I was having a conversation the other night with an otherwise charming gentleman who asked why (since he feels I am otherwise attractive) I don't spend a little effort on losing weight - presumably so that all men would fall at my feet rather than only a select few.
I realized that (aside from being generally lazy and self-indulgent) there are a couple of reasons. One of those reasons is that I don't want to become preoccupied with my weight. I don't want to be one of those people who thinks life will be better if I could just fix this flab here, or if I could just lose an inch there. So many weight lose programs are about changing your life. I like my life. I don't want my life to change to focus on what I look like. I don't want to go out to dinner and bore people by counting points. I have known enough people - thin people even - whose main topic of conversation is how much they worked out, their new diet, how may pounds they have lost etc. It is so easy to have that become the focus of one's world and, frankly, that scares me more than a few (dozen) extra pounds.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I was having a conversation the other night with an otherwise charming gentleman who asked why (since he feels I am otherwise attractive) I don't spend a little effort on losing weight - presumably so that all men would fall at my feet rather than only a select few.
I realized that (aside from being generally lazy and self-indulgent) there are a couple of reasons. One of those reasons is that I don't want to become preoccupied with my weight. I don't want to be one of those people who thinks life will be better if I could just fix this flab here, or if I could just lose an inch there. So many weight lose programs are about changing your life. I like my life. I don't want my life to change to focus on what I look like. I don't want to go out to dinner and bore people by counting points. I have known enough people - thin people even - whose main topic of conversation is how much they worked out, their new diet, how may pounds they have lost etc. It is so easy to have that become the focus of one's world and, frankly, that scares me more than a few (dozen) extra pounds.
True enough, but its also nice to set a goal and meet it through hard work.
Interestingly enough I got married and THEN decided to shed a few pounds.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
I really adore you, kmboots. Especially your strong healthy vibe.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
But being thinner (for me) is such a boring goal and has so little to do with what is important to me.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I agree. That's part of why I refused to do anything when I was a teenager - I didn't want my life goals to be dictated by other people's expectations.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: But being thinner (for me) is such a boring goal and has so little to do with what is important to me.
Then obviously is is not for you! Posted by MyrddinFyre (Member # 2576) on :
Hear, hear. edit: to the original post Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Thanks, honey. I adore you, too. (How do you feel about my amazing capacity for rationalization?)
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Excellently put . . . but in my case, I don't want to die young like all the men in my family. :-\
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Good for you.
I lost a bunch of weight once, and a woman told me to go talk to her daughter, and encourage her daughter to lose weight too. So I asked "Is she unhappy about her weight?" The woman said "Lord, no, she's happy as a lark, that's why she says she won't lose any." So I told her I had nothing to say to her daughter, if she was happy in her own skin who was I to tell her she needed to change?
Now, I think we should recognize there are times when people need to lose weight for health reasons and that should be supported and encouraged. But a person with no health problems whose only need to lose weight would be to fit some fashion ideal - I agree with you kmbboots, why bother if you're happy with yourself and healthy?
And yes, I do think it's possible for people to be overweight and healthy, not morbidly obese of course, but if you're 20 pounds or so over what some arbitrary chart says and you have no health problems at all then why is it such a concern?
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
You have such an awesome attitude, kmbboots, and I hope we get to hang out again.
I totally get what you're saying; I have an aversion to diet plans that require counting or big life changes. And I do think a lot of women look at weight loss as a way to get men, which to me is such a bad way to go about it.
-pH
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:And I do think a lot of women look at weight loss as a way to get men, which to me is such a bad way to go about it.
It's worse that it works.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:That's part of why I refused to do anything when I was a teenager - I didn't want my life goals to be dictated by other people's expectations.
Ahhh, the unintentional irony of teenaged thinking.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Yeah. That is part of my problem. I would really like not to be alone. Now, I have excellent and wonderful proof that there are worthy men who are not detered by extra weight. I also have a theory that the very best men fall into that category. I (except in some weak and sad moments) do think I am better off on my own than with someone who could only care for me "if".
But in those moments, I do wonder if that is asking too much.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina:
quote:And I do think a lot of women look at weight loss as a way to get men, which to me is such a bad way to go about it.
It's worse that it works.
True. I'm horrified when I meet men who think that if a woman isn't Heidi Klum, she isn't worth their time.
I had a guy tell me last summer that I wasn't in good enough shape for him. I really wanted to kick him in the junk. He was too short for me, anwyay.
-pH
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Yeah. That is part of my problem. I would really like not to be alone. Now, I have excellent and wonderful proof that there are worthy men who are not detered by extra weight. I also have a theory that the very best men fall into that category. I (except in some weak and sad moments) do think I am better off on my own than with someone who could only care for me "if".
But in those moments, I do wonder if that is asking too much.
No, it's not.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I hate it, too.
I think...I think the reason I don't hate it as much now is that I like cute, too, and I've not dated guys before because I wasn't physically attracted to them.
I've tried the other way - making myself ignore it if I wasn't physically attracted. It didn't work. It turns out I'm actually quite shallow.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
quote:He was too short for me, anwyay.
This is being sarcastic/ironic, right?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I hate it, too.
I think...I think the reason I don't hate it as much now is that I like cute, too, and I've not dated guys before because I wasn't physically attracted to them.
I've tried the other way - making myself ignore it if I wasn't physically attracted. I didn't work. They were too short. It turns out I'm actually quite shallow.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
I would never join any club that would have me as a member.
I would never date anyone in as sorry a shape as I am in.
I lead a lonely life.
very, very lonely.
(Actually I only hang around beautiful people, well people I consider beautiful. Then again, I don't look at people's bodies. I see the beauty that is inside. I have trouble describing people by their clothes or features, but no trouble describing what they are like. THis is the main reason I hang around Hatrack. For example, Wow-KMBoots is female. I didn't know that.)
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
The last time I "fell" it was before I had even seen his face clearly. And this was in person not online. I fell for, I don't know, his posture? His coat? His profile? I recall being surprised that his face wasn't quite what I expected. Now, even the thought of his face stops my heart a bit.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I hate it, too.
I think...I think the reason I don't hate it as much now is that I like cute, too, and I've not dated guys before because I wasn't physically attracted to them.
I've tried the other way - making myself ignore it if I wasn't physically attracted. I didn't work. They were too short. It turns out I'm actually quite shallow.
Oh, no. I love being physically attracted to the person I'm with. I think that's spectacular. But I don't like the idea of having these pre-set rules, like not dating anyone who isn't a certain height, or has a certain color hair or eyes, and so forth. I tried dating someone to whom I wasn't physically attracted, and it was a disaster. But...I don't require that my men all be bodybuilders with perfect abs. I don't have any "rules" really on appearance.
-pH
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Very, very, female.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I have found that that the physical flaws of a loved one become very dear to me.
I suppose there are some limits to this. I was relieved when he had his gall bladder removed.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
My boyfriend insists that his teeth are crooked. I, despite being very, very particular about teeth, still don't see the crookedness. I didn't even know he thought they were crooked until a few days ago.
Maybe one of us is hallucinating.
And ouch, from what I hear, gallbladder surgery is scary. My dad had his out when he was younger.
-pH
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I really need to get to work and lose the 40-something pounds I've gained in the last two years. I don't want to get diabetes like my father.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
That is a dramatic weight gain, MPH. Has anything in your life changed?
*looks at registration date* Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
How is not dating someone because of their weight any different than not dating someone based on other criteria such as: money, job, facial beauty, education, baldness, height, personal hygeine, etc? I've heard some of these used by Hatrackers before as things they look for when dating, or reasons why they won't date someone.
If someone doesn't want to date you for some reason, just think of it as their loss and move on (as you already have).
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Not dating someone for any reason is fine and a matter of choice.
Expecting, demanding, or requiring people to change to meet your needs is being insensitive.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I know. I do really. But "it's their loss" does wear kinda thin as a shield against the 2 am demons.
I guess I was looking for some reinforcement.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_raven: Expecting, demanding, or requiring people to change to meet your needs is being insensitive.
Perhaps, but I honestly feel as if I should do my best to meet my wife's expectations to a certain degree. She expects, and rightfully so, that I shower daily, shave, brush my teeth, keep myself physically fit, etc.
I feel it's unfair and selfish to 'let yourself go' after being married for a while-it's one of my pet peeves when I see it. I'm talking about not doing your doing your hair and make-up, shaving your legs maybe monthly and staying in your bathrobe until 3 pm or getting a big beer belly, not shaving, and walking around in your underwear scratching yourself and burping.
I think it's just as insensitive to change and stop worrying about attracting your SO once you're in a relationship. To then hurl charges of 'you need to love me for who I am' is ridiculous.
Of course, my whole post just has to do with your comment. It has no bearing on kmbboot's post, since the situation completely different.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
But pH! Google says you need not do anything but drink Wulong tea! Is that so much a sacrifice? Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
And, God forbid, you get old or sick.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
I don't know if that's in response to me kmbboots. However, illness, sickness, aging are not what I'm talking about. Hopefully you can see the difference between what you're talking about and what I've mentioned. I'm not aware of the phrase 'letting yourself go' ever being applied to illness or aging. If you have a problem with what I stated, then address that. Please don't infer meaning that I'm not implying.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by vonk:
quote:He was too short for me, anwyay.
This is being sarcastic/ironic, right?
pH is...what, 6' tall?
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
quote:. . .shaving your legs maybe monthly and staying in your bathrobe until 3 pm. . .
I totally agree. I shave my legs about every four months, and 3 pm is way too early to get dressed on the weekends, at least.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Well, I do think that a lot of what you talked about - gaining weight, staying in your bathrobe etc. could happen with depression or illness or age. (Not doing hair or make-up could just mean having an actual life.)
My sister put on weight when she had her first child. She was unsuccessful at taking it off for a variety of reasons - some medical. Her husband stopped loving her.
I am thankful that she is now with a man whose love for her does not depend on how thin she is.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
People get dressed on the weekends?
