The A4 waist 'challenge'

[Brother Oni]

So yet another fad has popped up on social media (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-35892789), where women are holding up a piece of A4 paper in front of their waist whilst taking a selfie and they 'pass' if their waist is hidden completely behind the 21cm of paper (8.27in for you Americans).

Ignoring camera tricks of holding the paper closer to the mirror, I'm inclined to think this is one of the more ridiculous ones which can only be passed with lucky genetics more than anything else. The woman whose challenge got picked up by media claimed that she and the other six 20 year old girls in her department passed it and that it's inappropriate to be used for Caucasians and other westerners since Chinese people tend to be slimmer anyway.

Checking with my 12 year old daughter who fits the ethnic requirements, she has a BMI of 20.8, which puts her in the 75th percentile of her age/weight band, making her perfectly healthy and she also fails it.*

So yet another example of popular culture's obsession with thinness :smallannoyed:.


*In case of people worrying that I'm giving my daughter body image problems, she's well used to my scientist nature of testing things experimentally, ever since I used her as a stabbing model to assess a Game of Thrones scene and chalks it up to 'silly daddy stuff'. :smallbiggrin:

[Grinner]

I wouldn't worry too much about those sort of people. In one high-school English class, I remember sitting near a pair of girls who were into dieting; their highest aspiration in life, it seemed, was becoming trophy wives. :smallsigh:

[TechnOkami]

As an American...


I don't care and continue to not care, because thinness fads and a need for skinniness does not define me nor my interest in others when it occurs.

[Kalmageddon]

Ugh... :smallsigh:
This is really, really sad. There is absolutely no value in having your waist no larger than an A4 paper sheet, it's not even an indicator of how thin you are, it's just an arbitrary measure.

[The Succubus]

As fads go, this one seems rather plain. Get it? Plain? As in paper?

....never mind.

[Serpentine]

Checking with my 12 year old daughter who fits the ethnic requirements, she has a BMI of 20.8, which puts her in the 75th percentile of her age/weight band, making her perfectly healthy and she also fails it.*Just as a heads up, BMI is a terrible predictor of individual health. It's designed for assessing whole populations, not individuals. The hip to waist ratio is much better, although I suspect that really only works for people on the far side of puberty (not sure if there's anything that really works for kids, aside from eyeballing each one directly).

I have never understood this idea of a universal "goal size" like "everyone wants to be size 0!" and that. I mean, I could lose all my weight, become dangerously underweight, strip off every little scrap of fat from my body, and I expect I'd still be a size 12(aus), minimum. Striving to be a size 8(aus) would be exactly as ridiculous as my trying to fit my size 9.5 foot into a size 6 shoe. Just ain't gonna happen, and I'm certainly not gonna kill myself trying.

[Blackhawk748]

As an American...


I don't care and continue to not care, because thinness fads and a need for skinniness does not define me nor my interest in others when it occurs.

Amen Okami. According to the BMI, i am apparently overweight, and apparently have been my entire life. For the record im 6'0" and just shy of 200 lbs, and have never considered myself overweight. Besides if i lost any weight id lose my insulation in winter :smallbiggrin:

The fact that virtually every person i know would be overweight or on the high side of "Normal" leads me to call it a bunch of crap. As a friend once said "You can put a car body on a truck frame, but it sure as hell is gonna look stupid."

[Brother Oni]

Just as a heads up, BMI is a terrible predictor of individual health. It's designed for assessing whole populations, not individuals. The hip to waist ratio is much better, although I suspect that really only works for people on the far side of puberty (not sure if there's anything that really works for kids, aside from eyeballing each one directly).

I'm fully aware of the limitations of BMI and its use in population statistics, but as you've said for children, there's not much else you can use. Figuring out her position on a child/teen BMI percentile chart seems to be good start for a ballpark estimation though and it's what she was assessed against when she was smaller during her checkups.

I suspect you could use body fat percentage (measured through whatever means), but again that's of limited use on this side of puberty.


I'm also pretty much in the same boat as you - even if I went down to ~5% body fat like a on-season bodybuilder, I'd still be regarded as 'over weight' using the BMI classification.


The fact that virtually every person i know would be overweight or on the high side of "Normal" leads me to call it a bunch of crap.

I think the issue is that BMI is being used in ways that it shouldn't be and that popular science has propagated these fallacies. Within its limitations, it's a great tool; outside of it, it's of dubious use and if you're one of those outlier people without an 'average' frame, it's going to break completely.

In my case, I'm about the same weight as you (just over 14 stone) but much shorter at 5'7", so my BMI classification is 'moderately obese'.

[AMFV]

So yet another fad has popped up on social media (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-35892789), where women are holding up a piece of A4 paper in front of their waist whilst taking a selfie and they 'pass' if their waist is hidden completely behind the 21cm of paper (8.27in for you Americans).

Ignoring camera tricks of holding the paper closer to the mirror, I'm inclined to think this is one of the more ridiculous ones which can only be passed with lucky genetics more than anything else. The woman whose challenge got picked up by media claimed that she and the other six 20 year old girls in her department passed it and that it's inappropriate to be used for Caucasians and other westerners since Chinese people tend to be slimmer anyway.

Checking with my 12 year old daughter who fits the ethnic requirements, she has a BMI of 20.8, which puts her in the 75th percentile of her age/weight band, making her perfectly healthy and she also fails it.*

So yet another example of popular culture's obsession with thinness :smallannoyed:.


*In case of people worrying that I'm giving my daughter body image problems, she's well used to my scientist nature of testing things experimentally, ever since I used her as a stabbing model to assess a Game of Thrones scene and chalks it up to 'silly daddy stuff'. :smallbiggrin:

Well there are certain things a person can do to make their waist slimmer, that don't necessarily involve losing weight. Also BMI is probably not something that one should use as a measurement of health, since it doesn't take into account body composition. Really a DEXA scan is about the only real way (although calipers are close). I'm not saying that a girl should have a ridiculously thin waist, but that wanting one isn't necessarily a bad thing, or that working towards that isn't either.


Just as a heads up, BMI is a terrible predictor of individual health. It's designed for assessing whole populations, not individuals. The hip to waist ratio is much better, although I suspect that really only works for people on the far side of puberty (not sure if there's anything that really works for kids, aside from eyeballing each one directly).

I have never understood this idea of a universal "goal size" like "everyone wants to be size 0!" and that. I mean, I could lose all my weight, become dangerously underweight, strip off every little scrap of fat from my body, and I expect I'd still be a size 12(aus), minimum. Striving to be a size 8(aus) would be exactly as ridiculous as my trying to fit my size 9.5 foot into a size 6 shoe. Just ain't gonna happen, and I'm certainly not gonna kill myself trying.

Well, there isn't really a universal goal size, but there are certainly trends, that advertisers use. I have more of an issue with people who complain about trying to make everybody happy with what size they are (many people aren't and won't be), instead of teaching them healthy ways to get to the body they want. There is certainly a lot of change a person can manage, although bone structure is a limiting factor. So I think the main issue is one of teaching people (especially teenagers) how to lose weight healthily or gain weight healthily or achieve goals within good health, as well as what is realistic.

[factotum]

I've tried four times to write this post and I can't think of a way to say what I mean. Suffice it to say I think this fad is as ridiculous as the whole stick-thin supermodel thing is.

[JustSomeGuy]

Apparently my bmi wants me between 8st 10lbs and 11st. Currently 17st 5lbs with a lifetime PR of 19st 7lbs, haven't been within those target figures since i was maybe 14ish. If only there was one tip trainers don't want me to know, or one weird trick to lose a stone! Doctors are furious with me!

Also, i wish someone could explain all this nonsense in a way that my wife would inderstand, it kills me to watch her go through the same old **** every now and again trying to emaciate herself because that's what famous women "look" like (after several professionals have spent hours improving their shots)

[ace rooster]

Firstly, as someone with a BMI of 18 who used to climb at a 7b level, I would reiterate that BMI is a useless measure of health. It does not reflect build at all. Even for whole populations it is not very good, because it assumes a certain distribution of builds that may not hold.

The following are some of my thoughts on are human coupling. I regard this as the one area of life where the genders do tend to behave differently, and so is the one topic of conversation where discussing the genders separately is appropriate. I will make some assertions that I believe, but I have very little evidence for any of them so they are very open to challenge (marked with a *). I am presenting them because I believe they are inextricably linked to body image, and understanding the modern obsession with it. Note that I don't think any of this is conscious, instead powerful instincts that exist in all life.

