"Why Thin Will Always Be In"

[Candy_Coated_Clown]

What are your thoughts on this article? How do you think it relates to size acceptance?

The article proclaims that efforts to promote plus-sized beauty have failed and are falling on deaf ears and that there will always be a preference for thinner bodies...along with other tidbits mentioned.

Here's the link:

"Why Thin Will Always Be In"

Hope no one has already posted this link. I saw it today through Yahoo! News.

[JMNYC]

Two things.

*Supply and demand" is crap. People are not gasoline.

*Articles that discuss weight and "health" inevitably leave out the many and varied aspects of health aside from biological, i.e. "I never get colds."

There is mental health, spiritual health, emotional health and vocational health.

"Always" as in "Thin will ALWAYS be in" is a pretty broad statement, too. Do you dare to predict what life on planet earth is going to be like 10 years from now---20? 50? 100? 10,000? Not me.

[steely]

Thin wasn't in many years ago.All those beautiful paintings of women with round soft stomachs,thighs arms.It wasn't always.Who knows,things go round in circles perhaps one day"fat will be where it's at"again.

[Adamantoise]

Thin is not always healthy-thin can be a sign of malnuitrition.
Honestly,it seems like every day these so-called experts are trying to make larger people feel guilty by forcing them to reconsider their diet,lifestyle etc. I'm sick and tired of all this rediculous and boring BS being pointed in the fat acceptance movements' direction-nobody should have to be a size 8 or 10,or whatever just because experts and 'society' (please,spare me) tells them so. I don't know how they can make such a sweeping statement about heterosexual male preferences-god this whole thing really irked me.

Health,or the healthy ideal comes in a variety of forms. You can be a larger man and have very few medical problems (this may or may not be rare) or a slim man with asthma (been there,had the t-shirt.)-bad health doesn't always equate to a person being fat!

Just for the record,I totally agree with what JMNYC said.

[pani]

I think it is nonsense. If the first place, his whole argument that fat acceptance groups have failed to convince society fat is beautiful is so weak to be funny. How much media time have we been given vs the diet/pharma industry? A wee story here or there, not a drop in the bucket for MSM. I am sure that if we had the resources and media access we could convince them fat is beautiful. It is, but sheeple with buy anything with the right PR.

In the second place, we are in for very very hard times. The ultra thin look will go out, no matter how hard MSM desperately tries to keep it. (Couldn't have their sponsors lose those yearly billions that go from the middle class to the corporations via weight obsession. Hungry people see fuller bodies as beautiful, and hard times are coming!

[Chimpi]

There's also an advantage of war and destruction, but that does not make it right or ideal.

Why the fuck is it anyone's business how healthy or unhealthy I am? - or any of you, for that matter.

[steely]

I guess it will take me awhile to starve to death.Longer than most.Maybe hard times are what I've been stocking up for.

[gangstadawg]

Originally Posted by JMNYC

Two things.

*Supply and demand" is crap. People are not gasoline.

*Articles that discuss weight and "health" inevitably leave out the many and varied aspects of health aside from biological, i.e. "I never get colds."

There is mental health, spiritual health, emotional health and vocational health.

"Always" as in "Thin will ALWAYS be in" is a pretty broad statement, too. Do you dare to predict what life on planet earth is going to be like 10 years from now---20? 50? 100? 10,000? Not me.

i agree. supply and demand. i wonder what other business phrase will they use on people?

[pepso]

Social Darwinism hasn't been seen as a logical argument since imperial times. So he can shut up throwing evolutionary views into social ideals and attraction. The thing is, he threw out that argument when he mentioned size and fertility. I don't know what he's read on the subject, but most everything I've read has stated its much harder to get pregnant while underweight than overweight. Of course I'm sure there's a point where being too overweight has a negative impact on fertility. Bigger women have been known as fertile figures since the beginning of time, and the more scrawny women were seen as less capable of supporting another body growing inside of them, since they couldn't fully nourish themselves in those times.