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: People get dressed on the weekends?
I actually tend to wear presentable clothes as often as possible, even in situations where I know I won't be exposed to scrutiny.
Until very recently, I even slept in them.
I have no idea why.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Only when absolutely necessary. But if you're going to go out, some nightclubs frown on PJs, so getting dressed sometime after dinner isn't always a bad thing.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac:
quote:Originally posted by vonk:
quote:He was too short for me, anwyay.
This is being sarcastic/ironic, right?
pH is...what, 6' tall?
Regardless, I can't help but raise an eyebrow when someone complains about being judged on their weight and in the very next sentence judges someone for their height.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
BQT, I don't mean to put works in your mouth, but I do wonder about those kinds of expectations. And I mean wonder. How much of love is built on things that are transient and how much on things that are permanent. How much should we expect a partner to keep those transient things the same? How central to a person's identity are those things?
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
She was joking
quote:Oh, no. I love being physically attracted to the person I'm with. I think that's spectacular. But I don't like the idea of having these pre-set rules, like not dating anyone who isn't a certain height,
Posted by breyerchic04 (Member # 6423) on :
Kate you make me very happy. And this has been a very bad day (make that hour, it was good till I got home from class), so I'm glad.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
That's why I asked. Clarification. Thanks.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
BQT while there is a definate difference between the kind of hygene you are describing, and the demand that your wife never gets sick, so too is there a difference between expecting your love to shower, and demanding that they get plastic surgery because you have a hankering for women with bigger bra sizes.
One of the best scenes from the most recent Harry Potter book is when
****SPOILER ALERT FOR HARRY POTTER AND THE HALF-BLOOD PRINCE***********
The girl gets upset that anyone would consider ending her engagement to her mangled fiance. This is the proof for the boys mother that their love is real, not just infatuation.
(Names have been removed to protect the story, and because I am awful at remembering names)
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Awww...you make me happy, too. I'm sorry you had a lousy hour.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_raven: BQT while there is a definate difference between the kind of hygene you are describing, and the demand that your wife never gets sick, so too is there a difference between expecting your love to shower, and demanding that they get plastic surgery because you have a hankering for women with bigger bra sizes.
One of the best scenes from the most recent Harry Potter book is when
****SPOILER ALERT FOR HARRY POTTER AND THE HALF-BLOOD PRINCE***********
The girl gets upset that anyone would consider ending her engagement to her mangled fiance. This is the proof for the boys mother that their love is real, not just infatuation.
(Names have been removed to protect the story, and because I am awful at remembering names)
Funny all my female friends who read HP say that Rowling does not do a good job writing girls.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Dan, I think that there is a difference, too, in worrying about why your husband has stopped showering and not loving him because or it.
Posted by breyerchic04 (Member # 6423) on :
I think I'll just eat chocolate in jammies tommorow, and not shave my legs and all that. I love only having classes monday through wednesday.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I once dated a woman who was about 160 cm, and about the same in kg. Once. She was not only physically thick, she was thick as three short planks. Ye gods, she believed in astrology.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
quote:Originally posted by BaoQingTian: [QUOTE]Originally posted by Dan_raven: [qb]
I feel it's unfair and selfish to 'let yourself go' after being married for a while-it's one of my pet peeves when I see it. I'm talking about not doing your doing your hair and make-up, shaving your legs maybe monthly and staying in your bathrobe until 3 pm or getting a big beer belly, not shaving, and walking around in your underwear scratching yourself and burping.
Makeup- nope Hair- Well, it's brushed Shaving- when it starts to get ticklish Staying in my PJs all day- check Getting a beer belly- I'll try not to for my own sake Walking around in my underwear- all the time, and for some funny reason my boyfriend has never complained. Scratching myself- If I itch, I scratch, if he itches he scratches. Neither one of us minds. Burping- I don't actually know how to burp.
All of this completely unrelated to my relationship status.
I've been trying to think how to say this for a while. And I'm not sure it's clear yet, but here goes.
Different people have different expectations for their significant other. The terms high or low maintenance are generally reserved for women, but I think they work equally well as descriptors for men. A man who expects his wife to always look nice and keep herself trim for him is high maintenance. There's nothing wrong with that, as long as his wife is also high maintenance. But low maitenance people also exist, people like me and my boyfriend. As long as they're both low maintenance, there's also nothing wrong with that.
What I think you're complaining about Bao- is when low maintenance and high maintenance people end up in a relationship together. However, your phrasing implies that the high maintenance person is the one who is "right" and the low maintenance person is the one who is "wrong". Since usually those things happen when a low maintenance person pretends to be high maintenance in order to get a high maintenance person, I see where you're coming from. However, it sounds like you're making an attack on low maintenance people. Which isn't really fair.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Or sometimes people change.
Astrology, however, it beyond the pale. Especially for us Aries.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Yeah. That is part of my problem. I would really like not to be alone. Now, I have excellent and wonderful proof that there are worthy men who are not deterred by extra weight. I also have a theory that the very best men fall into that category. I (except in some weak and sad moments) do think I am better off on my own than with someone who could only care for me "if".
But in those moments, I do wonder if that is asking too much.
Hear, hear!
quote:Originally posted by ElJay:
quote:. . .shaving your legs maybe monthly and staying in your bathrobe until 3 pm. . .
I totally agree. I shave my legs about every four months, and 3 pm is way too early to get dressed on the weekends, at least.
Absolutely!
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Astrology, however, it beyond the pale. Especially for us Aries.
Hey, you too? Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
My birthday is the same as Elanor Gamgee's. Eleven points if you don't have to check the book. When is yours?
Posted by ludosti (Member # 1772) on :
quote:I feel it's unfair and selfish to 'let yourself go' after being married for a while-it's one of my pet peeves when I see it. I'm talking about not doing your doing your hair and make-up, shaving your legs maybe monthly and staying in your bathrobe until 3 pm or getting a big beer belly, not shaving, and walking around in your underwear scratching yourself and burping.
I sometimes wonder about advise against "letting yourself go". I agree that it is important to maintain basic standards of cleanliness, but I don't think I should live my life as if I'm going out on a hot date. Granted, I'm a fairly casual person - I rarely wear makeup, I don't shave every day, when I get home at the end of the day the first thing I do is change into something more comfortable (and something I normally wouldn't wear out of the house), on the weekends I sometimes skip a shower or don't do my hair. None of this is surprising to my husband. This is pretty much the way I've always been (both before and after we were married). He doesn't find me any less attractive because of it. I guess my biggest concern in "non letting yourself go" is the idea that who you are at the beginning or end of the day (or when you're sick or otherwise not at your best) is so drastically different from who you are the rest of the time that your spouse doesn't even recognize you as the same person. That would be really sad.
Posted by Stan the man (Member # 6249) on :
quote: Only when absolutely necessary. But if you're going to go out, some nightclubs frown on PJs, so getting dressed sometime after dinner isn't always a bad thing.
I always wash up and dress up when going out on the town. I try to look presentable. I just wear t-shirt and blue jeans to work, because I'm not there to find anyone, or anything. Besides, I have to wear a uniform once I get to work, so it takes less time to change if only wearing tshirt and jeans.
Requirements for member of opposing gender... yeah, you could say I have a few. A few physical ones anyway (not all are set in stone). Height, same or shorter than mine. At the most of a few extra pounds. Red hair. Last one is definately not a requirement, but if the hair is red, I'm all stupid stupid. Natural red though. However, everything else is based on who the person is as a person. Right now there is a whole long list of requirements for that. An none of them be moving anytime soon.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: That is a dramatic weight gain, MPH. Has anything in your life changed?
*looks at registration date*
Mostly I stopped doing Aikido. While it was great, it was just too much of a time commitment. In order to exercise for half an hour, it was almost a 2-hour commitment.
Also, bear in mind that when you're 6'3" and 200 lb, a 40-lb weight gain isn't as much as for somebody who is smaller and shorter.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
I think letting oneself go implies that one has set a standard that their SO can reasonably expect to be kept, and then not adhered to that standard.
Say I worked out constantly, kept my hair very short and trim, shaved daily and kept up with current events. I find a nice young lady that is incredibly attracted to me for some of those very reasons. We fall in love and get married. Then I stop working out and don't watch what I eat, I let my hair grow long and shaggy, grow a two foot beard, and stop keeping up with the news. I feel that the nice young lady that I married has a right to be very upset by this turn of events, possibly to the point where our relationship would be in danger.
Of course a person has a right to change, and along with that a person's SO has a right not to love the person you've decided to change in to. To me, when a person says their wedding vows, they are saying, "I love you and always will," as apposed to "I love you and always will, even if you change completely."
It's not a problem of a person being one way or another (heavy or thin, clean or not, with or without makeup, waking up early or late) so much as a difficulty adjusting to a person that you know and love changing something about themselves. Hopefully there are enough things about our SO that a change or two wouldn't hurt the relationship, but enough changes and it can start feeling like a completely different person is sleeping next to you.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
quote: Well, I do think that a lot of what you talked about - gaining weight, staying in your bathrobe etc. could happen with depression or illness or age.
Yes, but we’ve already established that illness and aging (and their results as well) don’t fall under the category of what I was discussing.
quote: BQT, I don't mean to put works in your mouth, but I do wonder about those kinds of expectations. And I mean wonder. How much of love is built on things that are transient and how much on things that are permanent.
I don’t recall mentioning love in my post. I’m not suggesting that (for example) if someone gets fat, the love goes out of the relationship. See my response to the last post for a more fleshed out version of what I mean.
quote: BQT while there is a definate difference between the kind of hygene you are describing, and the demand that your wife never gets sick, so too is there a difference between expecting your love to shower, and demanding that they get plastic surgery because you have a hankering for women with bigger bra sizes.
blink How did you get from what I said to advocating breast enhancement? I agree that there is a huge difference between the shower/surgery comparison. I don’t know where this demand about wife never getting sick comes from. I’m confused.
quote: What I think you're complaining about Bao- is when low maintenance and high maintenance people end up in a relationship together. However, your phrasing implies that the high maintenance person is the one who is "right" and the low maintenance person is the one who is "wrong". Since usually those things happen when a low maintenance person pretends to be high maintenance in order to get a high maintenance person, I see where you're coming from. However, it sounds like you're making an attack on low maintenance people. Which isn't really fair.
