30

votes

Are rounded bellies in the realm of normal and healthy for women? (warning: pictures of the human body)

Answered on September 12, 2014
Created November 30, 2011 at 4:41 AM

I'm asking this question for several reasons:

1) It seems like there have been a lot of questions lately from women who are struggling to get their body fat to a lower % and to be rid of belly fat in general.

2) I'm becoming increasingly aware of all the ways women are told their bodies are "wrong": our bodies are too hairy, so we should shave. Our breasts are misshapen, so we need corrective bras. Our faces are not feminine and pretty enough, so we need make-up, etc.

3) I was watching some of the movies on netflix where the white guy traverses through the jungle with camera crew to find the "untouched" natives. I was struck by the similarity of the women's bodies to my own (which I too have internalized as wrong). I took some screen caps (the movie was called Pururambo). alt text

alt text

And one of the men for comparison: alt text

I know this is only one group of people, but it seems to be the norm from what I've seen of people living beyond the bounds of western civilization. Let me know if you want any more references, I didn't want to overwhelm this question with pictures.

So, can we let ourselves be OK with a rounded belly?

E7adfe31507efb7c935f618a829f56d6

(1507)

on February 01, 2012
at 04:51 PM

I dont' really have an answer, but thought I'd show you this article about a very famous paleolithic carving of a woman (and she's not the only one! there are others just like her). She is total "fatty" by today's standards, but apparently she was either a worshiped deity, self-portrait, or total caveman porn for our paleolithic ancestors. Check it out! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus_of_Willendorf

19acef0aed67ef8dc1118d8e74edb349

(2954)

on December 19, 2011
at 06:51 AM

I believe decorations mean status, not just to augment appearance. For example in some Asian societies, decorations were reserved for nobles and royalty.

19acef0aed67ef8dc1118d8e74edb349

(2954)

on December 19, 2011
at 06:48 AM

When you go to the urban areas, is when you would start to see the obsession to look like magazine models. But in rural areas... they want you meaty! :)

19acef0aed67ef8dc1118d8e74edb349

(2954)

on December 19, 2011
at 06:47 AM

Where I come from, the boys liked the girls who had a salient, squishy tummy. (fat, to you?) Even when skinnier girls were prettier.

19acef0aed67ef8dc1118d8e74edb349

(2954)

on December 19, 2011
at 06:46 AM

I know you have no reason to believe me, since I'm just a random person in the interwebs, but where I come from, I heard very, very often that a girl with some meat on her is beautiful. These girls had a big squishy tummy and were slender everywhere else. You know, their belly protrudes. Young girls were discouraged from being thin (having a flat tummy) so that men would like them. Now, I grew up with fashion magazines and such, so I was upset that I was not supposed to look like these models to be attractive. Who should I believe? :-) But I had that protruding tummy and got much praise!! :-)

518bce04b12cd77741237e1f61075194

(11577)

on December 16, 2011
at 01:57 AM

Also, kind of weird, and again totally anecdotal, I noticed that when I went from single/looking to a stable relationship, my hips really fleshed out and I became noticeably more maternal towards babies (ie. everytime you see a baby you want to die and hold and die and just think they are the cutest things in the world why-oh-why can't it be mine right now). With my hips fleshing out, my lower belly fat pad also increased. Possible hormonal response to feeling stable enough to have a baby?? Who knows!

7636e1e02ef91a46f20a42e07b565a4b

(367)

on December 01, 2011
at 06:50 PM

It's amazing how I can meet someone who at first pass is gorgeous, but when encountering the ugliness of their soul, their appearance changes instantly and they can become utterly repulsive. Something to keep in mind when commenting about supposed "beauty." Good god.

9f54852ea376e8e416356f547611e052

(2957)

on December 01, 2011
at 09:12 AM

Juba, love for ones mother is certainly (also) not a position for objective evaluation of beauty. Bree, I didn't realize this was a group hug site, I thought it was for debate - my bad. Ambi, you can define beauty any way you want, while majority of us defines it like the dictionary does - a synonym of attractiveness.

Medium avatar

(5639)

on December 01, 2011
at 05:26 AM

I can't see it either. I'm almost positive she wouldn't have visible abs (which, might I add, I don't find attractive on a woman, and I know I'm not alone in this...instinctive selection anyone?), but she does look quite skinny, judging by her face and arms.

100fd85230060e754fc13394eee6d6f1

(18696)

on December 01, 2011
at 01:10 AM

I can't see this woman's belly.

1f8384be58052b6b96f476e475abdc74

(2231)

on December 01, 2011
at 01:08 AM

get out of your cave and see the world wisper

100fd85230060e754fc13394eee6d6f1

(18696)

on November 30, 2011
at 11:44 PM

Wisper, if you can't see beauty in any given person, that's your loss. Those studies you mention are about "attractiveness", not beauty.

Medium avatar

(12379)

on November 30, 2011
at 11:34 PM

That is rude and completely uncalled for. And of course I reject some 'academic' studies; some are flawed and you linked a news article above which has no study referenced, so I cannot comment as to the validity of the statistics used. But this discussion is no longer fruitful so I hope that you have a very nice day and I also hope that your tone with fellow paleohackers improves, this site is meant for postive interactions and great discussion, not personal attacks.

9f54852ea376e8e416356f547611e052

(2957)

on November 30, 2011
at 11:17 PM

Yes, it is a refreshing view. On the other hand, we are living in a western society with western cultural standards - rejecting them is fine and all, but you'll be treated accordingly.

