Female Game Characters Photoshopped to Average American Proportions

[Reasonable Atheist]

[snip]

That is not the question I asked. And that is not what the article claims was the intent. Is it about bulimia, or is it about game shapes?

You asked why they don't just use realistic models. I told you it is because sexy, skinny women are generally seen as more marketable.

Bulimia and game shapes go hand in hand. Bulimia is a consequence of a person's anxiety about what is the "proper way to look". This proper look is dictated by the world around you, in that we are bombarded with endless depictions of idealized, sexy women in advertising, entertainment and human interaction. We are trained from childhood to measure a person's value or worth on their appearance. It's why Susan Boyle got famous; she shocked people who believed the patently absurd (yet widely accepted) idea that only good looking people are capable of singing.

To combat bulimia, you have to let these anxious people know that - actually - not being skinny isn't a bad thing. You can help that by not making fat people invisible in entertainment.

Or how about they take some personal responsibility for their own health, and stop blaming everyone else like some kinda petulant child?

this whole thing reeks of entitled bullshit "cater your entertainment towars ME!"
MEEEEEEE!
MEEEEEEEEEEE!

If your existence needs to be fucking validated by what you see on tv, or in video games, or whatever other asinine shit, maybe you have a larger problem then how skinny and endowed tifa is.

I apologize if i sound overly hostile, but i have absolutely no patience for people who need to be babied, and even less for people who are speaking for someone else they believe needs to be babied.

 

[Redryhno]

[snip]

That is not the question I asked. And that is not what the article claims was the intent. Is it about bulimia, or is it about game shapes?

You asked why they don't just use realistic models. I told you it is because sexy, skinny women are generally seen as more marketable.

Bulimia and game shapes go hand in hand. Bulimia is a consequence of a person's anxiety about what is the "proper way to look". This proper look is dictated by the world around you, in that we are bombarded with endless depictions of idealized, sexy women in advertising, entertainment and human interaction. We are trained from childhood to measure a person's value or worth on their appearance. It's why Susan Boyle got famous; she shocked people who believed the patently absurd (yet widely accepted) idea that only good looking people are capable of singing.

To combat bulimia, you have to let these anxious people know that - actually - not being skinny isn't a bad thing. You can help that by not making fat people invisible in entertainment.

So what you're saying is to combat a real world problem, we must use solely fictional examples of fictional characters?

We are bombarded much more by real-world media than we are game media, and yet this article uses SOLELY game characters(heck, most of them aren't even recent or even much more than niche games). It doesn't use celebrity shops, real people in the world that are both healthy and have a variety of body shapes that aren't the "skinny norm" as you put it, they don't even use cosplayers to get the same idea across while also having the geeky edge.

I mean, are you saying that games have a bigger impact on body shapes than...the real world, live-action media, and parts of first-world society combined? And that we need to fight game shapes first?

 

[AgedGrunt]

And here I thought fat-shaming was altogether unacceptable. I can't see the point of this other than to say to America, "Hey American girls, you don't look like these characters, if you were vidya game characters you would look more like you ate your party members."

But ok, you want "realistic" bodies that are attainable so people don't develop eating disorders in pursuit of impossible standards. Then why did you take many of those female characters, who did not appear unrealistically thin, and make them overweight?

And what's unrealistic or unattainable about tone in a body? You have to lose the fat to see tone, and you just slapped it onto these characters like they were missing all of this realistic fat not everyone has.

And in case it wasn't already said 100 times, not many people want to look at other people, let alone fiction (which can be made ideal) who have no *realistic* physical conditioning, particularly when they are an adventurer, fighter or powerful being. How could Lara Croft possibly do what she does in the games if she's a bit overweight?

It's not realistic because vidya games, like movies, do not depict pure realism. That's why it's called fiction. Realistic lighting is not the same kind of realism as body type.

 

[Zontar]

I don't think having fat protagonists is going to result in there being more fat people, but I think it certainly would help to make weight conscious people feel less of the destructive, needless anxiety attached to their weight and appearance. Efforts to be more healthy shouldn't be driven by a fear of looking ugly, or of being socially unacceptable.

