice as hard to feed someone who doesn't know how to earn her own keep.
Is it possible that this won't happen? I suppose anything is possible. If there never is a "survival" situation, and society continues as it has for most of the last several decades, will fat women ever be in vogue? Probably not. There's not enough money in promoting fat women. The only way to make money at it would be to make "fat" the "in thing" for only a few years... long enough to pork a lot of people up... and then suddenly change it to "thin and fit" again, so that these fat people will panic and spend a lot of money on gym memberships, fad diets, new clothes, etc. But the thing is, it's such a huge shift that people wouldn't go for it. There's a difference between shifting from "thin" to "thin with a somewhat bigger butt", which is not a major change, to shifting from "thin" to "fat" and back to "thin". Someone who truly prefers thin women will not switch to preferring fat women, nor will one who prefers fat women switch to preferring thin women, as long as society remains approximately as it is right now.
So, yes, society looks down upon average-sized men who date fat women. But the reasoning is idiotic and sickening. Anyone who does so has been brainwashed by the big-money media machine. If that were not the case, taste in women would be no different from taste in food. I might raise my eyebrows when I find out that someone is vegan, because I can't fathom not eating meat, but I don't look down upon vegans. I don't think many of us look down upon others for their tastes in food, cars, clothing, music, movies, etc... anywhere near as much as they do for people's taste in romantic partners. That's all the evidence anyone needs, to prove that anyone who does look down upon a man for his taste in fat women is doing so because of having been brainwashed and being unable to think independently. It's nefarious, it's subconscious, most people don't recognize that it's happened... but the evidence is irrefutable.
This is getting really long, so believe it or not I pared it down a teensy bit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RomaniGypsy
Sure, because bucking society has its consequences.
If every one who kept their head down stopped keeping their head down, things might be surprising.
Quote:
With over 1,000 channels, I'm SURE there's always SOMETHING on, for everyone. Regardless, shows like "Keeping Up With The Kardashians" remain on the air.
I get no impression that the majority of people who watch do so because these are role models. They watch for the drama, the laughs. To gossip, but not because they want to be just like that. The press I see on the Kardashians is not full of gushing praise. It's almost always scoffing and eye-rolling.
Quote:
If you think society values education over everything else, I invite you to explain why celebrities and athletes make millions of dollars every year, and teachers make less than $100,000 per year.
These people are popular among a cross section of people. I like Johnny Depp, so do a lot of people who don't share any other values with me.
Quote:
I fail to see how this can reconcile with a statement that society values education over something like celebrity.
I can't say I've ever met anyone who knowingly, willingly sought idleness and ignorance, but then I don't make a habit of hanging out with the lowest common denominator. Art films still get viewed. Kindles are still sold. Books are still read. Art museums still get supporters.
Quote:
Not ALL of them, but ask a random crowd of 1,000 single women aged 22 through 40 how many of them would like to marry a man who was rolling in money and wanted nothing more from them than to do whatever they could to remain as pretty as possible for them, and scorch the sheets with them every night... and I guarantee you that you would have lots of takers. After all, it's a pretty good life, wouldn't you say? Get everything your heart desires, and spend your days at the salon or the spa or the gym.
I don't know of any women who would personally be JUST this. I know of many women who would not mind having a rich, lush life with a loaded husband, and plenty of time to travel and have fun. But most of them also have some other goal too, some talent they've always wanted to develop, some interest they'd also be able to follow. They'd be a docent at the local museum, or something.
Quote:
Though most women now work and pursue careers, I still think that the majority of them would prefer to be stay-at-home moms if they were married to men who could provide enough money so that they didn't have to work.
That's not the same as a life of indulgent idleness. My own sister, who has a rather high-powered technical job, would have loved to stay at home to raise her kids, but couldn't due to the career. But she didn't want to be a "trophy wife," she wanted to be there for her kids. She would have happily taken care of them, sewn their clothes (she enjoys sewing), work in the garden (our dad was a part-time gardener and she got the green thumb from him) and so forth. This is not a life of empty idleness, this is what I referred to before as the "homely arts." A "trophy wife" doesn't want to work at the "homely arts."