I think you’ve probably hit the nail on the head on what bothers me. It’s the pretending. A person has fooled another person into thinking that they are something they are not. Once the other person has committed to them, they then revert to their real nature. The other person may feel trapped and accused of being shallow if they say something. I’m not talking about 10 years down the road either, I mean like a couple months after marriage. I’m still probably not doing a good job of articulating it, but I think that’s what bothers me.
I apologize if I came across as being on the side of the ‘high maintenance’ person. I think that’s a result of the example I used to illustrate the principle that bothers me. I would be equally irritated if a ‘high maintenance’ person pretended to be cool with a ‘low maintenance’ person, that then demanded the above mentioned breast augmentation, wardrobe changes, etc. In my personal experience, I just see that happen less often. Basically I see it as a trust issue that could potentially reveal other characteristics about a person that are not desirable but which matter much more in the long run.
Please note: I’m not sure I would classify these people with high and low maintenance; I’m just using them for purposes of the conversation.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote: "I love you and always will," as apposed to "I love you and always will, even if you change completely."
It sounds to me like you're saying "I love you and will continue to unless you change" as opposed to "I love you and always will."
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: My birthday is the same as Elanor Gamgee's. Eleven points if you don't have to check the book. When is yours?
Is it negative points if I was barely sure what book I would be checking?
Mine is April 9th. On the calendar we have in common, anyway. Posted by SoaPiNuReYe (Member # 9144) on :
well when you're getting married you're kind of wanting to get what you wanted before marriage, not necessarily the change after.
Posted by Theca (Member # 1629) on :
"Working out constantly" is not necessarily a good trait for a family man. Expecting a married woman to spend hours a day on hair, makeup, and perfect clothing is not very doable if she has a job and kids. Single women and men have a ton more time for those kinds of things.
I wanted to comment that people change over time. If two 19 year olds marry, they are going to change a lot in 6 years. More, perhaps, than the 25 year olds who get married. The appearance, weight, even interests can change a lot in young adulthood. Expecting a 30 year old to be almost as trim and buff as he was at age 20 just isn't going to happen all that often. A 19 year old girl may wear a lot more makeup than the 30 year old, or vice versa. People change. Priorities change. Beliefs change. Not to mention expanding families change everyting. It'd be nice if people could cut other people some slack about these things.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Am I in the minority? I become MORE concerned with fitness and appearance when I'm in a relationship than when I'm not.
-pH
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Also, bear in mind that when you're 6'3" and 200 lb, a 40-lb weight gain isn't as much as for somebody who is smaller and shorter.
If you want to do something about it, make it a point to start soon. I let a 20 pound gain go, then another 20, then another 20. I look back nostalgically on only being 40 pounds overweight.
That's it. This weekend the workout routine starts again.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw:
quote: "I love you and always will," as apposed to "I love you and always will, even if you change completely."
It sounds to me like you're saying "I love you and will continue to unless you change" as opposed to "I love you and always will."
I wouldn't stop loving my wife if something about her changed. As I said, I would hope that a husband and wife would have have enough things they love about each other that some things changing would't hurt their relationship. Hopefully the change is a good change, and we love our significant other more for them, but that is not always the case. While it is unfortunate, if a person changes a significant part of Who They Are, I don't think it's right to call someone shallow for not loving the person they change in to.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Would it matter if it were his or her fault that it changed?
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
Yes, of course it would.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
I'd like to chime in with the kmboots love from the first page. And add a voice of total agreement to the first post. Though, you're much more patient than I would've been with someone making that kind of statement. But, I might be speaking from the bias of someone who was told by a guy that, despite having the ideal personality for him to date, I simply wasn't pretty enough.
Also, I'm really, really glad that my darling hubby loves me for my personality and doesn't care that I've gained weight.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by Megan: And add a voice of total agreement to the first post. Though, you're much more patient than I would've been with someone making that kind of statement.
I agree. My first reaction tends to activate my junk-kicking action. My freshman year, a few people suggested I get breast implants. I said I only ever wanted to be a B, and I was an A, and I didn't really think that was worth it. They told me that because I'm so tall, I ought to have C-cup breasts. Then all the boys would be falling all over themselves.
KARATE JUNK-KICKING ACTION.
-pH
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Loving someone who loves you is the best feeling in the universe.
Loving someone for their looks, or being loved for you looks -- neither is the best feeling in the universe.
If I had to choose.
Hence, the motivation to lose weight has to come from something other than a desire to be worthy of someone's love. However, having someone's love does motivate me (at least) to want to stay around longer and see how it all turns out.
Go figure.
Posted by Stan the man (Member # 6249) on :
My friend's wife got surgery done to slim down. He didn't want her to do so (his argument was that he loved her as she is/was). She went ahead with the surgery because she said she was doing this for him. He got tired of arguing and filled out the paperwork to fly home for 3 weeks vacation to be with her and watch the kids.
- for those questioning why he had to fly home: We were (I still am) in the navy. His wife and kids worked or went to school in CT. He had gotten orders to Virginia. Rather than move his family out of their house away from his wife's family, they opted for this route since it was his last 4 years before retiring from the service.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:Also, bear in mind that when you're 6'3" and 200 lb, a 40-lb weight gain isn't as much as for somebody who is smaller and shorter.
If you want to do something about it, make it a point to start soon. I let a 20 pound gain go, then another 20, then another 20. I look back nostalgically on only being 40 pounds overweight.
That's it. This weekend the workout routine starts again.
I actually started last night. Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I know someone whose mother died having the gastric reduction surgery.
It scares me.
Posted by breyerchic04 (Member # 6423) on :
I do too, Bob. Or more acurately, I know their whole family, it's my dad's cousin's wife. She wanted to be thin so she could play with her twin grandsons. She died three weeks later from having something not stick.
Posted by airmanfour (Member # 6111) on :
I've come to the realization lately that it's my obligation as a human being to MOVE. Nowadays, with the cars, and the computers, and the pizza being delivered, it's possible to be ambulatory for a total of 10 minutes a day. We weren't built for that level of inactivity. Or for MSG.
If you don't get with the evolutionary program, you will probably become overweight, and I, during one of my weaker moments, may glare at you for no reason other than because of my belief that if I can make me healthy, you can make you healthy. I don't think self-image is quite as important as becoming a real human being.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
By "real human being," you mean "ambulatory?"
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
How does being overweight make you not a real human being?
-pH
Posted by airmanfour (Member # 6111) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: By "real human being," you mean "ambulatory?"
Sort of. Using the hunting/gathering muscles every once in a while would also be a good idea. Eating proportionally to the energy spent on hunting/gathering is also good.
quote:Originally posted by pH: How does being overweight make you not a real human being?
-pH
It doesn't. It means that the people that got overweight due to an extended period of inactivity weren't trying hard enough to be the beings we were designed to be. And stepping it up for the species would probably be a pretty healthy idea.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
The beings we were designed to be?
What determines what we were designed to be? What humans used to do in the wild? Because we don't do PLENTY of things that we did "in the wild," I'm sure.
-pH
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Any ant can move about. It's thinking that makes a real human being.
Posted by airmanfour (Member # 6111) on :
pH - We were designed to ingest whatever we found around us to eat. We were designed to be able to go looking for it over a period of time and run from predators that came after us. When food was scarce, it was OK, because we were designed to store up a little bit of fat to use in conjunction with stumbled-upon-bear/wooley mammoth later. We were not designed to sit down all day and eat three meals until we are full to bursting. If we were, we'd all just be really fat butts. I'm not focusing on the weird crap we did in "the wild" I'm focusing on how we were built to operate.
KoM - That's goofy. Thinking, opposable thumbs, bipedality, etc are all human beingy characteristics. That doesn't change what we are supposed to do with our bodies when we first picked 'em up. It all still applies, and if you're not so good at maintenance and upkeep, then you're not being a very good operator of your physical humanity.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by airmanfour: It doesn't. It means that the people that got overweight due to an extended period of inactivity weren't trying hard enough to be the beings we were designed to be. And stepping it up for the species would probably be a pretty healthy idea.
*mildly
You know, there is no reason to privilege physical design (such as it is) over mental and social. One could quite legitimately bemoan the lack of social skills and tact shown by so many as exhibiting a dearth of humanity.
-----
Edited to add: You know, evolutionary biology is a descriptive discipline, not a prescriptive one. When evolutionary pressures change, then so will the results of those pressures.
I don't think the notion that "we aren't doing what we were designed or have evolved to do" really makes any sense, other than in an emotional rallying cry. That is to say, it strikes me as rhetoric, not science.
Not that emotional rhetoric is necessarily a bad thing. It just isn't an argument, you see -- or rather, not a tenable one.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Well-put, CT.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by airmanfour: We were designed to ingest whatever we found around us to eat.
Why can't I ingest my polarfleece blanket?
-pH
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
You can.
Step one: shred into small pieces.
Posted by airmanfour (Member # 6111) on :
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese:
quote:Originally posted by airmanfour: It doesn't. It means that the people that got overweight due to an extended period of inactivity weren't trying hard enough to be the beings we were designed to be. And stepping it up for the species would probably be a pretty healthy idea.
*mildly
You know, there is no reason to privilege physical design (such as it is) over mental and social. One could quite legitimately bemoan the lack of social skills and tact shown by so many as exhibiting a dearth of humanity.
-----
Edited to add: You know, evolutionary biology is a descriptive discipline, not a prescriptive one. When evolutionary pressures change, then so will the results of those pressures.
I don't think the notion that "we aren't doing what we were designed or have evolved to do" really makes any sense, other than in an emotional rallying cry. That is to say, it strikes me as rhetoric, not science.