Have you thought that maybe that's a case of a part of the brain trying to tell the rest of it that the unhealthy lifestyle which is actively harming it is one which should be changed? And I'm sorry to sound harsh in saying this, but being obese, at some point (not sure what the arbitrary cut off point should be) should be socially unacceptable for those who don't have legitimate metabolism problems (which exists in a very, very small number of people who are obese). Smoking is no longer socially acceptable, yet appart from second hand smoke many of the same reasons people rallied against it can be applied to obesity, from the health problems to the cost society has to pay financially as a result of it, made worst by the massively larger prevalence of obesity in places like the US.

I know I'm going to get flak for saying that, but I do think obesity should be socially unacceptable. There's no reason children who are half my age should weight as much as I do, or minors getting diabetes, both of which have and are happening in the states.

Also, there is a marked difference about the way people are depicted on UK and US TV. If you watch UK TV, you tend to see far more "ordinary" people; that is to say, fatter, less conventionally attractive, less glamorous people. This is the case in adverts, and comedies and tv shows. There is little concern that UK television is encouraging fatness by showing fat people on the screen. For the record, the UK has the highest rates of obesity in Europe...but still way lower rates than America.

I don't know what shows you've been watching, but I've seen quite a few American series which have people who are as 'normal' as those in British series in terms of being ugly or in their weight. In fact, as a regular viewer of British entertainment (blame that on my Anglophile and Francophile parents) I hadn't been aware the UK had an obesity problem until I started looking into statistics regarding the rate.

 

[someguy1231]

The answer to the question is probably that a bunch of producers don't trust their core demographics to be able to play a game that doesn't have Barbie Doll proportioned, super sexy women. They think that the best way to make the game appeal (and thus sell more), is to shamelessly pander towards a stereotypical gamer who must have big tits and thigh gaps to appreciate a female form. It is an attitude that is demeaning to both women and men, but still alive and well (and apparently still quite effective a marketing technique, if the consumer response to Kate Upton's Game of War ads are any indicator of success).

Oh please. "Pandering" is just a word people use to whine that a group of gamers they don't like is getting more attention than they think they deserve.

People having their own preferences for beauty and attractiveness in women is not "demeaning". You're just trying to shame people for not being attracted to fat women.

 

[Des-Esseintes]

The answer to the question is probably that a bunch of producers don't trust their core demographics to be able to play a game that doesn't have Barbie Doll proportioned, super sexy women. They think that the best way to make the game appeal (and thus sell more), is to shamelessly pander towards a stereotypical gamer who must have big tits and thigh gaps to appreciate a female form. It is an attitude that is demeaning to both women and men, but still alive and well (and apparently still quite effective a marketing technique, if the consumer response to Kate Upton's Game of War ads are any indicator of success).

Oh please. "Pandering" is just a word people use to whine that a group of gamers they don't like is getting more attention than they think they deserve.

People having their own preferences for beauty and attractiveness in women is not "demeaning". You're just trying to shame people for not being attracted to fat women.

Brah, I don't think you've quite caught the point here.

No one's asking you to be stroking it over BBDubs.

Point is, does every video game lady really need to be someone you want to fuck?

 

[ILikeEggs]

I don't think having fat protagonists is going to result in there being more fat people, but I think it certainly would help to make weight conscious people feel less of the destructive, needless anxiety attached to their weight and appearance. Efforts to be more healthy shouldn't be driven by a fear of looking ugly, or of being socially unacceptable.

The problem with your ideal view of society, much like certain aspects of feminism, is that it would seem to be completely contrary to biology and evolution. Things like fat-shaming, thin-shaming, slut-shaming are remnants from a time when, for example, being unhealthy(too fat or too thin) meant you're a drain on the resources of the tribe, or being promiscuous meant you're willing to engage in risky behaviour for short term benefit. As much as enlightened people would like humans to eradicate these holdovers from millenia past, I've seen plenty of studies that show these behaviours are highly unlikely to ever go away.

