Reposting this on the newest page because while I was editing it to make my point as clear as possible, some people managed to add two pages to the thread lol.
Quote:
Originally Posted by milano
I don't understand why this is even a debate. Everyone is beautiful no matter what they want to do with their life, their appearance, etc.
People shouldn't judge other people until they take a look in the mirror and go "yeah, i'm happy with how I look".
|
By that logic people who don't own guitars can't like rock music, and people with glasses can't appreciate art.
And vanilla, what you just said is EXACTLY why I posted:
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuitarBizarre
I think you mean far right, and sure, she's pretty.
But she's bigger than my ideal. And frankly, I don't think theres anything WRONG with that being my ideal. I think this thread should be careful with stuff like that, since oftentimes these threads seem like less a reason to celebrate reasonable figures and point out their value, and more an excuse to slam people who prefer smaller than average women. (not that you're doing this, but still.)
Theres a big difference between confirming how attractive a size 16 person can be, and pouring scorn on people who still have a preference for thinner ladies. If size 16 is average, then its average. We're human beings. We're allowed to consider the average to be what it is and have a preference for something else. Hell, given the way people respond to "average" in every area of life, I'd say thats downright expected.
|
I think at this point you're just looking for an excuse to have a go at people.
Lines like "That comes from men's unrealistic view on how women should look" are pure bull****. Not ONCE in this thread have I said women can't, or shouldn't, look however the **** they want within reason. I've been arguing your corner this whole time that size 16+ women are perfectly fine, and can be mighty attractive. In fact, many 16+ women are significantly MORE attractive than the "average woman".
And then you come along and say "That comes from men's unrealistic view on how women should look" as if you can make such a broad statement about everyone on earth with a penis and frankly, to me, that comes off as being unable to accept there is a difference between having a PREFERENCE, and making a JUDGEMENT on what is acceptable.
I will gladly state my preference. I am not making a personal judgement of anyone who does not FIT that preference by doing so. I am stating that I think there is an outlying form that is more attractive than other forms. And why wouldn't there be? Nobody considers a 1.2L hatchback car to be a fine piece of automotive engineering. Nobody considers an IKEA living room set to be the equivalent of solid Oak Furniture. But they're the average in their respective fields, just like size 16 is the average for womens sizes. They work. They're deserving of respect and they're great in their own way, and plenty of people would never ever want anything more. Or people might even consider that those "averages" are already very much high quality. Someone might consider the Ferrari too impractical, or the Solid Oak shelves to be too high maintenance or something.
Does that diminish their worth? No. Does that make a negative judgement about their worth in relation to other things? Again, no. All that observation states is that people are allowed, and mostly EXPECTED to consider the average in ANYTHING to be a starting point, and then SOME, even a MAJORITY, but not ALL peoples tastes and wants and desires branch out from that average into other areas.
And let's be honest, isn't that diversity of feeling and opinion the entire basis behind why being human is what it is?