Not that emotional rhetoric is necessarily a bad thing. It just isn't an argument, you see -- or rather, not a tenable one.
I'll grant that lack of social skills and tact are the equal of being overweight. But all I'm saying is that there are reasons why heavier people are heavier and not of "average" size. Heart problems, low energy, bone issues, it's the body saying, "I'm being abused!"
Now you can say that "we aren't doing what we were designed or have evolved to do" doesn't really makes any sense, but it's obvious that people with a series of similer problems in a similer condition aren't. They are all doing something wrong.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Then what about people who can eat massive amounts of junk food, laze about, and still be thin? Are they operating in the manner for which they were designed?
-pH
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
Hey, someone had to sit around the cave and keep the sabertooths from stealing all the leftover mammoth.
Posted by airmanfour (Member # 6111) on :
You can usually tell a healthy skinny person from a slowly dying one.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by airmanfour: You can usually tell a healthy skinny person from a slowly dying one.
Aren't we all slowly dying, really?
-pH
Posted by Theca (Member # 1629) on :
quote:Originally posted by airmanfour: but it's obvious that people with a series of similer problems in a similer condition aren't. They are all doing something wrong.
Oh, they are? All of them?
I have nothing more to say to you, except, obese people actually have less osteoporosis than thin people. Heavier weight and more fat cells actually promote stronger bones. One of the few advantages.
I doubt you can tell the skinny healthy people from the skinny sick people. I bet as long as they look cute in a bathing suit you assume they are healthy ones.
Posted by airmanfour (Member # 6111) on :
pH -
Theca - Generally those with problems are doing something wrong. Generally.
I believe that having joint trouble is a side-effect of carrying around too much extra poundage?
Ouch! Yup, I'm supershallow. But you knew that. It is safe to say that my thinnish friends are all pretty fit. But that's because I take them to the gym with me. I don't like going alone, and it gets them out of their chairs. The not thinnish ones too.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by airmanfour: that having joint trouble is a side-effect of carrying around too much extra poundage?
Ouch! Yup, I'm supershallow. But you knew that. It is safe to say that my thinnish friends are all pretty fit. But that's because I take them to the gym with me. I don't like going alone, and it gets them out of their chairs. The not thinnish ones too.
I'm thin. Actually, I'm in good, athlete-type shape. My body fat is almost the same as my personal trainer's.
But I have joint problems. When I was in high school especially, I had to go through physical therapy for malalignment syndrome. All of my joints hyperextend to a degree that will cause most of those who see it to cringe.
So there are plenty of joint problems that have nothing to do with fitness or weight.
-pH
Posted by airmanfour (Member # 6111) on :
I didn't mean that only people carrying around a couple of extra pounds were allowed to have problems with their joints. That'd be weird.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
You said that having joint trouble is a side-effect of being overweight. I'm saying it can happen even when you're in good shape.
-pH
Posted by airmanfour (Member # 6111) on :
Fair enough.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
Apply to yourself.
Posted by airmanfour (Member # 6111) on :
Burned again. And I thought I was being nice. I do love what you've done with irony there.
*sigh*
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by airmanfour: I'll grant that lack of social skills and tact are the equal of being overweight. But all I'm saying is that there are reasons why heavier people are heavier and not of "average" size. Heart problems, low energy, bone issues, it's the body saying, "I'm being abused!"
Now you can say that "we aren't doing what we were designed or have evolved to do" doesn't really makes any sense, but it's obvious that people with a series of similer problems in a similer condition aren't. They are all doing something wrong.
I can't make sense of what you are saying. I'm not trying to be a jerk -- honest! -- it just doesn't seem to follow. I understand that you dislike the quality of overweight, and I see that you are discussing evolution, but they don't hang together the way I think I read you as saying.
Look, suppose the moth population of England could speak. Now, at some point a moth may have looked around and said, "Hey, guys! A bunch of you are going speckled! You can't do that. Evolution has designed us to be light-colored in order to blend in with the foliage. That's what we are supposed to be; it's the essence of mothiness. You can't go letting your species down by going all speckled on us."
But that wouldn't have made sense. The reason why moths were going speckled was due to changing environmental pressures -- that is to say, the increasingly soot-covered New England of the post-Industrial Revolution. In fact, it was the light moth who was not changing with the times, not his speckled cousins. He would in essence have been holding on to some "Golden Age" of moth coloration -- which may be fine and justified, but it wasn't an age hallowed by evolution. (Obviously, as the pressures had changed, and so the population changed.)
That moth could have made sense if he'd said "I don't like speckles for asthetic reasons," or "I think it is better to be light-colored, myself," or even (in a burst of self-awareness, perhaps), "I dislike the qualities I associate with speckles in myself, and thus I react strongly from an emotional point of view to speckles in others," but once he starts bringing in evolution, he's stopped making sense.
Evolutionary theory is descriptive. It says that given a certain context, those best suited to that context will be the most likely to survive and pass on their genes. Those characteristics differntially encoded in those genes will thus be more likely to be passed on to future generations.
And so, if you see a given characteristic increasing in a population, and if that characteristic is genetically determined, then you can say with relative assurance that such a characteristic is either advantageous or linked to something advantageous.
Now we have a population with a much higher rate of overweight than there was in the recent past. Perhaps this is a result of genetics, perhaps it is a result of non-genetically determined choices. Doesn't matter. If evolution has anything to say about it, then it is merely that to the extent that genes are involved in the current phenotype, then that phenotype is currently what is advantageous. And to the extent that that phenotype is not genetically driven, well, at that point evolution falls silent. It has nothing to say.
There are many health reasons to avoid being overweight (as well as some benefits, as Theca mentioned). But underweight is just as much of a health risk as overweight (there is data on this, which I can get for you if you are interested). And oh -- for sure! -- as someone who has worked in an eating disorders clinic, I can tell you for sure that the layperson (and many professionals) cannot eyeball an unhealthy thin young woman from a healthy one.
The standing joke, complete with eye-rolling because it was so true, was that the male medical students flocked to work on the anorexics ward, and they had to be watched to keep from hitting on the patients. And these were the young women whose heart rhythms were so erratic and unstable that we had to have extra equipment nearby. Yet, apparently, they looked pretty good to the average male medical student.
It isn't as simple as evolution and health, not in explanation or in treatment. it's about a lot more than that, and we do ourselves and each other a real disservice by using emotionally inflamed rhetoric and foggy reasoning. At least, I think so.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
quote:Originally posted by airmanfour: Burned again. And I thought I was being nice. I do love what you've done with irony there.
*sigh*
You weren't. At all.
I was. I discarded several not nice replies before hitting on that one.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote:Originally posted by vonk:
quote:Originally posted by ph:I had a guy tell me last summer that I wasn't in good enough shape for him. I really wanted to kick him in the junk.He was too short for me, anwyay.
This is being sarcastic/ironic, right?
It's both sore and sour grapes.
Posted by airmanfour (Member # 6111) on :
That's only if the individual had no control over itself. It's the Nature vs Nurture dealy again. The light colored moths would have liked to be able to change to peppered moths, but it wasn't an option. I'm talking about individual choice here.
I don't have anything against people that are overweight, but when I saw the problem in myself, I fixed it. Both ways. When I was really young I had an eating disorder that I got over. Conversely, after I joined the military I gained some extra pounds that I realized later weren't good for me. So I fixed it.
I'm against conditions that can be changed by a person's will. That goes for weight as an issue as well as most other things.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
There are plenty of people who think that if they "got over" something, everyone else should too. It irritates me to no end.
-pH
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
I've been called out on exactly what you're saying, CT, but I contend that while it wouldn't be in the bounds of Evolutionary Theory (capitalized), you can certainly identify characteristics in any species that either lead or will lead said species into a population decline and/or more prevalent negative traits. To write such speculation off as "not proper Evolutionary Theory" is to say that nobody can recognize negative traits until some future date on which it can be absolutely proven.
If the moths in your scenario were in danger of, say, melanoma instead of a predator of another species, and there was a trend in moth culture to sunbathe excessively, and that the insurance rates of the sunbathing and non-sunbathing moths rose equally as more and more cases of moth melanoma were diagnosed, would it not be in the best interests of the entire species to discourage sunbathing? I mean, by the time all the sunburnt moths died off, the others would be in the poorhouse and would have fewer larvae fed and raised due to their financial hardship.
BTW, forget that analogy. I just thought it would be funny to type out. Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Best beating to death of an analogy I've read in a while, Frisco. Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
CT, I have a question about anorexia. I've noticed that it seems like women/girls who don't eat enough to be healthy, to an anorexic degree, seem to be more...cylinder-shaped, if that makes sense. Like, instead of being the same width, but of less depth (if we're talking about them from the front, I mean), which would maintain the hourglass shape formed the the skeleton at least, I'd think, they seem to become just sort of thin cylinders, and their stomachs get less flat and such. Is that what happens, or are the people I've seen just weird?
-pH
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
When the next Ice Age comes, all you skinny people are gonna wish you had some extra chub to keep you warm and healthy.
I used to be in really good shape for a while in college. Then I gained some weight, decided it was lame, and worked my butt off to get into really good shape again.
Yeah, that was awesome, until I herniated a disk in my back and was semi-immobile for 6 months. Doesn't take much to put all that hard work in the garbage. Sometimes people who aren't the peak of physical fitness really are working on it. Genetics predisposition to gain weight and physical injuries don't care how much you'd like to be thin.
Posted by MyrddinFyre (Member # 2576) on :
I like to spend the time I could (and probably should) be exercising to work on my brain. Reading, learning, thinking. If that isn't being what we humans were designed to be, I don't know what is.
As far as I'm concerned, when we got all weak and hairless, our prime evolutionary concern became our minds.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:Genetics predisposition to gain weight and physical injuries don't care how much you'd like to be thin.
Thanks for saying it.