 

[Redryhno]

The answer to the question is probably that a bunch of producers don't trust their core demographics to be able to play a game that doesn't have Barbie Doll proportioned, super sexy women. They think that the best way to make the game appeal (and thus sell more), is to shamelessly pander towards a stereotypical gamer who must have big tits and thigh gaps to appreciate a female form. It is an attitude that is demeaning to both women and men, but still alive and well (and apparently still quite effective a marketing technique, if the consumer response to Kate Upton's Game of War ads are any indicator of success).

Oh please. "Pandering" is just a word people use to whine that a group of gamers they don't like is getting more attention than they think they deserve.

People having their own preferences for beauty and attractiveness in women is not "demeaning". You're just trying to shame people for not being attracted to fat women.

Brah, I don't think you've quite caught the point here.

No one's asking you to be stroking it over BBDubs.

Point is, does every video game lady really need to be someone you want to fuck?

Nope, but that's not what the article claimed to be about either. It claimed to be about bulimia. Then it added nothing but fat to very active characters and called it a day because "AMERICAN AVERAGES", despite the fact that only like two of them are American in origin, with one of those barely existing as anything other than boxart.

And that's ignoring the whole fact that all of the characters are extraordinary in more than one fashion, turning them into pure averages from the real world just diminishes that part of them for no other reason than someone wanted it to be like that while hiding under the guise of "bulimia awareness"(which is a serious condition, but as I read more and more comments in favor of it I don't think anyone really cares about that part of it).

And hey, none of those characters are characters I really wanted to bang to begin with, heck I don't think most people would want to bang them because most of them have romantic interests that are already their equals in-universe.

 

[someguy1231]

The answer to the question is probably that a bunch of producers don't trust their core demographics to be able to play a game that doesn't have Barbie Doll proportioned, super sexy women. They think that the best way to make the game appeal (and thus sell more), is to shamelessly pander towards a stereotypical gamer who must have big tits and thigh gaps to appreciate a female form. It is an attitude that is demeaning to both women and men, but still alive and well (and apparently still quite effective a marketing technique, if the consumer response to Kate Upton's Game of War ads are any indicator of success).

Oh please. "Pandering" is just a word people use to whine that a group of gamers they don't like is getting more attention than they think they deserve.

People having their own preferences for beauty and attractiveness in women is not "demeaning". You're just trying to shame people for not being attracted to fat women.

Brah, I don't think you've quite caught the point here.

No one's asking you to be stroking it over BBDubs.

Point is, does every video game lady really need to be someone you want to fuck?

Every video game lady is an object of some gamer's "someone you want to fuck" fantasy. Developers could intentionally design the most hideous and ugly female character they can imagine, and she'd still get such fans.

 

[Des-Esseintes]

I don't think having fat protagonists is going to result in there being more fat people, but I think it certainly would help to make weight conscious people feel less of the destructive, needless anxiety attached to their weight and appearance. Efforts to be more healthy shouldn't be driven by a fear of looking ugly, or of being socially unacceptable.

The problem with your ideal view of society, much like certain aspects of feminism, is that it would seem to be completely contrary to biology and evolution. Things like fat-shaming, thin-shaming, slut-shaming are remnants from a time when, for example, being unhealthy(too fat or too thin) meant you're a drain on the resources of the tribe, or being promiscuous meant you're willing to engage in risky behaviour for short term benefit. As much as enlightened people would like humans to eradicate these holdovers from millenia past, I've seen plenty of studies that show these behaviours are highly unlikely to ever go away.

Much respect for what you're saying, dude, I get it. There's some evidence to show that we tend to prefer certain ratios, certain facial features - all that.

The problem I have with what you're saying, and this conventional wisdom in general, is that you've pretty much just pulled it out of your arse, mate. It sounds sciencey, but nothing you've said is legitimate science. You've just said a rationalisation for behaviour that sounds vaguely believable. Even Christopher Hitchens has done the same with his 'women just have no biological incentive to display humour because they just need big tittahs. Evolution.' So you're not in bad company. What you're saying maaaaaaaayyyy be true, but you've given me no reason to believe you. And, in my experience, the people making the argument tend to not have any reason themselves - other than hastily googling whatever evo-psych articles somewhat fit into their world view after the fact. For instance, a quick google just pulled up a study stating that 'being promiscuous' in women has evolved to better produce healthy children. Whaaaaaa?!?!?!?!

