Iron.Honeey.
Society/Culture Jennifer Hawkins bares all to promote positive body image in young women
- Thread starter omit
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Iron.Honeey.
- Banned
- #102
Don't you mean ilon-honeey
- Banned
- #104
so she is a ginger, and definitely had collagen in her top lip, perhaps some filler. It is a dead giveaway, besides new fullness, when she smiles, all collagen lips on the north smile, have little Joker turn-ups in the corner.
She obviously spray-tans, and assumes has a tanning bed, but since she is fair skinned, and a ginger, this cannot be very safe/healthy.
Definitely spinning the contradictions manifest here was Jacquie Frank.
- May 5, 2006
- 62,726
- 70,017
- AFL Club
- West Coast
Is Jennifer Hawkins really that different to Ursula Andress, or Farrah Fawcett, or Bo Derek, or any other hottie of the day?
IMO the gulf between the ideal and the 'norm' is widening (pun intended) at an alarming rate and the rate of change in the latter far outweighs (pun again intended) that of the former.
A little bit - more stars of the past were curvier a few decades ago (there were still skinny ones, but a smaller proportion).
The 'ideal' is widening, but the promotion of that 'ideal' is also increasing and becoming more difficult to achieve.
The 'ideal' is widening, but the promotion of that 'ideal' is also increasing and becoming more difficult to achieve.
- Banned
- #108
Agreed. My main aim was to suggest that context sways our perception of what anyone should look like.
If you surround yourself with huge numbers of fat people, your perception of what constitutes "overweight" changes.
IMO Hawkins vis-a-vis body shape constitutes what a normal caucasian woman should look like because she is a normal caucasian woman - who simply eats less crap and works out. Or are you suggesting she isn't normal because the average has moved in a different direction? Which frankly seems behind some of your logic.
Yes they are. Thanks for not answering.
Depends how tall they are. Christ.
Well, duh, and no .... the likelihood of your friend carrying higher levels of fat at 75kg for a female is reasonably high. Jen is, at worst, marginally underweight and given she has a BMI of 18.2 (on latest numbers) and the generally reported stating point for healthy is 18.5 its very marginal.
So you just chose a number at random to buttress your argument regardless of the range actually starting at 18.5?
You should do work on AGW.
172cm or something? Really? You cant be more accurate?
At 174cm she would just scrape into healthy. Just. But you would have no trouble throwing her up as an example of a "normal caucasian woman" - whereas someone closer to the bottom end you would choose to argue about .... hmmm ...
Thanks. Its such an exact measure - except when it isnt.
It is normal. You imply it isnt. Repeatedly. Why?
Not sure if in your "go girl" lather, dressed up as pseudo-science, you have noticed that this is a thread about women and body image. Perhaps look at the title? (I'd do the roll eyes thing but its so lame when you do it I'd rather not).
True. The 4 hours a night watching tv, eating fat foods with friends, having 12 coffees and so on certainly cramps the average Aussie for time.
How much time do you reckon it takes to stay in shape. I mean eating healthy v s**t is hardly a time issue and working out is maybe 3 - 4 hours a week. Sure bulking up takes more time but its hardly unimaginably difficult. FFS.
Which question? Am I single? No. Havent been for over 2 years.
There are plenty of women out there that meet any expectations I may have - no matter how high you think them to be. You wouldn't be single because plenty of blokes have pretty low expectations and don't mind placing their balls in a jar.....
Very skewed???
Bwahahahaha..... Thats it!
I like women who aren't fat and who take care of themselves. I am so out of whack with what the ordinary Australian bloke aspires to. (couldnt help it)Its not name calling. You dont know me, I disagree with you, ipso facto - I am a misogynist? I'd hate to see what you do call name calling.
Why criticise fat men in a discussion about women and their body shapes. You imply that Hawkins is not normal, I disagree and point out that Aussie perceptions as to normal may be skewed by too much exposure to fatness. So I am showing an irritational hatred of women? You are borderline nutty. And your "go girl" slip is showing behind that "I am a scientist and I am reasonable facade".
Genuinely funny. Well done. I'm sure it feels good to name call your intellectual betters doesnt it?
Not many. Thanks for asking.
Sometimes they use 18.5 and sometimes 20.0.
The former is often used as part of finer gradations and is also used more often.
And Hawkins' body shape is not 'normal' - that's why she's a supermodel.
- Banned
- #110
Sorry, who uses 20? Apart from BomberGal, I cant find anyone.
Supermodel is an overused term but yes, she is a model. So you are saying that the model is some sort of sub-species incapable of weight gain?
I mean if Hawkins ate Big Macs everyday, didnt work out and so on, I'm pretty sure she would get fat i.e. she is normal.
Are you suggesting that this isnt the case?