Supply and Demand is an insane argument to put in. I don't know about you guys, but for me supply and demand isn't in effect, in fact it operates in the opposite direction. I am not attracted to women who are conventionally gorgeous, whats so attractive about perfection. The Mona Lisa is a beautiful portrait because the woman is not perfect, neither is anything about the painting. The tiny, almost intentional imperfections, such as the size of her eyebrows, make her beautiful. Although I don't find the Mona Lisa attractive, just beautiful as art, the same concept applies. A wider nose, smaller eyes, and for me, the ultimate imperfection in our world is size. What goes more against conventional beauty than fat? Fat isn't smooth and perfect like a thin person's skin, it rolls over itself, it craters in, it has ripples, it causes stretch marks. But it is smooth and perfect in some spots, and it feels smooth. Everything about it in our society screams disgusting, but in my mind the beauty that is there is astounding. Not to mention the effects on the face. I've never seen a girl with a svelte face light up as much as a bigger girl when she smiles, its just something about it, maybe in my mind i connect it with pregnancy and it produces the glow effect, but that alone is incredibly beautiful.

Just screw this guy, he's throwing a hissy fit because he's unsure of beauty, he relies on society to tell him whats gorgeous. Of course not saying everyone into thin relies on society, just the assholes who can't accept other views of beauty.

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

This Just In: Poorly-researched article uses sweeping generalities and unconnected assertions to back up vague supposition!

[Jon Blaze]

Originally Posted by Fuzzy Necromancer

This Just In: Poorly-researched article uses sweeping generalities and unconnected assertions to back up vague supposition!

HOME RUN COMMENT!

[stan_der_man]

It may very well be true that "thin will always be in" but "fat will always be where it's at"!

[Diego]

I read that "obese" people are less likely to suffer from like diseases of Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, flu's and viral infections.

[kropotkin_fan]

I read that "obese" people are less likely to suffer from like diseases of Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, flu's and viral infections.

Well, if obesity correlates with a generally lower life expectancy then it would make sense that it would also decrease the likelihood of getting Alzheimer's since that generally develops in old age. It's important to look for confounding variables before asserting an obvious causation, after all.

Social Darwinism hasn't been seen as a logical argument since imperial times. So he can shut up throwing evolutionary views into social ideals and attraction.

I wouldn't call this social Darwinism so much as evolutionary psychology, which is generally accepted (even if it has its share of critics). A lot of theories on psychology (and even sociology) incorporate evolutionary factors, as a matter of fact, so this is hardly an unusual assertion I would say.

[AtlantisAK]

-coughbullshitcough- Yeah, I think you can be healthy at almost any weight. It depends on a lot of factors in your life and body, I think.

Oh, and this:
"Because the average person is overweight, thinner people are by definition rarer, and therefore more in demand"

I dare them to say that in the Pittsburgh area. At night, waiting for the bus after work, I'd see all these skinny, even anorexic people. Not many 'big' people, meaning over 170 or so pounds. I dunno, I've never thought that fat people outnumbered the thin people here. They hide in their houses all the time or something? Oi, yeah right.

And yeah, someone mentioned the rubenesque women of yesteryear...I think that it'll come back in style. I mean, look at legwarmers and recent styles. Lol.

These fashion designers also need to think again about their models being 'hangers' for the clothes. If I want to see the clothes on a hanger on the runway, I'll set up a clothesline and a pulley system with real hangers attatched. I WANNA SEE WHAT THE CLOTHES WILL LOOK LIKE ON ME!!

I also think that most fashion shows have gone so out of porportion that they're not fashion. It's just far out art and a big scene. I'd never wear that crap outside. The word 'fashion' to me represents something you can wear and use. What happens to all that stuff anyway after they're done using it?

Anyway, 'fat' people will be back in style some day. Wether they're like 170 pounds or 500. I hope I live long enough to see it in full bloom.

[Shosh]

Oh well. Tough titties mate.
I will never be skinny, so it looks like I will never be in. I am crushed.

[pepso]

Originally Posted by kropotkin_fan

I wouldn't call this social Darwinism so much as evolutionary psychology, which is generally accepted (even if it has its share of critics). A lot of theories on psychology (and even sociology) incorporate evolutionary factors, as a matter of fact, so this is hardly an unusual assertion I would say.

I consider evolutionary psychology an adaption of social Darwinism, and it sickens me it is commonly accepted, my psych teacher has mentioned it once the entire year, thankfully focusing on biological, cognitive, psychoanalytic, and behavioral, and hes expressed his concerns with the branch. As much as humanity loves to apply the fact animals choose the best mates so they can create the best offspring to sentience, it hasn't been proven. Sexuality in cognitive beings is controlled by a lot more than instinct, and the state a prospective mate is in. There's a very good chance my girlfriend is sterile, but as an animal I still find her attractive, and mate with her quite often. She has some bad genes in her, predestination for a lot of medical conditions, I have cognitive knowledge of it, but still have no reason to be un-attracted to her. That right there completely refutes his evolutionist theories on fat.

