Non-photoshopped bra shopping for the masses

Found a site that is quite interesting and relevant:

Welcome - What Real Women Look Like

You can plug in your weight, height, size, etc. and it'll come up with pictures of ladies of the same.

 

Please don't use women on steroids for an example. That level of muscle is impossible for most men and all women without steroids.

First source on google images, don't care what they are. Try looking up vanity sizing sometime instead of getting upset with an image.

12-14 for a woman is still fat, no amount of denial will change that.

 

I doubt anyone, male or female, gets that much muscle without some juicing.

But the point was and is standard height and weight charts can be complete BS. My kid has a body fat % around 10% and she's constantly having to get waivers to stay in the military. I had the same problem.

 

Heh. You should say that to some of the women in my CrossFit class. There are several size 12 women that are more fit than most of the guys in the class.
They're taller and have bigger bone structure, but they kick ass. Without talking steroids.
And, they have average sized boobs. At least it looks like it under the sports bras.

I was 220 at my highest, 128 at my lowest. I'm a comfortable size 8 now.
My cup size barely fluctuated. But seeing those air brushed toothpicks advertising my 38C bra was weird.
Even odder when they were obviously 'shopped into "40DD". Sorry, if you're a size 2, you're NOT a 40.

 

I personally would very much like to witness this encounter.

 

This woman is a size 14. Just saying.

 

VERY strong woman. Stronger than I am, and natural. Fat as all hell too. Male powerlifters in unlimited weight classes will have the same look. To gain muscle you need to eat, a lot, as the body will use some of that to make muscle and some fat. There is an old truism for most in body building, either you are strong and fat or lean and weaker. Weaker being relative of course, but its a choice you need to make. Healthy fat levels will vary from person to person to an extent, but you can be very strong and not healthy, just like you can be very low body fat % and not healthy too. Most people who are "big boned" are not big boned, they just have excess fat. Its part of a delusion we all give ourselves. 12-14 isn't obese but for just about everyone its not exactly an ideal weight either and will involve about, and its an approximation, 30-35% bf.

I agree with that, and showing them on "real" people who fit just makes more sense for those buying, but its the social activism side which pisses in my corn flakes. Most unrealistic body images in my opinion are from the heavy side of the spectrum. Using beautiful models just helps play into that unrealistic image, but not in the way most people think.

They are using those models for WOMEN buying the clothes, not men. When it comes down to it, while men may joke about the Victoria's Secret catalog, its women placing the order. They wouldn't be using those photoshopped beauties unless it helped sales. People generally think they are BETTER looking then they are (despite common "wisdom"), and I'll find the article on it in relation to the Dove adds. When someone sees someone very attractive in their "size" it makes them feel better about it.

It took me all morning to write this post due to having to make frequent stops, so if it seems disjointed it is because it is disjointed
--- merged: Jan 20, 2014 at 12:41 PM ---

Same woman. She's lucky in that she doesn't show the weight in her arms for face, most people do. Shes looks great professionally done up in a flattering dress and I'm going to guess some rather tight understocking style garments.

This women



Listed herself as a size 14 on the left.



Also a size 14.

 

This is what Holley Mangold looks like now:

She is still strong as hell, but with a lower body fat percentage.

Your anecdotal data is insufficient to say that a size 12-14 is fat regardless of who it is. On average, yes, maybe. But not PERIOD. Fat/not fat should be measured by bodyfat percentage, not overall measurements, because they do not take into account a) bone structure (wide hips, for example), b) height, and c) muscle mass.

Also, @TullyMars, 8-10% bodyfat is considered essential fat for women, so I'm going to guess that your daughter is not, in fact, at 10%, because she would very likley be unhealthy. Body fat percentages for men and women may look similar, but the women's percentage is generally higher due to essential visceral fat around the pelvic organs (not subcutaneous).

I think it's a testament to society's differing standards between men and women that this thread, which started as "yay better marketing for bras and more sizes!" has turned into arguing over "women need to look a certain way and maintain a certain size to be attractive."

 

And most likely weaker. You lose some muscle when you lose fat. Its just how it works.

Its not society, its our genetics, and no men can not just look any way they like while women have to fit a standard. I lost a lot of weight myself and hit the gym and guess what? Suddenly women are attracted to me! Shocking! Women do look for different things in a man than men in a woman for a long term partner, but as a play thing they like hot too.

 

Also, re: bodyfat percentages.. I had a BodPod bodyfat measurement two years ago, after I'd been running races and competing in triathlons all summer, at a size 6. The percentage they gave me was 29%, and I did not look "fat" by generally accepted standards. Unfortunately, I do not have any photos from that time because my laptop was stolen.

