When I lost 45 lbs., I was told by some I was getting too skinny. I'm 5'9'', which is the exact average of American males (not so much for those in the Netherlands, where I'd be seen as a little person). At my peak weight, I was at 186. Most people didn't see this, because I wore pretty loose clothing and was able to hide the weight a bit, as it couldn't be noticed very much in my face, arms or legs when I happened to wear shorts or short-sleeved shirts. It was mainly in the stomach region. When I finally got set and determined to shed a few pounds, I just stopped eating fast food for a while, junk food, most fried food, switched from soda and Gatorade to water and started working out more. I just tried living a more healthy lifestyle than I had been and was really strict with myself for a long while, as I hadn't really lost a lot of weight previously and wanted to make certain I did this time around. Over the past few months, I've been a little more lax when it comes to the before-mentioned bad habits. I haven't put on much more weight, but have just learned to moderate my consumption of fried, junk and fast food, soda, etc. I used to be able to drink six cans of Dr. Pepper in a single day. Now I can only drink about half a can in one sitting and will only do that about once every 1-2 weeks. I may snack on some chips and pretzels, but instead of eating most of the bag in one sitting, I'll just have a handful and be satisfied. For some reason, there's a craving for fast food at times, but those cravings are few and far between, like once a month, as opposed to several times a week. I'd say I'm around 145 or so in weight, am living a pretty healthy life and feel pretty good about how I look at the moment. While I enjoyed and felt very good about myself upon losing all that weight, I knew when to stop. I didn't agree with some of the older people whom said I was too skinny, but I knew it was time to stop. I'd never starve myself or throw up after eating. I've always strived to look athletic and healthy as opposed to thin.
I can understand a person wanting to be "thin". I'm thin. It's okay to be thin, so long as a person is healthy. Some people are just naturally thin. A cousin of mine and also my brother can eat more than I can at a given meal, yet they don't have to worry about gaining any weight. They're just naturally thin with great metabolism. But, there is such a thing as too thin and I see it quite frequently in the modeling world. This isn't "natural" and it's not healthy. In my opinion, it's highly unattractive.
Here's an example of what I'm talking about - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/08/julia-schneider-elite-model-skinny_n_1136247.html#s528479
How can that be considered appealing? She is reminiscent of what many envision aliens looking like and she's not the only one, as can be seen by scrolling through the photos on that site and many others. Many people whom work with models say their being extra thin is "natural" and "necessary" for the clothing that they present. If that latter "reason" is true on any level, I think some changes have to be made, because these women's health is of greater importance than feeling that unhealthy look and lifestyle best serves the clothing in which they present to the masses.
Models didn't always look this way. Marilyn Monroe was up to 140 at one time and a size 14 dress and had a great figure. Cindy Crawford was a size 6. Many such models nowadays are size 2's, some even 0's. So, why the change? Was it "necessary" for women to be size 2's and borderline anorexic according to the Body Mass Index? If it wasn't necessary then, why is it necessary now?
To me and most guys I know, a woman with curves is more attractive than one without. Being thin (to average), healthy and proportionate is very attractive to most guys - the models of yesteryear. The models nowadays tend to have the figure of guys. Sure, I can admit that some guys are physically attractive, but I'm not sexually attracted to them and that's the same for most men out there (with exceptions, of course). Why would heterosexual men be more attracted to a woman with a boy-like figure than Marilyn Monroe?
I mean, it's fine if a woman doesn't have much of a chest or bottom, yet there's still some meat on her bones. In many of these pictures, the women's faces look almost lifeless - skeletal. I don't understand why it's frowned upon nowadays to have runway models with an actual figure present clothing to the masses. I can guarantee they would receive many more oohs and ahs from males and females alike.
Another really sad part about this trend is the fact many young women today look up to such figures to pattern their appearance after, so they wind up dieting at a very young age and don't feel secure with themselves unless they reach X weight, even though they may already be thin. Why not look up to the women of the past, such as the before-mentioned Marilyn Monroe, Grace Kelly, Ingrid Bergman or more recently, someone like Sofia Vergara. I wish we'd stop implanting in young women's minds that the model-look is what men find most attractive. We don't. Just like many women want guys to look like "guys," not being fearful of having a few whiskers, hairs where they may have any (thank you, shaver), a scent which isn't reminiscent of a flower, eyebrows which aren't thinner than theirs, some muscle, etc., many guys want their women to look more like "women" and not their friend Jim. No offense to Jim...