The "homely arts" are real work. They create a sense of purpose and identity within the person, and a feeling of pride and accomplishment. Going to a spa doesn't do that. Furthermore, being a good seamstress, gardener, or cook is a skill that can be improved upon and carried throughout ones' life. It doesn't have a shelf-life like beauty does.
Quote:
Now, being a stay-at-home mom isn't always about indulgent idleness... but I do state for the record that I believe that only a small minority of "career women" actually WANT to be career women. Give 'em all the chance to be with a rich husband who demands no more of them than to keep on top of personal beauty and rock their world in bed, and you'll see just how many women dig indulgent idleness.
"Small minority," really? You mean that there are no women that have any dreams or ambitions or creative desires? So you mean those girls who love clothing design, or dance, or painting, music, medicine, science, law, you mean that if given a chance, they'd chuck it all and become a self-indulgent trophy wife?
I can believe that someone who got a degree in accounting (and math is not a passion of hers) might be happy to chuck it all for a rich hubby. But just as many women have talents and dreams and passions as men. Not only a small minority do. The way you phrase it, you make it sound like if a large majority women could be trophy wives, they'd never paint a painting, never write a book, never record an album, never practice law, or study science--they'd never do any of these things ever again. Because innately, in all but a small minority of women, there is no creative drive or passion or interest in anything, other than being beautiful and lazy and hanging out at spas. How can you suggest such a thing? How can you think so little of women? I can't fathom it.
Quote:
Heck, when teenage girls won't date a guy unless he has a car and a job, you know that it's not because they think that only those two conditions make a guy a truly good man who won't mistreat them - it's because they want the guy to lavish gifts, freebies, and unusually extravagant dates upon them.
Or maybe they want a good provider for future children, or don't want to be the one supporting him. There is some cultural expectation there that is a bit outdated.
Quote:
If it were just that society values people who do things, there'd be no such thing as celebrity.
But most celebrities DO things. Even silly things. Few celebrities (with the exception of the Kardashians) just sit around doing nothing and get rewarded for that with fame. They provide entertainment due to their absurdity, or they do something like win games or act in movies (which are, even the crummy ones, technically creative works).
Quote:
Those dream lives would probably be unusually indulgent, and mostly idle. They'd "work" only hard enough to avoid getting bored... and many people have a very low threshold for boredom, as is evinced by the number of them who can sit in front of a TV for hours and "binge-watch" shows all day.
What they think they'd do, and what they'd do, are two different things.
The lowest common denominator, those with no intelligence or curiosity might be satisfied with all of that and nothing more for the rest of their lives. But the others wouldn't. They would want all of that and something more.
I don't see society respecting people who do NOTHING but lounge around. They may enjoy watching them, talking about them, gossiping about them and "wishing" they could be in the same position, but I don't think all of society (with the exception of the lowest common denominator) would be happy doing nothing. Unless they don't have any creativity or intelligence, they'll be yearning to do something other than lying about lazily for the rest of their lives.
Quote:
This is why there is so much animosity toward fat women and the men who love them. The entire value scale is screwy.
There has been this long-standing expectation that women are supposed to be beautiful. Men are visual, so they value women more if they are attractive, and in turn this becomes (to some men) THE most important thing a woman can be. Women pick up on this and then feel the pressure to conform. Here's another cracked article that I think explains why some of society has messed up ideas about women and attractiveness: 5 Ways Modern Men Are Trained to Hate Women | Cracked.com Men get angry when a woman doesn't do what he thinks she's supposed to do: be his "prize." And they get angry when she's not pretty, because that's another thing she's "supposed" to be. And it all goes downhill from there.
Quote:
I read two days ago that Kim Kardashian has over 21 MILLION Instagram followers. I doubt that all of them are laughing at her stupidity.
Not all of them, but a lot of them. I have never encountered one person who actually admits to admiring her. Not one. I think the lowest common denominator may, but all of society is not made up of them.
Quote:
You'd think ol' Hef would have figured this out by now. Evidently, life is good when you're 85 and lots of "trophy" 20-something women want to bed you. I guarantee that he could have found someone closer to his age who would have been a more mature relationship partner... with his money, he could get pretty much any type of woman. Yet he has chosen, time and time again, to go with the young ones who make him look good and are only after his money.