9f54852ea376e8e416356f547611e052

(2957)

on November 30, 2011
at 11:15 PM

It's hard to debate with someone with poor reasoning skills, and who rejects academic studies. Ignorance is a bliss.

Ce7e28769d92d5de5533e775b1de966e

on November 30, 2011
at 11:14 PM

Wisper, I'm a pretty chill chick but can't let this one go for once. I take offense at your statement "Even newborns look at beautiful faces longer than ugly ones." I have a beautiful amazing friend who was terribly burned in a fire and is married with children. Why she may not fall into the category that your pretty people link discusses, I can tell you that her babes, from newborn to now, look upon her as *the* most beautiful woman in the world. Also a babes nose knows more than eyes at newborn. PS: Megan Fox has toe thumbs and Vera Farmiga is way hotter. Juba --> exits stage left

Medium avatar

(12379)

on November 30, 2011
at 10:08 PM

Never did I day anything about objectivity - beauty is completely subjective (like I said in the eye of the beholder) There are alwyas going to be stupid psych theses regarding the quantificiation of beauty and how we are psychologically hardwired to see beauty a certain way BUT these studies are just studies and their conclusions are based on statisitics which don't really capture the truth behind everything.

9f54852ea376e8e416356f547611e052

(2957)

on November 30, 2011
at 09:31 PM

Pretty and healthy - and those two usually go together.

9f54852ea376e8e416356f547611e052

(2957)

on November 30, 2011
at 09:30 PM

I assume that's Tori's husband or father. If former, Tori's enormous wealth or the fact that Tori holds the key to sexual gratification for her husband might have something to do with it. If latter, hardly an objective appraiser. Actually, in both cases objectivity is far from guaranteed.

9f54852ea376e8e416356f547611e052

(2957)

on November 30, 2011
at 09:28 PM

Who? 11 more to go

98bf2ca7f8778c79cd3f6c962011cfdc

(24286)

on November 30, 2011
at 08:02 PM

Total awesomeness right there.

828429fe885f42968c0519d5b84cec40

(608)

on November 30, 2011
at 07:55 PM

Mallory, your argumentation skills are poor. Not being fat is not the same as having a six pack. Yes, women with breasts and rear ends are more fertile than men shaped like boys. What is the point your are trying to make? You are arguing two different points. Your initial statement was that the pictures above are women with desirable bodies? That is objectively incorrect.

Cbb1134f8e93067d1271c97bb2e15ef6

on November 30, 2011
at 07:47 PM

+! - You go, Mallory!!!!

Cbb1134f8e93067d1271c97bb2e15ef6

on November 30, 2011
at 07:44 PM

Excellent point, Nemesis. The deeper and and even more important qualifying point is that different cultures have *very* different perceptions of what is attractive, beautiful, and this is clear in how they decorate, tatoo, stretch body parts, etc.

Cbb1134f8e93067d1271c97bb2e15ef6

on November 30, 2011
at 07:40 PM

+! - For a response that looks beyond Western cultural norms and a multitude of cultural differences.

Cbb1134f8e93067d1271c97bb2e15ef6

on November 30, 2011
at 07:36 PM

+1 for this response as well as your comments above.Refreshing! Thank you.

Aead76beb5fc7b762a6b4ddc234f6051

(15239)

on November 30, 2011
at 07:01 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus_of_Willendorf

Medium avatar

(12379)

on November 30, 2011
at 06:45 PM

Carne - that is not the definition of attractive *to you*. Beauty and attractiveness is in the eye of the beholder. And I think you completely contradicted yourself by saying that men find women with small waists and large hips attractive because that means they are fertile but that a woman who had a healthy baby is not attractive. Heatlhy baby = fertile.

Medium avatar

(12379)

on November 30, 2011
at 06:45 PM

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I'm sure that Dean McDermott would disagree with you regarding Tori vs. Megan.

C471216c9fb4fcf886b7ac84a4046b49

(1371)

on November 30, 2011
at 06:36 PM

to each their own. i dont think my 6 pack is making me anymore attractive than a woman(hence, WOMAN) with an ass and boobs. and i can guarantee the latter is fertile

828429fe885f42968c0519d5b84cec40

(608)

on November 30, 2011
at 06:27 PM

"attractive is the women who had a healthy baby who is growing up to repeat what her mama did" Wait what? That is not the definition of attractive. The reason men find small waists and larger hips attractive is because that is an indicator of fertility. These women are not an indication of an ideal female body, nor a normal one. This is a very emotional discussion for women here. I can only extrapolate that this is a topic that is sensitive- however, your feelings do not negate the fact that these are not normal or attractive female bodies.

828429fe885f42968c0519d5b84cec40

(608)

on November 30, 2011
at 06:21 PM

@Mallory, he was arguing the erroneous comments above. What someone finds beautiful is not subjective, but I suppose some preferences are subjective. However, everyone can agree that the face of Megan Fox is more beautiful than the face of Tori Spelling- this is because Fox has more quantifiable markers of beauty than Tori. It is unfair, but beauty is not subjective.

828429fe885f42968c0519d5b84cec40

(608)

on November 30, 2011
at 06:17 PM

@Shari, that is a false dichotomy. Being strong and lean and not having 10 inches of blubber around your stomach is not the same as being a Victoria's Secret model. Just like being not fat is not the same as "being an anorexic size zero." You are being illogical. @Cliff. Arbitrary as some things may seem, the way you look makes a statement about the kind of person you are. Even if society did away with all social convention, the urge to find the most suitable mate would still lead men/women to try to be as attractive to each other as possible. Note how women dress 50 yrs after feminism.

