How big is too big?

TerrorFirmer

I Find that picture in the "Very curvy/pushing fat" category, but still quite nice

dar83

Really?

I dont like it at all. The flab on her back is just not sexy at all, I know the bra might accentuate that just under it, but *do so at your own risk* thinking of that naked is just...no...I cant do it.
I will admit I probably prefer "skinny" in most people here's opinions, and I know I have high standards, but a flat stomach is just too damn sexy. Although I dont like the boney look either, as someone else saud, Rachel Stevens = perfect!
I'm also quite fond of Salma Hayek, who I wouldn't consider thin, she'd match my estimation of sexy "curvy".

Wibbs

dar83 wrote:

Ok, I've read practically all of this topic and refrained from posting, but now I'm interested in this. I dont find this curvy, I find it fat, and its also fairly unattractive.
What do other people think, does this woman fit the "curvy" bracket, or is she fat?

I would be with you on this one and call it a bit too much of a good thing for me. The back rolls(shudder) and the arms are a bit too thigh like for my tastes. TBH it would be her face that would put me off more though.

Agree with you re. Ms Hayek. Great hips and waist on that woman.

luckat

Wibbs, I wonder did the article you mentioned earlier (about women's shapes changing) have any information about why?

A textiles expert told me once that the antique dresses in the museum were unwearable, because (a) they were made for women under 5' tall, and (b) all women since the Greek era were put into stays (corsets) from the age of two, which forcibly changed their shape. In Victorian times - the heyday of the hourglass figure - a popular plastic surgery was to have two ribs removed at the bottom of the ribcage, to allow the waist to be nipped in and tiny.

I know that my own grandmother had a 16" waist as a young woman, which doesn't sound healthy to me at all, especially as she was 5'10".

Did the article say whether men's shape was changing?

Interesting that Aphrodite seemed fat, too - to me, she doesn't look fat, she looks fit. But then, that's the look I like, in men or in women - fit.

Wibbs

A quick google for corsets..http://www.eucosy.org/uk/corset/history/
http://costume.dm.net/corsets/history.html.

It seems the corset as we know it(restrictive), didn't really come into vogue 'till Victorian times. There's no evidence the ancients used them at all, so the idea that women since Greek times where forcibly shaped by corsets is a bit of a leap. People were smaller in the recent past, mainly due to diet and other factors. It also depended on social class as the poor were generally shorter than the more affluent. I recall an article I read that showed that affluent people around the 12th century where pretty much the same height as ourselves due to a very good diet high in protein. they liked their women willowy back then. Troubadours described women having narrow backs like rabbits as being beautiful(don't ask I've a weird memory for crap like this ).

When I look at my own family, my great grandparents where all above 5' 6" in the women and over 6" in the men. Not exactly short arses.

Apparently men's shapes are changing, but not to the same degree as women's. Men are getting taller and heavier around the waist. Again due to diet and changes in exercise patterns.

Another thing I read once was that in Europe, hunter gatherers(men and women) were taller with better bone densities than the farmers that replaced them.

As I found with a quick search, Rozie's idea that artistic representations of Aphrodite being fat was far from the truth. As you said a fit shape is what is considered attractive by the sexes throughout history with some local distortions due to fashion.

*Page*

Obesity and Emaciation
Primitive peoples still gauge female beauty by sheer bulk and brides to be go through excessive fattening. Hottentot women are celebrated examples of women with excessive fat deposits in the buttocks. In contrast western brides go through an equally gruelling slimming regime to achieve a sylph like figure forever commemorated by wedding photographs and video film.

Emaciation has now become the ultimate symbol of achievement and affluence.
Clothing throughout the ages.

The Ancient Egyptians
Basic male clothing for the Old Kingdom, 2686-2181 BC, was a woven loincloth wrapped around the hips and held at the waist by a belt, called a girdle. A cape was sometimes worn on the shoulders.

By the time of the Middle Kingdom, 2133-1786 BC, a long garment called a kalasiris developed. For men it was a skirt worn at the waist; for women it was worn under or over the breast and sometimes held with a strap, or was a full-length garment that sometimes had sleeves. The exposure of the female breasts was relatively common among the ancient Egyptians as it was with Cretan women of the Minoan civilization.