Modern western life is fairly post scarcity, and physical interactions are relatively few (dancing being the biggest one). Men don't seem to find professional success attractive in the same way that women do*, and men often don't respond to women openly 'competing' for their attention in a helpful way (they both want me? nice) *. Intellectual connections can only really occur once you have somebody's attention, and in evolutionary terms are a very recent development*. This doesn't leave much that women can do to attract someone initially. Their physical appearance is all that's really left*, so women will go to enormous lengths to 'improve' it * (this one does have evidence, the 2008 cosmetics turnover was 170 billion us$). A woman's weight will affect that appearance (less than most think), so it will be a concern. One thing that I have noticed is that body image insecurities are very diminished in people who don't rely on it, if they have a sport for example*.

Interestingly, the factors that seem to influence women in this direction are applying increasingly to men too, and we are seeing a big trend towards male grooming at the same time.

Basically, I think the only way we are going to move away from this obsession with physical appearance is to open up and celebrate other ways for people (women especially, but not exclusively) to be and feel sexy.

[factotum]

Even for whole populations it is not very good, because it assumes a certain distribution of builds that may not hold.


Any physicist will tell you that BMI is bunk. If you were to scale somebody to exactly twice their original size in every dimension, their weight would go up as the cube of that, e.g. they'd be 8 times as heavy--but because BMI uses the *square* of the height, their BMI would double! BMI only really works for people of average height, if you're very tall or very short then it will never be accurate.

[cobaltstarfire]

Man we have these things called internal organs and bones!

Oddly enough this reminds me of the body specifications they have in the air force for the folks who fly. My cousin is fit and healthy but has lots of trouble meeting some circumference specifications for his height or something like that (I think it's his neck and how big around his chest is?)

[Grinner]

As fads go, this one seems rather plain. Get it? Plain? As in paper?

....never mind.

I, for one, appreciate your punmanship.

[Brother Oni]

Oddly enough this reminds me of the body specifications they have in the air force for the folks who fly. My cousin is fit and healthy but has lots of trouble meeting some circumference specifications for his height or something like that (I think it's his neck and how big around his chest is?)

If he's airforce then part of the physical requirements is being able to fit into the aircraft's cockpit as the military can't modify an aircraft (and I guess the flight suit) that much for a single pilot.

I remember hearing an anecdote that there's a maximum height requirement to avoid the pilot being decapitated by the canopy during an emergency ejection.

[TechnOkami]

I, for one, appreciate your punmanship.

Easily seconded. I had a good giggle over it when I read it.

[cobaltstarfire]

He's not a pilot, I'm not sure what exactly he does other than that it involves the larger radar planes with multiple crew beyond the pilots. (he can fly drones, he's done the training to pilot but doesn't have the "touch" they want to fly actual planes? He has no idea what exactly that means and neither do I). Though yeah the planess are pretty cramped.

They bug/threatened him about it, but haven't prevented him from actually flying yet as far as I know. Which is in retrospect kind of weird, because it's one of the air forces favorite ways of discharging people. Even people they can't realistically replace.

He might not fly anymore? I haven't talked to him in a few years. He was training people last I heard, though he still flew. I know that much because apparently many new flyers don't believe him when he tells them they'll want to hang onto the barf bag cause mid-air refueling isn't really a forgiving ride if you know what I mean. (silly macho newbs)


I suppose what happened is he used to have the right measurements, but he got commissioned in his early 20's, and men aren't really fully grown/filled out till they're nearly 30 so I guess he filled out and suddenly was seriously pushing what is allowed to fly.

[ace rooster]

If he's airforce then part of the physical requirements is being able to fit into the aircraft's cockpit as the military can't modify an aircraft (and I guess the flight suit) that much for a single pilot.

I remember hearing an anecdote that there's a maximum height requirement to avoid the pilot being decapitated by the canopy during an emergency ejection.

My understanding is that you need to be able to tuck your legs under your seat without your knees protruding too much, or the instrument panel takes them off on the way out. You still survive, maybe, but not ideal if you land in enemy territory and have to walk back.

I would imagine that big military aircraft sail fairly close to the wind with regards to weight limits too. 10kg overweight might not sound like much, but multiply it by 70 personnel and you have a significant difference. While I doubt they would sack anyone over it, I could see them throwing hissy fits. Even muscle mass is dead weight in that job.

Thirding my appreciation of the pun.

[The Succubus]

I, for one, appreciate your punmanship.


Easily seconded. I had a good giggle over it when I read it.

Good. Would hate to think I was waisting my time.

[AMFV]

If he's airforce then part of the physical requirements is being able to fit into the aircraft's cockpit as the military can't modify an aircraft (and I guess the flight suit) that much for a single pilot.

I remember hearing an anecdote that there's a maximum height requirement to avoid the pilot being decapitated by the canopy during an emergency ejection.

That sounds like regular taping. Not actually the plane thing. That's just a body-fat approximation, and a rather bad one. The Air Force is surprisingly harsh (as harsh as the Marines), in regards to that. The height requirements are the pilot ones, but by the time you've finished all of your stuff you should be set as far height goes.


Man we have these things called internal organs and bones!

Oddly enough this reminds me of the body specifications they have in the air force for the folks who fly. My cousin is fit and healthy but has lots of trouble meeting some circumference specifications for his height or something like that (I think it's his neck and how big around his chest is?)

Neck to waist. You want a big neck and a small waist. It's not a pilot specific thing, it's service-wide through the entire military (although the ratio allowed varies).

[cobaltstarfire]

Then his neck probably the too big part, cause I can't remember him ever talking about his waist.

[AMFV]

Then his neck probably the too big part, cause I can't remember him ever talking about his waist.

Too small, his neck would be too small.

Edit: It's a ratio. The shoulder thing could be a pilot thing though, but that sounds like regular taping to me. Which just takes waist and neck measurements.

[cobaltstarfire]

If his neck is too small relative to the size of his waist I don't know what the air force wants because for someones neck to get any bigger relative to their body he'd have to have goiter or something. :smalleek: Either way it wasn't a reasonable expectation from the air force based on his body shape. Though they may recognize it cause they haven't used it as an excuse to discharge him yet.


(If I remember I'll ask him about it, it could well be that I'm mis-remembering though I think he's off on some sort of deployment right now so it may be a while before I get a chance)

[Grinner]

If his neck is too small relative to the size of his waist I don't know what the air force wants because for someones neck to get any bigger relative to their body he'd have to have goiter or something. :smalleek: Either way it wasn't a reasonable expectation from the air force based on his body shape. Though they may recognize it cause they haven't used it as an excuse to discharge him yet.


(If I remember I'll ask him about it, it could well be that I'm mis-remembering though I think he's off on some sort of deployment right now so it may be a while before I get a chance)

The military uses the neck-waist ratio in place of BMI.

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/theorderlyroom/a/bodyfat.htm

[Peelee]

While they won't openly state it, neck size can also be a trigger for sleep apnea. And some military insurance is great for stuff like that, there's a probably a differenve between a grunt and a fighter pilot having it.

These are the things i know way too much about, sadly.

[AMFV]

If his neck is too small relative to the size of his waist I don't know what the air force wants because for someones neck to get any bigger relative to their body he'd have to have goiter or something. :smalleek: Either way it wasn't a reasonable expectation from the air force based on his body shape. Though they may recognize it cause they haven't used it as an excuse to discharge him yet.


(If I remember I'll ask him about it, it could well be that I'm mis-remembering though I think he's off on some sort of deployment right now so it may be a while before I get a chance)

He probably has a naturally large waist (what the military considers large is very different than what the civilian world considers large), and the Air Force is VERY strict about that. So he probably had to work on making his neck bigger, as a naturally large bone structure person, I had to do the same when I was in the Marines.

[Ifni]

My brother was denied entry to the air force (in Australia, not the US) for being too thin - his BMI was below the minimums. He passed all the other physical tests, the ones that actually measure strength and stamina, but... too thin.

(They told him to go eat copious amounts of junk food for a month to bring his weight up, and then come back. He tried - and iirc he gained about half a kilo in total, which was not anywhere near enough, and he felt lousy. At that point he decided that he wasn't interested in a job that would require him to eat ridiculous quantities of bad food to be counted as "healthy". Some people have a pretty low stable healthy weight, just as some people have a higher one.)