Women are beautiful just the way they are. There's really no reason to alter their appearance to be reminiscent of a man's. I'm now thinking it should be required listening/viewing for models to listen to/see Sir Mix-A-Lot's song/video "Baby Got Back". The models will then have to make a video of their own, singing the before-mentioned song. What I'd pay to see a bunch of models rapping the words, "I like big butts and I cannot lie..." But, ladies, you're beautiful just the way you are. Stay that way, for both your health and for receiving a healthy dose of compliments and stares from the opposite (and even the same) sex.
I can understand a person wanting to be "thin". I'm thin. It's okay to be thin, so long as a person is healthy. Some people are just naturally thin. A cousin of mine and also my brother can eat more than I can at a given meal, yet they don't have to worry about gaining any weight. They're just naturally thin with great metabolism. But, there is such a thing as too thin and I see it quite frequently in the modeling world. This isn't "natural" and it's not healthy. In my opinion, it's highly unattractive.
Here's an example of what I'm talking about - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/08/julia-schneider-elite-model-skinny_n_1136247.html#s528479
How can that be considered appealing? She is reminiscent of what many envision aliens looking like and she's not the only one, as can be seen by scrolling through the photos on that site and many others. Many people whom work with models say their being extra thin is "natural" and "necessary" for the clothing that they present. If that latter "reason" is true on any level, I think some changes have to be made, because these women's health is of greater importance than feeling that unhealthy look and lifestyle best serves the clothing in which they present to the masses.
Models didn't always look this way. Marilyn Monroe was up to 140 at one time and a size 14 dress and had a great figure. Cindy Crawford was a size 6. Many such models nowadays are size 2's, some even 0's. So, why the change? Was it "necessary" for women to be size 2's and borderline anorexic according to the Body Mass Index? If it wasn't necessary then, why is it necessary now?
To me and most guys I know, a woman with curves is more attractive than one without. Being thin (to average), healthy and proportionate is very attractive to most guys - the models of yesteryear. The models nowadays tend to have the figure of guys. Sure, I can admit that some guys are physically attractive, but I'm not sexually attracted to them and that's the same for most men out there (with exceptions, of course). Why would heterosexual men be more attracted to a woman with a boy-like figure than Marilyn Monroe?
I mean, it's fine if a woman doesn't have much of a chest or bottom, yet there's still some meat on her bones. In many of these pictures, the women's faces look almost lifeless - skeletal. I don't understand why it's frowned upon nowadays to have runway models with an actual figure present clothing to the masses. I can guarantee they would receive many more oohs and ahs from males and females alike.
Another really sad part about this trend is the fact many young women today look up to such figures to pattern their appearance after, so they wind up dieting at a very young age and don't feel secure with themselves unless they reach X weight, even though they may already be thin. Why not look up to the women of the past, such as the before-mentioned Marilyn Monroe, Grace Kelly, Ingrid Bergman or more recently, someone like Sofia Vergara. I wish we'd stop implanting in young women's minds that the model-look is what men find most attractive. We don't. Just like many women want guys to look like "guys," not being fearful of having a few whiskers, hairs where they may have any (thank you, shaver), a scent which isn't reminiscent of a flower, eyebrows which aren't thinner than theirs, some muscle, etc., many guys want their women to look more like "women" and not their friend Jim. No offense to Jim...
Women are beautiful just the way they are. There's really no reason to alter their appearance to be reminiscent of a man's. I'm now thinking it should be required listening/viewing for models to listen to/see Sir Mix-A-Lot's song/video "Baby Got Back". The models will then have to make a video of their own, singing the before-mentioned song. What I'd pay to see a bunch of models rapping the words, "I like big butts and I cannot lie..." But, ladies, you're beautiful just the way you are. Stay that way, for both your health and for receiving a healthy dose of compliments and stares from the opposite (and even the same) sex.
Comments
Post a Comment