Shocked by body image confessions

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Well I don't care how hot a guy is, if he's dumb or a jerk he's not attractive in my eyes. But I was referring to the impression that it is still considered far more important (in terms of attractiveness) for a woman to be good looking rather than smart or having a great personality.
 
MrsSpringsteen said:
Well I don't care how hot a guy is, if he's dumb or a jerk he's not attractive in my eyes. But I was referring to the impression that it is still considered far more important (in terms of attractiveness) for a woman to be good looking rather than smart or having a great personality.



i'm not sure i'd agree there -- i think that it's fair to say that women are under more pressure to look good than men are, and that men are under more pressure to be "successful" than women are.

of course, as a gay man, i get pressure to be both.

so i am fully sympathetic to the unreasonable pressures put on women, as well as to the pressures put on men.
 
Irvine511 said:

i'm not sure i'd agree there -- i think that it's fair to say that women are under more pressure to look good than men are, and that men are under more pressure to be "successful" than women are.

Well I'd agree with that, I don't see how what I said contradicts that or how we're disagreeing :huh: :wink:
 
MrsSpringsteen said:
I have to wonder why some people seem to think that everything is ultimately all about how a woman looks-so in other words a guy can be a mess but if he's "successful" he's attractive to women? But a woman's success (and intellect) means nothing if she's not physically attractive/beautiful? :hmm: And some people have way too much confidence, baby. That's very unattractive to many people.

It works both ways. I've heard just as many men rightfully complain about how some women expect them to have well-paying jobs (or be on a future path to one) and drive nice cars otherwise they do not get the time of day.

Shallow, insecure people operate at this superficial level - truly smart, confident people of both genders do not.

Truly confident people are also not generally overly arrogant, obnoxious or aggressive.
 
MrsSpringsteen said:


Well I'd agree with that, I don't see how what I said contradicts that or how we're disagreeing :huh: :wink:



i don't think we're disagreeing, i just think that men and women are under pressure to conform to different, but equally destructive, gender-based expectations.
 
AliEnvy said:
Shallow, insecure people operate at this superficial level - truly smart, confident people of both genders do not.
I agree completely, but at the end of the day we're still left to contend with the influence of socialization and received messages about ideals, as the original post in this thread underlines. I think most would say in the abstract that of course the size of one's hips or one's paycheck should make no difference in how worthy and appealing you are as a human being--but that doesn't stop most of us from getting hung up to some degree or another on such self-doubts from time to time, nor from having to work at it to unlearn the inclination to feel more approving (or by the same token, envious) towards people who seem closer to the ideal somehow. Very few people have the kind of watertight self-confidence that keeps them from getting preoccupied with these kinds of reproach.
 
yolland said:
--but that doesn't stop most of us from getting hung up to some degree or another on such self-doubts from time to time, nor from having to work at it to unlearn the inclination to feel more approving (or by the same token, envious) towards people who seem closer to the ideal somehow.

That's for sure! But I guess there's a big difference in getting hung up from time to time as we all do versus an ongoing, self-destructive obsession with (mis)perceived inadequacies.
 
I just remembered reading this last week

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15160230/

"However complicated body-image issues are for men, it seems they will always be more fraught for women.

“For boys and men, engaging with these media images is more of a choice,” says Deborah Tolman of the Center for Research on Gender and Sexuality in San Francisco. “There’s just not the same requirement for a man in our society to look a particular way. As a man, you can look terrible and still be very well respected.”

As a girl, “you can be the best debater at school,” Tolman says. “But if you’re fat, you don’t get people’s admiration, despite your skill. That’s not true with boys.”


I think that is in line with what I was trying to say, and sadly it is true. I'd say if you're "fat" or not considered pretty/beautiful by the majority and/or by societal standards.
 
Irvine511 said:


doesn't the opposite hold true, too? men can be hot, but if they're dumb/unsuccessful, how attractive are they to women?
in real life, probably not very.

but, and i'm not saying these emulate real life in ANY way, if you've seen shows like 'king of queens' or that one with jim belushi, or even the simpsons, or family guy, or heck, even the flintstones - there are countless examples of the media portraying such couples, where the wife is slim and pretty and the husband is an oafish, unsuccessful lout. if you were to believe what you see on tv, and i'm not saying i do, you would see that it's absolutely unacceptable for a woman to appear average-looking, while it's quite acceptable for a man to not only be average-looking, but downright unattractive.

it's the stuff beer commercials are made of.

and somehow we have to stop ourselves from subconciously internalizing these messages. but how?
 
lmjhitman said:

in real life, probably not very.

but, and i'm not saying these emulate real life in ANY way, if you've seen shows like 'king of queens' or that one with jim belushi, or even the simpsons, or family guy, or heck, even the flintstones - there are countless examples of the media portraying such couples, where the wife is slim and pretty and the husband is an oafish, unsuccessful lout. if you were to believe what you see on tv, and i'm not saying i do, you would see that it's absolutely unacceptable for a woman to appear average-looking, while it's quite acceptable for a man to not only be average-looking, but downright unattractive.

it's the stuff beer commercials are made of.

and somehow we have to stop ourselves from subconciously internalizing these messages. but how?



very good points -- though i would argue that, in real life, men's success is much, much more important than it appears on these sitcoms.

though it's very true -- straight men are expected to be idiots on TV.
 