C471216c9fb4fcf886b7ac84a4046b49

(1371)

on November 30, 2011
at 05:52 PM

good point Nemesis

Medium avatar

(12379)

on November 30, 2011
at 05:47 PM

Ok - so a quick google image check and you can find the second woman in a picture with better resolution - there is something wrong with her - scarring on her belly - lack of visible belly button etc, and in the other picture she really does look pregnant - and women #1 looks just exaclty like I did (belly wise) when I was 6 months pregnant - OH - and 36-24-36 can still have a squishy belly - the 24 measurement is taken at natural waist not jean waist you can still have a 24 inch waist and a pooch! and PREGNANT IS BEAUTIFUL PERIOD FULL STOP.

C471216c9fb4fcf886b7ac84a4046b49

(1371)

on November 30, 2011
at 05:37 PM

me too, shes just as healthy as the pictured woman

C471216c9fb4fcf886b7ac84a4046b49

(1371)

on November 30, 2011
at 05:35 PM

agreed, at which point evolution doesnt care what happens...

C471216c9fb4fcf886b7ac84a4046b49

(1371)

on November 30, 2011
at 05:34 PM

treehugger...really? this real life? this chick has one goal in life...i want babies, a family and to nourish them and take care of them while 2094587-19345 women stand by trying to bench twice their body weight, eat chicken breasts for a 6pack, and get to the top of their business and be some BS CEO and run shit.

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on November 30, 2011
at 05:33 PM

Well, if it's caused by having lots of children (remember these women are married as soon as they get their period), I think it's a perfectly normal thing. As Gaulin points out, there are American women in their teens who have never had children who are overweight. Body fat has its purposes, but in the modern US, it is often present at inappropriate times and is often composed of inflammatory garbage PUFAS.

C471216c9fb4fcf886b7ac84a4046b49

(1371)

on November 30, 2011
at 05:31 PM

youre not gonna find a culture comparing post pregnant women in their 'attractiveness'. attractive is the women who had a healthy baby who is growing up to repeat what her mama did

1d0497f8781845ab371b479455bfee8e

(11157)

on November 30, 2011
at 05:31 PM

If they didn't care, why does the first lady have decorations in her hair? Everyone cares about their appearance, cultural differences place emphasis on what part of a person's physique should be desirable.

C471216c9fb4fcf886b7ac84a4046b49

(1371)

on November 30, 2011
at 05:30 PM

im prolly furthest from a feminist you will EVER meet first of all. evolutionarily speaking, women are put here to have sex, have babies, nurture them, then die. so yeah, any hip to weight ratio of a woman who has prolly birthed 5 or 6 kids is heresay. evolution does not care what she looks like at this point. potbellied or not the 'realm' of women is mature...have first ovulation...nourish them with cultural foods(which differ among location of culture)...get preggo...nurture...repeat if darwinism accepts it is applicable....repeat until unable...

C471216c9fb4fcf886b7ac84a4046b49

(1371)

on November 30, 2011
at 05:26 PM

whhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhat does that have to do with the subject at question wisper

0bc6cbb653cdc5e82400f6da920f11eb

(19235)

on November 30, 2011
at 05:20 PM

Wisper I think you missed the point completely.

9f54852ea376e8e416356f547611e052

(2957)

on November 30, 2011
at 05:19 PM

Finally someone who doesn't get all emotional about this. Thanks for the reference to Melanesians preferring higher WHR, first I've heard of this. But would you agree that although the bodies represented in the OP might be desirable in some "indigenous" cultures and even healthy in some environments and genetic background, such WHR is not desirable and unlikely to be healthy in a western environment and genetic background?

9f54852ea376e8e416356f547611e052

(2957)

on November 30, 2011
at 05:13 PM

Wait, no, I'm not, quite the contrary. Fertility is correlated with small WHR. Ie. women with the classic 36-24-36 chest-waist-hips hour glass figure are more fertile than pot-bellied women. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn4953-barbieshaped-women-more-fertile.html Any other knee-jerk reactions which don't agree with your feminist or whatever agenda that is? Anyone?

9f54852ea376e8e416356f547611e052

(2957)

on November 30, 2011
at 05:10 PM

You're missing my point. The point is that even if we agree that the bodies of these women are beautiful (and they aren't, and I bet vast majority of ANY population would agree with me), they are not typically healthy bodies. And there is nothing "bogus bullshit" about studies correlating WHR with health. I'm sure some of them have questionable methodology, but it's one of the best-known and studied indicators.

C471216c9fb4fcf886b7ac84a4046b49

(1371)

on November 30, 2011
at 05:08 PM

WAIT, SO youre saying fertile women are unhealthy. or a potentially preggo women is unattractive...seriously, go to .....somewhere else

C471216c9fb4fcf886b7ac84a4046b49

(1371)

on November 30, 2011
at 05:00 PM

wisper...sorry but those women dont care about their ratios, some bogus bullsh*t studies, or hips - ratio anything. they care if their hips are strong enough to hold children and their boobs will produce enough milk to feed them...oh, and if their abdomen is dissented enough to hold a child for 9 mths

9f54852ea376e8e416356f547611e052

(2957)

on November 30, 2011
at 04:55 PM

Oh, and you are also welcome to show a significant population who thinks such bellies are attractive (on women OR men).

9f54852ea376e8e416356f547611e052

(2957)

on November 30, 2011
at 04:54 PM

Matthew, you are welcome to show studies where women (or men!) with waist-to-hip ratios significantly above 1.0 have better health than those with below 1.0. Pot belly, distented abdomen and high waist-to-hip ratio are all indicative of poor health.