I worked out 1-2 hours a day 5 days a week for years until I had to stop 2x for hernia repairs. It's very easy to say I should've just started back up again, and one would be right to say so. But...I didn't and I can trace my current excessive weight directly to these two incidents that came in close succession and basically made it so I couldn't do my normal routine.
fwiw, the doctors are VERY good at telling people what they CAN'T do when injured, but they didn't even bother trying to communicate what a healthy recovery routine would look like. I'm not saying I would've followed it, of course, but when you're hurting post-op, the list of Dont's is going to read like "don't do anything."
None of my doctors encouraged exercise of any sort after the operations. They told me not to lift things.
Ah well...still, it's not their fault. I chose not to do any exercise in the post-op period and beyond, but I think the attitude was certainly not discouraged.
Posted by Tristan (Member # 1670) on :
Disclaimer: I do not argue that everyone should strive to maintain an average BMI of 22 or work their butt off to achieve the latest fashionable body shape as brought to us by the stars of television and movies. However, I do think that the raise in obesity levels in the US and to a lesser extent the entire western world is cause for concern. I also think people in discussing these issues are focusing far too much on excuses and explanations for why they, individually or as a group, are gaining weight.
At its most basic level, there really is only one reason for why you are gaining weight: your food energy intake exceeds your energy expenditure. I do not care if you descend from a long line of eskimos who were genetically predisposed to store energy as fat just by looking at a seal, if you don't eat more than you get rid of through physical (which here of course include mental) activity you won't gain weight. To do so would violate some fundamental physical laws, the details about which I as a lawyer are not expected to know anything.
The problem of obesity must be addressed at its infancy, so to speak. Eating on average an apple (50 calories) more than you expend each day will lead to a substantial overweight when you are 40. And decreasing your energy intake under your level of expenditure is a very difficult thing to do. And even if you succeed, unless you are willing to starve yourself (not a healthy thing to do in itself), it will take a very long time to lose the weight gained under 40 years of overeating.
If someone is overweight but nonetheless healthy and happy with his or her body, well, that is certainly better than being overweight, sick and miserable, and I am happy for him (or her). However, the excess weight is still not a Good Thing[TM], in my opinion. Being overweight is a symptom that the energy intake exceeded the energy expenditure and in a culture in which being overweight is prevalent parents are more likely (on average) to -- either by carelessness, ignorance or, in individual cases, by design -- allow their children to overeat or to avoid exercise. Thus it creates a self-perpetuating spiral in which a populace becomes fatter and more unhealthy.
quote:Originally posted by Frisco: I've been called out on exactly what you're saying, CT, but I contend that while it wouldn't be in the bounds of Evolutionary Theory (capitalized), you can certainly identify characteristics in any species that either lead or will lead said species into a population decline and/or more prevalent negative traits. To write such speculation off as "not proper Evolutionary Theory" is to say that nobody can recognize negative traits until some future date on which it can be absolutely proven.
No. At least, I don't think so.
I'd say there is a fundamental difference between "improving the species" and "evolution." One phrase is an evaluative one, the other descriptive.
"Evolution" (as a scientific theory) is merely descriptive. It is a remarking on what is seen to happen. "Improving the species" is an attempt to figure out what the changing pressures will be and evaluating them both to see if they are "worthy" and whether the changes we think will best serve us are "worthy," too.
Evolution can't get it wrong. [Edited to add: When I say "evolution can't get it wrong," I mean to highlight that, as a descriptive element, there is nothing to "get wrong." It is just "what happened." And though our interpretation of what happened -- or what should happen -- is subject to being wrong, what actually happened is what actually happened. Period. More or less. ] Not "evolution" in the precise, technical sense, not over a sufficient period of time for adjustment. (And when one refers to "evolution made us do it" as a rallying cry, it is the precision and science of the term that is bringing the aura of respectability with it.) If evolution doesn't go as predicted, then we know there were pressures on genetic transfer that we didn't know about or didn't take into account.
We, on the other hand, can get it wrong in terms of "improving the species." We can be wrong about what pressures we will face in the future, and we can be wrong about what the side effects or long-term effects of our intended changes will be. We can, for example, trigger an over-reaction (e.g., eating disorders, which are markedly unhelpful to individuals and to the species). But evolution will fix that, at least so far as the issue is genetically determined and present at time of mate selection.
Evolution is descriptive; improving the species is prescriptive. You may use the same language in talking about them, but they are fundamentally different processes. Don't mush them up together -- it is a sign and a harbinger of mental confusion.
quote:If the moths in your scenario were in danger of, say, melanoma instead of a predator of another species, and there was a trend in moth culture to sunbathe excessively, and that the insurance rates of the sunbathing and non-sunbathing moths rose equally as more and more cases of moth melanoma were diagnosed, would it not be in the best interests of the entire species to discourage sunbathing? I mean, by the time all the sunburnt moths died off, the others would be in the poorhouse and would have fewer larvae fed and raised due to their financial hardship.
Of course, all evolution "cares" about is the passing on of genetic material from generation to generation. For disorders and problems that surface after the period of genetic transfer, we're on our own. So -- of course! -- we can talk about improving lives, and we can talk about extending life beyond what it might be if we were ravaged by various cancers, diseases of the heart and vessels, and so forth in middle age -- but that's not evolution.
quote:BTW, forget that analogy. I just thought it would be funny to type out.
It was funny to read. I like light-hearted with a side of smart.
[ September 21, 2006, 12:17 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by airmanfour: That's only if the individual had no control over itself. It's the Nature vs Nurture dealy again. The light colored moths would have liked to be able to change to peppered moths, but it wasn't an option. I'm talking about individual choice here.
I don't have anything against people that are overweight, but when I saw the problem in myself, I fixed it. Both ways. When I was really young I had an eating disorder that I got over. Conversely, after I joined the military I gained some extra pounds that I realized later weren't good for me. So I fixed it.
I'm against conditions that can be changed by a person's will. That goes for weight as an issue as well as most other things.
Sweetheart, you still have some things to work on.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tristan: Disclaimer: I do not argue that everyone should strive to maintain an average BMI of 22 or work their butt off to achieve the latest fashionable body shape as brought to us by the stars of television and movies. However, I do think that the raise in obesity levels in the US and to a lesser extent the entire western world is cause for concern.
Me, too. But it's not because Evolution is Being Dissed, it's because of the morbidity and mortality of associated problems. Some of which, mind you, are physiological effects directly attribued to overweight. Some of which, though, are secondary social issues that can be addressed in other ways (such as changing the environment).
Talking about evolutionary failure just obscures the issue with pseudoscience. It's laying on a veneer of scientific respectability that is both misleading and unnecessary.
---
Edited to add: We need to be fully aware of when and where we may be wrong about our interpretations and intentions. We need that humility.
For example, I doubt that anyone actually ate less or exercised more last night because of airmanfour's exhortations. More likely, I think, there was the opposite reaction, at least for some. That would not be consistent with his stated goal of helping others to get teh skinny (although I could be wrong, I suppose -- maybe it worked for some?). It would, however, have been more consistent with a different goal having more to do with ego, self-esteem, and comparison of self with others (but I do not know if that was his goal, or if it was, whether it was or is self-acknowledged).
[ September 21, 2006, 10:58 AM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by pH: CT, I have a question about anorexia. I've noticed that it seems like women/girls who don't eat enough to be healthy, to an anorexic degree, seem to be more...cylinder-shaped, if that makes sense. Like, instead of being the same width, but of less depth (if we're talking about them from the front, I mean), which would maintain the hourglass shape formed the the skeleton at least, I'd think, they seem to become just sort of thin cylinders, and their stomachs get less flat and such. Is that what happens, or are the people I've seen just weird?
-pH
pH, I don't know enough to say for sure. I wouldn't be surprised, though, if central fat deposition weren't a survival strategy of the body facing starvation. Lose "excess" hair on the head (as the energy is better triaged elsewhere), grow lots of lanugo hairs all over the body to maintain warmth, redistribute the fat centrally, etc. -- it might well be the way our bodies try to survive.
If I come across anything pertinant to this, I'll be sure to update here.
-----
*smacks self in head (Duh!)
Anorexia (or any severe caloric restiction, or really any serious eating disorder) is a stress state on the body. Stress state means that stress hormones will be produced, a major one of which is cortisol. Cortisol is known for leading to central fat deposition (skinny arms and legs relative to a bloated middle), as well as hair loss in some places, puffy cheeks, a "buffalo hump," etc. These features may be present in any place on a range, too.
So, your answer is yes, one could expect a person with severe caloric restriction to start looking relatively bloated around the middle. It would make sense, based on the physiology.
[ September 21, 2006, 10:56 AM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:None of my doctors encouraged exercise of any sort after the operations.
That is changing, thankfully, at least in regards to cancer treatment. The doctor told me the advice to sit down and rest all the time and not move during chemo is being turned upside down - people do better if they exercise. Seems counter-intuitive but the best way to beat fatigue is not to lie on the couch all day but to get up and move.
Even my post-surgical recovery was encouraged to encompass as much physical activity as possible. So, maybe the medical profession is getting better about encouraging activity after injury or surgery. We should remember, they're people not gods and things change. Medicine is not a static profession, doctors learn new things and get better at things all the time.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
My dad has had surgery on his abdomen a couple of times (including three days ago), and the doctor told him the faster he got up and walking around and moving, the faster he'd get better.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
*nods
The old recommendation for lower back problems was to rest. That, too, has changed -- being up and around seems to improve long-term outcomes. Same for fibromyalgia and chronic fatigue syndrome, even though it is very difficult to do so.
Like nearly everything, though, it seems to benefit by being tempered with moderation.
---
Edited to add: I was up on my feet within 12 hours after being taken off cardiac bypass for my last open heart surgery. Up and walking the next day, and then discharged at 2 and a half days post-op. Back at work in 3 and a half weeks.
This is a definite change from my first surgery, back when I was 17.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
That's so weird, CT! I never knew if it was just different body types, or what.
Thanks for the info!
