Hi Liza,
>>I claimed:
>> And if a man has a big muscular upper body and thin chicken legs
>> he's disproportioned.
>you asked:
>And if entire cultures have this body shape, and have had it for as
>long as we've had a history of the culture, you'd still call this
>disproportional?
That's exactly the problem. Our entire culture thinks that certain
things are "normal" where they are not. It's so common, that the
anomality has become the normality. What do you expect? The whole
planet is cooked, eh? ;-)
>I'm
>thinking of cultures that have some particular distinctive
>attribute, one which they do not like. I'm wondering if their
>dislike is more a result of "internalized" racism - a cultural
>"inferiority complex" of some sort - or whether it comes from what
>you are suggesting above.
Let me provide an example: the japanese people and their eyes. Did
you know they don't like them and want round eyes like western
people? It's true!
I'd think it's some sort of cultural inferiority complex in this
case. Japanes eyes can be so beautiful. But they don't want to see
it. So I guess in this case we have found an example where people
are unable to tell you what is appropriate and what is not.
>>But looking at the proportions of the whole
>>body methinks that a slim woman with big breasts doesn't look so
>>good because it's wrong.
>
>She doesn't look good to YOU, Stefan. I can tell you there are MANY
>who think she looks just GGGRRRRREEEEAT!!!
LOL, I think MANY should learn more about proportions. :-)
>What about non-fat, large, strong, tall, muscular Amazon women? Are
>they allowed to have big breasts? If they are "proportional?"
Yes, that would fit. BTW: I like muscular women.
>Or are
>you saying that all breasts should either be small or be "cured" of
>their affliction?
There's no "should" here. I'm just trying to explain what I think
is natural and what is not. If you like your body that's good and
certainly better than most women do. Most of them struggle a life
time with their body and never get comfortable with it.
>>Wrong proportions are something you can cure. To come back to the
>>example of the muscular upper body of a man, he could do a special
>>leg training to get his legs muscular too.
>
>Actually, this is not true. Having worked with many a man who would
>have given his, well, left leg, to have something bigger than the
>skinny legs nature gave him - I can tell you it can't be done.
>Calves are next to impossible to build up to any great extent.
>(Unless of course you use drugs). And if you happen to have skinny
>leg muscles AND you have long limbs and muscles as well - then
>forget it.
Read bodybuilding magazines. Famous bodybuilders frequently noted
that calves are very difficult to build up. But it's possible.
>As far as "curing" other "disproportional" body parts - I don't
>think so, Stefan. How are you supposed to make a long torso shorter?
That's too late obviously to change anything. How about wearing
clothes that make you look better by optical tricks (stripes etc.)?
>Or flat breasts bigger, for that matter?
Come on, you know that there's a lot of money made with this
silicon nonsense. Seems like a lot of women like to be hindered
by big breasts to jump and run. Maybe a comparable case would
be increasing man's penis size to 20 inch. Never heard of such
a nonsense though.
We are getting a little philosophic here but...
isn't it true that women like to make their shoulders as wide
as those of men by using some sort of padding?
And that they like to wear shoes that make them as tall as a
man?
Did you ever hear of a man who padded his hips to have them as
wide as a woman?
There is something deeply wrong here. Men seem to accept their
body more or less and expecting their environment to do the same.
Women frequently don't.
Okay, back to main topic:
>>Women aren't cows so why do they need a big udder?
>To attract a lovely big bull?
That sort of bull is likely to have as much brain as a real bull.
Don't know if this is what women want. :-)
Greetings from sunny Berlin (31 degrees Celsius today),
Stefan
|