The kalasiris and the cape became the standard dress for all ancient Egyptians. The usual fabric was natural off-white linen, some of which was so finely woven that it was transparent. The Egyptian method of weaving gold thread into fabric is still an unknown art.
The laboring classes wore garments shorter for convenience at work. Nobles, priests, and royalty wore the longer version elaborately pleated and draped. Much of the elaboration and color of the costumes came from belts, collars, and headdresses. Wide collars and other adornments were of gold and semi-precious stones or glass. Black wigs and Kohl, a dark pigment, were used by both men and women to outline the eyes. Sandals were worn on the feet.


The Minoans
Although the loincloth of the Minoan men of Crete was similar to that of the Ancient Egyptians, women's fashions were unique. They wore tiered and gathered bell-shaped skirts and either fitted bodices or brief jackets that showed their breasts. The hair of both men and women was worn long.

cont..
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Acres/7631/costume1.html

*Page*

Marilyn Monroe - Her perfect natural hourglass body for the 1950s.
Her body ideal would today be considered too heavy for today's icons of beauty

*Page*

Corset Restrictions
One of the greatest restrictions placed on women has been corsetry. Severe lacing restricts movement and can damage internal organs and impair health. Female emancipators of the early 20th century used pictures which showed the position of the female internal organs with and without corsetry. Pictures of deformed rib cages were also used illustrate how breathing was impaired. They used the evidence to support their arguments for condemning the corset. There is considerable thought that such images of wasp waist were enhanced by artistic licence.

Small waists did exist, but were usually on young girls and needed 'training'. Today when women take to corsets it can take about 2 years to achieve a gradually smaller waist using lacing methods. Goths are very fond of corsets in their fashion style.

The unnatural hourglass figure.
Images which suggested a woman's internal organs before and after restraining in tight corsetry in the Victorian era.




Recent medical examinations of females corseted today in actual Victorian corsets show how the women had no energy and lacked breath when given lung tests. Once the corset was undone the women felt energised again.

The test is not a fair test as women did not simply lace immediately to a 16 inch waist, they trained the waist over a period of years. Over 2 years a 22 inch waist can be gradually reduced to a handspan by gradual increments of the lacing. It would take about a year of not wearing a corset for the internal organs to settle back to the natural position. But back they would go.

First Corsets
Corseting has existed for thousands of years. The first recorded corset came from Crete. The Cretan woman stands proudly bare breasted and the corset is obviously a decorative part of her underwear. Madonna's imagery and use of bustiers is not new, it is merely a revived fashion which has had mass media coverage and so become universally adopted. However she was astute enough and clever enough to put the style across in the 1980s and make it her own in the 20th century.

Corsetry and body contouring is so important to fashion that we have a whole section devoted to undergarment history.


all information came from this site!
http://www.fashion-era.com/beauty_is_shape.htm

Wibbs

Bleedin hell *Page* fair bit of research there

*Page* wrote:

Obesity and Emaciation
Primitive peoples still gauge female beauty by sheer bulk and brides to be go through excessive fattening. Hottentot women are celebrated examples of women with excessive fat deposits in the buttocks.

In hottentot(more correctly Bushmen/women and some other african groups) a genetic trait called steatopygia causes accumulation of fat on the buttocks and thighs. IMHO it would be a local genetic difference that wouldn't have much bearing on attractiveness of body types worldwide. Even then their waist is smaller than their hips. Excessive guttage is considered unattractive in 99% of cultures.

The fattening up before marriage in these cultures is more to do with preparing for pregnancy. Food supplies can vary through the year so a heavier woman has more chance of carrying the baby to term, even if there's a short famine.

*Page* wrote:

Corseting has existed for thousands of years. The first recorded corset came from Crete. The Cretan woman stands proudly bare breasted and the corset is obviously a decorative part of her underwear.

Well it's not too clear if it's a corset in the restrictive sense that we think of today, but I take your point.

It also re-enforces the idea that from far back a waist smaller than the hips was desirable in women. Knocks the idea of fat Aphrodite etc into touch.

*Page*

it was a corset in the restrictive sense, have you ever wrn a corset?

do you know the difference between a corset and a Brassières?