The threesome fantasy on Grey's Anatomy comes to mind lol.

Although generally speaking, all the usual and retarded gender stereotypes are abundant in that show.

I love the Dove marketing campaign for real beauty. Buy Dove products :up:

I agree Mrs.S, women are the ones burdened with body image issues, but I wouldn't say that discounts the pressure on men to adhere to a distorted notion of being successful...one aspect of which is either scoring a hottie or marrying a trophy wife. It's a vicious cycle.
 
Irvine511 said:

think that it's fair to say that women are under more pressure to look good than men are

I disagree. I think men face the same amount of pressure to be good-looking. It's just that the standards for men to be "good looking" aren't nearly as outrageous and hyper-sexualized as they are for women. Plus, it's physically far easier for men to shed weight and get sculpted than it is for women, and it seems many of them are less affected by things like acne. My little brother had some of the worst acne I've ever seen, yet tons of people always asked me if he was single or tell me how hot he is.
 
actually, i disagree with that.

i think, in general, men are able to overcome not being good-looking by being wealthy or powerful or athletic or, ehm, a rockstar, or even just by being funny or sweet.

for women, it's be pretty or go home. no amount of money, power, or charisma makes a woman attractive, to the general population that is.
 
this may sound like a stupid question, but i don't mean it to be...

is there any research about wether or not the same thing happen in the animal kingdom... i.e. being attracted to better looking, more fit, and/or pack leader, king, whatever, etc. type of thing?

i know certain animals will, um, procreate with anything that walks by... but then again, so will some humans...
 
On a related note, my coworkers and I were discussing at lunch today how it's more common to see a good looking girl with an unattractive guy than an attractive guy with an average or unattractive girl.

For the record, it was one of my male coworkers who brought this up.
 
lmjhitman said:
actually, i disagree with that.

i think, in general, men are able to overcome not being good-looking by being wealthy or powerful or athletic or, ehm, a rockstar, or even just by being funny or sweet.

for women, it's be pretty or go home. no amount of money, power, or charisma makes a woman attractive, to the general population that is.
I disagree too, although I'm not sure I fully understood, Lies, quite what you're suggesting, since to my ear your qualification that men's standards "aren't nearly as outrageous and hyper-sexualized" seems to contradict your assessment that the amount of pressure is the same.

I do think it's important though to keep in mind that we're talking about these pressures as individual men and women experience them, which isn't necessarily the same as how others (particularly of the opposite sex) imagine the pressures on said individuals to be. I know plenty of female academics who feel quite pleased with their professional achievements but regularly beat up on themselves for not being attractive enough, and I know plenty of male academics who seldom despair over their appearance but see themselves as losers compared to their (male) friends who've made much more money in other careers. I wouldn't say most in either group dwell on these things to the point where it just cripples them emotionally, but both kinds of pain are real, and both seem pretty sad and wasteful from my POV. In neither case are these self-perceptions in line with how most students and colleagues of these folks actually perceive them--I don't look at the woman whose office is next to mine and think, "Great teacher eval scores, shame about the legs," nor do I look at the man whose office is next to mine and think, "That article he just published was great, but what a loser, barely supporting his family on that pathetic 30K income." I know for a fact that they have these thoughts about themselves, though, and I also know for a fact that both have family members who lecture them for these "failings." They shouldn't listen to them, and most of the time they do argue back, but unfortunately they've internalized these voices (and others) to the point that it melds with their own sometimes.

But again, I find it particularly upsetting when verbalizing these kinds of sentiments becomes some kind of social rite of passage--"let's all sit around bemoaning how inadequate and unworthy we are". It's good to be able to express your feelings, many men in particular don't do it enough, and if my sense in a given situation is that here's someone opening up about things that trouble them deeply and seeking advice and support, then of course I'm going to listen sympathetically and offer what help I can. But collective self-loathing isn't always therapeutic and, IMHO, sometimes it's better to encourage everyone to stop fixating on imagined inadequacies and talk about more positive things instead. We're all going to succumb to invidiously comparing ourselves to ideals from time to time, but like Lies said earlier, ultimately you DO have a choice not to drive yourself into a tailspin over it. It simply isn't true that no one will love, respect or admire you because of these "failings"--yes, some will be shallow or thoughtless or just plain blind enough to do so, and the incentives from media and elsewhere to compare yourself to the Rich and the Beautiful aren't likely to disappear anytime soon, but that doesn't mean you have to listen, and you shouldn't.
 
