Haven't seen QFF in many years, so I may be remembering this wrong, but.
-
frightfan — 18 years ago(September 13, 2007 07:58 PM)
I think you're wrong there; overweight women have never been considered more desirable than those who are physically fit. Richer? More care-free? Definitely. More sexually appealing? Wishful thinking from the pudgy masses, I say.
But it's not like we have any real proof. There's definitely room for argument on the topic. However, from a purely logical POV, it only makes sense to be attracted to those who offer the best overall genetics - big, strong handsome men and lithe, fit women.
However, for the scene in question, I don't believe it was a "hazing" or punishment as many of the comments above are suggesting. The jeering crowd is acting similar to modern frat boys at a Tijuana strip club, really. I believe the comments suggesting the building of the gene pool make the most sense. The women are likely fat because they've had many children. Also, with enough men in the community, the women were likely left to domestic (less physically active) tasks.And that's the kind of day it is here in the mind of FRIGHTFAN!
-
solongthanks — 18 years ago(September 16, 2007 10:21 AM)
"I think you're wrong there; overweight women have never been considered more desirable than those who are physically fit. Richer? More care-free? Definitely. More sexually appealing? Wishful thinking from the pudgy masses, I say.
But it's not like we have any real proof. There's definitely room for argument on the topic. However, from a purely logical POV, it only makes sense to be attracted to those who offer the best overall genetics - big, strong handsome men and lithe, fit women."
You make quite a contradiction here!
First you say that women have NEVER been considered more desireable than physically fit women- then you say 'it's not like we have ny real proof" So which is it? Seems like your first statement isn't based on reason. You may want to read about ideal women in roman and greek culture- look at paintings and other art- all through out history for that matter- then try your never statement
Regarding prehistoric views of women, we have very little evidence , but some of the only evidence we have about ideal women, comes from the venus figures found throughout Europe over tens of thousands of years- all of these figures depict large women, so if you're trying to base your claim on evidence, I think you're going in the wrong direction.
And you're incorrect that thin women give the impression of genetically superior- you're imposing current ideals on teh past women who can store weight, store energy. Women who can store energy can be healthier through times of less food, and have better chances in carrying children. Women gain weight when they are pregnant- thus heavy women can represent fertile women.
Another bit of evidence we have is that thin women/girls, and very atheletic women/girls, start menstruation later, and if they're really lean, they can reduce the frequency of menstruation (aka fertility).
Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.
Philip K. Dick -
frightfan — 18 years ago(September 16, 2007 10:39 AM)
OK; I'll give you that maybe I could have avoided the word "never" but you're ignoring the other evidence that I'm only stating an opinion. I started with "I think" continued with "no real proof" and finished with ", I say."
Yet, the only thing sticking with you seems to be my (poor) choice to use the word "never".
Also, I said FIT, not THIN. In saying "overweight" I mean it in the medical sense, not in the "Britney was fat at the MVAs last week" sense.
roll eyesAnd that's the kind of day it is here in the mind of FRIGHTFAN!
-
solongthanks — 18 years ago(September 16, 2007 10:47 AM)
"OK; I'll give you that maybe I could have avoided the word "never" but you're ignoring the other evidence that I'm only stating an opinion. I started with "I think" continued with "no real proof" and finished with ", I say.""
I wasn't ignoring the 'evidence' that you were only stating your opinion, because you used the word 'never' and if you want to break down your syntax here, you said you thought they were wrong, then used ";" which means a separate independent clause
"Yet, the only thing sticking with you seems to be my (poor) choice to use the word "never"."
Wow! Really? Did you not read my post where i discussed the evidence about the topic? That's a bizarre comment to make, given my post!
You're not really up for discussion on your posts I take it?
Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.
Philip K. Dick -
valerie_lp — 18 years ago(September 20, 2007 10:28 PM)
Ahem
the dig about "educated" people must be responded to:
Prehistoric "Venus" figurines of extremely fat and/or pregnant women have been found all over Europe. Clearly they held some kind of sway over men's imaginations: http://www.nvcc.edu/home/blash/StoneCarving/history.htm
And have you ever seen a painting by Reubens? What we call "overweight" was called "sexy" not so very long ago! For the first several hundred thousand years of human history, fat=fertile-desirable.
Educated indeed. -
frightfan — 18 years ago(October 08, 2007 06:25 AM)
I stand by my opinion - which I still believe was not fully understood, so was perhaps inefficiently expressed - but I didn't mean to hijack this thread with a debate such as this.
I'm not "taking my ball and going home" - I just don't want to fuss about this subject this much.And that's the kind of day it is here in the mind of FRIGHTFAN!
