Openly Anti-porn - reprint of letter

flutterflye

gargleblaster wrote: »

Thanks, I suspected the fertility claim would have been the one more likely to be backed up by science. It also makes the idealization of the shape very rational.

As for the other, I'm still not convinced. Clothes sizes don't depend on whether or not your shape is more hourglass or straight up and down. Many very athletic women have the straight up and down figure. Having narrower ribcages and hips would characterize this shape far more than poor health or diet I'd think.

It's to do with the waist to hip ratio though, not necessarily the Jessica Rabbit shape.

Alot of fit, toned women still have the curvy shape, just not as prominent.

Wibbs

I agree. The athletic body shape is more, well narrow hipped malelike as that shape is better for running etc Even so, outside of certain sports and some athletes chugging back the steroids etc, the women usually still have wider hips than waists than the equivalent men. Anyway they're not "naturally" meant to sport a beer gut and have a bigger waist than hips. Neither are men for that matter(though their healthy ratio is smaller). If either do health problems, both longterm and short go up, while fertility goes down. Hence within an average range, women are "designed" to be pear shaped, not apple. You'll even hear this around women on diets who will often complain they can't shift the thigh and bum fat, but the belly fat falls away faster. They're designed to retain that. It's also one reason why carrying excess fat on the bum and thighs is safer for you heart wise. Fat on the midriff metabolises into the bloodstream more easily. Makes it easier to shift, but risky for fat bildup in ones arteries.

Plus clothes sizes we're dealing with here are the records of retailers and manufacturers, not the haphazard sizing of the end user. Not the variable and inaccurate 10/12/14, but 34, 28, 36 kinda thing. The researchers specifically looked at actual breast waist and hip measurements in the figures. Basically 50 years ago there were more 36 28 36 women around than today where you see more 36 36 36 or 36 46 38 women. This was especially true of young women.

Jack B. Badd

gargleblaster wrote: »

Wait, what? I thought that women with more straight up-and-down shapes were just born with that body shape, and that had to do with genetics, not dietary changes or physical activity.

Is there any proof that women are naturally all supposed to have hourglass figures? Is that even what you're saying? Also is there any proof that it is indicative of any actual difference in fertility?

I think Wibbs has covered most, if not all, of the points I would have in my reponse Cheers.

One thing I would add is that genetics does not exist in a vacuum. If are genetically disposed towards a certain trait, that doesn't mean that you'll display that trait regardless of your environment. The stresses that environment places on a creature trigger genetic reactions which help that creature to adapt to that environment. There's even evidence that "what your born with" is down to environmental factors like what your mother's diet was when she was carrying you. So the move towards larger frames, wider waists, bigger hips & breasts may be down not only what we are eating and doing but also that of our parents and the earlier generations again.

gargleblaster

flutterflye wrote: »

It's to do with the waist to hip ratio though, not necessarily the Jessica Rabbit shape.

Are you referring to attraction here? If so then I definitely agree.



As I understand it there are various body shapes (e.g. triangle, spoon, hourglass and rectangular) which have little to do with physical fitness.

JIB I'm not sure that these basic body shapes can be altered to any significant degree (as with eye color and hair color). For the purposes of this discussion I'm not referring to gaining weight or putting on muscle, those of course can do a lot. Also poor posture could change it. If there is any science to show that the mother's diet could influence such things as whether a child ends up with those basic body shapes I'd be very interested to see it.

Jack B. Badd

gargleblaster wrote: »

JIB I'm not sure that these basic body shapes can be altered to any significant degree (as with eye color and hair color). For the purposes of this discussion I'm not referring to gaining weight or putting on muscle, those of course can do a lot. Also poor posture could change it. If there is any science to show that the mother's diet could influence such things as whether a child ends up with those basic body shapes I'd be very interested to see it.

Mother's diet during pregnancy alters baby's DNA
This is the latest article I've seen regarding the effects of mother's diet on unborn offspring - not a medical/scientific journal I'm afraid, just the Beeb. It's not specific to body shape but gives you a general background to what I was referring to.

--LOS--

That letter is just baffling :eek:
I actually can't relate at all and I'm glad.

gargleblaster

Jack B. Badd wrote: »

Mother's diet during pregnancy alters baby's DNA
This is the latest article I've seen regarding the effects of mother's diet on unborn offspring - not a medical/scientific journal I'm afraid, just the Beeb. It's not specific to body shape but gives you a general background to what I was referring to.

Wow, that is truly fascinating. Thanks!