[soldersbushwack]

60% of the North American population is overweight and 30% is obese. I approve of this twitter fad. Personally, I don't think people in developed countries are doing enough to stress healthy eating habits.

[Serpentine]

60% of the North American population is overweight and 30% is obese. I approve of this twitter fad. Personally, I don't think people in developed countries are doing enough to stress healthy eating habits.
There is a big, BIG difference between "you must be under this arbitrary size in order to be considered attractive" and "eat healthier, exercise more and try to stay within this range that current scientific knowledge suggests is the ideal for minimising one's risk of various health issues."
There is nothing healthy about "be this thin at all costs", and there is nothing healthy about "if you don't meet this ridiculous and arbitrary standard you're fat and ugly and worthless". Obesity absolutely is a big problem, but this Twitter fad and similar ones are only going to make this and other problems worse, not "stress healthy eating habits".

To use myself as an example again, I am a big girl. I mean, I'm fat, and that's a problem, but I'm also just a big person. In order to meet this ridiculous standard, I would have to starve and work myself down until I was dangerously underweight. I would probably make myself sick, would increase my risk of various health issues and diseases, and then would probably still fail this crap because my rib cage alone would be too big and thus as likely as not severely damage my mental health by feeling like a massive fat failure for not "succeeding" at something I never had a chance at, or would have to half-kill myself to achieve. There is nothing healthy about that. This isn't about health; it's about shame.

[blunk]

I like these responses:

http://images5.aplus.com/uc-up/ig-desktop-BDFR77Xstdr
https://www.anony.ws/i/2016/03/28/Cd05PuwW4AAbN2x.jpg

[goto124]

How does anyone get a piece of A1 paper?

[Kalmageddon]

There is a big, BIG difference between "you must be under this arbitrary size in order to be considered attractive" and "eat healthier, exercise more and try to stay within this range that current scientific knowledge suggests is the ideal for minimising one's risk of various health issues."
There is nothing healthy about "be this thin at all costs", and there is nothing healthy about "if you don't meet this ridiculous and arbitrary standard you're fat and ugly and worthless". Obesity absolutely is a big problem, but this Twitter fad and similar ones are only going to make this and other problems worse, not "stress healthy eating habits".

To use myself as an example again, I am a big girl. I mean, I'm fat, and that's a problem, but I'm also just a big person. In order to meet this ridiculous standard, I would have to starve and work myself down until I was dangerously underweight. I would probably make myself sick, would increase my risk of various health issues and diseases, and then would probably still fail this crap because my rib cage alone would be too big and thus as likely as not severely damage my mental health by feeling like a massive fat failure for not "succeeding" at something I never had a chance at, or would have to half-kill myself to achieve. There is nothing healthy about that. This isn't about health; it's about shame.

Wise words.
Frankly, I find the average North American dietary habits to be abhorrent (and wasteful, and unrefined and I really should stop before going into a long rant), but I would never dream of encouraging anorexia as a result.
This fad is not sending any positive messages, at all. Don't try to justify it.

[cobaltstarfire]

To use myself as an example again, I am a big girl. I mean, I'm fat, and that's a problem, but I'm also just a big person. In order to meet this ridiculous standard, I would have to starve and work myself down until I was dangerously underweight.

You'd probably have to be more than dangerously underweight to meet this "standard". Most of us would probably have to be underweight and like...mummified to have such a small waist.

I'm chronically underweight 5'5" with an average bone structure. At my lowest as an adult I was about 85 pounds, that's pushing 30+ pounds underweight. (this was because of lack of food availability in my youth and the metabolism of a gerbil, I have to snack a lot cause if I'm running on empty I'm light headed and suffer lots of head rushes). Even at that weight I still would not have a waist as small as an A4 paper.


There is one person I know who could do it without hurting herself or even trying, a very petite Iranian woman who's under 5 feet while wearing platforms. She's had at least one child too, it's just that she's very small. Even saying she's petite, she's still got proper fat stores and has normal proportions.

[goto124]

Everyone switch to A3 paper! :smalltongue:

[The Succubus]

As far as I'm concerned, this paper thing is a load of sheet. :smalltongue:

[JustSomeGuy]

60% of the North American population is overweight and 30% is obese. I approve of this twitter fad. Personally, I don't think people in developed countries are doing enough to stress healthy eating habits.

And what exactly is this twitter fad doing to stress healthy eating? Or is it just some kind of self congratulatory hype for a certain proportion of women, who via any combination of skeletal size, abdominal musculature and bodyfat combine under a set arbitrary value - should chris eubank (1.78cm, 86kg) be ashamed of his fatty gut compared to mo farrah (1.75cm, 56kg)?

I think promoting a healthy diet and lifestyle combined with some kind of meaningful fitness training would be of benefit to most western folks, a piece of paer - not so much.

[Lissou]

I expected the paper to be held in the other direction. I would probably fail the "test" either way :P These fads are weird. I mean, for a specific person to showcase their weight loss with a before-after, "A4 for scale" is no sillier than "banana for scale" (although if she fits behind a banana I'll worry), but as a goal for everyone to try and meet? That's pretty silly.

*shrugs* not gonna work with my body type so no point trying it. Still, I wonder how they thought of it.

[A.A.King]

This is just a little bit of harmless fun. Let the people who enjoy this enjoy this and if you disagree with them then don't get involved

You may believe that this admittedly arbitrary standard for fitness is bad but isn't worse than the lie that people are spreading to fight this simply fad. The proclomation that every shape and every size is equally good, beautiful and healthy is just as damaging to society as this one and is usually delivered with much more venom. I always find it fascinating that the people who believe you can't make comments using the words 'fat', 'oversized', 'morbidly obese' and 'that earthquake last night, was that your fault?' seem to empower themselves by attacking and mocking people they believe to be wrong. If people want to show of they are thin let them, it doesn't affect you. Of course, if you put just as much effort into attacking the people who show of there 2-person size body as some kind of good thing than I said nothing, but I'm suspecting that most people attacking this silly little challenge are of the 'EVERY SIZE IS BEAUTIFUL!' variety

[factotum]

This is just a little bit of harmless fun. Let the people who enjoy this enjoy this and if you disagree with them then don't get involved

I don't think it *is* harmless. Eating disorders among teenagers are way up because of the unrealistic aspirations toward body type they see everywhere, something like this is certainly not going to help that.

[A.A.King]

I don't think it *is* harmless. Eating disorders among teenagers are way up because of the unrealistic aspirations toward body type they see everywhere, something like this is certainly not going to help that.

Equally the ludicrous claims that "Every size is beautiful" (which more often than not comes with the subtext of "the fatter the better") has led to staggering childhood obesity and indefensible amounts of young people suffering heart attacks.
More importantly: this fad isn't the thing telling teenagers to stop eating, it is just already thin people showing of. Until we get some "Training for the A4 Challenge" posts should we get concerned. Instead the enormous and unnecessary push back against a few girls showing of is actually likely to convince obese girls that no she shouldn't go on a diet she can have that extra piece of pie because she is great just the way she is.

You are right in saying that to some extent there is a little bit too much of an emphasis on being thin and there people who suffer from that, but I am right in my assertion that the push back against this has been equally (if not way more) harmful. This challenge isn't actually making people who shouldn't diet diet (for it is only for the lucky few who already can do it) however the attacks on this harmless challenge are making people who should diet not diet.

[Serpentine]

Hey, remember that time I said "I'm fat, and that's bad" and "obesity is a huge problem"? Good times, good times.

The fact is, this has precisely zero to do with good health and has massive potential to encourage dangerously unhealthy practices and attitudes. I agree that the "real women have curves" and other such statements have plenty of their own issues, but the right response to that is not to swing right back to the "if you're not dangerously underweight then you're hideous and worthless" crap that those things are in response to. If you're really concerned about people's health, you need to be encouraging healthy things, and this thing is flat out not healthy. "Yeah but neither is obesity" doesn't change that fact. The cure for the West's obesity epidemic is not unhealthy fad diets, unrealistic arbitrary standards, eating and mental health disorders and shame.

[veti]

This... episode combines two things - "social network fads" and "body image fads" - that are both an instant red flag for "trivial and stupid beyond any conception of rational thought".

Is it a silly thing to participate in? Yes. (Well, it's social media, how much deep thought were you expecting?) Should we discourage (those whom we care about and have any influence over) from taking part, for whatever it's worth? Yep. But can we stop anyone else from taking part, should we be able to, should we want to, and do we have any right to judge them if they do? I'd say "No", "Hell no", "Probably not", and "Sure, so long as we don't expect it to make the slightest difference".