78fcdeee6ac4ee7d071bbac56b9e359f

(1025)

on November 30, 2011
at 04:49 PM

my point exaaaaactly

78fcdeee6ac4ee7d071bbac56b9e359f

(1025)

on November 30, 2011
at 04:41 PM

I would explain it by saying this woman is in the spectrum of healthy and normal just as the women I pictured in the question.

0bc6cbb653cdc5e82400f6da920f11eb

(19235)

on November 30, 2011
at 04:33 PM

Wisper fail....

9f54852ea376e8e416356f547611e052

(2957)

on November 30, 2011
at 04:13 PM

Just as hilarious as some other responses here, but this one has negative rating. I wonder why...

9f54852ea376e8e416356f547611e052

(2957)

on November 30, 2011
at 04:11 PM

In what kind of misguided treehugging world are the pictured women considered to be ideal visually or health-wise?

9f54852ea376e8e416356f547611e052

(2957)

on November 30, 2011
at 04:07 PM

Beauty is absolutely and definitely NOT subjective as much as ugly people would like it to be. There has been lot of research on the subject, and people of all ages agree on rough ideas of beauty. It's tough to quantify, but healthy skin, high cheek bones, symmetry, small chin, small waist-to-hip ratio, and nubile features have been mentioned in different studies (these are for women, men have similar). This goes beyond cultural borders. Even newborns look at beautiful faces longer than ugly ones: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6355-babies-prefer-to-gaze-upon-beautiful-faces.html

27361737e33ba2f73ab3c25d2699ad61

(1880)

on November 30, 2011
at 03:53 PM

I'm with Anne Luck. Unless the female pictured is preggers or just gave birth, she does not look healthy to me. Too much upper body fat (fatty arms, pot belly and spare tire). I don't think you need to have a fat belly for fertility...quite the opposite. PCOS women have fat bellies and have a tough time getting preggers. Protein deficiency can give pot belly appearance as well.

5ef574d7893bc816ec52e04139e9bc09

(6097)

on November 30, 2011
at 03:51 PM

yeah these girls are ugly

98bf2ca7f8778c79cd3f6c962011cfdc

(24286)

on November 30, 2011
at 03:46 PM

And just to properly mark the occasion I'm actually going to type out the word "I agree with cliff".

98bf2ca7f8778c79cd3f6c962011cfdc

(24286)

on November 30, 2011
at 03:45 PM

Yeah that damn feminist agenda rears it's ugly head again. How dare anyone contemplate the idea that you may not have to look like a Victoria's Secret model to be healthy. What the hell is going on around here?

D67e7b481854b02110d5a5b21d6789b1

(4101)

on November 30, 2011
at 03:44 PM

I love Mallory!!

C471216c9fb4fcf886b7ac84a4046b49

(1371)

on November 30, 2011
at 03:28 PM

they also SURELY do not care what they look like, nor do they take it into consideration. they are stuck up bored body obsessed people like we are nowadays. health means fertility to them. it has nothing to do with looks

C471216c9fb4fcf886b7ac84a4046b49

(1371)

on November 30, 2011
at 03:26 PM

no youre wrong, they look correct, exactly CORRECT AND GOOD for their purpose in the culture, fertility and babymaking

C471216c9fb4fcf886b7ac84a4046b49

(1371)

on November 30, 2011
at 03:25 PM

omg is this real life???

C471216c9fb4fcf886b7ac84a4046b49

(1371)

on November 30, 2011
at 03:25 PM

that is so wrong its not even funny...

5b69a02dadcae753771921d913909215

(1457)

on November 30, 2011
at 03:16 PM

All of my ex-gfs have had concave, not convex stomachs. However that certainly doesn't represent today's general population.

Bf57bcbdc19d4f1728599053acd020ab

(5043)

on November 30, 2011
at 03:08 PM

LOL I'm sure they'll get on their laptops and check it out.

78fcdeee6ac4ee7d071bbac56b9e359f

(1025)

on November 30, 2011
at 02:47 PM

*shown* not showed, so you grammatical types don't discount me completely. I vote that beauty and physically beauty are both totally subjective.

61b801de5dc345b557cd4623d4a4f26b

(2682)

on November 30, 2011
at 02:27 PM

I think the difference might have been between "beautiful" and "physically beautiful," with the latter being more subjective.

78fcdeee6ac4ee7d071bbac56b9e359f

(1025)

on November 30, 2011
at 02:27 PM

From what they showed in the movie, these people were beyond the missionary's "pacification zone" in New Guinea and hadn't encountered white people before. They were showed eating rats, lizards, birds, snakes, grubs and the starch from the pulp of the sago palm tree.

Ce41c230e8c2a4295db31aec3ef4b2ab

(32556)

on November 30, 2011
at 02:19 PM

@ Carne~ I think the word beautiful means different things to different people. I definitely do not resonate with *your* definition. Here's mine: 1. having beauty; having qualities that give great pleasure or satisfaction to see, hear, think about, etc.; delighting the senses or mind:

98bf2ca7f8778c79cd3f6c962011cfdc

(24286)

on November 30, 2011
at 02:17 PM

Just FYI, beautiful does NOT mean above average in terms of looks. Eric I'm not sure what you changed but something tells me you didn't need to change a thing.

7d0c3ea9bf8be00b93e6433d8f125ac3

(7540)

on November 30, 2011
at 01:19 PM

ummmmmmmmmmmmmm no.