-pH
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
(Sure, delighted to be of service! I will keep looking for an authoritative source for you, though. It's an interesting question.)
Posted by Libbie (Member # 9529) on :
Good for you, babe. The only reason to worry about weight or size or shape, IMO, is to guard your health. Diabetes and heart disease are no fun, so I hear. Otherwise, WHO CARES what you look like? I know just as many men who find ultra-skinny models' bodies repulsive as find them attractive. Actually, I probably know MORE men who aren't attracted to "perfect" bodies. All the guys I know prefer a little bit of curve...or a lot of curve. And ALL the guys I know find a confident woman who loves her own body WAY more attractive than a compulsive salad-eater who's always freaking out about whether she looks "good."
I'm not technically overweight for my height of 5'10", but I am considered a "plus size," due to my bodacious va-va-voom Marilyn Monroe figure (size 12-14 - I believe that was Marilyn's size, too!). Ask me if I care! I'd rather have a rockin' hot bod than fit into what's considered fashionable. And none of the guys I've dated have ever complained about my inability to conform to cultural ideals. I'm quite happy with it.
I do exercise three times a week or more, but that's because heart disease runs rampant in my family and I don't want to die of congestive heart failure when I'm fifty. So, I eat well and take care of my heart and the rest of my body. But I'm not in it to lose weight - I don't care if I can't fit into my size eight prom dress anymore. ha!! I was TOO skinny back then, IMO.
Posted by Libbie (Member # 9529) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina:
quote:And I do think a lot of women look at weight loss as a way to get men, which to me is such a bad way to go about it.
It's worse that it works.
...until they see you naked, and see all the sagginess that follows dramatic weight loss. Hopefully these ladies learn that the only way to find a good man is to find one who loves YOU, not your BODY. Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:I like to spend the time I could (and probably should) be exercising to work on my brain. Reading, learning, thinking. If that isn't being what we humans were designed to be, I don't know what is.
As far as I'm concerned, when we got all weak and hairless, our prime evolutionary concern became our minds.
There's a growing body of evidence that suggests that moderate exercise increases certain aspects of your cognitive ability.
It's already well established that exercise is often extremely beneficial in the promitions of psychological health and recovery.
It's strange, to me, that we envision such a great division between the our physical and mental aspects.
Posted by MyrddinFyre (Member # 2576) on :
I'm not suggesting any sort of division, or saying that I don't exercise AT ALL
I get enough exercise to keep my blood flowing, is all. Not enough to start losing any weight that I put on in high school after an unfortunate series of events. Just think that that's low on my list of priorities right now!
Posted by Libbie (Member # 9529) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: I really need to get to work and lose the 40-something pounds I've gained in the last two years. I don't want to get diabetes like my father.
My husband gained 70 since we got engaged. I am SO worried about his health. He yo-yo dieted for a long time, too, which worried me even more. Now he's finally SLOWLY, STEADILY losing it through healthy eating and good exercise. Relief is returning.
Diabetes is some scary crap. I would lie awake at night worrying about his health. He got out of the Air Force, and suddenly, he could eat ten cheeseburgers if he damned well wanted to, and there it went. Curse the Air Force's restrictive diet!!
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
CT-
I think I get what airman is saying. I don't think there's anything wrong with explaining the rise in obesity in the framework of evolution. This puts it clearer than I can:
quote: Obesity in western society is quite readily explained by evolutionary principles. For most of human evolution, obtaining sufficient food and nutrition was a daily battle, and daily life was physically rigorous. Thus, the human body become highly efficient at storing excess energy from excess food intake. However, the dramatic cultural evolution in Western lifestyles has made copious amounts of food readily available at the same time as reducing physical daily demands to very low levels. The result is that people in Western society are now exhibiting all-time record levels of obesity and related eating disorders. 61% of Americans are overweight or obese - what's more - the incidence of obesity increased 61% in the period from 1991 to 2000. Likewise Australia is one of the most obese countries in the world, with obesity in children increasing by 100% in the past 10 years; 25% of Australian children are overweight or obese. Obviously obesity is not particularly adaptive, but cultural evolution has outstripped genetic evolution, giving rise to this phenomenon.
Feist, J., & Feist, G. J. (2002). Theories of personality, emphasis added
There is nothing moral or virtuous about evolution, or your weight. As you've explained, evolution has no purpose, therefore it cannot get things wrong.
However, the assumption that airman is making is a fair one I believe. Obesity certainly doesn't appear to be a trait that will insure survival in the modern world of plenty. On the contrary, for the first time projected lifespans of children are shorter than that of their parents. There are a variety of health complications and disease that result from being overweight as well. More likely is that complications will continue to arise earlier and make obesity a less desirable trait.
I don't think that airman is suggesting that there is anything inherently good with what evolution has produced. What I see him suggesting is that we consider that our bodies are a result of thousands of years of evolution. The characteristics that our bodies have are not going to change due to evolution in the matter of a couple generations. Therefore, it makes sense recognize the attributes of our bodies and work with them rather than against them.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
I think it's interesting that in the past, being overweight was considered good and a sign of health. Oh, and being pale was good, too.
I wish being pale was still good.
-pH
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Thanks for all the responses. You are really helping me to understand my thoughts on this. I guess one of the things I am curious about is how central looks are to the core of someone's personality. Another question is how close to a certain society-driven ideal we need to be to feel/be acceptable. And how much of that idea is false.
I remember a conversation I had last summer (while The Man was here). I was talking to two gorgeous young women in their early twenties. Both of them model material. They were talking about their sex lives - and both were pretty unhappy. While they were sexually active, neither had ever had a satisfying experience - emotionally or physically. No one had ever taught them how to. Not to boast but, when I was their age, despite being plain and plump, I had a great sex life. Even now, despite being plain, plump, and middle-aged , when I have a sex life, it is great. Yet those girls are considered sexy.
How many of you are having better sex now than you did when you were younger or more fit?
How much of what we consider sexy has nothing to do with reality?
Oh, and the otherwise charming gentleman, really wasn't being a jerk. He mistook a flip remark of mine (on eating healthy and spinach) as being more concerned about my weight than I was. He had a significant relationship that was ruined by his partner's unhappiness about her body, so he was rather sensitive to the topic.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I don't think either of those questions are really fair. I'm not sure who you are asking - the girls, or the guys who wanted to sleep with them?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Those were general questions to the community sparked by my recollection of my conversation with the girls.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
BQT, I strongly suspect that if airmanfour had used your wording and content, I would have had no quarrel with him. Then again, I seem to be quite taken with hearing myself yammer on and on lately ( ), so maybe not.
It was the language of "And stepping it up for the species would probably be a pretty healthy idea" and the like that raised my eyebrows into my hairline.
I am a physician. I study diabetes in children; specifically, I study the change in pattern from "adult-onset" or Type II diabetes mellitus to a newly acknowledged pediatric epidemic of that very same pathology. I know the complications, and I work hard to try to minimize them.
On the other hand, I also know that shaming (despite minutely temporal anecdotes to the contrary) is not an effective teaching or motivational strategy, be it for training medical students, motivating weight loss, or what have you. Short-term: maybe yes, maybe no. Long-term: no. And I'm interested in the long term.
What shaming as a strategy does work exceedingly well for is the underscoring of power differences betwen those who have power and those that do not, e.g., the highlighting of differences in social class or social status. It can feel good (or, at least, self-affirming) to put others down. It doesn't seem to be good for them in the long run, though.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
I'm not really qualified to answer those questions, since....I don't have much to compare my sex life to. But I think that sex is so dependent upon being comfortable with your body.
And speaking as someone who is tall and thin, I have in the past actually felt a great deal of pressure for not being absolutely perfect. I mean, I can't say I was ever really overweight. I got up to 160 lbs. my freshman year of high school, and when you met me in Chicago, I was probably a little over 150. So I can't speak to the same mindset, but I think that probably, these women that were considered "sexy" felt a lot of pressure to be/stay that way. Even now, when I've lost twenty of those Chicago pounds and don't want to lose any more, I get really worried when I wake up one morning and my jeans are a little tight. I don't know why. It's like, I guess, you feel like....well, I'm thin, so why can't I be Charlize Theron?
I don't know if that makes sense exactly. I'll try to think of a better way to express it.
-pH
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:How much of what we consider sexy has nothing to do with reality?
Sexy isn't a platonic ideal. If something works for someone, then it is. I don't think "You think you're affected by that, but you're not." exists.
I think the problem is making "be sexy" a goal at all. It's fun to be, but when it happens it's like an accident. Since sexiness is inherently dependent on other people's perceptions, it seems pointless to hang one's self-worth on other people's perceptions.
The second question I can't answer because I've never been married and do not have a past or present sex life.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Thank you for indulgin me in my ruminating.
I do understand the health problems. I am not, necessarily, talking about weight issues that have a significant impact on health.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
I've got it.
My best friend growing up was always overweight, but she was beautiful. Absolutely beautiful. She had perfect hair, perfect skin, and perfect facial structure. She was so absolutely gorgeous.
Me, I've always had what I like to call a baby face, but what my little brother used to call a fat face. And that's not going to change. Even when I lose weight, I still have rounder cheeks and a doughier chin than my friend ever has. And it's so discouraging. It's like, I guess, if you're thin (especially if you've lost weight) and you still see things that you hate about your body and realize that they really won't change short of surgery, every once in a while you start to wonder if you were just born ugly. Like, you can't focus on the weight...so you focus on oh, is my butt not toned enough, are my teeth not white enough, are my legs not long enough...stuff that you feel totally helpless to do anything about.
And thanks to wisdom teeth surgery, my boyfriend has had a really hard time getting me to feel like I'm beautiful again. Because one side of my face is still a little swollen, and for me, having my face swell like that was just....a horrible nightmare. When Fat Face Attacks! or something.
-pH
Posted by MyrddinFyre (Member # 2576) on :
I have a face like that. It gets me called "cute" a lot... the large-but-not-bucked front teeth, chubby cheeks, (edit: forgot the frequin button nose!) and dark squinty eyes give me what I proudly call the "small woodland creature look."