Frankly, I think even calling it a "fad" - outside China, at least - is dignifying it beyond its deserts. A quick Twitter search (https://twitter.com/hashtag/a4waist) suggests that, everywhere outside China, the "backlash" is much, much bigger than the fad itself will ever be.

[JustSomeGuy]

I think there should be some kind of clarificafion between every size is beautiful (absolutely, eye of the beholder etc) and every size is healthy (pretty obviously not). Then again, whocares if someone else finds you pretty or not, there are far more important things to expend mental effort on.

[A.A.King]

If you're really concerned about people's health, you need to be encouraging healthy things, and this thing is flat out not healthy.

That is exactly my point but with regards to the people pushing back on this little thing. They claim to be concerned about people's health but they only do that to push their own agenda that clearly isn't healthy.

Here is the thing: The A4 Challenge is not unhealthy. If all everyone is doing is taking a piece of A4, put it in front of their waist and post a picture if they managed to make it disappear than that is fine. Some peoppe just have the very precise figure that makes that possible. There is no evidence at all to suggest that people are viewing this 'challenge' as a real challenge and are actually 'training' for it. (With 'training' meaning way too much exercise and no eating).

Yet the people who push back take that remote possiblitity of someone gaining an eating disorder and are running with, accusing the people who are lucky enough to be able to do it of living unhealthy and of having eating disorders. They are trying to bully then into gaining weight just to make themselves feel better. The people who get offended when someone inquires who at all the pies are finding it okay to call someone 'all bone'.

This pushback against a silly little harmless challenge is totally unneccesary and run by people who are not genuinly concerned about people's health but are simply vindictive. It is just a twitter fad people, you can ignore it.

[Quild]

Here is the thing: The A4 Challenge is not unhealthy. If all everyone is doing is taking a piece of A4, put it in front of their waist and post a picture if they managed to make it disappear than that is fine. Some peoppe just have the very precise figure that makes that possible. There is no evidence at all to suggest that people are viewing this 'challenge' as a real challenge and are actually 'training' for it. (With 'training' meaning way too much exercise and no eating).

Yet the people who push back take that remote possiblitity of someone gaining an eating disorder and are running with, accusing the people who are lucky enough to be able to do it of living unhealthy and of having eating disorders.
You're missing a part of the problem. The issue is not that some people can manage the challenge. It's the message that they send to some of those who can't.

People with a eating disorder exist. They try more or less to fight it, with more of less success. But when you have such disorder, you're acting in an irrational way. I think that the better way to explain is it to give a direct example of a friend of mine.

She has an eating disorder. Big one. She say she can't manage to make herself vomit, so she takes laxatives instead. One of the problems is that she's lying about this and that she can also make herself vomit, but she hides it this way. That's why when I came to visit her in a foreign country and she asked me for a refill of her laxatives, I had to bring some because they're less-worse than anything else she could take or do. Trust me, bringing that was a hard choice to make, my decision was taken after a long discussion with the pharmacist and some other friends of her, and I told my friend that I hated her for that. Knowing me, she totally expected my reaction from A to Z.

Besides not being healthy, her disorder makes her so thin, it's ugly. Ugly is a strong word, but I lack a better one. But whenever you see her after a long time and tell her something like "wow, you look way better!" because she managed to fight against her disorder and take some pounds back... She get a relapse.
She will believe you. She knows how bad her disorder is. But telling her she's going better is only going to send her the message "you're fat". It's a disorder.

Soooo, now, how do you think she takes such thing as seeing girls sharing the A4 challenge?

[A.A.King]

Soooo, now, how do you think she takes such thing as seeing girls sharing the A4 challenge?

Well I am sorry, I did not know the entire internet had to stop and think: "How does Quild's friend feel about this?" before deciding to post something they thought was fun.

And before you say: "It is not just my friend, there are others" trust me, I know. I too had a friend, a junior in HS, who developped an eating disorder. Luckily hers was less worse because she didn't puke or take laxatives, she just stopped eating. It was hard to see her like that and impossible to get her to realise she was hurting herself but I didn't start blaming the world. The eating disorder was something inside of my friend and events that triggered it are not to blame.

Am I allowed to attack the people who play 'All about that base' because the message of that song stopped my obese friend from changing his life which made him have a heart attack? Can we hold J.D. Sallinger or the who read like and share 'Catcher in the Rye' accountable for the murder of John Lennon and other shootings? Should we ban dogs because frankly I don't like them yet when I go outside I have frequent encounters with them because peoplr have them on no or too long a leech and it is having a seriously adverse reaction to my health.

Just because someone, somewhere is somehow affected by what you are doing is no reason for you to stop what you are doing.

I simply cannot believe that our society has devolved to the point that people believe it is morally justified to start virtual linchmobs against a few girls who simply posted a picture of their skinny waist behind a piece of paper and used the word 'Challenge'.

[Pyrous]

I simply cannot believe that our society has devolved to the point that people believe it is morally justified to start virtual linchmobs against a few girls who simply posted a picture of their skinny waist behind a piece of paper and used the word 'Challenge'.

They shouldn't have used the world "challenge". That implies that anyone could do it if they tried hard enough. It also implies that those who can't do it have failed/are failures.

[A.A.King]

They shouldn't have used the world "challenge". That implies that anyone could do it if they tried hard enough. It also implies that those who can't do it have failed/are failures.

The word "Gate" implies a doorway, a grand entrance, but that meaning has changed over the year dependig on context. I can already see a journalist talkin/writing about A4Challenge-gate using your exact same argument regarding the word "Challenge" without grasping the irony of it all.

Ever since the Cinnamon Challenge people have been doing meaningless stupid things and calling them Challenges because that is he wors that might make it go viral. It is not something anyone can or will do, you just need enough people to do it so you can feel special

Are the people who created the Ice Bucket Challenge supposes to feel bad about not taking into consideration the people who are extremely sensetive to cold and could not participate? Should they be attacked because of all the people who sustained injuries trying to one-up their friends in the name of "Challenge"?

Should the Guinnes Book of World Records be held accountable for the obesity crisis because they have a "the world fattest person" record? Record implies both a challenge and an achievement.

If the answer to any of those is no I don't see why you are singlig out thin attractive girls for using the word 'challenge'

[Quild]

Well I am sorry, I did not know the entire internet had to stop and think: "How does Quild's friend feel about this?" before deciding to post something they thought was fun.

And before you say: "It is not just my friend, there are others" trust me, I know.
I'm surprised by your reaction if "you know".

I specifically used my friend as an example. So you could understand how this challenge can cause problems. Because you were kinda negating this, saying no one would get an eating disorder out of this.

It seems that your attitude evolved from "not understanding the problem" to "not caring about the problem". Interesting. I'm done with you.

[Kalmageddon]

Well I am sorry, I did not know the entire internet had to stop and think: "How does Quild's friend feel about this?" before deciding to post something they thought was fun.

And before you say: "It is not just my friend, there are others" trust me, I know. I too had a friend, a junior in HS, who developped an eating disorder. Luckily hers was less worse because she didn't puke or take laxatives, she just stopped eating. It was hard to see her like that and impossible to get her to realise she was hurting herself but I didn't start blaming the world. The eating disorder was something inside of my friend and events that triggered it are not to blame.

Am I allowed to attack the people who play 'All about that base' because the message of that song stopped my obese friend from changing his life which made him have a heart attack? Can we hold J.D. Sallinger or the who read like and share 'Catcher in the Rye' accountable for the murder of John Lennon and other shootings? Should we ban dogs because frankly I don't like them yet when I go outside I have frequent encounters with them because peoplr have them on no or too long a leech and it is having a seriously adverse reaction to my health.

Just because someone, somewhere is somehow affected by what you are doing is no reason for you to stop what you are doing.

I simply cannot believe that our society has devolved to the point that people believe it is morally justified to start virtual linchmobs against a few girls who simply posted a picture of their skinny waist behind a piece of paper and used the word 'Challenge'.
I understand this kind of reaction. I'm exactly the kind of person that has a negative kneejerk reaction whenever someone tells others what is right and what is wrong in absolute terms. Especially if the word "offensive" or "hurtful" is (over)used.