[Diego]

Originally Posted by kropotkin_fan

Well, if obesity correlates with a generally lower life expectancy then it would make sense that it would also decrease the likelihood of getting Alzheimer's since that generally develops in old age. It's important to look for confounding variables before asserting an obvious causation, after all.

What do you say about flu's and viruses then?

[SamanthaNY]

Originally Posted by Diego

I read that "obese" people are less likely to suffer from like diseases of Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, flu's and viral infections.

Some reports say obesity greatly increases the risk of Alzheimer's:

"As the body becomes more and more overweight, it becomes more and more resistant to the blood-sugar-lowering effects of insulin. To counter this insulin resistance, the body keeps making more insulin. If it continues, this escalating cycle of insulin resistance and insulin production end in type 2 diabetes.

People with diabetes are at particularly high risk of Alzheimer's disease. But now there's strong evidence that people with high insulin levels -- long before they get diabetes -- already are on the road to Alzheimer's disease."

I would guess that generally speaking, obesity neither increases or decreases the risk of flu, Parkinson's or viral infections (I found no clear reports in light searching), but it can make any condition harder to treat, and result in a more difficult and lengthy recovery.

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

Originally Posted by kropotkin_fan

Well, if obesity correlates with a generally lower life expectancy then it would make sense that it would also decrease the likelihood of getting Alzheimer's since that generally develops in old age. It's important to look for confounding variables before asserting an obvious causation, after all.



I wouldn't call this social Darwinism so much as evolutionary psychology, which is generally accepted (even if it has its share of critics). A lot of theories on psychology (and even sociology) incorporate evolutionary factors, as a matter of fact, so this is hardly an unusual assertion I would say.

The problem with evolutionary psychology is that it has no basis in experimentation. It relies on after-the-fact observations and retrofitting current information to back up theories.

[kropotkin_fan]

I consider evolutionary psychology an adaption of social Darwinism, and it sickens me it is commonly accepted, my psych teacher has mentioned it once the entire year, thankfully focusing on biological, cognitive, psychoanalytic, and behavioral, and hes expressed his concerns with the branch. As much as humanity loves to apply the fact animals choose the best mates so they can create the best offspring to sentience, it hasn't been proven. Sexuality in cognitive beings is controlled by a lot more than instinct, and the state a prospective mate is in. There's a very good chance my girlfriend is sterile, but as an animal I still find her attractive, and mate with her quite often. She has some bad genes in her, predestination for a lot of medical conditions, I have cognitive knowledge of it, but still have no reason to be un-attracted to her. That right there completely refutes his evolutionist theories on fat.

Evolutionary psychology can certainly lend itself to reactionary abuses like social Darwinism, but I don't think that's inherent to suggesting an evolutionary factor to psychology. Indeed many evolutionary theories of psychology and sociology I've heard, such as Kropotkin's "mutual aid" have suggested a strong coöperative and ethical drive in human behavior. Of course as you note from your own experiences human psychology has very strong environmental and social factors that can override instinct. Given that behavior and thought have their roots in the brain, which in turn was shaped by evolution, it would seem rather strange to me if evolution had no impact on psychology, though.

Regarding the notion of thin as a rare commodity, I think the article explains it poorly. Basically this theory holds that prestige more so than prevalence determines the perception of beauty, so thin is preferred because it's associated with celebrities and access to fitness or healthy food. This theory also explains that higher weights were historically more attractive because in feudal or pre-industrial economics the majority were struggling to get by and thus rather thin, while the élites had food to spare. If this theory is true then thin will remain in as long as the majority have plenty of food because more weight just doesn't convey a sense of wealth or prestige anymore.

[AnnMarie]

I like being different. I don't care to be part of the "norm" or what's in.

Don't care at all.

[KevMoney]

Originally Posted by Diego

I read that "obese" people are less likely to suffer from like diseases of Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, flu's and viral infections.

Originally Posted by SamanthaNY

Some reports say obesity greatly increases the risk of Alzheimer's:

"As the body becomes more and more overweight, it becomes more and more resistant to the blood-sugar-lowering effects of insulin. To counter this insulin resistance, the body keeps making more insulin. If it continues, this escalating cycle of insulin resistance and insulin production end in type 2 diabetes.