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on November 30, 2011
at 12:56 PM

men have to shave and keep hair short because thats what society says is best.... I totally agree with the notion that society is forcing false ideals on us.

1a98a40ba8ffdc5aa28d1324d01c6c9f

(20378)

on November 30, 2011
at 07:47 AM

I have changed it Carne! Thank You!

828429fe885f42968c0519d5b84cec40

(608)

on November 30, 2011
at 07:30 AM

Men have to shave too and keep their hair short. Does not mean "society" is telling them they are "wrong." This seems more like an agenda driven question than an actual desire for information.

828429fe885f42968c0519d5b84cec40

(608)

on November 30, 2011
at 07:28 AM

I think there is a confirmation bias going on here. The second woman is pregnant. I do not think that such a fat stomach is normal or desirable for women. Here are some other pictures of thin tribal/non-civilized women to compare. http://www.amazon-tribes.com/Amazon-Women-Grooming-cens.jpg http://www.worldofstock.com/slides/PCU7369.jpg http://www.hayinart.com/imag http://www.culturequest.us/maasaitribe/rituals_files/MasaiWomen.jpg Also note different races/ethnicities have different body compositions and reactions to neolithic foods. I am curious WRT uncivilized European body distribution..

828429fe885f42968c0519d5b84cec40

(608)

on November 30, 2011
at 07:26 AM

Each and every person is not physically beautiful. Beautiful means above average in terms of looks, and by virtue of its very definition everyone cannot be physically beautiful. Sorry to jump off topic, but the misuse of words is bothersome.

218f4d92627e4289cc81178fce5b4d00

on November 30, 2011
at 07:22 AM

Probably pregnant in some of those photos.

6670b38baf0aae7f4d8ac2463ddc37c0

(3946)

on November 30, 2011
at 06:13 AM

That looks like carb/wheat belly to me. Would be interested to learn whether this group has been using Western ag methods. And for the record, no, that rounded of a belly is not healthy.

Medium avatar

(5639)

on November 30, 2011
at 05:37 AM

Interesting question...any idea what those people eat? And for the record my girlfriend says, "Nope."

D117467bf8e8472464ece2b81509606c

(2873)

on November 30, 2011
at 05:04 AM

Great question.

  • 78fcdeee6ac4ee7d071bbac56b9e359f

    asked by

    (1025)
  • Views
    9.7K
  • Last Activity
    1256D AGO
Frontpage book

Get FREE instant access to our Paleo For Beginners Guide & 15 FREE Recipes!

11 Answers

50
C471216c9fb4fcf886b7ac84a4046b49

on November 30, 2011
at 03:25 PM

omg people....the womens bodies DO NOT LOOK INSULIN RESISTANT or 'wheat bellied.' you obviously have no idea what cultural women's bodies look like- sans i think cliff said the ideal was no ideal. women, ALL fertile women SHOULD carry their weight in their belly, rounded from one side of the hips to the other. it makes a protective barrier promoted by estrogen and womens wonderful leptin receptors on their ovaires. it is NORMAL for a HEALTHY WOMAN, to have a rounded belly.

seriously, this is the main reason i dislike this site. first, people assume ANY WEIGHT WHATSOEVER that is not muscle must be someone dietary f*ckups..get real

real women in evolution are there to MAKE BABIES and reproduce. thats their purpose, for real. they build, breed, and evolve women who will be able to carry babies. the point is to carry on the culture.

9f54852ea376e8e416356f547611e052

(2957)

on November 30, 2011
at 04:55 PM

Oh, and you are also welcome to show a significant population who thinks such bellies are attractive (on women OR men).

9f54852ea376e8e416356f547611e052

(2957)

on November 30, 2011
at 05:13 PM

Wait, no, I'm not, quite the contrary. Fertility is correlated with small WHR. Ie. women with the classic 36-24-36 chest-waist-hips hour glass figure are more fertile than pot-bellied women. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn4953-barbieshaped-women-more-fertile.html Any other knee-jerk reactions which don't agree with your feminist or whatever agenda that is? Anyone?

C471216c9fb4fcf886b7ac84a4046b49

(1371)

on November 30, 2011
at 05:00 PM

wisper...sorry but those women dont care about their ratios, some bogus bullsh*t studies, or hips - ratio anything. they care if their hips are strong enough to hold children and their boobs will produce enough milk to feed them...oh, and if their abdomen is dissented enough to hold a child for 9 mths

0bc6cbb653cdc5e82400f6da920f11eb

(19235)

on November 30, 2011
at 05:20 PM

Wisper I think you missed the point completely.

Medium avatar

(12379)

on November 30, 2011
at 05:47 PM

Ok - so a quick google image check and you can find the second woman in a picture with better resolution - there is something wrong with her - scarring on her belly - lack of visible belly button etc, and in the other picture she really does look pregnant - and women #1 looks just exaclty like I did (belly wise) when I was 6 months pregnant - OH - and 36-24-36 can still have a squishy belly - the 24 measurement is taken at natural waist not jean waist you can still have a 24 inch waist and a pooch! and PREGNANT IS BEAUTIFUL PERIOD FULL STOP.

9f54852ea376e8e416356f547611e052

(2957)

on November 30, 2011
at 04:54 PM

Matthew, you are welcome to show studies where women (or men!) with waist-to-hip ratios significantly above 1.0 have better health than those with below 1.0. Pot belly, distented abdomen and high waist-to-hip ratio are all indicative of poor health.

