• Study shows girls (ages 3 to 5) reject fat dolls to play with. They consistently prefer thin version
    96 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Zeke129;43662041]If I ever have a daughter I'm going to try and teach her to prefer the toys that involved the largest amount of environmental destruction to manufacture. More plastic? Better toy![/QUOTE] by the time you have kids i'm going to wager most if not all plastics will be made from some sort of lignin or biomass, and those that aren't will be made with natural gas which is much much easier to make into plastics than oil
[QUOTE=Sgt. Khorn;43662281]Also, i would think some kids prefer to play with toys similar to themselves. I know when I used to play with the older GIJoes, I played mainly with the one the resembled me the most. I can't be the only person who put themselves onto their toys.[/QUOTE] I remember reading that children also prefer people who look better. (I read it in a newspaper a while ago, and the only source I can find is at the mail...)
-snip-
Normally I'd say it's probably biological, but becoming overweight doesn't seem like the sort of thing that would happen often enough in nature for it to be something instinctively seen as unhealthy. Thought maybe it's just as simple as not have the "shape" a human body is supposed to have.
Are there any photos available of what the dolls looked like? Its really hard to say anything without knowing what proportions they went with.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;43662029]being obese is bad being overweight probably doesn't matter much at all honestly[/QUOTE] The whole BMI chart thing is a load of shit though. Some super muscular guy like Arnold Schwarzenegger can be considered obese by that chart Some mildly chubby person that most of us would even consider more thin than fat would be considered obese by it, and then there's people on the other side of the scale who come in underweight. It basically doesn't mean shit The whole Body Mass Index should be ditched. And you shouldn't even worry about a child's weight until they're 15-20 years old because of how rapidly they change in those years unless it's an extreme. Fuck I knew a kid in high school who was fat. Our summer vacation lasted almost 3 months. On return, he was over a foot taller and packing some abs
This is incredibly sad.
[QUOTE=Sprockethead;43662048]Also kids are [B]supposed to be overfed, you should cram them with as much proteine, vitamin and calcium[/B] as you possibly can, not sugar and processed fat mind you. And being slightly overweight is arguably the most healthy type of body you can have on average.[/QUOTE] Are we taking about kids or juvenile reptiles here?
[QUOTE=person11;43662121]It could be biological or social. People always underestimate the power of socialization. People can be influenced from an extremely early age. In SOME cases, they are actually MOST influenced within the first year.[/QUOTE] Sexual discrimination starts the day you're born, when you get a blue blanket or a pink blanket.
[QUOTE=Abrown516;43663405]Sexual discrimination starts the day you're born, when you get a blue blanket or a pink blanket.[/QUOTE] For your information I got a yellow blanket because the hospital ran out of blues.
[QUOTE=TheTalon;43663149]The whole BMI chart thing is a load of shit though. Some super muscular guy like Arnold Schwarzenegger can be considered obese by that chart Some mildly chubby person that most of us would even consider more thin than fat would be considered obese by it, and then there's people on the other side of the scale who come in underweight. It basically doesn't mean shit The whole Body Mass Index should be ditched. And you shouldn't even worry about a child's weight until they're 15-20 years old because of how rapidly they change in those years unless it's an extreme. Fuck I knew a kid in high school who was fat. Our summer vacation lasted almost 3 months. On return, he was over a foot taller and packing some abs[/QUOTE] Yeah, I go from being classed as overweight (when I'm in pretty good shape and wouldn't be considered fat at all) to obese (when carrying 10 or more extra pounds). I'm 6'4 and very broad. The annoying part is that doctors still pretend like I should lose another 20-40 pounds in order to be classified as healthy when I would have to be distinctly unhealthy if I were to do so.
[QUOTE=Rhenae;43662237]Overweight is anything considered not optimal health wise, as defined for medical use at least what is considered "fat" by societal standards is of course a very different story. Obese is when it becomes a substantial medical concern, So while overweight isn't terrible or life threatening it certainly also isnt going to be optimal, otherwise it would be the suggested weight.[/QUOTE] You are failing to realize how pointless overall the term "overweight" is. It all depends on the particular case. Don't forget that your weight can be made of either surplus bodily fat, or abnormal amount of muscle tissue, and both will lead to higher bodily weight relative to your height. You can be a heavy fucking motherfucker and by definition overweight but it might be because you are a heap of muscle with indeed some fat on top of that, but your cardio condition might be perfect. On the other side, you might have completely "normal" weight but instead of having healthy amount of muscle and little fat, you can be missing muscle almost altogether and still have a quite high amount of bodily fat, and that's worse than having the same amount of fat and extra muscle on top of it. This is why we outside of weight to height also measure bodily fat weight percentage - weight itself and being overweight doesn't really mean jack shit. Chances are that people who are by definition overweight are far healthier than somebody 10kg lighter if their other physiological characteristics are better.
[QUOTE=Abrown516;43663405]Sexual discrimination starts the day you're born, when you get a blue blanket or a pink blanket.[/QUOTE] Funny enough, it used to be the other way around a few hundred years ago, if that long
[QUOTE=Valnar;43662749]It doesn't really make sense for it to be biological. Until very recently in human history being fat would be seen as something extremely positive since it meant you had excess food.[/QUOTE] It was seen as positive because you were rich enough to pig out. This was in no way healthy though. It simply meant you wouldn't die from starvation. Nowadays we can have a proper daily diet without fear of starving so we don't need excess fat to get us through rough days when no food is available.