Imagine, a six-foot-two-hundred-pound-muscular-big-boned girl being called "cute"... giggle.
There was a whole year of my life, in seventh-eighth grade, that I hated my smile so much (because my eyes get all squinty and my cheeks all chubbylike... people have asked if I'm Inuit!) that I didn't smile. At least, not a real smile, I tried to keep my mouth from broadening and pushing my cheeks up and totally kept my eyes wide open in the process. Besides looking creepy in photographs, I decided that all of that is what makes me unique. And I started to think it was really cool. Which is good, cause in the next years I would gain a lot of weight
Anyway, I like looking like a small woodland creature now. I think it's fun, and no one else can claim as much. Haha.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
pH - you are so not "born ugly". I thought when I met you that you were stunning. How much of that was what you look like? No idea.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Next stream of consciousness thought...
While I was getting some juice, I wondered about the correlation between good sex and (conventionally) good-looking. In my experience, there isn't one. Not that I am using a huge sample. But there have been hot guys and guys that would not be considered hot (although I do tbelieve they have been beautiful). Cuter does not equal better.
Is this different for most people?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Sex is made better if the person is physically attractive, but that's like saying that a car is made faster with a sleeker profile; there are other things which also affect performance.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
CT- Thanks for elaborating- no worries about yammering, I don't think you were being longwinded at all.
I completely agree about the shame thing. I typed out a big long paragraph, but decided I don't feel comfortable sharing it, since it's not mine to tell. I would just say that (although this may be counter-intuitive) if someone is overweight love and acceptance can result in more positive change than shame.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:You said that having joint trouble is a side-effect of being overweight. I'm saying it can happen even when you're in good shape.
No one said otherwise. However, it's foolish not to admit that being overweight exasperates joint problems.
-------
I try to stay in shape because I don't like being overweight. I don't like the way I look or the way I feel about the way I look. And what I consider overweight most people would probably laugh out loud at. Not only that, but I do like the feeling I get both from working out and generally staying in pretty fair shape.
I like knowing I can go out at any time and run a few miles. I like that I don't get winded walking up the six flights of stairs every morning. I like that I can look at my profile in the mirror and my belly doesn't stick out over my belt.
But I don't expect someone who does not get the benefits I get (both the immediate benefits from exercising and the longer term benefits of staying in shape) to spend the time or energy on it that I do.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
quote:The only reason to worry about weight or size or shape, IMO, is to guard your health.
Is the only reason to worry about dental care the health of your teeth? Does the fact that it’s a social turnoff to have missing, rotting, yellow teeth, tarter buildup, or bad breath not play any part on your decision to brush and floss?
This comment got me thinking far beyond the scope of the original statement. Health is certainly the most important reason in my value system, but there should be an acknowledgement that there are other just as valid reasons to keep your weight down that go beyond health.
People have mentioned that they have other things ranked higher in their systems. In a thread with a similar topic awhile back, Tom Davidson mentioned that spending the time to go to the gym would unacceptably cut into spending time with his daughter. He looked at the benefits and consequences of each choice and made a decision that was right for him. Kmbboots in this thread has made the decision that she feels is right for her. She has chosen the things that matter most to her. Obviously she has other things in her life that take precedence over losing the few extra pounds she thinks she has.
The point I’m trying to make is to be careful not to fall into the trap of being too judgmental about others choices while demanding that they refrain from judging yours. If looking good for some frat guys rather than being around for any grandkids she may have 40 years down the road is a girl’s primary reason for keeping the weight off, calling her shallow is no different than her mocking your weight.
I’m not arguing for relativism and saying that all choices are equally positive healthy (whether physically or mentally) choices. I’m just saying that it’s a valid to lose your weight for your social health rather than just your physical health.
Note: I’m using the generic you in this sense Libbie. Also, I realize that you qualified your statement in reminding us that it is your opinion, but I thought I’d pipe up and mention there are other valid opinions out there.
Edit: Like what JT just said. Wow it takes forever to post when I'm busy at work
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by MyrddinFyre: Anyway, I like looking like a small woodland creature now. I think it's fun, and no one else can claim as much. Haha.
quote:Sex is made better if the person is physically attractive, but that's like saying that a car is made faster with a sleeker profile; there are other things which also affect performance.
Sex is made more enjoyable if the person is physically attractive. That's like saying a car is made more enjoyable, not faster, with a sleeker profile.
To add my own thought on it, I think a more attractive person could make sex more enjoyable for any number of reasons. If you're more attracted to a person, you're likely to become more aroused, which can increase your ability to pleasure and be pleasured. There are hundreds of psychological reasons why sex with someone you find attractive could be better.
I'd liken it to having sex with a specific kind of music on.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Giggles at an ancient recollection of making out with someone when the music shifted from noctures to polkas...Damn Chopin.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I started going to the gym and getting into shape because I am afraid. That's it - not social pressure, vague health concerns, or family pressure (!!) - nada. However, I was horribly depressed for a couple of years about four years ago and it scared the snot out of me. I started going to the gym because I heard it could do good things for me, and it did/does. I go now because I like the endorphins and because I'm terrified of being depressed again.
If extra weight is making someone depressed, then it makes sense to put all the effort out to change that. I wasn't acting out of principle - it was pure self interest. As such, I don't see it as remotely anyone else's business. I want neither approval nor condemnation.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: The only reason to worry about weight or size or shape, IMO, is to guard your health.
You say that, but I'd bet a million bucks you worry a lot about clothes. Maybe even judging guys for romantic potential by what they wear.
Personally, I am the exact opposite. I worry about my weight and am really indifferent about clothes.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Goodness, kat! I hope you didn't think I was condemning anyone for wanting to work out, etc.!
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
Hmm, the fabled endorphin rush that supposedly accompanies exercising. I've never experienced it myself, and have speculated with a similarly-shaped friend that it was a ploy of skinny people to get us to exercise more. Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
Sure you were acting out of prinicple. You were doing it for immediate health benefits. How is what you did any different from someone who gets a bad cholesterol reading, is scared to death of having a heart attack, and then goes to the gym and watches what they eat?
Posted by MyrddinFyre (Member # 2576) on :
quote: Is the only reason to worry about dental care the health of your teeth? Does the fact that it’s a social turnoff to have missing, rotting, yellow teeth, tarter buildup, or bad breath not play any part on your decision to brush and floss?
But... isn't it not an issue since those things ARE unhealthy? Maybe not a naturally yellow tooth, but really discolored teeth can be signs of dead teeth, rotting teeth, or other things. Not a dentist, so I can't really say.
pH, I am so that beaver Posted by TheTick (Member # 2883) on :
quote:Originally posted by MyrddinFyre: pH, I am so that beaver
Best. OOC. Ever.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Chocolate mousse cheesecake works really well when I'm bummed out, too. My consumption of the cheesecake is also not out of principle. Same with...I don't know - calling a friend when I need to talk. Also not done out of principle. I do it because it works - the cheesecake makes me feel better, and calling the friend fulfills the need for a good conversation.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by MyrddinFyre:
quote: Is the only reason to worry about dental care the health of your teeth? Does the fact that it’s a social turnoff to have missing, rotting, yellow teeth, tarter buildup, or bad breath not play any part on your decision to brush and floss?
But... isn't it not an issue since those things ARE unhealthy? Maybe not a naturally yellow tooth, but really discolored teeth can be signs of dead teeth, rotting teeth, or other things. Not a dentist, so I can't really say.
pH, I am so that beaver
Do you mean that in terms of appearance, or in terms of the Satan-worshipping?
-pH
Posted by MyrddinFyre (Member # 2576) on :
>_>
<_<
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I can't read the title of this thread without thinking naughty thoughts.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Good!
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
quote:Originally posted by MyrddinFyre:
quote: Is the only reason to worry about dental care the health of your teeth? Does the fact that it’s a social turnoff to have missing, rotting, yellow teeth, tarter buildup, or bad breath not play any part on your decision to brush and floss?
But... isn't it not an issue since those things ARE unhealthy? Maybe not a naturally yellow tooth, but really discolored teeth can be signs of dead teeth, rotting teeth, or other things. Not a dentist, so I can't really say.
I don't see how it's different. Being obese is unhealthy. Having bad teeth as I described is unhealthy. Both are cosmetically undesirable in current society. I'm merely suggesting that one's primary motivation for good dental care may be more cosmetically motivated than health motivated. If this is the case, then there exists a curious double standard as to the healthy vs cosmetic arguments.
I was using the example to make a point about a larger issue that I see. I think that in our pop culture, style over substance has been over the top and in our face for quite some time. Understandably, there has been a reaction to this. For example, adagages like 'you can't judge a book by its cover' can be very true and offer an important shift from the mainstream in ways of viewing things.
However. I think at times the pendelum has swung the other way a bit too far. It's being predominately expressed here that appearances do not matter and they don't care about them, period. I think that's simply not true. The people expressing such sentiments may be surprised when they look at something that is not a commonly used, such as mentioning motivations for good dental care rather than beating the dead obesity horse.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: Good!
*jumps*
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I think that I worth mentioning that thin people can be physically unattractive and that plain people can be well-groomed. And the reverse. Lest we start autonmatically equating skinny and pretty and unattractive with slovenly.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon:
quote: Good!
*jumps*
And I didn't even have to use "the prod".
Posted by MyrddinFyre (Member # 2576) on :
Ahh, I see. It's been proven that people tend to be attracted to healthy looking people, which includes having whiter teeth, being fit, and being symmetrical. I guess I never really think of the two, attraction and health, as seperate.
I'm not saying I'm someone who would only be attracted to someone who was very in shape, etc... because I think health, especially nowadays, is more than that. Someone who doesn't work on themselves all the time because they are very into say, their work or their family is healthy because working = money = clothing, food, and shelter, and caring for family is obviously a good trait in a potential father. So I guess I'm trying to say that people don't have to be either "IDONTCAREHOWFATYOUARE" or "Please wear makeup. Every day. And run five miles. Thattagirl." I think the issue is much more complicated, and obviously can be very individualized. Man, I hope I'm making sense.