 

Yes, I'm sure you're correct. I just popped a number out of my head. I forgot the male/female variances. Now that you remind me I would have thought I was told women had a little higher number like 12-15% and men something like 4-6%. Been a while since I took a health class. I stand by my point that my kids not at all fat. She's a vegan who hits the gym 5 times a week. Body fat is not her problem, getting her height/weight to match the military standards is.

 

Genetics? Bullshit. Society and culture are what lead us to value certain ideals in mates. In the past, society valued fat because it signified being rich and being able to afford more food without having to work. Now, society values being thin. Genetics did not change significantly between those periods of time.

 

I'm sure she is, its not 2016 yet, so what are you trying to say? If you think you don't lose some strength while "cutting" (its what they call losing fat in BBing) then you never tried yourself. I'm at about 14% bf myself right now and I have to make a choice, stronger or leaner. You don't get both, unless you are a noob, without taking anabolic steroids.

Well lets just disagree then, sex is where genetics play a huge role. I hope I don't need to explain why sexual selection and genetics are linked very strongly. There is going to be some influence by society and some by our basic genetic makeup. If you want to argue between a size 12 and a size 2 be my guest, but if you want to argue that a gut on a female is sexy at any point then we will have to disagree. A waist to hip ratio of .7 has been found to be the "most attractive" for women by men and this is across cultures.

 

I am well aware of what cutting is, and I'm also aware that she hasn't lost a significant amount of strength at this point in her weight loss. Yes, she will likely bulk again before the Olympics, but she also has the option now to do a slow, lean bulk until it's closer to crunch time. Also, there is an option of stronger + leaner, because you must factor in strength to bodyweight ratio when it comes to performing certain movements. For pullups, she is absolutely "stronger" now, because she can lift her own bodyweight more efficiently. This does have some translation to explosive movement such as powerlifting, as well, especially in a squat - reducing your strength by 5% with a cut but reducing the weight you have to lift by 50 lbs can definitely have an effect on actually increasing your strength in the long run as measured by how many plates are on your barbell.

A waist to hip ratio of .7 is "most attractive" IN CONTEMPORARY CULTURE. Which is what we're talking about here - not "feeder" culture, not the US specifically, but contemporary culture worldwide. Yes, there is some variation across more specific cultures, but historically things have not been the same. Prior to corsetry, a larger figure was considered more attractive and YES, that included a "gut." With corsets, smaller waists became the norm, and that has persisted to today, though with an increase in the thinness desirable overall.

If you're going to argue genetics, then I might have to pull out my anthropology texts and get better words to explain to you that obesity has actually been selected FOR by genetics centuries ago. Fat people were desirable in the past because they could store and use energy more efficiently in a time where food was harder to acquire, so sexual selection brought out those traits over the long term. Those traits persist today, but because energy is so readily available, people get fatter. The ectomorph body type was selected against for a very long time.

 

Great, so why did you bring it up then? Saying things like 5% vrs 50lbs are guesses here and really maybe she will be leaner the next Olympics, I wouldn't be surprised since she was used by every fat advocacy group as the poster child for "fitness".

We are going to disagree then, even the Venus DiMilo which some will argue is the "ideal" classical beauty and a bit thick is also argued to be a matronly look and not meant to be a beauty. If you want to claim its a world wide thing because of Western culture in the last 100 years, I'm not going to dissuade you. Culture can only add or subtract so much.

Being able to STORE fat is a good thing, but thats not the same as saying its a desirable trait sexually. Obesity is a side effect of those old survival genes coupled with modern food production and availability. Claiming that obesity is natural in that manner also means we are obviously evolved for diabetes as well!

 

There is actually current research that shows diabetes was selected for during ice age periods, because it allowed humans to survive at lower temperatures for longer periods of time - excess sugar in the bloodstream keeps the liquid phase of blood from freezing.

The sweet thing about Type 1 diabetes: a cryo... [Med Hypotheses. 2005] - PubMed - NCBI
Diabetes, the ice free corridor, and the Paleoindian settlement of North America - Wendorf - 2005 - American Journal of Physical Anthropology - Wiley Online Library
Diabetes and the Ice Age : DiabetesMine: the all things diabetes blog

While it is considered Evolutionary Baggage now, yes, there is evidence diabetes was selected for through evolution.

 

Exxxxxxactly.

 

Example: here's the ideal of female beauty, back when genetics was playing the ONLY role:



I can haz Google Image Search too!

 

How the hell did you find a picture of me, @DamnitAll? Did you hack my laptop?