Headache in a Suitcase said:
this may sound like a stupid question, but i don't mean it to be...

is there any research about wether or not the same thing happen in the animal kingdom... i.e. being attracted to better looking, more fit, and/or pack leader, king, whatever, etc. type of thing?

i know certain animals will, um, procreate with anything that walks by... but then again, so will some humans...

I'm sure there has to be. Many male animals look different than the females for no other reason than to attract females. I can think of many birds and fish species where the male has crazy colors and patterns and strange ways of displaying themselves, just to attract the female.
 
yolland said:

I disagree too, although I'm not sure I fully understood, Lies, quite what you're suggesting, since to my ear your qualification that men's standards "aren't nearly as outrageous and hyper-sexualized" seems to contradict your assessment that the amount of pressure is the same

Yeah, I can see how what I said might not make sense. I'll try to explain it better. I maintain that in my experience, it's just as important for a man to be "hot" or "good-looking" than women. But the desired standard of "hotness" for women is like a physically unachievable body proportion. "Hot" men have nice smiles, bright eyes, groomed hair, buff arms, and six-pack abs. It's not really THAT difficult for a guy to achieve this, just by working out and keeping himself clean. Like I said, for years girls have come to me to ask how they can get with my brother and to say how hot he is. My brother shops at Goodwill, he doesn't work out ever (he works construction), and he's got acne. Now for me to get to the point where I felt as "hot" as what the guys I met in college were looking for, I'd literally have to starve myself, spend 5 hours a day in the gym, and spend hundreds of dollars on prescription meds for my face/skin. So, while I spend money on trndy clothes, spend time in front of the mirror doing hair and makeup, spend time working out, I'm not nearly as close to the "hot" ideal for my gender as my brother is to his and he does nothing. Basically, I feel that the capacity for a guy to be "hot" is actually what in psychology they call "perfectly average", whereas a "hot" woman is a very unrealistic, unhealthy ideal.

I think that the expectation for members of each sex to meet the ideal for their sex can be the same, even if the ideals themselves are not. Does that make sense? I guess I'm speaking more in terms of expectations of the other sex and not so much on the pressure that people actually feel.
 
Headache in a Suitcase said:
this may sound like a stupid question, but i don't mean it to be...

is there any research about wether or not the same thing happen in the animal kingdom... i.e. being attracted to better looking, more fit, and/or pack leader, king, whatever, etc. type of thing?

i know certain animals will, um, procreate with anything that walks by... but then again, so will some humans...
Oh yes, sexual selection is a tremendous factor in the animal kingdom - the classic example is the peacock using elaborate plumage to attract the peahen but it may also have cues in human attraction.

The traits that we consider attractive are related to reproductive fitness - so clear youthful complexion, facial symmetry, 0.7 hip to waist ratio and sexual dimorphism in women are positively selected for. It is no coincidence that human females have enlarged breasts relative to other primates, they are a secondary sexual character.
 
LivLuvAndBootlegMusic said:

"Hot" men have nice smiles, bright eyes, groomed hair, buff arms, and six-pack abs. It's not really THAT difficult for a guy to achieve this, just by working out and keeping himself clean.



i will say that, in general you're right, but there are certainly exceptions.

there was a point in time when i was swimming 10 workouts a week, at 2 hours a pop, and i never looked quite like Michael Phelps. not even close. yes, i was robust and athletic and still have the shoulders, but i never ever looked like this, despite my best efforts:

phelps.jpg


so ... well, not totally sure what my point is, since one not need to look like an olympic swimmer to be "hot," but i suppose i am saying that despite our best efforts, despite our irrational efforts (just who has time to swim 20 hours a week?), not all men are going to get anywhere near what is considered an ideal male figure.
 
Well, if it makes you feel any better, I've always felt Michael Phelps' body is a little over the top.

And going along with my point, I pic-googled "hot guy" and several of the first images looked exactly like 2/3 of the guys in my high school class. :shrug: Then I pic-googled "hot girl" and most of the first images were anorexic looking girls or pornographic poses. It seems that the ideal for women is far more polarized and sexualized than that of men.

Why this is, I don't really know...
 
That may be more of a terminology issue--"hot girl" tends to be an online code word for "masturbation material," while "hot guy" is just as likely to mean "dude I've got a crush on." :hmm: Which in a sense probably helps to explain the "more sexualized" part...although it's a mistake, I think, to completely conflate sex fantasy imagery with "beauty" ideals.
 
Hmmm, unfortunately changing the terminology to "attractive girl" yields the same results - walking skelatons, lots of boobs and nipples, and plenty of busty blondes in stripper outfits.