He is one of these guys who doesn't care, and doesn't truly value these women as people. There's a lot of guys like that, but they don't make up all of society.
Quote:
Societal trends have to change continuously so that people will spend huge sums of money keeping up with them. Being thin has to be in vogue at all times so that people will spend huge sums of money on gym memberships, fad diets, exercise DVDs, "slimming" clothing, etc... it's too easy and cheap to be fat.
There's pressure to be pretty and thin, there's no denying that. Too much emphasis on it and a lot of us, especially when we're young, buy into it. But as we get older or see more of the world, realize that it's not all. Even guys who once thought that women were beautiful decorations (and would get angry when they encountered a woman who wasn't beautiful or decorative enough) sometimes grow out of it.
If every one who kept their head down stopped keeping their head down, things might be surprising.
"Might be"? How about "would be"? I'd love to see this happen. But I think we all know that it won't. When 50% of the population has below-average intelligence and is thus quite easily manipulated by the big-money media machine, they won't soon aim their heads up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by elvira310
I get no impression that the majority of people who watch do so because these are role models. They watch for the drama, the laughs. To gossip, but not because they want to be just like that. The press I see on the Kardashians is not full of gushing praise. It's almost always scoffing and eye-rolling.
Agreed. But it remains on the air, meaning that the people who watch it value the feelings of scoffing and eye-rolling enough to keep these Kardashian people rolling in dough. And if what I read is true, many people do admire the appearances of the Kardashian girls.
Quote:
Originally Posted by elvira310
I can't say I've ever met anyone who knowingly, willingly sought idleness and ignorance, but then I don't make a habit of hanging out with the lowest common denominator. Art films still get viewed. Kindles are still sold. Books are still read. Art museums still get supporters.
"Art films still get viewed" - yeah, by a tiny minority of people. I'd watch 'em but I've never seen even one... probably because I don't know where to find theaters that show them.
"Kindles are still sold" - yeah, because they do a lot more than show books.
"Books are still read" - were that as true now as it's been in the past, we would not have witnessed the fall of such once-great businesses as Waldenbooks and Borders. Even Barnes & Noble is hanging on by a thread.
I have to blame the government for the failure of our education system, but regardless of whose fault it is, something you might find interesting would be to search online for some old standardized tests. Not long ago I saw the 8th grade graduation test for a school district in West Virginia, from 1913. Check out what people actually had to know before age 15. It's almost stunning.
Quote:
Originally Posted by elvira310
I don't know of any women who would personally be JUST this. I know of many women who would not mind having a rich, lush life with a loaded husband, and plenty of time to travel and have fun. But most of them also have some other goal too, some talent they've always wanted to develop, some interest they'd also be able to follow. They'd be a docent at the local museum, or something.
Okay, I'll give you that. More on this later.
Quote:
Originally Posted by elvira310
"Small minority," really? You mean that there are no women that have any dreams or ambitions or creative desires? So you mean those girls who love clothing design, or dance, or painting, music, medicine, science, law, you mean that if given a chance, they'd chuck it all and become a self-indulgent trophy wife?
I can believe that someone who got a degree in accounting (and math is not a passion of hers) might be happy to chuck it all for a rich hubby. But just as many women have talents and dreams and passions as men. Not only a small minority do. The way you phrase it, you make it sound like if a large majority women could be trophy wives, they'd never paint a painting, never write a book, never record an album, never practice law, or study science--they'd never do any of these things ever again. Because innately, in all but a small minority of women, there is no creative drive or passion or interest in anything, other than being beautiful and lazy and hanging out at spas. How can you suggest such a thing? How can you think so little of women? I can't fathom it.