The problem is that this "challenge" is stupid and damaging. As in, it could damage your body and your health if you take it too seriously. Frankly, I'm not calling it horribile because some fat girl somewhere is feeling bad about her body, I'm sorry for her, sure, but she's not the one at risk (unless she becomes suicidal, but that's another matter). I consider this challenge awful because of teenagers that become anorexic or keep getting this false ideal body image hammered into their brains until they will never be ok with their own body.
What I'm saying is, it reinforces an idea that I think is very damaging to society.

Joking about this challenge, ridiculing it, that's fine. Defending it because of some intrinsic value is not.
Likewise, starting a lynchmob against those women that "passed" this challenge is not acceptable. At most you could try to explain why you think this challenge is wrong. But honestly? If a woman actually does this challenge, passes it and then puts a selfie on the Internet just to prove it... In my book, she's beyond redemption. Better to just leave them be.

[A.A.King]

The problem is that this "challenge" is stupid and damaging. As in, it could damage your body and your health if you take it too seriously. Frankly, I'm not calling it horribile because some fat girl somewhere is feeling bad about her body, I'm sorry for her, sure, but she's not the one at risk (unless she becomes suicidal, but that's another matter). I consider this challenge awful because of teenagers that become anorexic or keep getting this false ideal body image hammered into their brains until they will never be ok with their own body.
What I'm saying is, it reinforces an idea that I think is very damaging to society.

Here is the thing: you can't blame one persons body image problems on other people having good body images. What you seem to be against is thin girls enjoying their thinness and that is plain and simple vindictive.



Joking about this challenge, ridiculing it, that's fine. Defending it because of some intrinsic value is not.
Likewise, starting a lynchmob against those women that "passed" this challenge is not acceptable. At most you could try to explain why you think this challenge is wrong. But honestly? If a woman actually does this challenge, passes it and then puts a selfie on the Internet just to prove it... In my book, she's beyond redemption. Better to just leave them be.

Why, why is it okay to ridicule these people who believe they are beautiful? If you believe that then equally you should believe that it is okay to ridicule fat people who take pride in their overweightness, who post pictures of them being fat and proud. Do you have any idea how arrogant you sound when you say that a girl who posts a picture of herself which is supposed to show of she is happy in her own skin is "beyond redemption"?

This mocking and ridiculing is plain and simple cyber bullying and you justify it by saying these girls are thin and some girls don't get badly affected by it.

"Their standard of beaufy is not the one I agree with" & "Some people get hurt because of this body image" = "I am allowed to judge, name call and mock these people" are the standards you seem to hold and those are the same standards people use to bully fat people and I'm sure you don"t agree with that. So why agree with this? Hypocrits

[TheThan]

Modern western life is fairly post scarcity,

Umm nope. Not at all. Don’t believe me; try not paying your electricity bill for a few months; or stop buying groceries for a week. You’ll find electricity pretty scarce when they cut you off and food prety hard to come buy if you don't go and buy it (or grow it yourself). In point of fact, we will never have a post scarcity society because as long as someone is providing a product or service to another that person is going to want some form of compensation. Sure we may live in a land of plenty; but food, water, electricity, housing and entertainment don’t just appear out of nowhere. Someone has to grow and make those things; that takes time and effort, and people want something to show for that time and effort.


Interestingly, the factors that seem to influence women in this direction are applying increasingly to men too, and we are seeing a big trend towards male grooming at the same time.

I don’t agree with this statement. Men have been making themselves look good for women as long as there has been men and women. A portion of the male population will always be obsessed with it, and that portion of the male population may be growing. But men’s fashion has not just suddenly appeared out of no-where it’s been there since time immemorial.



"Their standard of beaufy is not the one I agree with" & "Some people get hurt because of this body image" = "I am allowed to judge, name call and mock these people" are the standards you seem to hold and those are the same standards people use to bully fat people and I'm sure you don"t agree with that. So why agree with this? Hypocrits

There are standards of beauty. Don’t believe me? Go look at any magazine rack anywhere. You see it displayed every day on TV and in ads. Ridiculing people that do not fall into those standards of beauty is a very human thing to do. Regardless of whether it’s right or wrong. There’s an old saying “birds of a feather flock together”. this means that people of the same demographic associate with each other. Often times these same people target others that fall out of their demographic. People have been doing it for centuries; it’s not new. Hell I just found a report saying that Americans spend 12 billion dollars in 2014 on plastic surgery. That’s 12 billion dollars just to make people look and feel beautiful. (Also plastic surgery on men increased 43% in the past 5 years).

(Assuming we’re talking about a free country) Doesn’t a person have the right express their opinion. Even if it ridicules someone over something he/she finds unacceptable or stupid. Maybe a person sees an unhealthy fat person and thinks that encouraging him/her to lose weight via ridicule is doing that person a favor. Maybe a person finds that someone that brags about their thinness is vain and feels he/she ought to be brought down a peg or two. People should be less worried about someone’s feelings and more worried about someone’s health.

Believing that others shouldn’t get to voice their opinion just because it’s different from yours is the start of tyranny. You might want to examine your beliefs in this regard and decide if what you believe is right or not.

[A.A.King]

(Assuming we’re talking about a free country) Doesn’t a person have the right express their opinion. Even if it ridicules someone over something he/she finds unacceptable or stupid. Maybe a person sees an unhealthy fat person and thinks that encouraging him/her to lose weight via ridicule is doing that person a favor. Maybe a person finds that someone that brags about their thinness is vain and feels he/she ought to be brought down a peg or two. People should be less worried about someone’s feelings and more worried about someone’s health.

I don't inherently disagree with this, I just wanted it to be stipulated. I wanted it to be put on record for these anti-thinnes crusaders that what they are doing isn't better than what the "enforcers of 'bad' beauty standards" are doing. It is exactly the same. Those two maybes of yours are just different sides of the same coin so I want them to think about what they are doing and saying here the next time they or someone they love gets mocked/ridiculed for what they look like, for what they are wearing or what there taste is. When that happeneds I want them to look at the bully and think:
"Wait, I am that person but with a different opinion" and realise they have no moral authority what so ever to confront their mirror image.

EDIT:


Believing that others shouldn’t get to voice their opinion just because it’s different from yours is the start of tyranny. You might want to examine your beliefs in this regard and decide if what you believe is right or not.
I am arguing that railing against something like the A4 challenge is basically the same as believing others shouldn't get to voice their opinion because it is different from the railers. Afterall they are saying these girls shouldn't post these pictures because it enforcers a beauty standard they don't believe in. Is it still tyrannical to tell the tyrant he is being tyrannical and thus should shut up?

[TheThan]

EDIT:

I am arguing that railing against something like the A4 challenge is basically the same as believing others shouldn't get to voice their opinion because it is different from the railers. Afterall they are saying these girls shouldn't post these pictures because it enforcers a beauty standard they don't believe in. Is it still tyrannical to tell the tyrant he is being tyrannical and thus should shut up?

No it’s not tyrannical to fight back against a tyrant. However after skimming back through this thread. There actually aren’t any anti-thinness crusaders here. Nobody has said people shouldn’t participate in this fad at all. What people are saying is that this very arbitrary method of measuring one’s health is bad; because it doesn’t rely upon any sort of expert opinion, studies, factual or anecdotal evidence or any other method of determining a person’s health. Most people are simply railing against the absurdity of this “challenge”.

What we have is a fairly reasonable discussion about health and the preconceptions thereof in modern society. You are the one that has come in here making absurd claims that the participants in this thread are “anti- thinness” and cyber bullies. You seem to be the one that's suffering from a massive knee jerk reaction to this thread and have come pretty close to abusing and cyber-bullying people with claims that they are cyber-bullies and anti-thinness crusaders.

[warty goblin]

I am arguing that railing against something like the A4 challenge is basically the same as believing others shouldn't get to voice their opinion because it is different from the railers. Afterall they are saying these girls shouldn't post these pictures because it enforcers a beauty standard they don't believe in. Is it still tyrannical to tell the tyrant he is being tyrannical and thus should shut up?
Disagreeing with a statement is distinct from saying it is wrong for people to make it.

[goto124]

you can't blame one persons body image problems on other people having good body images. What you seem to be against is thin girls enjoying their thinness and that is plain and simple vindictive.

Why, why is it okay to ridicule these people who believe they are beautiful?

Those other people are having very much NOT good body images. We're not against is thin girls enjoying their thinness, we're against girls thinking thinness is the be-all and end-all of health and beauty.

We're not ridiculing them. We're trying to teach them that thinness is NOT the be-all and end-all of health and beauty. Health is far more complicated than that.