The one thing I do notice is that the images from the word "attractive" are mostly from girls' Internet profiles of themselves, like they're using a more tasteful word but playing into the same old stereotype.
 
First a shout-out to Irvine. . .love that song. . . "Paradise City"

I just now noticed the irony of commenting on a song that contains the line in the chorus "Take me down to the Paradise City where the girls are pretty. . . ." That wasn't intentional.

I've been lurking on this thread for awhile but I guess I'm ready to "weigh in."

I see what Lies is saying but draw different conclusions, I think. First off I'm not sure the standard for male "hotness" is as quite as high for most women as she suggest (at least I hope not since I once worked out with weights six days a week for about a year and only got up to 133 lbs. No six pack, no buff arms. And as for "groomed hair", I'm not sure that dreads count. I've been told I have the bright eyes though.) I think it's mabye a little lower and I think that this lower "hotness" standard means that physical attractiveness is less important to women than it is to men.

I've heard my wife and other women comment about a guy that "he's not really that great looking but I was attracted to him anyway because he's a nice, funny, charming, etc." In my experience, guys don't really think that way. A guy is not going to say "she's not that great looking but I was attracted to her anyway." Physical attraction is always a huge factor for men in initial attraction, AND if a guy doesn't percieve a woman is attractive initially he will BEGIN to percieve her that way as interest grows and develops. I think it's just the way men are built.

However, I also think that most men have a much broader standard for what they find attractive in a woman than women do for themselves (and certainly much broader than examples held up by the media). I think that if a guy is attracted to woman it also means he thinks she's "hot." I for one tend to find that most women are beautiful each in their own way. I think a woman's intelligence, personality, personal style etc do a lot to enhance her PHYSICAL attractiveness.
 
LivLuvAndBootlegMusic said:


And going along with my point, I pic-googled "hot guy" and several of the first images looked exactly like 2/3 of the guys in my high school class. :shrug: Then I pic-googled "hot girl" and most of the first images were anorexic looking girls or pornographic poses.

here are the first two google images I got

mantrav-hot-guy.jpg
hot_guy_on_josh_and_josh.jpg
HOT-girl.jpg
51099-One-hot-girl-0.jpg
 
AliEnvy said:



Truly confident people are also not generally overly arrogant, obnoxious or aggressive.

I think that this is the conventional wisdom, but I don't think it's always true.

I believe there are plenty truly confident people who are overly arrogant, obnoxious, and aggressive. I read recently that many bullies actually have great self-esteem, despite the stereotype of the bully who pushes others around out of insecurity.

There are those who bully just because they can and because it's fun.
 
LivLuvAndBootlegMusic said:


Why this is, I don't really know...

As I suggested in my earlier post, I think it's because physical attractiveness is a bigger part of sexual attraction for men than it is for women. That reality is obviously exploited for profit in our society all the time.
 
maycocksean said:


As I suggested in my earlier post, I think it's because physical attractiveness is a bigger part of sexual attraction for men than it is for women. That reality is obviously exploited for profit in our society all the time.

But then I wonder why women spend so much time, money, and energy obsessing over it. Do we really care that much about how sexually desirable we are to guys?

I think a lot of women use the same standards to judge each other, unfortunately. I don't know about the rest of the women here, but when I was in high school and college, I didn't give a flying fuck what the popular jock guys thought of me. The people I listened to, the people who could really hurt me were my closest friends - other young women.
 
This discussion is great, but i want to bring in one of my original points again. I understand the whole 'got to be beautiful to be worth something', but my point is, these girls ARE beautiful. They are all slim (and slim is beautiful as we are told a million times!) they earn nice money, and dress really well, have impeccable makeup, beautiful smiles, not "physical" defects, healthy hair, bright eyes etc etc. They may not be models (though models today, i think are quirky and not beautiful) but they are all quite stunning in their own way. So you think this would then give them a healthy self esteem. That they would feel worthy of attention, and when looking in the mirror be happy with what they see, but they DON'T.

It just shows that even women who are seen as an ideal beauty in today's world can not be happy. And its scary to think that people spend their lives dieting and killing themselves to get to an 'ideal' but then...when you get there...you're not happy. So where do you go?

See i dont have an ideal body shape. I'm 6 foot 1, solid build, too tall for any clothes to fit me properly without my tummy or ass hanging out of things, and i dont really dress like a girly girl. I am ignored by guys looking for their ideal look, and frankly, im happy with that. I dont want to be with someone who is obsessed with looks and wants some eye candy on his arm. I love who i am, am happy in my life, and enjoy what i do. Yes i have a boyfriend who loves me, but i was like this before him and it just makes me wonder, that someone like me, who is seen to be "imprefect" in the beautiful standards, can be happy, and someone who ticks all the boxes can feel such self doubt and hatred.

Why is this?
 
Back
Top Bottom