People with diabetes are at particularly high risk of Alzheimer's disease. But now there's strong evidence that people with high insulin levels -- long before they get diabetes -- already are on the road to Alzheimer's disease."

I would guess that generally speaking, obesity neither increases or decreases the risk of flu, Parkinson's or viral infections (I found no clear reports in light searching), but it can make any condition harder to treat, and result in a more difficult and lengthy recovery.

I'm a scientist. I think statements like this just go to prove that if a researcher has an agenda, or at the very least, a preconceived notion of what may happen during research, they will do their damn best to make sure any published and released "information" will echo their message.

Coming from a scientific conference, I was just recently subjected to quite a few instances of such behavior, and we're only dealing with fish biology and aquaculture, never mind human health issues. Sad as it may be, all it takes is a relatively prominent researcher to say they have conclusively found a cause and effect relationship, and people will take his statement at face value. One of the goals of my research is refuting a well-known Norwegian scientist who has published articles that make no sense, yet they are being taken as absolute truth. One thing I fully expect to face is eventual criticism for attempting to dispute him. And, I can only imagine the difficulties inherent in trying to refute a scientist in something as prestigious as the New England Journal of Medicine, etc.

Anyway, all I am trying to say is that it is probably impossible to determine everything about a person's health, since we know relatively little about medicine. That's my two cents.

[Candy_Coated_Clown]

Originally Posted by kropotkin_fan

Evolutionary psychology can certainly lend itself to reactionary abuses like social Darwinism, but I don't think that's inherent to suggesting an evolutionary factor to psychology. Indeed many evolutionary theories of psychology and sociology I've heard, such as Kropotkin's "mutual aid" have suggested a strong coöperative and ethical drive in human behavior. Of course as you note from your own experiences human psychology has very strong environmental and social factors that can override instinct. Given that behavior and thought have their roots in the brain, which in turn was shaped by evolution, it would seem rather strange to me if evolution had no impact on psychology, though.

Regarding the notion of thin as a rare commodity, I think the article explains it poorly. Basically this theory holds that prestige more so than prevalence determines the perception of beauty, so thin is preferred because it's associated with celebrities and access to fitness or healthy food. This theory also explains that higher weights were historically more attractive because in feudal or pre-industrial economics the majority were struggling to get by and thus rather thin, while the élites had food to spare. If this theory is true then thin will remain in as long as the majority have plenty of food because more weight just doesn't convey a sense of wealth or prestige anymore.

I agree with the theory being explained poorly. The desire of thin bodies is definitely a big symptom of an industrialized society...one that continues to become more and more industrialized and competitive in all of its institutionalized facets. It's no surprise that body image would be included in its grid of symptoms.

Someone mentioned that perhaps because our country going into a deeper recession and possibly a depression, this might have an effect on body image values. I would say that the economic change would have to persist for some time...not like 2-3 years.

Let's not forget those very revealing and simple experiments where you place two people (both people decent looking, but one thin and one fat; preferably women since looks play a larger role in perception) in the same situation amongst a crowd of others in a servicing or interactive context and see how vastly different the reactions and assumptions are of the two women afterward. Especially if the service and interaction of the fatter person was intentionally better.

People react and think much more positively to the thinner test model. When these studies are done, the same reactions and perceptions occur from small kids all the way to older adults. Adults continue to operate on autopilot and do not use higher levels of cognition to override those discriminating instincts that children naturally display. You'd think we'd evolve as we got older...but no we don't overall.

It's always a disgusting and a depressing thing to witness and it makes you more vigilantly aware about our own casual responses to things but the results are often the same no matter how different the scenario is from two women reading stories to kids from a book in front of a class, to two women offering free samples of cookies to shoppers in a mall, to two people applying for a job interview with same level of experience and comparable talent, to whatever.

[kropotkin_fan]

I agree with the theory being explained poorly. The desire of thin bodies is definitely a big symptom of an industrialized society...one that continues to become more and more industrialized and competitive in all of its institutionalized facets. It's no surprise that body image would be included in its grid of symptoms.

You almost sound as if you are suggesting that industrial society isn't such a great thing. While I certainly see much to critique, that seems like a rather sweeping statement when you consider what no industrialization entails. Of course if you don't mean to suggest that, I wonder what you mean by saying industrialized society has symptoms as if it were some sort of negative condition.