Point being, I doubt either of really knows what the fuck we're saying.

Me personally, it seems more likely that our standard of beauty is heavily social. It's only been like, what? 150 years since tubby-tubsters were considered hot as fuck. You only have to look at how vastly different playboy models over the last 50 decades are to see it. Shit, different cultures today are more appreciative of chunkier birds. Not to generalise too much, but how many black geezers do you see walking around with fat white girls? I don't think black people have the biological differences required to evolve a love of fatties. Nor do I think that Botticelli is an evolutionary anomaly.

 

[Des-Esseintes]

Nope, but that's not what the article claimed to be about either. It claimed to be about bulimia. Then it added nothing but fat to very active characters and called it a day because "AMERICAN AVERAGES", despite the fact that only like two of them are American in origin, with one of those barely existing as anything other than boxart.

And that's ignoring the whole fact that all of the characters are extraordinary in more than one fashion, turning them into pure averages from the real world just diminishes that part of them for no other reason than someone wanted it to be like that while hiding under the guise of "bulimia awareness"(which is a serious condition, but as I read more and more comments in favor of it I don't think anyone really cares about that part of it).

And hey, none of those characters are characters I really wanted to bang to begin with, heck I don't think most people would want to bang them because most of them have romantic interests that are already their equals in-universe.

Not quite getting your point, budddd. What intention exactly do you think the creators of these images had?

The post of mine you quoted from was a direct response to the point dude was making - not the article itself. Dude replied to someone who claimed most women in vidjas were designed to look attractive to basic-***** men. He replied saying that he shouldn't be shamed for not for wanting to bang chunky-chicks. I replied saying: 'Yo, it's real fucking weird to think that wanting a variety of shapes in our characters is a way to shame you for not banging fatties. It is possible that a woman could be designed without having "player wants to fuck her" implicit from the get go.'

 

[RaikuFA]

Am I the only one who thinks those alter images are actually alright?

I like some of them more. Tifa, in particular, seems like less of a doll to me.

I mean when have you seen a over weight archaeologist on tv?

Well, TV doesn't particularly like putting overweight people on the air either (unless it's some kind of weight loss competition, which they LOVE).

Or if the person is supposed to be stupid a la Homer Simpson.

OT: at least they said the new LC is more realistic.

 

[ILikeEggs]

Me personally, it seems more likely that our standard of beauty is heavily social. It's only been like, what? 150 years since tubby-tubsters were considered hot as fuck. You only have to look at how vastly different playboy models over the last 50 decades are to see it. Shit, different cultures today are more appreciative of chunkier birds. Not to generalise too much, but how many black geezers do you see walking around with fat white girls? I don't think black people have the biological differences required to evolve a love of fatties. Nor do I think that Botticelli is an evolutionary anomaly.

I don't disagree that many behaviours and views are cultural, and social. If you notice, I didn't even say attraction is purely influenced by the mammalian hindbrain. What I am saying, is there are certain things, certain very basic human responses to things that are heavily influenced by evolution, and that the limbic response to them will likely never go away. Things like disgust at feces, because feces are associated with disease. Hell, even my dogs will refuse to sleep on their mat after they've thrown up on it. Sure, the forebrain can mitigate and modify limbic responses, but it takes conscious cognitive effort to do, and constantly doing that is certainly not something humans evolved to do.

And as for it not being legitimate science, I don't keep a folder of bookmarks of every scientific study I read, or every book I read, because there's too damn much I read, and too many topics I read. Also, evolutionary psychology is a relatively nascent field of research, so I don't expect the scientific status quo to remain the same, but I do give credence to subjects I feel are well-researched and documented.

 

[someguy1231]

Me personally, it seems more likely that our standard of beauty is heavily social. It's only been like, what? 150 years since tubby-tubsters were considered hot as fuck. You only have to look at how vastly different playboy models over the last 50 decades are to see it. Shit, different cultures today are more appreciative of chunkier birds. Not to generalise too much, but how many black geezers do you see walking around with fat white girls? I don't think black people have the biological differences required to evolve a love of fatties. Nor do I think that Botticelli is an evolutionary anomaly.