C471216c9fb4fcf886b7ac84a4046b49

(1371)

on November 30, 2011
at 05:08 PM

WAIT, SO youre saying fertile women are unhealthy. or a potentially preggo women is unattractive...seriously, go to .....somewhere else

9f54852ea376e8e416356f547611e052

(2957)

on November 30, 2011
at 04:11 PM

In what kind of misguided treehugging world are the pictured women considered to be ideal visually or health-wise?

Medium avatar

(12379)

on November 30, 2011
at 06:45 PM

Carne - that is not the definition of attractive *to you*. Beauty and attractiveness is in the eye of the beholder. And I think you completely contradicted yourself by saying that men find women with small waists and large hips attractive because that means they are fertile but that a woman who had a healthy baby is not attractive. Heatlhy baby = fertile.

C471216c9fb4fcf886b7ac84a4046b49

(1371)

on November 30, 2011
at 06:36 PM

to each their own. i dont think my 6 pack is making me anymore attractive than a woman(hence, WOMAN) with an ass and boobs. and i can guarantee the latter is fertile

828429fe885f42968c0519d5b84cec40

(608)

on November 30, 2011
at 07:55 PM

Mallory, your argumentation skills are poor. Not being fat is not the same as having a six pack. Yes, women with breasts and rear ends are more fertile than men shaped like boys. What is the point your are trying to make? You are arguing two different points. Your initial statement was that the pictures above are women with desirable bodies? That is objectively incorrect.

Aead76beb5fc7b762a6b4ddc234f6051

(15239)

on November 30, 2011
at 07:01 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus_of_Willendorf

Cbb1134f8e93067d1271c97bb2e15ef6

on November 30, 2011
at 07:47 PM

+! - You go, Mallory!!!!

C471216c9fb4fcf886b7ac84a4046b49

(1371)

on November 30, 2011
at 05:31 PM

youre not gonna find a culture comparing post pregnant women in their 'attractiveness'. attractive is the women who had a healthy baby who is growing up to repeat what her mama did

D67e7b481854b02110d5a5b21d6789b1

(4101)

on November 30, 2011
at 03:44 PM

I love Mallory!!

0bc6cbb653cdc5e82400f6da920f11eb

(19235)

on November 30, 2011
at 04:33 PM

Wisper fail....

828429fe885f42968c0519d5b84cec40

(608)

on November 30, 2011
at 06:27 PM

"attractive is the women who had a healthy baby who is growing up to repeat what her mama did" Wait what? That is not the definition of attractive. The reason men find small waists and larger hips attractive is because that is an indicator of fertility. These women are not an indication of an ideal female body, nor a normal one. This is a very emotional discussion for women here. I can only extrapolate that this is a topic that is sensitive- however, your feelings do not negate the fact that these are not normal or attractive female bodies.

C471216c9fb4fcf886b7ac84a4046b49

(1371)

on November 30, 2011
at 05:30 PM

im prolly furthest from a feminist you will EVER meet first of all. evolutionarily speaking, women are put here to have sex, have babies, nurture them, then die. so yeah, any hip to weight ratio of a woman who has prolly birthed 5 or 6 kids is heresay. evolution does not care what she looks like at this point. potbellied or not the 'realm' of women is mature...have first ovulation...nourish them with cultural foods(which differ among location of culture)...get preggo...nurture...repeat if darwinism accepts it is applicable....repeat until unable...

9f54852ea376e8e416356f547611e052

(2957)

on November 30, 2011
at 05:10 PM

You're missing my point. The point is that even if we agree that the bodies of these women are beautiful (and they aren't, and I bet vast majority of ANY population would agree with me), they are not typically healthy bodies. And there is nothing "bogus bullshit" about studies correlating WHR with health. I'm sure some of them have questionable methodology, but it's one of the best-known and studied indicators.

C471216c9fb4fcf886b7ac84a4046b49

(1371)

on November 30, 2011
at 05:34 PM

treehugger...really? this real life? this chick has one goal in life...i want babies, a family and to nourish them and take care of them while 2094587-19345 women stand by trying to bench twice their body weight, eat chicken breasts for a 6pack, and get to the top of their business and be some BS CEO and run shit.

19acef0aed67ef8dc1118d8e74edb349

(2954)

on December 19, 2011
at 06:48 AM

When you go to the urban areas, is when you would start to see the obsession to look like magazine models. But in rural areas... they want you meaty! :)

19acef0aed67ef8dc1118d8e74edb349

(2954)

on December 19, 2011
at 06:47 AM

Where I come from, the boys liked the girls who had a salient, squishy tummy. (fat, to you?) Even when skinnier girls were prettier.

19acef0aed67ef8dc1118d8e74edb349

(2954)

on December 19, 2011
at 06:46 AM

I know you have no reason to believe me, since I'm just a random person in the interwebs, but where I come from, I heard very, very often that a girl with some meat on her is beautiful. These girls had a big squishy tummy and were slender everywhere else. You know, their belly protrudes. Young girls were discouraged from being thin (having a flat tummy) so that men would like them. Now, I grew up with fashion magazines and such, so I was upset that I was not supposed to look like these models to be attractive. Who should I believe? :-) But I had that protruding tummy and got much praise!! :-)

19
Medium avatar

(12379)

on November 30, 2011
at 07:04 PM

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I know of many men who love them some skinny chicks; but I know many men who love them some cushy ladies too. Some like boobs, some like bums, some like feet.

Rounded bellies are the norm for women if there is a baby in there (or there was a baby in there recently).

The world is a diverse place - so there should be all shapes and sizes and we should embrace that and not force people into a 'norm'.