[QUOTE=TheTalon;43663149]The whole BMI chart thing is a load of shit though. Some super muscular guy like Arnold Schwarzenegger can be considered obese by that chart Some mildly chubby person that most of us would even consider more thin than fat would be considered obese by it, and then there's people on the other side of the scale who come in underweight. It basically doesn't mean shit The whole Body Mass Index should be ditched. And you shouldn't even worry about a child's weight until they're 15-20 years old because of how rapidly they change in those years unless it's an extreme. Fuck I knew a kid in high school who was fat. Our summer vacation lasted almost 3 months. On return, he was over a foot taller and packing some abs[/QUOTE] BMI is outdated and fairly obsolete. Waist to hip ratio is superior. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waist–hip_ratio[/url]
[QUOTE=Riutet;43664140]BMI is outdated and fairly obsolete. Waist to hip ratio is superior. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waist–hip_ratio[/url][/QUOTE] How is it superior exactly? I agree that BMI is outdated but waist to hip seems more useful for measuring your frame than how healthy fat you are. I've seen plenty of people who had very little ratio difference because of their bone structure.
[QUOTE=Abrown516;43663405]Sexual discrimination starts the day you're born, when you get a blue blanket or a pink blanket.[/QUOTE] b-but i got one with the name and logo of a politician that was doing electioneering at the time because the hospital was poor and had not enough blankets.. [editline]25th January 2014[/editline] also yeah fuck being able to quickly identify which babies in a room full of fucking babies is a boy or a girl
[QUOTE=itisjuly;43664209]How is it superior exactly? I agree that BMI is outdated but waist to hip seems more useful for measuring your frame than how healthy fat you are. I've seen plenty of people who had very little ratio difference because of their bone structure.[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21461943[/url]
[QUOTE=Riutet;43664140]BMI is outdated and fairly obsolete. Waist to hip ratio is superior. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waist–hip_ratio[/url][/QUOTE] There is a BMI scale corrected for height that is used clinically (calculation the same, but referenced against a graph), but it is only used as a very quick baseline for people. It is not that useful on an individual level, but it is designed to work over a population, not on singular people. The situations where corrected BMI isn't useful are fairly obvious - said person tends to be totally ripped if they are coming off as obese on it. (be it class I, II or III) I agree that the waist:hip ratio is superior, but you would really take both if doing an accurate assessment of health, as wasit:hip mostly does abdominal fat, and BMI covers a tiny bit more. As a general rule, it's used for anonymous statistics generated by hospitals, which can be used in epidemiological studies of the populace, which are very useful, as the minority not covered by it are outliers.
[QUOTE=gk99;43662108]Yep, doing a great job teaching your daughter to be accepting of other people this way. Then again, it doesn't matter because everyone is already broken and unfixable by the time you get into middleschool.[/QUOTE] except unlike being gay or something being fat is a choice and I don't have to accept them if I don't want to [editline]25th January 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Sprockethead;43662173]Well its an arbitrary measure, [B]probably set by social standards rather than actual medicinal data, [/B] You are more likely to be resistant to disease, and you are definitely more protected from injury, cuts bruises and bludgeoning, aswell as cold, if you have about an inch of bodyfat around your muscles. Its simply the way our biology is structured. [editline]25th January 2014[/editline] Its still a social stigma though. Perpetuated by social media among other things.[/QUOTE] ok honestly how fat are you oh and guess what muscles are denser than fat so everything you said is wrong the only thing being fat will do is protect you from drowning oh wait no it won't because you'll still have to work harder to stay afloat
[QUOTE=Sprockethead;43662173]Well its an arbitrary measure, probably set by social standards rather than actual medicinal data, You are more likely to be resistant to disease, and you are definitely more protected from injury, cuts bruises and bludgeoning, aswell as cold, if you have about an inch of bodyfat around your muscles. Its simply the way our biology is structured. [editline]25th January 2014[/editline] Its still a social stigma though. Perpetuated by social media among other things.[/QUOTE] Social standards are not arbitrary
I think it's likely that their responses are based on the type of people they're surrounded by. Imagine a young black child around 3-5 years old is asked to choose between a toy that is white and a toy that is black, like them. Their family is black, their friends and neighbors may also be black, too. Which one are they likely to pick? I think if the young girls in this survey had many overweight family members, they might be more likely to choose the overweight dolls, since it's something they have feelings associated with.
[QUOTE=Cockslap;43667596]except unlike being gay or something being fat is a choice and I don't have to accept them if I don't want to [editline]25th January 2014[/editline] ok honestly how fat are you oh and guess what muscles are denser than fat so everything you said is wrong the only thing being fat will do is protect you from drowning oh wait no it won't because you'll still have to work harder to stay afloat[/QUOTE] Punctuation. [editline]25th January 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Laserbeams;43667615]Social standards are not arbitrary[/QUOTE] Social standards is the most arbitrary thing imaginable.
[QUOTE=Sprockethead;43667677]Social standards is the most arbitrary thing imaginable.[/QUOTE] Not when it comes to looks they're not
BMI is great for doing studies of a large population, but when used for the individual imo it falls flat on its face.
I wonder what would happen if it was all fat kids with fat parents, would they flock to the fat dolls or the nonfat dolls?
Well I guess fat dolls are more expensive. You need more material to make them.
[QUOTE=Sprockethead;43667677]Punctuation. [editline]25th January 2014[/editline] Social standards is the most arbitrary thing imaginable.[/QUOTE] sorry sir i dont listen to people who think this [img]http://scrapetv.com/News/News%20Pages/Business/images-3/really-fat-man.jpg[/img] is healthy
cool selfie
Can somebody provide a picture of a fat doll ? As far as I know all "fat" dolls actually represent babies, and babies are not really thin and lean. On the other hand thin dolls usually represent teenagers or grown ups. So IMO all this research is based on BS. It's not fat vs. thin, maybe they are just more interested in grown ups than babies, which is logical because they want to learn, grow up, and be like them...
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.