# Fat shaming and Marilyn Monroe



## quantumbits (Feb 20, 2017)

I wanted to make a thread about this because I've seen it now and then. Someone like Marilyn Monroe, weight-wise, is apparently fat. These same people usually conclude thigh gap has to be a mile wide to not be fat shamed.

Lets look at the facts. She was born in 1926. Some weight measurements here:
http://themarilynmonroecollection.com/marilyn-monroe-true-size/

From the website (I show the estimated BMI below the stats):

August 2, 1945
Blue Book Modeling Agency
5’ 6”, 120lbs
36-24-34
“Size 12”
** Estimated BMI: 20 (19.6) (very low-normal)*


February 8, 1954
DOD ID Card
5’ 5 1/2”, 118lbs
** Estimated BMI: 19 (19.3) (very low-normal)*

August 5, 1962
LA Coroner Medical Report
5’ 5 1/25”, 117lbs
** Estimated BMI: 19 (19.2) (very low-normal)*

It's estimated when she did Some LIke it Hot she was approaching 130 or 140, her highest weight.
Year: 1958
5'5 1/2, 140
** Estimated BMI: 23 (22.9) (normal)

NOTE: I use the word "normal" loosely. It's only useful with context to the normal weight range (19 to 25).
* 
What's not said in her BMI is she weight lifted. She possibly had more muscle than normal. Her BMI is exaggerated.

Either way, she was not even close to being even slightly overweight.

Ok so does anybody know what's causing the fat obsession? Why is thigh gap so important to young girls? As a guy, I just don't understand it. It's unattractive and probably unhealthy. And what of the modeling agencies. The runway business will literally kick you out of work if your BMI goes above ~18 because you're too fat. Fat for them, but very low weight for the rest of us. Discuss.
[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4hEMv9QUIzE[/ame]
[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jh708VYyCR8[/ame]


----------



## quantumbits (Feb 20, 2017)

Adverse Effects of the Media Portrayed Thin-Ideal on Women and Linkages to Bulimic Symptomatology | Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology:
http://guilfordjournals.com/doi/abs/10.1521/jscp.1994.13.3.288?journalCode=jscp&


> Sociocultural factors are thought to play a central role in the promotion and maintenance of eating disorders. These sociocultural pressures include the ultra-slender ideal-body image (or thin-ideal) espoused for women in Western cultures, the centrality of appearance in the female gender-role, and the importance of appearance for women's societal success (Stice, in press; Striegel-Moore, Silberstein, & Rodin, 1986). According to the sociocultural model of bulimia, eating disorders are a product of the increasing pressures for women in our society to achieve an ultra-slender body (Wilsdon & Eldredge, 1992). This societal obsession with weight is so ubiquitous that a moderate degree of body dissatisfaction is currently normative among women...


----------



## Maddog (Feb 24, 2017)

I agree, Marilyn also looked much better than many of the thin girls you see today. I'm always wondering why society has moved in this direction.


----------



## TwoSwords (Feb 26, 2017)

Yes, Miss Monroe was prettier than modern-day models, though I always found the Muriel Landers type more fetching.


----------



## waldo (Feb 26, 2017)

The abnormal thinness of most high fashion models and many women in the entertainment industry is an ongoing problem that most everyone in general society seems to understand is ridiculous. 

The more insidious problem that I see is the current general response by many to those who are more than just a little into the double digit dress size range. The primary example I would cite is the response to incorporation of real plus size models by Sports Illustrated Swimsuit edition with Ashley Graham (about size 14-16) featured last year, and now this year the even larger Hunter McGrady (size 18-20?). What I am observing in the comments to articles about these models and other online sources is a virulent strain of fat-loathing from men who claim to like a 'full bodied' woman but have some VERY RIGID cut-off, upon which any woman who is above that range automatically becomes not only unattractive to them but (in their twisted minds) defective people who are fully deserving of derision. It seems a woman needs to be in the size 4-12 range to be considered healthy and worthy of male attention. They really tend to harp on the word healthy A LOT.