I mean isn't that sort of what we came to paleo for - to escape the 'norm'?

98bf2ca7f8778c79cd3f6c962011cfdc

(24286)

on November 30, 2011
at 08:02 PM

Total awesomeness right there.

Cbb1134f8e93067d1271c97bb2e15ef6

on November 30, 2011
at 07:36 PM

+1 for this response as well as your comments above.Refreshing! Thank you.

19
9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on November 30, 2011
at 05:03 PM

In developing countries, higher waist circumference is positively tied to infant survival, which is the opposite situation from the West. A jungle horticulturalist diet is marginal to begin with* and then you add in pregnancy food taboos and parasites, and it's understandable why this is the case. Extra body fat is a buffer.

These also could be women who have just given birth. Either way, anthropologist Steven Gaulin says that women tend to gain weight around the middle as they either age or have children because of the fact that it helps support larger babies, who are more likely to survive. A woman who has had many children already has a stretched pelvis and can handle it. And older women who has never given birth before...well, natural selection is figuring she isn't going to have many children and the ones she has better survive, even if it's at the cost of her life.

From what I know, the health of infants in Papua New Guinea is a little better than the Hadza, which another person mentioned. The Hadza are too thin and their health suffers for it. As far as I'm concerned it's an indication that the Hadza and other "bushman" tribes are adapted to an environment that was once more plentiful. The Melanesians have been living in their locality for a very very long time and are very much genetically distinct. Sexual selection could also be a factor, as interviews with Melanesians typically confirm that men prefer women with a higher WHR than the West or Asian, and that women desire to have "fat arms."

Then the pattern is that after menopause, a woman in these cultures (and in our culture until very recently) gets thinner and thinner, which is sometimes referred to as "wasting." I understand why Western women take hormonal replacement to avoid the negative effects of this, but it often means they keep the weight.

Either way, none of these women are obese. In America, many people are so overweight that it affects their mobility. They would not be able to use that boat the first woman is in.

*did anyone see the human planet episode in Papua where they are hunting bats and talking about how little meat they get? Meat hunger is quite common in the jungle and it's debatable whether the jungle is really any more of an optimal environment than a modern European city. Also, if you want to see how much better coastal/island Melanesians look, do a search for "Trobriand" on Flickr.

9f54852ea376e8e416356f547611e052

(2957)

on November 30, 2011
at 11:17 PM

Yes, it is a refreshing view. On the other hand, we are living in a western society with western cultural standards - rejecting them is fine and all, but you'll be treated accordingly.

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on November 30, 2011
at 05:33 PM

Well, if it's caused by having lots of children (remember these women are married as soon as they get their period), I think it's a perfectly normal thing. As Gaulin points out, there are American women in their teens who have never had children who are overweight. Body fat has its purposes, but in the modern US, it is often present at inappropriate times and is often composed of inflammatory garbage PUFAS.

9f54852ea376e8e416356f547611e052

(2957)

on November 30, 2011
at 05:19 PM

Finally someone who doesn't get all emotional about this. Thanks for the reference to Melanesians preferring higher WHR, first I've heard of this. But would you agree that although the bodies represented in the OP might be desirable in some "indigenous" cultures and even healthy in some environments and genetic background, such WHR is not desirable and unlikely to be healthy in a western environment and genetic background?

Cbb1134f8e93067d1271c97bb2e15ef6

on November 30, 2011
at 07:40 PM

+! - For a response that looks beyond Western cultural norms and a multitude of cultural differences.

18
F92e4ca55291c3f3096a3d4d3d854986

(11698)

on November 30, 2011
at 01:04 PM

Well, we know that women carry more weight around their bellies, hips and thighs to support child-bearing. And the human female abdomen is not flat like a pancake - even in slim women, it's slightly convex. So I do think the answer to Dunnie's question is YES. However, I agree that these pictures are not the best example of this - seems like pregnancy or recent childbirth may be involved there.

I also agree with Dunnie that the media and modern culture has completely skewed our conception of what a normal healthy woman looks like. Photoshopping, the use of pubescent and underweight models, spray tans, hair extensions, plastic surgery, liposuction, brazilian waxing, labia trimming, restylane, botox, teeth bleaching, anal bleaching..... it's a brave new world.

C471216c9fb4fcf886b7ac84a4046b49

(1371)

on November 30, 2011
at 03:28 PM

they also SURELY do not care what they look like, nor do they take it into consideration. they are stuck up bored body obsessed people like we are nowadays. health means fertility to them. it has nothing to do with looks

5b69a02dadcae753771921d913909215

(1457)

on November 30, 2011
at 03:16 PM

All of my ex-gfs have had concave, not convex stomachs. However that certainly doesn't represent today's general population.

C471216c9fb4fcf886b7ac84a4046b49

(1371)

on November 30, 2011
at 05:52 PM

good point Nemesis

1d0497f8781845ab371b479455bfee8e

(11157)

on November 30, 2011
at 05:31 PM

If they didn't care, why does the first lady have decorations in her hair? Everyone cares about their appearance, cultural differences place emphasis on what part of a person's physique should be desirable.

Cbb1134f8e93067d1271c97bb2e15ef6

on November 30, 2011
at 07:44 PM

Excellent point, Nemesis. The deeper and and even more important qualifying point is that different cultures have *very* different perceptions of what is attractive, beautiful, and this is clear in how they decorate, tatoo, stretch body parts, etc.

19acef0aed67ef8dc1118d8e74edb349

(2954)

on December 19, 2011
at 06:51 AM

I believe decorations mean status, not just to augment appearance. For example in some Asian societies, decorations were reserved for nobles and royalty.