Dudess

I couldn't change my body shape to pear-shaped or hourglass if I tried. My weight has fluctuated throughout the years since puberty, but my boobs have always been big (frighteningly big when I was 12 and skinny :eek:), my arse has always been petite, my legs have always been slim, my hips have always been tiny... and my tum has always been a stubborn sticky-out fecker. :mad:

I'm as naturally apple/upside-down triangle as you can get. :pac:

Jack B. Badd

parker kent wrote: »

Surely you see the difference between the extreme physical labour people went through before modern conveniences and exercise in a controlled environment? People keep referring to aspects I have already said are irrelevant, whether there are sedentary people in the modern era, that has no impact on those that are physically active.

Think about it for a second. I'm comparing people who would have worked long, difficult days. Too much exercise is not a good thing, continuous hard labour would lead to injuries and general poor health. Now compare that to somebody today who gets an appropriate amount of exercise (50 minutes 4-5 days a week as I said in my earlier post).

In which case it would be more realistic to compare these people who undertook extreme physical labour to modern professional athletes who due to the physical stresses of their profession will cause not insignificant damage to their bodies during their lifetimes (mainly during their early decades.

I don't agree that the average individual 100 years ago would have undertaken such extreme physical labour to be reasonably compared to the average person who attends the gym for 4-5 hours a week today. Though, in comparison to those 4-5 hours of workout, the average person 100 years ago would have spent more active time walking to destinations, physically scrubbing floors, growing their own food, baking their own bread, etc.

As for long difficult days, I work long difficult days but I do it sitting in front of a computer screen with the associated reduced range of mobility, activity, etc. That's not because I'm lazier than someone who works as a physical labourer but because of the changing demands of our society.

I'm sure I could swap these days for one where I have a small plot of land and attempt self-sustainability and I'd be a lot more active and healthy. And healthy, without having to join a gym because my daily toil in keeping myself fed and clothed would keep me fit. I don't agree that running on a treadmill or lifting barbells is intrinsically better for me than physical housekeeping or gardening or any reasonable task-based physical activity just because it's in a controlled environment.

I bet I'd have a more attractive figure from this kind of activity too

Then add in that such a person today has access to a far wider diet and can be as healthy as they choose. Far more people than could have done so 100 years ago (which I have been saying continuously). It is irrelevant that many are not choosing to be fit and healthy as they are not what I am talking about.

The changes in modern society means that we now have fitter and healthier people than ever and these people are in greater numbers. Since we were talking about women, there are many other obvious things to mention. I am comparing women who were primarily mothers and often gave birth to large numbers of children to women who have fewer children on average and have far greater access to decent exercise. Sure there are people who do not use the benefits of modern living, but my point is that it far more available to a far greater amount of people than over 100 years ago.

Then given the other points I mentioned, it is not that difficult to see why female bodies are changed.

Edit: I think many are forgetting my original reason for mentioning fitness, we were talking about people with "perfect" figures. So everybody else is irrelevant, I am ONLY referring to the those with the perfect figures we spoke of earlier.

Edit 2: Changed=fitter

gargleblaster

pajunior wrote: »

No I don't think it is a terrible thing or that women shouldn't do it.

I do find it strange (maybe disturbing is too strong a word), that an educated woman thinks that her body is still her best asset and not her personality/intelligence or any other aspect of her as a person.
I suppose I've just always been told that my intelligence is my biggest asset. I worked as a laborer as a teenager and was always told to get my degree to get a 'better' job (didn't listen too hard on the degree end :P)
Seems to me like she thinks that society believes women are only worth as much as they are good looking.

Oops, almost forgot about this!

I read it differently. I thought she was only making the point that sex work presented the most economically rewarding option. I might well have read it wrong.

Dudess

I don't see a problem with a woman making money out of her body, viewing it as her best asset as long as it's her choice, she's in complete control, and it doesn't harm her. Unfortunately though, that's far less likely in very poor, unequal societies.

parker kent

Jack B. Badd wrote: »

In which case it would be more realistic to compare these people who undertook extreme physical labour to modern professional athletes who due to the physical stresses of their profession will cause not insignificant damage to their bodies during their lifetimes (mainly during their early decades.

No because I am not talking about professional athletes. I don't think you really understand that I am talking about why there are a greater number of women with "perfect" bodies. Professional athletes are a pointless comparison.

I don't agree that the average individual 100 years ago would have undertaken such extreme physical labour to be reasonably compared to the average person who attends the gym for 4-5 hours a week today. Though, in comparison to those 4-5 hours of workout, the average person 100 years ago would have spent more active time walking to destinations, physically scrubbing floors, growing their own food, baking their own bread, etc.