If you believe that then equally you should believe that it is okay to ridicule fat people who take pride in their overweightness, who post pictures of them being fat and proud.

We don't ridicule them. We tell them "hey, do you have medical records saying your 'fatness' is actually healthy at all?" The same thing we tell the thin girls participating in the A4 waist 'challenge'.

No one should strive to be unhealthy, whether thin or fat. Unhealthiness comes in all forms, and sometimes it's not apparent. Thin =/= healthy.


this very arbitrary method of measuring one’s health is bad; because it doesn’t rely upon any sort of expert opinion, studies, factual or anecdotal evidence or any other method of determining a person’s health.

Out culture is so obsessed with thinness, we think fat = unhealthy and thin = healthy. It's not so simple, and we have to change that mindset.

[factotum]

Out culture is so obsessed with thinness, we think fat = unhealthy and thin = healthy. It's not so simple, and we have to change that mindset.

Extremes in any direction are bad. Too fat = bad. Too thin = bad. What actually counts as "too fat" and "too thin" varies among people, though. In the country where this started (China) where the natural body type of most people is slender it's not so much of a problem; in the West, where we're naturally a bit wider, it's more of an issue.

[Brother Oni]

I'd like to make it clear that it was the challenge itself that I find objectionable, not the participants. Suppose the challenge was flipped and the criteria was to be bigger than a sheet of A3 (420mm or 16.5in on its edge) - would it still be ridiculed? I'd still argue against it as it's an arbitrary measure of body image that doesn't take into account the personal health of a individual.

I think most people would agree that this (https://kimmieyeah.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/ribbetcollage.jpg) is just as unhealthy as this (http://cdn-r1.unilad.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Screen-Shot-2015-11-25-at-22.10.41.png) and anything that promotes either extreme is bad in my book.

The problem is that there's a cultural obsession with thinness, so we push people towards that extreme. It's not just women - men are just as encouraged to achieve their own standards of beauty which is generally a toned muscular look with rock hard abs (just look at the cover of any men's health magazine), which again is only really achievable with low body fat (approximately sub 15%).

While TheThan is correct in that there are cultural standards of beauty plastered all over the media (or in the case of various Chinese airlines, stated explicitly in their hiring requirements), personal views of beauty are very subjective. Suppose my daughter wanted to go for the rail thin look because she felt it was beautiful; I'd be happy for her to do so, provided she was healthy from a medical perspective. The same would apply if she wanted to go for the bigger look.

[gooddragon1]

I have weight problems of that nature. I don't know if I'd be able to perform this challenge, but constant fatigue and other health issues just to be thin are not worth it imo. Peer pressure gone wrong :/

I find myself saying it now: So that's what the kids are into these days.

[TuggyNE]

Here is the thing: you can't blame one persons body image problems on other people having good body images. What you seem to be against is thin girls enjoying their thinness and that is plain and simple vindictive.

[…] If you believe that then equally you should believe that it is okay to ridicule fat people who take pride in their overweightness, who post pictures of them being fat and proud. Do you have any idea how arrogant you sound when you say that a girl who posts a picture of herself which is supposed to show of she is happy in her own skin is "beyond redemption"?

Ignoring the mistaken idea that there's ridicule going on (as others have rebutted), there's another problem. Someone posting a picture of how they manage to meet some completely arbitrary standard for (presumably) beauty is exhibiting an attitude that is the polar opposite of being happy in their own skin. Because, if they didn't manage to quite make that standard… would they still be happy with themselves?

Pictures of "I met the standard, I'm happy and awesome" are not reinforcing self-acceptance, or acceptance of others. They're reinforcing acceptance only of those who meet the standard. That is a toxic outcome, and it is entirely reasonable to plead with everyone reinforcing that to stop it and do something better.

On the other hand, pictures just of themselves, with no arbitrary standard at all, do no such thing; in sufficient quantities, they drown out the bad influence and leave a faint impression of acceptance. And pictures with an arbitrary standard being deliberately flouted actively reinforce unconditional acceptance.

I disagree heartily with the poster who said that people who post A4 Challenge pics are beyond redemption, though. They're misguided, but not usually malicious… and even those with malice are not beyond redemption.

[A.A.King]

No it’s not tyrannical to fight back against a tyrant. However after skimming back through this thread. There actually aren’t any anti-thinness crusaders here. Nobody has said people shouldn’t participate in this fad at all. What people are saying is that this very arbitrary method of measuring one’s health is bad; because it doesn’t rely upon any sort of expert opinion, studies, factual or anecdotal evidence or any other method of determining a person’s health. Most people are simply railing against the absurdity of this “challenge”.

I'll admit there weren't actually any anti-thiness crusading comments in this particular thread, that was me getting a little bit carried away. However you know what is also not in this thread? Support. Support for the girls who participated in this thread. Did you read the actual article linked in the original post? It mentions girls who are unfairly labelled anorexic by the people around them who used this challenge to find people like them, the naturally very skinny and being able to bond with other people who are judged so harshly by our society with no-one looking out for them. If you're fat and you're bullied people will jump to the change to protect you but if you're skinny and you are mocked people think "yeah, he/she probably has an eating disorder". This was a challenge for those people and everybody else could have ignored it but no, they decided to mock it.

The people posting pictures get all kinds of negative feedback and are being told to take the picture down. Strangers commenting telling them they are underweight or anorexic and even people here claiming that these girls are somehow contributing to other people actually getting eating disorders. Surely these are the people we should defend and not attack


Ignoring the mistaken idea that there's ridicule going on (as others have rebutted), there's another problem. Someone posting a picture of how they manage to meet some completely arbitrary standard for (presumably) beauty is exhibiting an attitude that is the polar opposite of being happy in their own skin. Because, if they didn't manage to quite make that standard… would they still be happy with themselves?

Pictures of "I met the standard, I'm happy and awesome" are not reinforcing self-acceptance, or acceptance of others. They're reinforcing acceptance only of those who meet the standard. That is a toxic outcome, and it is entirely reasonable to plead with everyone reinforcing that to stop it and do something better.

On the other hand, pictures just of themselves, with no arbitrary standard at all, do no such thing; in sufficient quantities, they drown out the bad influence and leave a faint impression of acceptance. And pictures with an arbitrary standard being deliberately flouted actively reinforce unconditional acceptance.

I disagree heartily with the poster who said that people who post A4 Challenge pics are beyond redemption, though. They're misguided, but not usually malicious… and even those with malice are not beyond redemption.

I would say that the backlash counts as ridicule. The girl in the article holding up a Diploma rather than a piece of A4 or the picture of the fat girl holding a piece of pizza while clearly failing the challenge that someone posted in this thread are clearly intended to mock the people who did the challenge.

You might have had a point if people were actually trying to argue for no standard. But suggesting a girl is anorexic or underweight isn't reasonable pleading, suggesting that caring about her figure probably means she is one of those girls whose ambition it is to become a throphy wife is not accepting. Telling these people that what they believe to be beautiful about themselves is not accepting. If someone trains to gain a little bit of extra muscle and posts a picture happy about his progress would you equally tell him that he is wrong? Or is ONLY wrong if the guy would include in the picture his arbiritary goal of gained muscles?

Here is something to consider:
Campaigns like "real beauty" showing only women you wouldn't consider thin as well well as phrases like "real women have curves" have led to a culture change: namely a culture which considers it acceptable to mock the naturally very skinny people. labelling someone as underweight, anorexic or even bulimic are considered okay. When you do that you are simply "fighting against the unfair beauty standards" and "smashing the system". We keep hearing how 'society's obsession with thinness' leads to eating disorders but you don't hear enough about how 'society's obsession with society's obsession with thinness' has created a new eating disorder. There are now a lot of girls in the world who have been told so often that their natural weight is too skinny, that they are not real enough and that they should gain so weight that they have started to believe. People eating unhealthy amounts of junk food HOPING to get fatter, avoiding as much exercise as possible to not burn calegories. That is not healthy, and that is the world in which this challenge was created.

Now we have some of these girls who keep being bullied in the real world for being 'too skinny' who found a fun way to take back control of their live and their body images. And yes, it isn't quite the same as t-shirts saying "I'm not fat I'm fluffy" or other of the gazillion ways the world has for fat people to start believing their weight isn't on the wrong side of normal but on the right side of perfect, but it was their way. These girl are not actually unhealthy, they are just born that way and no were in this challenge did they ever actually state that if you failed the challenge there was anything wrong with you: The challenge was and still is harmless. We, as a society, could have ignored this. We could have let them have their little fun while disagreeing with them but we decided: "No, thin people are not allowed to consider themselves good, we know better for we are best" and we started flooding their photos with comments while posting our own mocking the challenge.