The only times "tubby-tubsters" have been considered the beauty ideal was when food was scarce. For example, Mauritania is a country where fat women are considered ideal, so much so that some girls are essentially force-fed in their youth in hopes of landing a good husband. Mauritania is also a country beset by food shortages and concerns of famine. In other words, fat women weren't considered "hot" on their own merits - they were considered hot because they had good access to food and other resources. They were basically the "sugar daddies" of their time.

The differences in Playboy models and the like has been grossly exaggerated. Marilyn Monroe, despite what some fat activists would like you to believe, was not "plus size", either in her day or by modern standards. Going back even further, look up the famous Nefertiti bust. That was made over 3000 years ago, and yet a face like her's wouldn't look out of place among today's supermodels and female celebrities. Look at the Aphrodite of Cnidus statue (2400 years ago) for another example. Her body shape is very similar to Kate Upton's.

Minor details like hair and makeup styles may differ based on history and society, but when it comes to overall body shape and size, human cultures have been remarkably consistent.

 

[JUMBO PALACE]

All I got from this was "Wah wah wah I feel bad about myself make these characters fat like me." I don't see why we should be celebrating the decline in the average American's health. It's a damn shame.

 

[Redryhno]

All I got from this was "Wah wah wah I feel bad about myself make these characters fat like me." I don't see why we should be celebrating the decline in the average American's health. It's a damn shame.

To be fair, games could do with more body shapes all around, for a surprise at least, but this is certainly not the way to do it.

 

[Piorn]

Is that really the american average?
Because that's what I'd call well-fed. Not obese I guess, but not the type of body that is used to movement either. Or maybe the artist just misjudged the height and scale of the characters, I don't know.

Always find it interesting how easily these campaigns backfire, though. They aim to expose the ridiculous standards set by artists, but counter them with body imagery that's a bit too far in the other direction, so in comparison it just looks like glorifying obesity.

 

[Des-Esseintes]

I don't disagree that many behaviours and views are cultural, and social. If you notice, I didn't even say attraction is purely influenced by the mammalian hindbrain. What I am saying, is there are certain things, certain very basic human responses to things that are heavily influenced by evolution, and that the limbic response to them will likely never go away. Things like disgust at feces, because feces are associated with disease. Hell, even my dogs will refuse to sleep on their mat after they've thrown up on it. Sure, the forebrain can mitigate and modify limbic responses, but it takes conscious cognitive effort to do, and constantly doing that is certainly not something humans evolved to do.

I don't doubt what you're saying, mate. It just doesn't seem to have anything to do with what I originally quoted. Not to be a dick but your original quote didn't really have much to do with what you were quoting either. It's definitely possible that everything you've said is the hottest, 100% factual, shit - there's some real strong evidence about hip-to-waist ratios and evolutionary factors in attraction. I just don't see what that's got to do with feminists, fat-shaming, slut-shaming, bulimia, or the current conversation about variety in vidja game character designs. Honestly, bringing up what type of woman men want to fuck when replying to a point about womens' destructive anxiety surrounding their weight and appearance is gonna come off strange, regardless of whether you have the science on hand.

This ain't particularly directed at you, I'm more so just weirded out how quick people like to jump into the 'what men are supposed to be attracted to'. When, even at the most inflammatory, no one here has been trying to argue that you need to bang fatties, or that fatties are better, or that we need to force feed fatty females into video games.

My personal opinion has been: 'Yo, this article has nothing to do with people trying to "force characters into being FAT", despite what 400 salty comments would have you believe.' And later, 'If we must discuss this nonsense, yes, I would like some women who aren't straight lines with tits. There's a variety of different body-types you can try without even bringing fattitude into the frame.' But whatevs, everyone's already made up their mind where they stand.

And as for it not being legitimate science, I don't keep a folder of bookmarks of every scientific study I read, or every book I read, because there's too damn much I read, and too many topics I read. Also, evolutionary psychology is a relatively nascent field of research, so I don't expect the scientific status quo to remain the same, but I do give credence to subjects I feel are well-researched and documented.