This is where my argument is getting bogged down in pedantic points. 100 years, 150 years, whatever. My point is that modern women lead different lives than their earlier counterparts. The hard physical labour points only came up when you brought them up. Which on a sidenote, you still don't understand. Yes they were more active in terms of time spent moving about. But given the advances in sports science, physiotherapy etc, the average person can be far fitter in modern gyms. There really should be no debate.

I originally compared how women who mainly worked as mothers/housekeepers would not have the same level of exercise as those women with perfect bodies. Women today have greater time and access to methods of getting fit. Plus, as I have said throughout, they are not seen primarily as mother figures. Typically, less babies=better figure.

As for long difficult days, I work long difficult days but I do it sitting in front of a computer screen with the associated reduced range of mobility, activity, etc. That's not because I'm lazier than someone who works as a physical labourer but because of the changing demands of our society.

Are you a woman with a perfect body in terms of what was mentioned earlier in the thread? If not, this is irrelevant.

I'm sure I could swap these days for one where I have a small plot of land and attempt self-sustainability and I'd be a lot more active and healthy. And healthy, without having to join a gym because my daily toil in keeping myself fed and clothed would keep me fit. I don't agree that running on a treadmill or lifting barbells is intrinsically better for me than physical housekeeping or gardening or any reasonable task-based physical activity just because it's in a controlled environment.

I bet I'd have a more attractive figure from this kind of activity too

A correct fitness program will be better than housekeeping. A proper fitness program will avoid stresses and strains. It will involve full body exercises that avoid unnecessary strain. Physical labour will not. There is a difference between simply using a gym and using it correctly.

Wibbs

Dudess wrote:

I don't see a problem with a woman making money out of her body, viewing it as her best asset as long as it's her choice, she's in complete control, and it doesn't harm her.

+1 I would be of the same mind D. I've been to both strip shows and more hardcore sex shows. In both cases the women were in control. Or if they weren't the dynamic on the ground was agin the men. The men were certainly the more pathetic sex in the encounter from my perspective. Yes they were paying for something but it was more a sellers market. I mean it's kinda pathetic to see a middle aged bloke throw money at some strange woman just so he can get a brief flash of her pudenda. As if it was going to be a surprise. What were they expecting? ET wearing a Navaho war bonnet?

Unfortunately though, that's far less likely in very poor, unequal societies.

To quote the Dane, aye there's the rub.

Aside

parker kent wrote: »

Yes they were more active in terms of time spent moving about. But given the advances in sports science, physiotherapy etc, the average person can be far fitter in modern gyms. There really should be no debate.

Well maybe unless Jack went further back and became a hunter gatherer. The average neolithic hunter gatherer was significantly fitter on just about every marker you care to mention compared to the vast majority of current gym goers(also seen in modern hunter gatherers). Most had the same bone density as Olympic athletes, with very strong muscle attachments, so a lot fitter than the average gym bunny. That's the men. The lady "cave woman" is equally healthy in the bones. Funny when we started farming we got weaker. You can see it in the bones there too. Farmers are shorter, thinner boned, less muscled, start to get tooth crowding and decay and suffer more from periodic starvation. Makes you wonder why we started tbh. /aside

Jack B. Badd

parker kent wrote: »

you still don't understand.

This is the crux of the matter I'm afraid - the more you post, the less I understand the point you're trying to make & I'm thoroughly confused by your comparisons between physical fitness now & in past generations. It seems to me to be an argument built on flawed foundations.

We may just have to agree that I'm not going to understand your POV here so, rather than go round in circles & bore other people, I'll bow out

Wibbs

OK folks, lets get back to the original topic. *points main finger at my rambling self* :)

Dudess

Wibbs wrote: »

+1 I would be of the same mind D. I've been to both strip shows and more hardcore sex shows. In both cases the women were in control. Or if they weren't the dynamic on the ground was agin the men. The men were certainly the more pathetic sex in the encounter from my perspective. Yes they were paying for something but it was more a sellers market. I mean it's kinda pathetic to see a middle aged bloke throw money at some strange woman just so he can get a brief flash of her pudenda. As if it was going to be a surprise. What were they expecting? ET wearing a Navaho war bonnet?

Now I'm imagining the latter as a vagina... ... :pac:

I don't just mean stripping and seedier stuff, but anything that involves commoditisation of one's body - e.g. the various types of modelling. I don't understand the problem with this once the above factors I mentioned are in place (so I'd exclude the kind of catwalk modelling where the women are clearly malnourished). We use many aspects of ourselves to make a living from though. At the same time, I don't like the fact that there is a culture of this being pushed TOO much - as in, a glorification of the body's selling points to the detriment of everything else. Maybe that's paradoxical of me...

