Plus, it's ironic you bring up eating disorders, when part of the reason I made my comment to begin with is that I'm kind of tired of the media pretending that the ideal woman is one that's overly thin and has almost no curves, despite the fact that noticeable breasts, hips, and a belly are female secondary sexual characteristics. So seeing one of the typical media-glorified thin, non-curvy women held up by a poster as being the "ideal" kind of bugged me.
Wow, we must not be watching the same media, then. The one where women who are larger than an 8 are considered fat, and a woman gaining a whole 5 pounds has every popular magazine crying about how she's getting fat? The one where every woman who actually has noticeable curves (or ample boobs that are actually combined with a larger waist rather than a stick-thin one) tends to be cast as the Hollywood Pudgy?
Plus I find it fucking ridiculous that I'm getting jumped on when my post was supposed to be a 100% positive rejection of the media's notion that super-thin women are ideal and hot. Is agreeing that woman are only attractive when they starve themselves skinny supposed to be the correct thing to say and I missed it?
Yeah, I guess it's so denigrating to women to look at BH's idea of a typical media woman who's skinny and has almost no breasts and hips, and say I prefer the more typical-sized woman who's got some meat on her and has a belly, average-sized breasts (B-C), has pudgy hips, etc.
I meant that boobs and hips are kind of standard female secondary sexual characteristics, so it seems odd and kind of insulting that the media likes to define super-skinny women who have barely-there boobs and hips as being "ideal".
edited 1st Jun '11 8:23:18 PM by kashchei