Part of this may be a push-back to feminism gone too far where some women often complain when they objectified and then complain when they aren't praised as beautiful. My personal theory is that a lot of these young men are as mixed up and lacking in confidence, regarding how they want to be perceived and 'valued' by their peers on their choice of female companion as young women are about their own body image. So they are very vulnerable to these kind of intolerant messages from walking garbage like Steven Crowder and his ilk.


----------



## landshark (Feb 27, 2017)

I wonder if the trend in the fashion industry is maybe an overcorrection to the growing number of women with growing waistlines. I wasn't around in the 50s and 60s but know we weren't as hefty then as we are now. it seems the industry makes every effort to project their models as everything the everyday woman is not. This is a little ironic because they really don't have to go to the extremes they do, and they'd still have a pretty clear distinction between any given model and any given soccer mom or housewife these days. That they push these models to ridiculous levels is just an exclamation point and seems to underscore the contempt in the industry (and the public in general to a lesser extent) for overweight women.


----------



## quantumbits (Apr 6, 2017)

My thinking is this is about control and natural instinct. Woman want to be in control of their lives. The feminism movement is an outgrowth of this urging. One of hte components they want to control is sexual desire from the opposite sex. This is why sexual objectification is so important to them. This is added to their instinct. Their instinct is to be beautiful--for whatever reason. But how do you be beautiful and remain in control? This is their struggle, since traditional beauty and sexual objectification are intertwined.

What they're trying to do--I think--is put the focus on career, even at the cost of broken marriages and childless lives. Nobody will try to stop that, since we all believe in pursuing career and ambition. They flank their "enemy" by ridiculing men who show sexual interest and by adopting unusual or non-sexual appearance. We already see the ridicule. You just look at a woman now and it's sexual harassment. If you accidentally touch her? You're a rapist. One of the ways they might change their appearance is to be very very skinny. Another is to be very very fat. Another is to dress like a man or in agender clothing. This will turn away most men with less effort.

Feminism is a purpose. All people want to be independent, including woman. In the past, woman are almost exclusively housewives. Divorce was lower and it was hard for woman to be alone. They were treated unfairly and objectified in movies and print. They couldn't vote in national elections until 1920 and participation in polling wasn't equal until 1980. They entered the work force in large numbers during world war 2, but it declined after and even by 1960 the civilian labor force participation rate for woman was only 37.7%. By contrast, it was 83.3% for men. That's a big difference compared to now. In 2010, for men it was 72.6%, for woman 59.7%.

We're breaking away from our sexual characteristics and traditional boundaries. Eventually we won't even be human. And the ball buster is if we can't let go of the past quickly enough, the machines/AI may overtake us and leave us behind. Unlike us, the developing machines/AI have no emotional or mental obligation to the past. Change seems to be the only certainty.

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AshgnlXe1eQ[/ame]


----------



## TwoSwords (Apr 6, 2017)

quantumbits said:


> My thinking is this is about control and natural instinct. Woman want to be in control of their lives. The feminism movement is an outgrowth of this urging. One of hte components they want to control is sexual desire from the opposite sex. This is why sexual objectification is so important to them. This is added to their instinct. Their instinct is to be beautiful--for whatever reason. But how do you be beautiful and remain in control? This is their struggle, since traditional beauty and sexual objectification are intertwined.



Keep in mind, the current understanding of "objectification" has been so muddied, that it's now hard to tell where beauty ends and "objectification" begins. Because of this confusion over terms, men are frequently frowned upon for expressing *any* overt appreciation of beauty, which has *never* been the case before, at any point in human history. People used to enjoy beauty together, as part of normal life.



quantumbits said:


> What they're trying to do--I think--is put the focus on career, even at the cost of broken marriages and childless lives. Nobody will try to stop that, since we all believe in pursuing career and ambition.



The problem isn't that we'll try to stop them. We obviously won't. The problem is that what we call "career" is actually a struggle for survival, and while, yes, women can participate in that struggle, the same as men, there's *nothing* romantic or endearing about struggling to survive.



quantumbits said:


> They flank their "enemy" by ridiculing men who show sexual interest and by adopting unusual or non-sexual appearance. We already see the ridicule. You just look at a woman now and it's sexual harassment. If you accidentally touch her? You're a rapist. One of the ways they might change their appearance is to be very very skinny. Another is to be very very fat. Another is to dress like a man or in agender clothing. This will turn away most men with less effort.