These girls are healthy and until this backlash they were happy. But I guess I should be sorry for trying to stand up for them.

[goto124]

The 'challenge' says 'real beauty is being smaller than this piece of paper, and if you're not smaller than the paper you're a loser because you literally lose the challenge'. How is that healthy, both physically and mentally?

Both fat-shaming and thin-shaming are wrong.

[TuggyNE]

Now we have some of these girls who keep being bullied in the real world for being 'too skinny' who found a fun way to take back control of their live and their body images. And yes, it isn't quite the same as t-shirts saying "I'm not fat I'm fluffy" or other of the gazillion ways the world has for fat people to start believing their weight isn't on the wrong side of normal but on the right side of perfect, but it was their way. These girl are not actually unhealthy, they are just born that way and no were in this challenge did they ever actually state that if you failed the challenge there was anything wrong with you: The challenge was and still is harmless.

You don't have to explicitly state something for that to be a clear message, and sometimes subtext and implication are the harshest and most persistent ways to carry a message. So this was not harmless, and therefore their way was, unfortunately, critically flawed. When someone vulnerable is doing something that is harmful to themselves or others, the correct response is not to encourage them to keep doing that in hopes that this encouragement will help them somehow. Instead… you gently get them to stop.


These girls are healthy and until this backlash they were happy. But I guess I should be sorry for trying to stand up for them.

Certainly not! You should reconsider your methods and reasoning; I don't think you're achieving what you hope for. That's unsurprising, given humanity's penchant for misguided-but-well-meaning zealotry, but that doesn't mean it's totally fine and dandy either.

TL/DR: The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

[Brother Oni]

There are now a lot of girls in the world who have been told so often that their natural weight is too skinny, that they are not real enough and that they should gain so weight that they have started to believe.

The problem is, there are clinical markers for people who are unhealthily underweight compared to those who are naturally thin (for example, lanugo (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lanugo), amenorrhoea (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amenorrhoea) or starvation induced ketosis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketosis)), some of which are clearly visible.

Of all the pictures I've seen of the Chinese girls passing this challenge, I agree with you that they look healthy, but as stated earlier, the Chinese tend towards slimmer and petite anyway. Exposing people who are already susceptible to body image problems to something that's only achievable with the right genetics is not a good thing.

Instead of the A4 challenge, suppose I posted the collarbone challenge (balance things on your collarbones), which is an indirect measure of your body fat and musculature, or the 'reach your hand around your back' challenge, which is more a flexibility test than anything else. Both are just as arbitrary as the A4 challenge but neither really promote an unhealthy body image (for example, even I can pass the collarbone one and I can just about grab my sides), so they're more silly fun challenges that I have no objection to.


http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/06/17/11/29B25DBF00000578-3127885-image-a-17_1434535393192.jpg

http://hellogiggles.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/18/CHuEd9CWsAA9aq51.jpg



http://distractify-media-prod.cdn.bingo/1578547-980x.jpg

I recognise that this was the intention of the A4 challenge, unfortunately its other implications have blown up massively.

[goto124]

The collarbone example is healthier because those who lose it aren't marked 'looooosers' or 'failures at life'. It's nice if you can, but even if you can't it's all fun - maybe even more fun than winning. People who lost aren't being held up to an arbitrary standard that shouldn't exist.

Helps that the collarbone one doesn't play into a pre-existing misconception that's rather pervasive throughout cultures.

[A.A.King]

You don't have to explicitly state something for that to be a clear message, and sometimes subtext and implication are the harshest and most persistent ways to carry a message. So this was not harmless, and therefore their way was, unfortunately, critically flawed. When someone vulnerable is doing something that is harmful to themselves or others, the correct response is not to encourage them to keep doing that in hopes that this encouragement will help them somehow. Instead… you gently get them to stop.
If you want to talk about subtext and implications I want you to think about the subtext and implications of the extreme backlash to this challenge. The correct responds to this backlas is not to encourage people to keep doing that. Instead you get them to stop.

(I removed the word gently when refocussing your words because the backlash wasn't gently and so I see no need to be gently towards them)


Certainly not! You should reconsider your methods and reasoning; I don't think you're achieving what you hope for. That's unsurprising, given humanity's penchant for misguided-but-well-meaning zealotry, but that doesn't mean it's totally fine and dandy either.

TL/DR: The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

This too I would like to fire right back at you, because this fighting against a silly internet challenge is not achieving what it is hoping for and their methods and reasoning are far from sound.

A person should always think about what crowd they are joining and no matter how good your intentions or how restrained your own behaviour with regards to this backlash, being part of this backlash made you part of a mob.

This backlash is not making the world a better place, it is making who already have it bad feel worse.

I still only hear arguments from the point of view from the genetically unlucky, still nobody here has tried to image what these A4 girls are going through. I hear not a single grain of sympathy for the way these girls are treated in real life nor for the hate and bullying they received from uploading a picture online. That is all I really have left to say on this matter.

[Brother Oni]

I still only hear arguments from the point of view from the genetically unlucky, still nobody here has tried to image what these A4 girls are going through. I hear not a single grain of sympathy for the way these girls are treated in real life nor for the hate and bullying they received from uploading a picture online. That is all I really have left to say on this matter.

Because bullying and harassment in whatever shape or form, for whatever reason, is bad. That shouldn't have to be stated and neither should be support for those on the receiving end (unless they're denigrating those people who have failed the challenge).

As for why there are only arguments in this thread from those who don't pass the challenge, is there anybody here who actually pass it? As I mentioned in my initial post, even my prepubescent daughter fails it and I value my life too much to even approach my wife with the suggestion. :smalltongue:

[goto124]

Do it behind her back. Literally.

Hold the paper to her back and quietly take a shot :smalltongue:

Back on topic, I'm sure there are people who pass the test. But not passing the test don't automatically equal to unhealthy or fat or loser or whatever.

[acire]

60% of the North American population is overweight and 30% is obese. I approve of this twitter fad. Personally, I don't think people in developed countries are doing enough to stress healthy eating habits.

Being able to hide behind a piece of paper doesn't make you healthy. It doesn't even make you thin (you could totally be using tricks of perception or probably just straight up image editing).

At best, this is a "Let's see how we can use perception tricks and image editing software by pretending to be able to hide our waist behind the width of a piece of A4 paper" challenge. It is not at all a "Let's see how healthy we can all get" challenge.

[ace rooster]

Umm nope. Not at all. Don’t believe me; try not paying your electricity bill for a few months; or stop buying groceries for a week. You’ll find electricity pretty scarce when they cut you off and food prety hard to come buy if you don't go and buy it (or grow it yourself). In point of fact, we will never have a post scarcity society because as long as someone is providing a product or service to another that person is going to want some form of compensation. Sure we may live in a land of plenty; but food, water, electricity, housing and entertainment don’t just appear out of nowhere. Someone has to grow and make those things; that takes time and effort, and people want something to show for that time and effort.

I did say fairly. The point is that simply surviving has become a minor part of the budget of the majority of people, so that finding survival easy has ceased to be a distinguishing feature. Genuine post scarcity is not possible, but for some discussions we are close enough to behave like we have it. I believe this is one of those discussions, though I understand why the phrase might be a peeve.



I don’t agree with this statement. Men have been making themselves look good for women as long as there has been men and women. A portion of the male population will always be obsessed with it, and that portion of the male population may be growing. But men’s fashion has not just suddenly appeared out of no-where it’s been there since time immemorial.

What "looking good" means is changing though. Where previously businesslike and successful were the height of "looking good", their attractiveness has reduced. They obviously still have appeal, but their weight is reduced. Now the prettyboy will win out over the businessman, so men are spending more (time as well as money) on being the prettyboy.


None of these statements are absolutes. Nothing new has emerged, and nothing has entirely disappeared. The weighting of various factors has significantly changed though, and how these factors affect behaviour can be analysed. In particular we can understand the factors that contribute to modern behaviour and try to adjust them in favourable directions, rather than just tut tut about entirely predictable unhealthy trends.

