Don't get personal about it....I'm simply saying that if 99.9% of the public believes one thing and .1% believes something different, then generally the 99.9% are right (maybe 99.9% of the time) and the .1% are wrong.
Face it: there is an objective standard of female beauty just as there is an objective standard of height or an objective standard of taste in foods. We don't build doors for 8-and-a-half foot people because, while there may be a few people that tall every century, it's just not necessary for the vast majority of humans. We build doors for the average person of up to 7 feet in height.
McDonald's knows that there are folks who prefer very spicy foods but they don't put Tabasco sauce in their grilled cheeseburgers to accommodate them. They make their cheeseburgers to please the pallets of the 99% of the masses who don't like red-hot, spicy food.
You may see the thin Gwyneth Paltrow on the cover of a magazine or in a movie but you would never see the fat version (other than in Shallow Hal, and that was to illustrate a point). How many Miss America contestants or Ford models or cover girls on Cosmo magazine weigh over 200 pounds, much less 300 pounds? I had to laugh when Sports Illustrated relentlessly touted the "plus sized" model Ashley Graham who appeared in their 2015 swimsuit issue, because she turned out to be not very fat at all, and certainly nowhere near the weight of Rosemary in Shallow Hal.
Sure, there are some guys who like big, big women, but it's a very small minority. The cultural norm is that thin is beautiful but bloat is not.
To believe something different is in the nature of a religious belief, such as the medieval Catholic papal doctrine which held that the sun revolved around the earth. These beliefs give worshipers the false hope that we are still the center of the universe, yet also bring in their wake eventual disappointment. Many, many different cultures enjoy their false ideas because it brings them hope and makes them feel better (for example, Islamic suicide bombers apparently look forward to 72 virgins in heaven), but that does not mean that such comforting beliefs are true.
There is a name for this logical fallacy: Argumentum ad consequentiam. This is an argument which concludes that a hypothesis or a belief is either true or false based on whether the premise leads to desirable or undesirable consequences. It's an appeal to emotion and is a fallacy, since the desirability of an argument does not make it true. I too would prefer to live in a world where Rosemary was as equally as desirable as Gwyneth, but that's not the world we inhabit.
reply
share