I've always found the phrase "turn around and keep moving" to be pretty effective at that, and to require less overall effort and prep time.

Really, this whole issue can be summed up thus...

Some people wanted more control over their lives and relationships, and control is the opposite of love.


----------



## quantumbits (Apr 6, 2017)

I don't know what to think TwoSwords. Like any retard, I have opinions and throw them around carelessly.

I'll offer another idea. Maybe all of this is an offshoot of continued first world development? With more focus on education and career, family and child rearing and sexual characteristics are all being balled up and streamlined. There's just not enough time for everything. And this world is so different from what it used to be. You can't mix and match things freely and expect no trouble. Career and education being as important as they're, who can be blamed for favoring them over sexual attraction or parental responsibility?

I could foresee a day when our children are essentially owned by the government. Present day conditions whereby woman and men are still substantially different will be gone. However, genderless emergent differences in body and mind will occur. What will they be? Nobody knows. That's why the future is so interesting. Because try as we might, we'll never outguess it.


----------



## TwoSwords (Apr 6, 2017)

quantumbits said:


> I'll offer another idea. Maybe all of this is an offshoot of continued first world development? With more focus on education and career, family and child rearing and sexual characteristics are all being balled up and streamlined. There's just not enough time for everything.



One way to test this idea would be to observe another society where progressive development and focus on career is stressed to the exclusion of healthy family life; Japan. The difference is that, in Japan, this hasn't made feminism or the abandonment of children or family bonds any more attractive. Instead, it's made men more likely to be reclusive and disinterested in real, intimate relationships as a whole. Yes, women are picky in Japan, but you get some of that everywhere.



quantumbits said:


> And this world is so different from what it used to be. You can't just mix and match things without breaking the system fundamentally. Career and education being as important as they're, who can be blamed for favoring them over sexual attraction or parental responsibility?



Past a certain point, the individual has little choice. You've got to have a job if you want to live; often more than one. I think many factors play into this; sexual impulsiveness, divorce, irresponsibility in money matters, various incorrect world views and expectations of what life will be like, etc... However, I do agree that trying to modify the human condition to fix things frequently only makes things worse. Chesterton wrote, in his book on what's wrong with the world, that the problem is people keep trying to change human nature, to conform to their pre-constructed social systems, rather than shaping their systems around, and in conformity to, human nature, and I basically agree.


----------



## quantumbits (Jun 4, 2017)

TwoSwords, Japan's birth rate is very low. They're contemplating how to care for their elderly with so many of them. I'd argue the tendency of first world nations to have low birth rates is a evidence of taking from one to give to another.

Birth rate:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...t-children-demographic-timebomb-a7678116.html

Birth rate in first world:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/curren...countries-declining-birth-rates/#3f139e323641

Another thin to look at is the divorce graph:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...d-states-in-one-chart/?utm_term=.4234bb76b357

Marriages are now at their lowest in recorded US history. Divorces ,ogjt mean broken families. It's possible this impacts children. 

This is only true for sinlge parent families, but I think ti's worth bringing forward:
https://ifstudies.org/blog/children...-are-more-likely-to-witness-domestic-violence

There's also a "fatherless" problem:
http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-soc-071312-145704

The combination of broken family and tighter economy might make it worse. Government will want to help. This is why I say the government will intervene in early childhood and later development to ensure strong citizenry.

We likely can't go back. Teh family has to continue to evolve:
http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2015/12/17/1-the-american-family-today/

We streamline something when we're trying to conserve resources. We target things of low or decreasing priority. I'm not saying reproduction or family have a low priority. Rather I"m saying, in contrast to other things, their priority is falling.

I don't think woman or men are bad for trying to be independent. I think what's happening is natural. I think our civilization is trying to figure things out. Life is an experiment. It's trial and error. Things are evolving every day.


----------



## TwoSwords (Jun 4, 2017)

quantumbits said:


> TwoSwords, Japan's birth rate is very low. They're contemplating how to care for their elderly with so many of them. I'd argue the tendency of first world nations to have low birth rates is a evidence of taking from one to give to another.