-
LtNOWIS — 18 years ago(October 07, 2007 11:53 PM)
I'm pretty sure they liked fat chicks in Tang Dynasty China.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tang_Dynasty#Tang_women -
seluloyd — 18 years ago(October 10, 2007 10:23 AM)
I have to agree The "Venus of Willendorf" depicts a large woman and was considered, by many scholars to be a symbol of fertility and was found throughout Europe.
We have to remember that this was in the days prior to the "idealized" version of the woman portrayed on the runway in a size "0". I'm still not entirely sure who finds skeletons that attractive but to each his own
It is most likely that cavemen would have found the larger woman more suitable for survival; wide hips for an increased chance of a male offspring and larger breasts which allow for better feeding. of course, I could just be reading way too much into this.
Just my thoughts! -
elicia-1 — 17 years ago(November 18, 2008 12:18 AM)
Good reading this thread but Hold on .. I totally agree with you BUT:
Think about it: examine another cultural assumption:
Why would increased chance of male offspring be desirable?
Prehistoric people would have preferred more females, since then higher birth rate.
The only reason to prefer male offspring is in a patriarchal culture, which is extremely recent, only a few thousand years out of the few hundred thousand of human-like existence, or at LEAST, 40,000 years of existence of humans who buried their dead. -
plaidpotato — 15 years ago(September 02, 2010 01:38 AM)
Sons might be preferable to daughters because a successful male can theoretically produce dozens, or even hundreds, of grandchildren over his lifetime, whereas a female can only give birth a few times.
-
vicky_lc2001 — 13 years ago(August 20, 2012 06:19 AM)
Except if there are only a few women in your tribe. In a small tribe a woman would be more valuable in quantity than men, all you need is 1 male but if you had only 1 female then the chances of that tribe surviving is next to nothing.
Global Warming, it's a personal decision innit?Nigel Tufnel
-
Big_Boss_Ogg — 18 years ago(October 31, 2007 08:01 PM)
The women on the log and in the tent represented the Earth Mother, The All Fertile Woman, and that sort was always the backbone of any tribes' baby making. They could and did pop them out like watermelon seeds for years on end.
And while the 'humiliation' if you want to call it that was more along the lines of teasing and looking to see in what manner he might have been different from them, I believe their idea all along was to use him to deepen their gene pool.
And it was not just the chief's daughter, nympho or not, there on the log waiting for some "trim" from our boy, there were several others giggling and waiting their turn with great anticipation, scooting over on the log toward the tent mouth as a spot came open.
I think that there may have been something wrong with the males of their tribe, too much inbreeding perhaps?
I recall all of this,and I've not seen the film in 15 years. -
pippini-3 — 18 years ago(October 14, 2007 09:52 PM)
In addition to the VAST anthropological evidence of fertility (and thus attractiveness) being linked to larger hips, breasts, and bellies, there's also a wealth of psychological research showing that the majority of men cross culturally prefer a fairly specific hip to waist ratio. While body size attractiveness varies cross-culturally and over time, the ratio remains basically the same. It appears to be biologically based. Similarly, women seem to be more attracted to more "masculine" facial features during ovulation, and to more "feminine" facial features the rest of the time. Interestingly, this crosses sexual orientation boundaries- lesbians are more attracted to women with "masculine" facial features during ovulation.
-
timberwolf530 — 18 years ago(January 11, 2008 07:58 AM)
"I think you're wrong there; overweight women have never been considered more desirable than those who are physically fit. Richer? More care-free? Definitely. More sexually appealing? Wishful thinking from the pudgy masses, I say"
That is simply untrue. If you took Kate Moss or any of the other anorexic looking models of today back in history, they would not have been considered attractive. Look at the nude paintings from the early 1900's or earlier. All the women in them were plump. Why, becuase that is what was considered to be attractive at that time. It has only been recently in the history of the human species that a skeleton-like frame has been considered attractive. -
frightfan — 18 years ago(January 11, 2008 08:32 PM)
This never ceases to amaze me: the fact that people in this thread ignore the "physically fit" part of my statement and just jump to the complete opposite of the spectrum, talking about "size 0" and "Kate Moss" and "anorexic models" etc.
Fine, for some reason, I suppose I have to concede that the fat women may have been considered important sexually. Given the evidence seen in paintings throughout history, I have to also admit that pudgy bellies definitely seem to have held a lot of interest. It seems I was definitely wrong. I don't get it though.And that's the kind of day it is here in the mind of FRIGHTFAN!
-
happycurl — 18 years ago(February 05, 2008 08:07 AM)
"I don't get it though."
That's probably because you were raised with different ideals. But the first thing you need to learn when trying to study other cultures, including past cultures, is that your values and world-views aren't going to tell you about theirs. This is a great example of that.