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.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1156 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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. Posts: 5264 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
posted
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.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3636 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
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).
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.
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.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
(Sure, delighted to be of service! I will keep looking for an authoritative source for you, though. It's an interesting question.)
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1006 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
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. Posts: 1006 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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!
Posts: 3636 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
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!!
Posts: 1006 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Those were general questions to the community sparked by my recollection of my conversation with the girls.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 3636 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
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
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Giggles at an ancient recollection of making out with someone when the music shifted from noctures to polkas...Damn Chopin.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Goodness, kat! I hope you didn't think I was condemning anyone for wanting to work out, etc.!
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
] 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. ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
I'm quite happy with it.![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
