Skinnyness obsession AGAIN

They did it again! They freakin' did it again! They're still doing it!

Most of you probably remember me screaming and jumping up and down about


They did another one, just as dumb:


Wait, you may say, that's not quite as dumb. The Before has a muffin-top that the After eliminated.

That's just because they put her in pants that are too tight. As my counter-argument, I call your attention to the fact that in the After shot she's saying "Please don't notice I had to flatten my chest in order to flatten my stomach." Once again, that photo could be of a guy and you wouldn't know the difference. The Before photo is far more feminine.

Women of the world, if you want to be sexy, do not eliminate your boobies! Round boobies are better than flat stomachs!
That's all I had to say, really. You may go on about your business.

I am seconding this message wholeheartedly. Nice boobs are a wonderful thing. Looking like a pre-teen boy is not.

Oh for ******* *** ****! [edit: I censored out the bad words I'd put in, G.]
It's not even funny anymore.

How many of these are there? It's already flat! It's totally flat! Can anyone in their right mind look at that first picture and...

Meh. Never mind. I've said all there is to say and anything I say would just distract from the abject stupidity.

She lost two whole pounds off her stomach?

I have SHOES that way more than that.

I had an MSN page up awhile ago that had 5 different OBEY ads on it. It was still during Bush's time in pffice and I was reading a political article and it was kind of off putting to keep seeing OBEY all over the page =)

PorcelainPirate wrote:

I am seconding this message wholeheartedly. Nice boobs are a wonderful thing. Looking like a pre-teen boy is not.

Unless one happens to be a pre teen boy. In which case having a fine set of boobs can cause no end of problems.


But yes, Huzzah for curves on ladies!!

Taraiha wrote:

She lost two whole pounds off her stomach?

I have SHOES that way more than that.

If I threw my Rocks away I could easily lose about 5lbs if not more.

These adverts anger me - it's okay for guys to carry a little extra weight but not girls? Pah!

That always bothered me, too. Especially when you have a pear-shaped, bald fellow critiquing the physiques of females.

Okay, now there are enough innuendos in there to choke a werewolf, but my point stands. Looks aren't everything, granted, and balding isn't necessarily a bad thing - but physique (with far fewer exceptions out there than are actually claimed) is controllable. If you're going to insist others stay in shape, you must first do likewise.

And the double-standards between masculine and feminine beauty really does bother me.

For a woman to be presentable, she needs:
Makeup
Impossible to walk in shoes
Styled hair
Tasteful jewelry
Color coordinated baggage of some sort (purse or something)
Full-body shave (or worse)

For a man to be presentable, he needs:
Shower
Recently laundered t-shirt.

How did this all happen, now?

Although I do maintain that the roles are reversed for formal attire. A tux has... let me see... 13 articles I consider indispensable (not counting functional jewelry (cufflinks, etc.)) and easily 18 to do it right.

Formal feminine attire (again not counting jewelry) has... 8, that I can count off the top of my head, and that's allowing for separate stockings, a bra, and a corset (thinking underbust, naturally). I always thought that was kind of unfair. It seems the male idea of formal is to pile on as many layers of fabric as the human frame can support, whereas the female idea is to use light fabric and snip away as much of it as is legal.

Again, just seems kind of strange.

I'm assuming this is because men like the sight of skin on women whereas women are indifferent at best to it on men, but that's only a hypothesis.

No, I have to say I generally prefer skin on a man.

It makes a pulpy mess all over the carpet otherwise.

Yes you're very cute and clever.

What of the SIGHT of skin on a man? My point is that the point of male formals appears to be to cover the stuff up, whereas female ... clothing in general, formal or not, often strives to demonstrate that it goes all the way 'round, and provide indirect evidence.

Its just because the people that came up with what was exceptible to wear were those kind of people who spend their free time finding ways to piss people off. they just wanted another reason to stare at chicks so they said it was only exceptible to wear as little clothing as physically possible.

Gomez wrote:

Yes you're very cute and clever.

What of the SIGHT of skin on a man? My point is that the point of male formals appears to be to cover the stuff up, whereas female ... clothing in general, formal or not, often strives to demonstrate that it goes all the way 'round, and provide indirect evidence.

Depends entirely on the man, but I personally prefer a bit of skin to stuffy formal clothing, especially if there's tattoos involved. As long they don't look like a step-in for Jabba the hut. And for me that cuts both ways, because there is a point where women and skimpy outfits should only happen in the privacy of your own home.

Onyx, in my studies of human culture, I've found that such codes of conduct as appropriate dress evolve over time, and certainly weren't the result of a committee of particularly lust-crazed men saying 'hmm, let's make women's clothes skimpy for our carnal pleasure'.

Oh, and to see how much we can piss them off, of course.

Unless you're making a more generalised attack on the patriarchal nature of our culture? That's something I love debating, if you're interested



I have to say, in formal settings, I like my men nicely covered up, please. But then, I'm a sucker for high formality and any excuse for decadence!

PorcelainPirate wrote:

Onyx, in my studies of human culture, I've found that such codes of conduct as appropriate dress evolve over time, and certainly weren't the result of a committee of particularly lust-crazed men saying 'hmm, let's make women's clothes skimpy for our carnal pleasure'.

Umm, actually that's exactly what happened. I did warn the Illuminati that it was a bad idea to hold a conclave after they'd been drinking, but as usual no-one listened. That's the problem with them, they think they know everything...

EvilHippyEmperor wrote:

Umm, actually that's exactly what happened. I did warn the Illuminati that it was a bad idea to hold a conclave after they'd been drinking, but as usual no-one listened. That's the problem with them, they think they know everything...

And then there was murder. It's a sinister plot with angry feminists. And one we should probably get the movie rights to fast!

I think Dan Brown has already beaten us to it. Although he did also throw inthe Catholic Church from force of habit...

Intentional pun or not?

PorcelainPirate wrote:

Unless you're making a more generalised attack on the patriarchal nature of our culture? That's something I love debating, if you're interested

Actually i was referencing the patriarchal nature of our culture. its just a few pet peeve of mine that even in today's modern society men still pretty much control it.

Start a thread if you want to discuss it