If, by this, you mean "taking time/resources away from people's family lives to give to their professional lives," then yes; that's exactly what I was trying to express.



quantumbits said:


> Marriages are now at their lowest in recorded US history. Divorces ,ogjt mean broken families. It's possible this impacts children.



If I were to give you a list of all the reasons behind this, I'd probably get banned. Let's just say that it can all be traced back to the trivializing of the marriage, and the sexual union in general, which, in turn, can be traced back to a certain invention in 1930, and its acceptance in England.



quantumbits said:


> The combination of broken family and tighter economy might make it worse. Government will want to help. This is why I say the government will intervene in early childhood and later development to ensure strong citizenry.



All of these are factors. Unfortunately, the government has no money or power, except what it takes from its citizens, so any help it gives is ultimately a double-edged sword, like some kinds of fictional genies, who grant wishes, but at a price equal to the size of the wish. Another problem with government intervention is that they tend to try to solve things by throwing money at a problem, and since everyone wants money, that often encourages the problem to get worse.



quantumbits said:


> We likely can't go back. Teh family has to continue to evolve.



Now, I agree with this. The family must evolve, but "evolution" is the advancement of some members of a species over others, due to their greater strength, cleverness and adaptability. Weak families, or divided families, or families who've become dependent on the protection of the governing body aren't "evolving." They wouldn't survive outside of their terrarium.



quantumbits said:


> We streamline something when we're trying to conserve resources. We target things of low or decreasing priority. I'm not saying reproduction or family have a low priority. Rather I"m saying, in contrast to other things, their priority is falling.



Not too many agree with me on this, but I think the priorities that have claimed dominance over the family in the modern world's governments are all about the centralizing of wealth and power through artificially-constructed scarcity of resources, and convincing people that they need things they don't need. I draw these conclusions from a look at history, and the downfall of the western world.



quantumbits said:


> I still believe utlimately this will lead to genderless people with wide diversity in genderless genetics/etc. We might "wear" our genetics someday like a pill or a tool. We might wear desires, rather than be born with them.



Genderless people would have very little diversity, because each child would be a precise copy of their parent.

As for the rest, it sounds like a song.

"In the year 3535
Ain't gonna need to tell the truth, tell no lie
Everything you think, do and say
Is in the pill you took today"
-In the Year 2525-
-Zager and Evans-


----------



## fatluvinguy (Jun 6, 2017)

happily_married said:


> I wonder if the trend in the fashion industry is maybe an overcorrection to the growing number of women with growing waistlines. I wasn't around in the 50s and 60s but know we weren't as hefty then as we are now. it seems the industry makes every effort to project their models as everything the everyday woman is not. This is a little ironic because they really don't have to go to the extremes they do, and they'd still have a pretty clear distinction between any given model and any given soccer mom or housewife these days. That they push these models to ridiculous levels is just an exclamation point and seems to underscore the contempt in the industry (and the public in general to a lesser extent) for overweight women.



I think your closing statement is half right. I think their expectations of models shows their contempt for all women. Despite the fact they make their fortunes selling clothes to women I believe their actions show an underlying desire to create a sense of insecurity in all women. Otherwise they would design clothes and use models that reflect reality.


----------



## landshark (Jun 7, 2017)

fatluvinguy said:


> I think your closing statement is half right. I think their expectations of models shows their contempt for all women. Despite the fact they make their fortunes selling clothes to women I believe their actions show an underlying desire to create a sense of insecurity in all women. Otherwise they would design clothes and use models that reflect reality.



That's a very good point. Much of marketing as a trade involves playing to insecurities. Even something like cars: they update the models every 4-5 years and suddenly the one you just bought 3 years ago and are still paying on isn't good enough anymore!

Apply that to a personal subject like physical image that is projected and reinforced at every turn and it is definitely easy to see how insecurity can be a driving force in an industry.


----------



## quantumbits (Aug 21, 2017)

This is now the most important life saving--sought after--video on youtube:
[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2_tmI85vL0[/ame]

I endorse faking it. Better than skin and bones.

A lady--shown here with her baby--has become a youtube sensation with her thigh gap measurements:
(sorry but it's mislabeled 'Who are the Grey Aliens?..,' the actual title is 'My new thigh gap! kia luvs cheetos :0')
[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6OYVqnor3-I[/ame]


----------