It's not that I think so little of women. I think so little of HUMANKIND in general. Though there is much more societal pressure on men to work at a career than there is for women to do the same, I guarantee you that there are plenty of men out there who would happily give up their careers and live lives of indulgent idleness if they lucked out and married a rich woman who wanted her man to be a trophy for her. It all comes down to this - how many of us, male or female, would work at a career-track "job" or "profession" if they didn't need the money? VERY FEW. Instead, we'd all do what we want to do, when we want to do it. Perhaps sometimes that would mean we are "idle", and perhaps sometimes it would mean we are "active". To me, "indulgent idleness" doesn't mean that you do absolutely freaking nothing. You mentioned things such as painting, writing books, and recording albums. This is stuff that people dream of doing. Most people cannot afford it. I should know - I recorded the album that my wife and I recently released, all by myself on my own equipment, because I couldn't afford the amount of money it would cost to get it done at a studio. Painting? Writing a book? You have to have A LOT of free time if you're going to do these things. It is true that they aren't "idle" pursuits... but then again, can you name me one woman whose life you would deem "indulgently idle" who is truly idle for even half of her waking hours? They call it the "GTL" lifestyle because the ladies go to the Gym, they go to the Tanning salon, and they are certain to keep fresh and sharp with their Laundry (as in, not that they're actually washing and drying the clothing, but that they are wearing "nice clothes" all the time). Every one of these activities requires doing something. One is not truly idle unless one is lying on one's back, staring at the ceiling.
What I call "indulgent idleness" is when a person gets whatever he/she wants, and does things with no regard to how productive (or "idle") those things are - it's only "I wanna do this", and it gets done.
Now, how likely is it that a woman would want a trophy man? I say - not as likely as it is that a man would want a trophy woman. Men are more visual than women - that has been proven. This is why women don't get picked on for dating fat men anywhere near as much as men get picked on for dating fat women. When I was growing up, I saw some really goofy-looking guys dating girls who society would deem "pretty". I never understood that, at the time... especially since I hardly ever saw guys who society would deem "hot" dating really goofy-looking girls. There is a dichotomy in here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by elvira310
But most celebrities DO things. Even silly things. Few celebrities (with the exception of the Kardashians) just sit around doing nothing and get rewarded for that with fame. They provide entertainment due to their absurdity, or they do something like win games or act in movies (which are, even the crummy ones, technically creative works).
The "things" are largely unproductive and contribute very little of value to society. Let's face it... if in 2,000 years our society is long since extinct and then an archaeological expedition unearths an old American human settlement from 2014, and somehow miraculously finds a recorded and still playable copy of an episode of "Keeping Up With The Kardashians", or for that matter anything involving Paris Hilton or "Snooki", there will be little discussion amongst the scientists before arriving at the very obvious conclusion for why this society failed to survive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by elvira310
I don't see society respecting people who do NOTHING but lounge around. They may enjoy watching them, talking about them, gossiping about them and "wishing" they could be in the same position, but I don't think all of society (with the exception of the lowest common denominator) would be happy doing nothing. Unless they don't have any creativity or intelligence, they'll be yearning to do something other than lying about lazily for the rest of their lives.
Whether these people are respected or not, they are very well-paid for doing what they do... or don't do. You can't equate social status with respectability. This is the crux of the question from the OP. "Does society look down on men who date larger women?" Technically, it is no less respectable to date a fat woman than it is to date a thin woman. Fat women are sentient human beings who desire love, just as are thin women. I'm sure that everyone respects the fact that we all have our preferences and can make our own decisions about whom we date... but still, those of us whose choices don't match the social norm du jour are given lower social status.
Quote:
Originally Posted by elvira310
There has been this long-standing expectation that women are supposed to be beautiful. Men are visual, so they value women more if they are attractive, and in turn this becomes (to some men) THE most important thing a woman can be. Women pick up on this and then feel the pressure to conform. Here's another cracked article that I think explains why some of society has messed up ideas about women and attractiveness: 5 Ways Modern Men Are Trained to Hate Women | Cracked.com Men get angry when a woman doesn't do what he thinks she's supposed to do: be his "prize." And they get angry when she's not pretty, because that's another thing she's "supposed" to be. And it all goes downhill from there.
I must admit, that article made me laugh. It's probably true. Heck, I always believed I wanted a pretty girl and would get one. But... amusingly enough, my idea of pretty has always been tall and fat. Back in the day at age 6 when I started drawing cartoons with myself as the hero, I could only do stick figures and the girl was either my height or taller. I wasn't immune to the effects mentioned in the article.
But the article basically backs up what I've been saying all along. It has to do with brainwashing at the hands of the big-money media machine... which is necessary for the perpetuation of their huge income streams. Absent that, people would be a lot more chill about dudes who like fat chicks.
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.