In general I don't express outrage at problems. I try to find solutions. I'm probably on the wrong board for that though. :smallredface:

[Jormengand]

As for why there are only arguments in this thread from those who don't pass the challenge, is there anybody here who actually pass it? As I mentioned in my initial post, even my prepubescent daughter fails it and I value my life too much to even approach my wife with the suggestion. :smalltongue:

I pass. I have a hyper-fast metabolism and am severely underweight as a result, so it's not surprising that I pass a test based around being thinner than is probably healthy.

[JustSomeGuy]

I did say fairly. The point is that simply surviving has become a minor part of the budget of the majority of people, so that finding survival easy has ceased to be a distinguishing feature. Genuine post scarcity is not possible, but for some discussions we are close enough to behave like we have it. I believe this is one of those discussions, though I understand why the phrase might be a peeve.


What "looking good" means is changing though. Where previously businesslike and successful were the height of "looking good", their attractiveness has reduced. They obviously still have appeal, but their weight is reduced. Now the prettyboy will win out over the businessman, so men are spending more (time as well as money) on being the prettyboy.


None of these statements are absolutes. Nothing new has emerged, and nothing has entirely disappeared. The weighting of various factors has significantly changed though, and how these factors affect behaviour can be analysed. In particular we can understand the factors that contribute to modern behaviour and try to adjust them in favourable directions, rather than just tut tut about entirely predictable unhealthy trends.

In general I don't express outrage at problems. I try to find solutions. I'm probably on the wrong board for that though. :smallredface:

Has it? Or is it just a perception that is pushed by companies that make money selling products and services that men think will make them more attractive... lets ask Woman. They all have the same opinion on what's attracive in a man anyway, right? Oh, hang on a minute, they don't - but apparently in the same breath, they all decided they want a man who looks computer/ped/makeup and lighting fresh (ie completely fabricated again) from the latest issue of "men you should look like this to feel good so buy these" monthly.

[ace rooster]

Has it? Or is it just a perception that is pushed by companies that make money selling products and services that men think will make them more attractive... lets ask Woman. They all have the same opinion on what's attracive in a man anyway, right? Oh, hang on a minute, they don't - but apparently in the same breath, they all decided they want a man who looks computer/ped/makeup and lighting fresh (ie completely fabricated again) from the latest issue of "men you should look like this to feel good so buy these" monthly.

Well those companies have always been trying to sell those products, and now they are selling more.

I am speaking about trends, and using shorthand, and simplifying to try to make my point clearer. I say again, none of those statements were absolutes. Do you disagree with the perceived trend?

[JustSomeGuy]

It's pretty hard to disagree with sales figures! I'm not sure they correlate with womens' perceived ideas of male attractiveness though, if you could even quantify that

[ace rooster]

It's pretty hard to disagree with sales figures! I'm not sure they correlate with womens' perceived ideas of male attractiveness though, if you could even quantify that

I would love to quantify that, but have no idea how. :smallredface:

The assertion was an answer to TheThan's comment that male grooming is not a new thing. It was meant as a theory to try to understand the increase in sales figures, rather than an absolute comment on something that is incredibly hard to get data on.

The thinking goes like this; Humans are animals, and all behaviour evolves with reproduction in mind. Creatures of all types, sizes, and genders, will try to make themselves 'attractive'. This is not strictly about physical beauty, particularly when survival is difficult. It is not even restricted to the creature's form and behaviour. In social animals attracting a mate can revolve around social standing. None of this is conscious, it is far older than that. It is behaviour which has evolved over a billion years. This makes getting data extremely hard, because you can't even rely on what people say. The only way to get reliable data is observing what people actually do, such as buy cosmetics, and infer back.

People will always try to make themselves attractive, so what happens if the situation limits their means to do so? The billion year old behaviour pushes them hard to either change the situation (impossible), or focus on the few remaining ways to become 'attractive', sometimes to a pathological extent. My theory is that the recent surge of male cosmetics was due to being successful being perceived (by men) as having less weight as an attractor, rather than physical beauty getting more. It is not to the extent that pathology emerges commonly in men currently, but we seem to be going it that direction.

This leads to my proposed solution. It is impossible to reduce the weight of physical beauty, but we can reduce it's relative weight. Attempts can be made to promote other methods to being attractive beside physical beauty. We need to reintroduce sexy (not based on physical beauty) into areas where our prudishness has removed it.

Apologies if my last response was a little sharp, it was late and I was tired. Does that make sense?

[goto124]

My theory is that the recent surge of male cosmetics was due to being successful being perceived (by men) as having less weight as an attractor, rather than physical beauty getting more.

Or does physical beauty get associated with success? Dum dum DUUUUUUUUM!

[Mightymosy]

It's pretty hard to disagree with sales figures! I'm not sure they correlate with womens' perceived ideas of male attractiveness though, if you could even quantify that

Well, in the times of internet dating, you certainly can!
Privacy issues aside, it would be rather easy taking a huge database from a huge provider and relate mens' physical attributes with number of views, profile clicks, responses etc. from women.

Just saying.

[Mightymosy]

[...]

This leads to my proposed solution. It is impossible to reduce the weight of physical beauty, but we can reduce it's relative weight. Attempts can be made to promote other methods to being attractive beside physical beauty. We need to reintroduce sexy (not based on physical beauty) into areas where our prudishness has removed it.

Apologies if my last response was a little sharp, it was late and I was tired. Does that make sense?

Well, I think physical beauty will always be a thing, the problem comes with people being so bad at judging what is important and what is not, and not weighing things effectively.

So, some people should reduce weight to become more attractive, while others need to gain a bit to become appealing. Still others focus on further perfectioning their visual appearance while the real problem is their crappy personality.
The problem is that many people have a distorted view on where their qualities and deficits really are (in respect to being attractive to potential partners). Also, a lot of those that do have the right idea still can't achieve that goal (most commonly this would be people just not managing to keep their diet, but other examples are plenty).

The first part comes, from my experience, from people asking the right question to the wrong people all of the time.

Here are a couple people you probably should not ask whether you are attractive and what you should change to become more attractive:
- your mother (always loves you)
- your father (always loves you)
- your best friend (likes you and/or is your direct, if friendly, competitor in your quest for the opposite gender (or same, or whatever)
- your sister/brother (although those might work, at times)
- generally speaking, people of the same gender as you are (they either have no clue themselves, or they don't have your best interests in mind (competitors), or beauty comes kinda naturally to them because they were raised in a certain way, or D, all of the above).

Note that I'm speaking generally. Of course, someone could get reasonable advice from some of the persons I mentioned, it's just that I feel that there is a general tendency which makes that a bit difficult.

Who should you ask?
People of the opposite gender (can't speak for gay people on this subject, because i don't have a clue).
More specifically, you need people of the opposite gender you can expect a true answer from. This can be tough to do. But if you want to sell fish, you have to ask someone who eats fish. Asking someone who loves meat, someone who is vegetarian, or asking the fish won't do you any good.
Since sincere answers are hard to come by, I found a pretty useful proxy solution: magazines intended for the opposite gender. Just read those and find out what makes women (or men, for that matter) swoon over. Heck, lurk internet forums where people of the opposite gender discuss their interests. This will get you a way better view on what's hot generally, and what's not. Also, you will find how and where people actually have different views and tastes.

[JustSomeGuy]

Ace rooster; yeah i get what you're meaning, and agree with the sexy


Well, in the times of internet dating, you certainly can!
Privacy issues aside, it would be rather easy taking a huge database from a huge provider and relate mens' physical attributes with number of views, profile clicks, responses etc. from women.

Just saying.

I think the sheer variety of searchable tags and categories on 'adult video' sites tends tp disprove every notion on what men want. Can't speak for the other genders, but can't imagine any less specificity in what gets looked at.

[Mightymosy]

Ace rooster; yeah i get what you're meaning, and agree with the sexy



I think the sheer variety of searchable tags and categories on 'adult video' sites tends tp disprove every notion on what men want. Can't speak for the other genders, but can't imagine any less specificity in what gets looked at.

How so? If anything, it proves the interest of men, or rather it shows a broad spectrum of what men tend to like.

[JustSomeGuy]

Yeah that's what i'm saying - you could plaster pretty much anyone/thing on a picture, say "look like this because men like it" and you wouldn't be wrong. Or to put it another way, you can't say to a woman "men don't want you to look like x, buy this and look sexy for the season's parties" or whatever is said

[BannedInSchool]

How so? If anything, it proves the interest of men, or rather it shows a broad spectrum of what men tend to like.

I think there may be a strong correlation to undress. Not universally, but some inclination.

[Necrov]

Yay... another way to body shame... just what everyone wants/needed.