Do a search - you will find them
Ridiculous response. Models are blessed with genetics. Many/most women could exercise and diet until hell freezes over and never look like Hawkins. I know plenty of women who do/did exercise and eat well never looked like Hawkins with all her 'flaws'. Also, models have the benefit of full-time exercise and personal trainers - it's part of their job - most people don't have that benefit.
Most female 'role models' have BMI < 18.5, including Hawkins, hence it does not provide a positive body image.
The argument that Hawkins is somehow a 'normal' body shape is quite a different one from the fact that Australians are overweight.
- Banned
- #112
My "ideal" is all t***ies and arse, wobbling and bouncing around, mmmm, finger lickin' good!
- Banned
- #113
http://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/bhcv2/bhcarticles.nsf/pages/Body_Mass_Index_(BMI)
A BMI of 20 is the low end for Europeans. It's also the case that people of an Asian background have a recommended upper limit of 23.
- Banned
- #114
I have and I didnt find any. Thats why I asked you since you seemed to speak with authority.
Everyone is "blessed with genetics". I presume you mean she has some sort of uber-metabolism or some such. I am not talking her face, smile etc but rather her body shape.
Define a normal body shape?
You mentioned movie stars of earlier generations, would you say they were a better more realistic body shape - say Marilyn Monroe?
I mean I need to understand this normal body shape you prefer used for "role model" purposes.....
You are being completely disingenuous now. If you don't understand that women have different body shapes and there is a limit as to how far they can take them, then you need to do some more research and looking.
A simple example is Beyonce. BMI of 23 and very curvy. Could never look like Hawkins given her body shape. Exercises constantly and eats well. Far more difficult for a normal working woman, especially with kids, with a body like Beyonce to replicate Hawkins.
This is of course, as I have said, a different argument to women (and men) seeking to improve themselves through exercise and good eating. Hawkins is not the best person to promote that.
A simple example is Beyonce. BMI of 23 and very curvy. Could never look like Hawkins given her body shape. Exercises constantly and eats well. Far more difficult for a normal working woman, especially with kids, with a body like Beyonce to replicate Hawkins.
This is of course, as I have said, a different argument to women (and men) seeking to improve themselves through exercise and good eating. Hawkins is not the best person to promote that.
- Banned
- #118
Thanks.
Interesting. They have decided on 20 despite their counterparts in every other western country choosing 18.5. One wonders how that occurs?
Could you point me to the research that supports them adopting a higher baseline number? I mean surely it wouldnt be done for any reason other than science
- Banned
- #120
Eagle, I think you're underestimating how much of a role genetics plays in body shape. It definitely makes a difference.
With that said, I generally agree with you. Look at the attractive women of Hollywood. Their bodies ALL come in different shapes and sizes due to genetics, but the thing is, they all keep relatively fit!
You can be a naturally curvy woman (Kardashian, Johannson, Hayek), petite (Cruz) tall & athletic (Knightley) etc etc.
The point is that genetically all these women are quite different, but they keep in shape, and all have very attractive bodies. And no matter what kind of genetics you're blessed with, unless you're particularly unlucky, if you eat right & stay in shape you can attain a similar body.
It's not the attractive body shape which is unattainable, I think this is a mistake and an excuse for laziness. It's the airbrushed flawless skin, the perfect shave, the perfectly symetttrical face which distorts what's normal and attainable.
With that said, I generally agree with you. Look at the attractive women of Hollywood. Their bodies ALL come in different shapes and sizes due to genetics, but the thing is, they all keep relatively fit!
You can be a naturally curvy woman (Kardashian, Johannson, Hayek), petite (Cruz) tall & athletic (Knightley) etc etc.
The point is that genetically all these women are quite different, but they keep in shape, and all have very attractive bodies. And no matter what kind of genetics you're blessed with, unless you're particularly unlucky, if you eat right & stay in shape you can attain a similar body.
It's not the attractive body shape which is unattainable, I think this is a mistake and an excuse for laziness. It's the airbrushed flawless skin, the perfect shave, the perfectly symetttrical face which distorts what's normal and attainable.
I don't disagree with most of that. And why I think that the right role models need to be used and the emphasis needs to be on good eating and exercise. Having said that, women in Hollywood are partly selected because of their body shapes and are not necessarily reflective of those woman in the general public who are naturally bigger.
Man steers eye of common sense upon the controversy.
Stand back, girls - this is as real as it gets
http://www.theage.com.au/national/stand-back-girls--this-is-as-real-as-it-gets-20100109-m00i.html
You have to read this it's great,
Stand back, girls - this is as real as it gets
http://www.theage.com.au/national/stand-back-girls--this-is-as-real-as-it-gets-20100109-m00i.html
You have to read this it's great,
Cheers for that (not the pic included...), a good read.