Greek Corsetry
Greek women were corseted. Under the Greek Chiton a leather band style corset was worn and this gave definition to the hips and bust. From birth, girls were swaddled. For six months their arms and legs were bound in swaddling cloths restricting their movement and keeping limbs straight. Adolescent Greek girls were forced to keep trim. Their Greek mothers used woollen bands to keep the developing body slim.

*Page*

16th Century Iron Corsets
By the start of the16th century Spanish fashions influenced Italian and English ladies. An iron hinged armour like corset was worn to flatten the body giving a smooth outline beneath gowns. The iron corset must have been exceptionally uncomfortable and heavy to wear and could only have been worn by Elizabethan ladies not doing any form of heavy work. Their only benefit seems to be that they produced the incredibly small waisted, elongated flat chested smooth line torso. This was illustrated in paintings of great Elizabethan ladies wearing fabulous structured bejewelled gowns.

Corsets of the late 16th century would be more recognizable to us today than the iron version. These later corsets incorporated materials such as whalebone, bone, wood and flexible steel. The patterns on the corsets showed the placement of the chosen support and were elongated after a trend set by the boyish figure of Queen Elizabeth I.


will i carry on??

Scarinae

Chunky thighs&hips


Wide body


Check out the spare tyres

What I meant about the Aphrodite thing is that she is not as slim as the modern image of beauty, and she has weird-looking breasts in most representations of her

*Page*

sorry, but whats weird looking about her breasts?

Rozie

I define fat as when you notably have a round belly sticking out. That's what I was always taught was fat, what made sense to me to be fat, and what I continue to believe is "fat". Anything less is stocky or pudgy.

I adore the figures posted. I love those natural, not overbearing folds of fat.

kasintahan

I want to look something like this (Statue of David).
Only with smaller hands and larger knob.


I've less rigid designs for the ideal female.

dar83

Rozie wrote:

I adore the figures posted. I love those natural, not overbearing folds of fat.

Eugh.

Each to their own, but they're just one of the last signs of her letting herself go (too far), and a preview to the flab show to which you'll be the recipient if nothing is done about it soon.
Everyone gets them when they're sitting down to some extent, but when they persist when standing, thats when you know she's fat, and to me that is nowhere near attractive.

Zulu

Rozie wrote:

I define fat as when you notably have a round belly sticking out. That's what I was always taught was fat, what made sense to me to be fat, and what I continue to believe is "fat".

...well that certainly is fat...

Anything less is stocky or pudgy.

...and thats still unattractive.

I adore the figures posted. I love those natural, not overbearing folds of fat.

uggghh <shivers> "folds" of fat in any form are repulsive. I can only imagine they are the female equivalent to hairy sholders (or some such).

*Page*

kasintahan wrote:

I want to look something like this (Statue of David).
Only with smaller hands and larger knob.

.

wasnt david only 14 when that was done??

his body was undeveloped leaving his hands larger than they should be.
and other items smaller.

TerrorFirmer

*Page* wrote:

wasnt david only 14 when that was done??

his body was undeveloped leaving his hands larger than they should be.
and other items smaller.

I always wondered why he had such a small one...

Wibbs

*Page* wrote:

wasnt david only 14 when that was done??

his body was undeveloped leaving his hands larger than they should be.
and other items smaller.

I seem to remember that the hands and head are bigger because michelangelo took into account the angle that the viewer would see the statue (from below). It's a perspective thing apparently. Willy wise I'd reckon that was to keep the moral majority types happy at the time(or his patron had a small one).

do you know the difference between a corset and a Brassières?

Yea, the latter is easier to remove. Anyway by your research women from antiquity have sought to reduce the size of their waist as a small flat one was preferable to a fat one.

I adore the figures posted. I love those natural, not overbearing folds of fat.

Well the figures posted are a lot smaller than the woman in the website you posted before and held up as an example. They're in the heavier end of the healthy scale not clinically obese.

kasintahan

*Page* wrote:

wasnt david only 14 when that was done??

his body was undeveloped leaving his hands larger than they should be.
and other items smaller.

That would probably explain part of it.

