[ SECRET POST #2209 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2208 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11.


__________________________________________________



12.


__________________________________________________



13.


__________________________________________________



14.


__________________________________________________



15.


__________________________________________________



16.


__________________________________________________



17.


__________________________________________________



18.


__________________________________________________



19.


__________________________________________________









Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 06 pages, 121 secrets from Secret Submission Post #316.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 1 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 1 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

Nope. See, there are millions of possible body types that AREN'T those stock figures, so... the criticism stands, why continue to use "ooh sexy thin," "ooh sexy curvy," and "ooh sexy 'fat'"?

[(Anonymous)]

If you're trying to get someone to listen to your side of things, being patronizing rarely helps. You used both the "I am objectively correct" opener ("Nope.") and the "You must be dull; I need to explain this to you" lead-in ("See..."). That's a lot of condescension in two sentences.

Often they're not "sexy fat" or "sexy thin", but get criticized as "conventional" unless they're far from statistical norms (shapes you are actually unlikely to see on a person). If a character is [x], they're not [x] enough.

I'm not sure what you're referring to when you say "stock figures", because what I listed were broad categories, and thousands of shapes fall under each one. And human bodies actually do all fall within certain bounds (there are physical impossibilities). It seems to me that they need to be depicted on the very edges of those bounds in order to be accepted and not considered "convention". It makes more sense to me to create characters who look like someone you might actually see every day on the street.

[omaera]

I have yet to see a woman portrayed in media who is not "sexy fat" or "sexy thin" except in rare cases where they're supposed to be outliers, and then they're basically always shown in a negative way (drug users, anorexics, scary fat people on medical shows, etc.).

You also missed one important category of women that do not fall under any of the ones you listed, yet also encompasses an enormous number of women: the ones who do not, in fact, have a standard female shape. You mention buxom, but there are not a large number of pear-shaped women whose hips are disproportionately larger than their breasts in the media -- save Kimmy K and JLo, anyway, who are 'freaks' in Hollywood. There are certainly very few apple-shaped women. There are extremely few muscular woman, with or without the "shape."

[(Anonymous)]

Big-hipped women are dime-a-dozen in Western cartoons, though. TV Tropes calls them "Hartman Hips".