Dang dude, may be that there is mounds of well put together studies of exactly what you're saying out there. I just tend to give little credence to this brand of evo-psych being thrown about - it's almost always made up bullsnuff that people use to justify whatever beliefs they feel. Every horrendous belief system from neo-nazis down to your basic fratboy sexist uses the 'brah, it's totally evolution', while bulk posting whatever studies they can find that fit their point -not understanding whether they're good studies, what the scientific consensus is, all that good shizzzzz. Like, the entire internet has refused to mature from their 'debate creationists on gaiaonline' phase. Going all confirmation bias with googling sources while shouting about ad hominen doesn't make you the rational, logical thinker you pretend to be, internet-dwellers.

The only times "tubby-tubsters" have been considered the beauty ideal was when food was scarce. For example, Mauritania is a country where fat women are considered ideal, so much so that some girls are essentially force-fed in their youth in hopes of landing a good husband. Mauritania is also a country beset by food shortages and concerns of famine.

So, what weight is considered attractive is a social construct then?

I see where you're coming from, but this argument doesn't cover much ground, mate.

I wouldn't consider that the 'only times', especially when food scarcity isn't really a fixed state kinda deal. Like did Rubens and Bottecelli exist in a period of food scarcity? Relative to what? If they had fuller tummies than those in Mauritania, is their beauty standard less chunky to that same proportion? Mexico today seems to favour a larger brand of woman than the US does - which appears to fit into your theory, until you consider all the countries with different weight standards who don't sit at the right places on this 'food scarcity scale' we've constructed.

In other words, fat women weren't considered "hot" on their own merits - they were considered hot because they had good access to food and other resources. They were basically the "sugar daddies" of their time.

C'mon, son. What does merit have to do with this bollocks? Am I taking it correct that you're trying to imply that this isn't real attraction - not that proper attraction that we have to thin ladies?

The differences in Playboy models and the like has been grossly exaggerated. Marilyn Monroe, despite what some fat activists would like you to believe, was not "plus size", either in her day or by modern standards.

I'm aware of the Marilyn myth, not my point geezer.

Nothing to do with weight, just pointing out how different the beauty standard was even 20-30 years ago.

Shit, even the beauty standard today is starting to change from what was posted in the OP. The curvier look of Nicki Minaj, Queen B and Kim K don't look much like Rikku, Cortana and Tifa.

Going back even further, look up the famous Nefertiti bust. That was made over 3000 years ago, and yet a face like her's wouldn't look out of place among today's supermodels and female celebrities. Look at the Aphrodite of Cnidus statue (2400 years ago) for another example. Her body shape is very similar to Kate Upton's. Minor details like hair and makeup styles may differ based on history and society, but when it comes to overall body shape and size, human cultures have been remarkably consistent.

And: 'Cleopatra's nose, had it been shorter, the whole face of the world would have been changed'.

I'm sorry if I'm coming across as a dick, but what you're saying is straight up bull.

Even if you could come up with an average across history and culture, the outliers would be so significant as to make it meaningless.

Going look at Nefertiti doesn't mean anymore than me saying 'Look how ugly those bitches in Charlie Chaplin films were.'

 

[Redryhno]

Maybe people should be encouraged to lose weight rather than making their fictional characters fatter.

Well, that's kind of related to the concern that the group has, that the ever presence of this kind of body image represents an unattainable ideal for the average person, the pursuit of which could result in the development of the eating disorders they provide information about.

You could just diet and exercise to attain the figure you want.

The figure you can get with diet and exercise may not be the figure you want. I'd expect someone with any experience with either diet, or exercise to know that. I'm not even talking about dieting, just normal diet and training routines. We can't all have every physique we want, we can have a range of ones our bodies offer.

For some people that's really skinny, or really muscular, or a little tubby, and loads of other variations.

If that's the case, where's the really skinny, the really muscular, all I'm seeing is loads of variations on tubby...

Not that it's bad, persay, but if you're going to say it's about a range of bodies in the world, where's the range of bodies?

Not to mention, again, I've yet to get an answer from anyone in full favor of this, not even an acknowledgement, why not real people? Actresses, models, celebrities in general? Why not photoshop them? Why not even cosplayers? Why not show real people with a variety of body types? What is the point of fictional characters they may not have been exposed to? Not to mention most of the characters having extraordinary lives but demanding they have average bodies? Where is the logic in that?