Edit: Me type slow. You guys snuck in there while I was replying!
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: Is the only reason to worry about dental care the health of your teeth? Does the fact that it’s a social turnoff to have missing, rotting, yellow teeth, tarter buildup, or bad breath not play any part on your decision to brush and floss?
But... isn't it not an issue since those things ARE unhealthy? Maybe not a naturally yellow tooth, but really discolored teeth can be signs of dead teeth, rotting teeth, or other things. Not a dentist, so I can't really say.
I don't see how it's different. Being obese is unhealthy. Having bad teeth as I described is unhealthy. Both are cosmetically undesirable in current society. I'm merely suggesting that one's primary motivation for good dental care may be more cosmetically motivated than health motivated. If this is the case, then there exists a curious double standard as to the healthy vs cosmetic arguments.
I was using the example to make a point about a larger issue that I see. I think that in our pop culture, style over substance has been over the top and in our face for quite some time. Understandably, there has been a reaction to this. For example, adagages like 'you can't judge a book by its cover' can be very true and offer an important shift from the mainstream in ways of viewing things.
However. I think at times the pendelum has swung the other way a bit too far. It's being predominately expressed here that appearances do not matter and they don't care about them, period. I think that's simply not true. The people expressing such sentiments may be surprised when they look at something that is not a commonly used, such as mentioning motivations for good dental care rather than beating the dead obesity horse.
I hear you Bao, its pretty hard to make the point you are trying to make without coming across as overtly critical towards others. You do a better job then I would.
Personally I try to avoid the whole fat=unhealthy or acceptable? debate and simply acknowledge that my ancestors lived a more active life style. Because of appliances life is easier and more efficient. But I need to compensate by keeping my body diciplined and healthy by working out. If I had a job where I worked in a field then I wouldnt worry so much. When I served a mission I was on a bike ALOT of the time, I ate 3 huge meals a day and drank easily 1 gallon worth of fluids a day to compensate for the sweating I did. I never felt healthier. Now I go to a gym 3 times a week, run up stairs instead of walk whenever I encounted them, and try to walk if I do not need to drive.
But even with all that, if I do not watch what I eat, I gain weight. For me its simple.
1: Ignore fatness
2: Am I active enough to maintain my health?
3: Do I eat food that provides me with all the nutrients I should be getting.
If I gain weight that isnt muscle, its most likely fat. If its fat that means I am eating more than my body needs. Or I am not active enough to the point that my diet is justified by my activities.
Posted by MyrddinFyre (Member # 2576) on :
Wish it was that simple for all of us Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I think that I worth mentioning that thin people can be physically unattractive and that plain people can be well-groomed. And the reverse. Lest we start autonmatically equating skinny and pretty and unattractive with slovenly.
I agree. I think a plain person that is healthy, happy, well groomed, and confident in him or herself is usually attractive. On the other hand, I personally find almost every model I see on TV skinny to the point of gross (although a lot of the grossness is from the makeup style and a perceived aura of unhealthiness). This probably somewhat answers your earlier question about how much I think our looks are tied to our core personalities.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
Generally, for whatever reason, weight loss always seems to be much simpler for guys. Posted by MyrddinFyre (Member # 2576) on :
I remember a study or something, from years ago, that proved that that was indeed true.
Posted by airmanfour (Member # 6111) on :
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: BQT, I strongly suspect that if airmanfour had used your wording and content, I would have had no quarrel with him. Then again, I seem to be quite taken with hearing myself yammer on and on lately ( ), so maybe not.
It was the language of "And stepping it up for the species would probably be a pretty healthy idea" and the like that raised my eyebrows into my hairline.
I am a physician. I study diabetes in children; specifically, I study the change in pattern from "adult-onset" or Type II diabetes mellitus to a newly acknowledged pediatric epidemic of that very same pathology. I know the complications, and I work hard to try to minimize them.
On the other hand, I also know that shaming (despite minutely temporal anecdotes to the contrary) is not an effective teaching or motivational strategy, be it for training medical students, motivating weight loss, or what have you. Short-term: maybe yes, maybe no. Long-term: no. And I'm interested in the long term.
What shaming as a strategy does work exceedingly well for is the underscoring of power differences betwen those who have power and those that do not, e.g., the highlighting of differences in social class or social status. It can feel good (or, at least, self-affirming) to put others down. It doesn't seem to be good for them in the long run, though.
Unfortunately I don't have ready access to BQT's wording or knowledge store, I was just saying what I was thinking. I'm very sorry if what I think is offensive or "shaming", but it seems to have a basis in reality. Which is nice.
And....MyrddinFyre couldn't be much more right.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I'll take greater muscle mass for 100, Bob.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by MyrddinFyre: I guess I never really think of the two, attraction and health, as seperate.
You do make sense. But I know I do think of them as at least somewhat separate. My very minor health issues are unrelated to my weight. I am basically very healthy. Smoking is unhealthy, yet many people find it "cool". I have certainly been attracted to people with health issues and put off by people that appear to be excellent physical specimens. Not to mention that, while guys in their twenties are likely to be in better shape than guys in their forties, I am much more likely to be attracted (appropriately) to the latter.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by Megan: Generally, for whatever reason, weight loss always seems to be much simpler for guys.
Probably 'cause women NEED to have more padding for their bodies to function properly (i.e. menstruation).
-pH
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
airmanfour,
I knew what you were saying. It's not your fault that you don't speak female well. Just remember: "I'll love you no matter what size you are. It's your beautiful personality (which is awesome!!!!) that turns me on!"
It's like a magic wand that makes all your troubles go away and gives you time to beat a hasty retreat back to safer conversational waters.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by pH:
quote:Originally posted by Megan: Generally, for whatever reason, weight loss always seems to be much simpler for guys.
Probably 'cause women NEED to have more padding for their bodies to function properly (i.e. menstruation).
-pH
Pregnancy too. You may not want to get pregnant but your body still tries to keep that option open.
Posted by MyrddinFyre (Member # 2576) on :
*giggle* (edit: @ SS)
kmbboots, I agree with you. I guess I'm trying to say, too, that healthy can also mean "healthy for you"... say, the more mature men would be a healthier match for you in terms of life goals, maturity levels, etc. Which is where I see some of the connection between health and attraction. Thinking about this is making my brain hurt, it's pretty complicated seeing as I only know what I have found in my (short) lifetime and I can't really know how other people find themselves attracted to people Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon: I knew what you were saying. It's not your fault that you don't speak female well. Just remember: "I'll love you no matter what size you are. It's your beautiful personality (which is awesome!!!!) that turns me on!"
This does not work on me as a ploy. Although I also have a boyfriend who gets worried when I lose an inch.
I also don't like saying "personality" so much. It's so...broad. If you're going to make a broad compliment, say something about being an amazing person. And then throw in specifics. Oh, and one of my exes told me that the surest way to get a girl is to compliment her on something weird, like, "You have such nice eyelashes!" instead of "You have beautiful eyes."
-pH
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
"You know, I've never met anyone like you before. Usually when I meet someone new I feel awkward and shy. But with you it's different. I can talk to you. You know what I'm thinking without my having to explain to you in fancy terms. We speak each other's unspoken language... fluently. I love you. "
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Or you could just be so crazy about her that you can't keep your hands off her. I always find that convincing.
Posted by MyrddinFyre (Member # 2576) on :
Man says: You have a nice personality. Woman hears: You are fat.
Man says: You have a pretty face. Woman hears: You are fat.
Man says: You have nice eyes. Woman hears: I am sleazy and cheesy. And you're fat.
Man says: You have such nice eyelashes. Woman hears: I am observant and see that you are a totally unique person and I dig it.
Or something Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
"This sand is rough, but your skin is smooth."
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:Or you could just be so crazy about her that you can't keep your hands off her. I always find that convincing.
So does the judge.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon: "This sand is rough, but your skin is smooth."
See, Anakin always screamed "creepy-ass stalker freak" to me.
Edit to add: You know, I have actually had guys come up to me and tell me that I have nice teeth. Like, that will be their first compliment. I don't know if they were using the eyelash strategy, or if they just had a chomper fetish.
-pH
Posted by MyrddinFyre (Member # 2576) on :
Or maybe you have really nice teeth!
I get the same vibes from Anakin. Eugh.
JT
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Well, they ARE pretty sweet.
But that's still a weird thing for a random stranger to compliment someone on. Hair, okay. But TEETH?
-pH
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Its just an established social norm. I usualy go for the get up, girls like to know that they dress right (I dont lie about it, if I dont like it I just say nothing).
If I have know the girl awhile and she does something different with her hair, If I like I make sure to tell her because apparently spending money at the hair dresser or being brave enough to try something new is pretty tense for girls, a sincere compliment makes their day, sometimes even week.
edit: Interestingly enough I've had WOMEN compliment me on my eyebrows and I am a dude. Apparently they look just like I pluck, but I don't.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
quote:Originally posted by pH: I don't know if they were using the eyelash strategy, or if they just had a chomper fetish.
It's one liners like this that make me wish the forum allowed signatures.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Stormy is clearly well-trained. I approve.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by airmanfour: Unfortunately I don't have ready access to BQT's wording or knowledge store, I was just saying what I was thinking. I'm very sorry if what I think is offensive or "shaming", but it seems to have a basis in reality. Which is nice.
And....MyrddinFyre couldn't be much more right.
And I do apologize for being snippy to you, airmanfour. That was unkind and unprofessional, and I'll try to make sure it does not happen again.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon: It's like a magic wand that makes all your troubles go away and gives you time to beat a hasty retreat back to safer conversational waters.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
My dad had his out when he was younger.![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Cry]](graemlins/cry.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
JT
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
It's one liners like this that make me wish the forum allowed signatures.