But I do know from a miserable time studying art for the junior cert (years ago) that the hands & feet on paintings and sculptures are always represented disproportionally to the rest of the body. Something to do with psychological perception based on the number of nerve endings. Ever since then it's been annoying me.

Besides, I've never seen a 14 year old with arms and legs like that.

*Page*

david was bassed on one of the helpers for Michelangelo, so they would be well built and strong.

Velvet Vocals

Well, I'm about 5'7(ish) and a size 18 on the bottom and 16 on the top, but I think I look pretty good, people always say I carry it well and I never get any complaints from men, (or at least I never did before I met the love of my life and had interest in other men)
But I would like to come down to a size 12/14 combo and sometimes I see women with great figures and I just long to have one too. I don't know if that's just society's pressures making me long for that or if it's what I really want. I mean my weight is not at a point were my health is at risk or anything and I'm comfortable and I have nice clothes, but there are times when I find it hard to get a size in something I like or when I look in the mirror and just hate what I see.
For something that really should matter that much I seem to spend a huge amount of time thinking about it! :rolleyes:

Rozie

Zulu wrote:

...well that certainly is fat...

...and thats still unattractive.

uggghh <shivers> "folds" of fat in any form are repulsive. I can only imagine they are the female equivalent to hairy sholders (or some such).

Stocky and pudgy are just plain "Unattractive" now? I know each to his own, but that's just plain closed minded.

Rozie

dar83 wrote:

Eugh.

Each to their own, but they're just one of the last signs of her letting herself go (too far), and a preview to the flab show to which you'll be the recipient if nothing is done about it soon.
Everyone gets them when they're sitting down to some extent, but when they persist when standing, thats when you know she's fat, and to me that is nowhere near attractive.

That's hardly fat at all.... I like those folds because it shows there is actually SOME meat on her. Anything less is too thin to me, and not healthy.

dar83

Rozie wrote:

That's hardly fat at all.... I like those folds because it shows there is actually SOME meat on her. Anything less is too thin to me, and not healthy.

Hardly fat at all? :eek:

Its pure fat! Thats exactly what it is and why it looks like that.

If you find that attractive then fair enough, but dont try and say it isn't fat, because you just come across as ignorant/ close minded as you seem to find other people to be on the subject. :rolleyes:

Rozie

dar83 wrote:

Hardly fat at all? :eek:

Its pure fat! Thats exactly what it is and why it looks like that.

If you find that attractive then fair enough, but dont try and say it isn't fat, because you just come across as ignorant/ close minded as you seem to find other people to be on the subject. :rolleyes:

It isn't fat. I don't honestly know how you could think any amount of fat constitutes the person themselves to be labelled as "Fat". Just shows how much the media has affected you. I have more fat in my ass alone and most people I know don't consider me that fat.

Being closed minded is writing off anyone that doesn't fit the exact mould that society sets for them.

Did I say thin people couldn't be attractive? No. I just said it wasn't fair to write off larger women and it's mainly due to prejudice than actually not finding them attractice.

Do you even know what pictures I'm talking about...?

That woman you posted earlier is most certainly not fat. Full figured, yes, but fat, no. She doesn't have a round belly noticably sticking out, therefore, not fat.

Zulu

Rozie wrote:

Stocky and pudgy are just plain "Unattractive" now? I know each to his own, but that's just plain closed minded.

This is my opinion. That is what I find attractive/unattractive. Is it close minded? - Perhaps, but unfortunatly thats the nature of attraction.

Tell me; if you something repulsive, does that make you closed minded? (That appears to be your logic - sounds limited dosen't it? :rolleyes: )

Stocky and pudgy are unattractive traits, that dosen't mean you can't be attractive if you're pudgy, human attraction is a little more complex than that.

DAEDULUS

Full figured? bull****..She does have a noticable belly sticking out..and is probably,by bf% terms...boardering obesity..

Zulu

Rozie wrote:

That woman you posted earlier is most certainly not fat. Full figured, yes, but fat, no. She doesn't have a round belly noticably sticking out, therefore, not fat.

There's more to being fat that having a "round belly noticably sticking out". The pic you're talking about (of the lady wearing the bra at the top?), she was fat. When you have rolls standing up - you've got fat.