So because this one article didn't offer more than one set of alternatives, there should be NO alternatives? That makes no sense to me. Then you go on to talk about actors and actresses being photoshopped which is kind of odd too, since they come in all shapes, sizes, colors, and genders. There is a whole lot more variation in acting, than in games.

You also seem to be arguing against a group of people at once, instead of replying to me individually, which is also problematic. I don't answer for anyone else, so your problems with the thread in general are not my problems.

And you need to read again, I did not say that there shouldn't be alternatives, I said that if this is variety of alternatives, where is the variation? There is little variation in the article and they're using pixels instead of real people. If the ideal they're talking about is unobtainable, exactly how is this ideal any better? It's still pixels, it's not real people who you can point to and say "Like that", it's a bunch of characters that Are. Not. Average. Yet we're being told they need to look average for "realism" and "think of the chillen".

And again, what does using fictional characters that not everyone has been exposed to do? Why not one of the hundreds of models, actors, celebrities in general instead? Why photoshop pixels when you can just pull up a picture of, again, A REAL PERSON, and shop them? It gives much more impact and gives an alternative look at someone real.

And if there's more variation in acting, why not use all that variation instead of shopping fiction? Don't you think it would make more sense to pull up a somewhat untampered photo of a real person? Heck, this is an article about telling people they don't need to seriously harm themselves to heavily thin down, you'd think they'd want to talk about more than just a bunch of pixles on a screen. You'd think they'd want to bring out examples of the real world where people are healthy and fine the way they are, but they don't.

And you didn't answer my questions, but at least you tried, which is better than the last ten pages of people ignoring or just disappearing altogether.

"I did not say that there shouldn't be alternatives, I said that if this is variety of alternatives, where is the variation? There is little variation in the article and they're using pixels instead of real people."

You just denied saying what you then go on to confirm: you're using this one article as a strawman for the entire argument. That's why I'm the only one who responded, and only to point that out.

Dude, you said it was to show variation of body types, when there was no variation given.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

You do realize that the image of Rikku is objectively bigger than the other one and seems to be zoomed in more, right?

While he is wrong, and you are correct in observing that, Kate is still actually significantly more 'normal' than the post-photoshop Rikku.

I've scaled the Rikku image down, and lined up both of them vertically, such that their shoulders, crotch and head are at identical heights. The red line is the width of Kate's waist, and as you can see, it is smaller than Rikku's waist, even from a 3/4th angle. The green lines indicate what Rikku's post-photoshop torso would look like if she were facing completely forward, as Kate is. The waist-discrepancy is even more pronounced now. It seems everyone who is arguing that photoshopped Rikku has a normal body(and the "artist" who photoshopped that image) has no anatomical knowledge whatsoever, because Rikku's skeletal structure is not normal by any definition of the word. So technically, the photoshopped Rikku actually has a similar bodyfat percentage as Kate Upton, but since the people making this couldn't get some of her most basic proportions, i.e ribcage and hip width right, it kind of invalidates everything else about her.

However, I find it ironic that people claiming these photoshopped images are more like 'real' women, will go and compare them to someone like Kate Upton who is absolutely not a 'normal' woman; someone who has a fitness and nutritional trainer, and still isn't what I would call healthy, or someone to be considered a body image role model. To elaborate, the extra bodyfat she has primarily around her torso, looks great, aesthetically. But then I'm not really talking about aesthetics, because the near complete lack of musculature everywhere is indicative of someone who will probably have bone, joint, cardio-vascular, and multiple other problems later in life.

I am not arguing that Upton is an example of a " Normal woman", I am arguing that the photo shopped Rikku is not obese. Healthy is a separate issue,a s we even have Olympians that are not healthy as well even with intensive training. If they are calling Rikku Obese, they would be calling Upton obese as well due to comparable body fat percentages. It is absurd to call Rikku obese and think Kate is not. Their perception of what is and what is not obese is the issue.

Neither Fashion models OR Olympians are what one would consider normal. LOL