Raekwon

Dudess wrote: »

I don't see a problem with a woman making money out of her body, viewing it as her best asset as long as it's her choice, she's in complete control, and it doesn't harm her. Unfortunately though, that's far less likely in very poor, unequal societies.

But even in poorer countries women still do have a choice to some degree, unless of course they are forced into prostitution by gangsters, pimps or other unsavoury types, but that is an extreme example and is taking this thread off topic.

If you need an example of the choices that some women in poorer societies then look no further then Czech Rep, Slovakia & Hungary as the list of porn actresses from these countries alone is absolutely staggering. Do these women have to do porn? No, not really. Can they make more in a few weeks then they would do in a whole year working an average 9-5? Yes, and that's the rub.

Brazil is another example, okay the women come from a much less economically stable county but they have the choice of working menial jobs for very low pay or sell their 'assets' and make an absolute fortune working in the porn industry. Seems like a no brainier if you think about it from a liberal and economic point of view.

There is of course the counter argument that some of the women from these countries are absolutely stunningly beautiful and there is huge demand for their services within the sex industry, but regardless of that fact, the choice is usually still theirs, most of the time anyway.

Wibbs

I suppose yea. Raekwon makes a good point re the rest of a society and the role it plays in this stuff.

metrovelvet

Raekwon wrote: »

But even in poorer countries women still do have a choice to some degree, unless of course they are forced into prostitution by gangsters, pimps or other unsavoury types, but that is an extreme example and is taking this thread off topic.

If you need an example of the choices that some women in poorer societies then look no further then Czech Rep, Slovakia & Hungary as the list of porn actresses from these countries alone is absolutely staggering. Do these women have to do porn? No, not really. Can they make more in a few weeks then they would do in a whole year working an average 9-5? Yes, and that's the rub.

Brazil is another example, okay the women come from a much less economically stable county but they have the choice of working menial jobs for very low pay or sell their 'assets' and make an absolute fortune working in the porn industry. Seems like a no brainier if you think about it from a liberal and economic point of view.

There is of course the counter argument that some of the women from these countries are absolutely stunningly beautiful and there is huge demand for their services within the sex industry, but regardless of that fact, the choice is usually still theirs, most of the time anyway.

Yes but it still demonstrates, verifies that that is where a woman's value lies.

It says a lot that those are her options. POrn star or menial labour-demonstrates too how little access women have to education or outreach into the professional classes.

Raekwon

metrovelvet wrote: »

Yes but it still demonstrates, verifies that that is where a woman's value lies.

It says a lot that those are her options. POrn star or menial labour-demonstrates too how little access women have to education or outreach into the professional classes.

I agree with you on the access to education slant, I'm not sure how the education systems work in Eastern Europe or South America, but if it was anything like the US, where students need massive loans to go to college, then I can see why people turn their backs on furthering their education. They quite simply can't afford it. Actually on the subject of the US, women would have as much opportunities as men over their yet the sex industry is worth billions of dollars a year. Plus some women who put themselves through college would turn to the sex industry to supplement their incomes. I'm not talk hardcore here, more working as strippers/lapdancers etc.

But my point about 'choice' still stands, none of these women really need to sell their bodies for the gratification of men, but they see the astronomical sums of money they can get for taking their close off in front of a camera and/or preforming multiple sex acts. It's pretty much easy money for people who would otherwise be breaking their backs for peanuts (I don't mean to sound derogatory when I say that either) or to pay off huge debts from furthering their education.

Dudess

Talking more about prostitution now, but some types of porn too: the money being so sh1t - not enough to live on - in "ordinary" jobs in a way kinda forces them into the sex industry. But not saying there aren't women who actually want to do such work, however, I have read of Eastern European women being trafficked, and it wouldn't surprise me if some of the women there would give up the work in an instant if they could. In the "first world", women generally have a choice (not disregarding the fact that there are women in prostitution because they are drug addicts), in the "third world" there is a lot of coercion into the sex industry, in Eastern European countries (used to be known as the "second world") things appear to be, appropriately, somewhere in the middle.

metrovelvet

Dudess wrote: »

Talking more about prostitution now, but some types of porn too: the money being so sh1t - not enough to live on - in "ordinary" jobs in a way kinda forces them into the sex industry. But not saying there aren't women who actually want to do such work, however, I have read of Eastern European women being trafficked, and it wouldn't surprise me if some of the women there would give up the work in an instant if they could. In the "first world", women generally have a choice (not disregarding the fact that there are women in prostitution because they are drug addicts), in the "third world" there is a lot of coercion into the sex industry, in Eastern European countries (used to be known as the "second world") things appear to be, appropriately, somewhere in the middle.

It's the modern slave trade alright. I wonder do their clients even think twice they are paying to rape someone's daughter.