14
1a98a40ba8ffdc5aa28d1324d01c6c9f

(20378)

on November 30, 2011
at 06:07 AM

Each and every person is beautiful to me.

Each of us needs to manage our body composition and overall body fat. Having a correct image of what that should look like can be difficult. It starts with wanting the body that you already have. It is refined by proper diet and reasonable exercise.

A proper example of a goal is knowing you weigh 15 lbs more than you did five years ago. Maybe I should try to lose 5-10 lbs of weight. That is healthy and good.

A poor example is someone at an ideal body weight (or worse below ideal body weight) wanting too lose weight to look like someone else.

The pictures of natives could be misleading. It may be they are already eating a western diet.

828429fe885f42968c0519d5b84cec40

(608)

on November 30, 2011
at 07:26 AM

Each and every person is not physically beautiful. Beautiful means above average in terms of looks, and by virtue of its very definition everyone cannot be physically beautiful. Sorry to jump off topic, but the misuse of words is bothersome.

1a98a40ba8ffdc5aa28d1324d01c6c9f

(20378)

on November 30, 2011
at 07:47 AM

I have changed it Carne! Thank You!

5ef574d7893bc816ec52e04139e9bc09

(6097)

on November 30, 2011
at 03:51 PM

yeah these girls are ugly

Medium avatar

(12379)

on November 30, 2011
at 06:45 PM

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I'm sure that Dean McDermott would disagree with you regarding Tori vs. Megan.

Ce41c230e8c2a4295db31aec3ef4b2ab

(32556)

on November 30, 2011
at 02:19 PM

@ Carne~ I think the word beautiful means different things to different people. I definitely do not resonate with *your* definition. Here's mine: 1. having beauty; having qualities that give great pleasure or satisfaction to see, hear, think about, etc.; delighting the senses or mind:

9f54852ea376e8e416356f547611e052

(2957)

on November 30, 2011
at 09:30 PM

I assume that's Tori's husband or father. If former, Tori's enormous wealth or the fact that Tori holds the key to sexual gratification for her husband might have something to do with it. If latter, hardly an objective appraiser. Actually, in both cases objectivity is far from guaranteed.

100fd85230060e754fc13394eee6d6f1

(18696)

on November 30, 2011
at 11:44 PM

Wisper, if you can't see beauty in any given person, that's your loss. Those studies you mention are about "attractiveness", not beauty.

78fcdeee6ac4ee7d071bbac56b9e359f

(1025)

on November 30, 2011
at 02:47 PM

*shown* not showed, so you grammatical types don't discount me completely. I vote that beauty and physically beauty are both totally subjective.

9f54852ea376e8e416356f547611e052

(2957)

on November 30, 2011
at 04:07 PM

Beauty is absolutely and definitely NOT subjective as much as ugly people would like it to be. There has been lot of research on the subject, and people of all ages agree on rough ideas of beauty. It's tough to quantify, but healthy skin, high cheek bones, symmetry, small chin, small waist-to-hip ratio, and nubile features have been mentioned in different studies (these are for women, men have similar). This goes beyond cultural borders. Even newborns look at beautiful faces longer than ugly ones: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6355-babies-prefer-to-gaze-upon-beautiful-faces.html

9f54852ea376e8e416356f547611e052

(2957)

on November 30, 2011
at 11:15 PM

It's hard to debate with someone with poor reasoning skills, and who rejects academic studies. Ignorance is a bliss.

61b801de5dc345b557cd4623d4a4f26b

(2682)

on November 30, 2011
at 02:27 PM

I think the difference might have been between "beautiful" and "physically beautiful," with the latter being more subjective.

78fcdeee6ac4ee7d071bbac56b9e359f

(1025)

on November 30, 2011
at 02:27 PM

From what they showed in the movie, these people were beyond the missionary's "pacification zone" in New Guinea and hadn't encountered white people before. They were showed eating rats, lizards, birds, snakes, grubs and the starch from the pulp of the sago palm tree.

Ce7e28769d92d5de5533e775b1de966e

on November 30, 2011
at 11:14 PM

Wisper, I'm a pretty chill chick but can't let this one go for once. I take offense at your statement "Even newborns look at beautiful faces longer than ugly ones." I have a beautiful amazing friend who was terribly burned in a fire and is married with children. Why she may not fall into the category that your pretty people link discusses, I can tell you that her babes, from newborn to now, look upon her as *the* most beautiful woman in the world. Also a babes nose knows more than eyes at newborn. PS: Megan Fox has toe thumbs and Vera Farmiga is way hotter. Juba --> exits stage left

98bf2ca7f8778c79cd3f6c962011cfdc

(24286)

on November 30, 2011
at 02:17 PM

Just FYI, beautiful does NOT mean above average in terms of looks. Eric I'm not sure what you changed but something tells me you didn't need to change a thing.

C471216c9fb4fcf886b7ac84a4046b49

(1371)

on November 30, 2011
at 05:26 PM

whhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhat does that have to do with the subject at question wisper

828429fe885f42968c0519d5b84cec40

(608)

on November 30, 2011
at 06:21 PM

@Mallory, he was arguing the erroneous comments above. What someone finds beautiful is not subjective, but I suppose some preferences are subjective. However, everyone can agree that the face of Megan Fox is more beautiful than the face of Tori Spelling- this is because Fox has more quantifiable markers of beauty than Tori. It is unfair, but beauty is not subjective.

Medium avatar

(12379)

on November 30, 2011
at 11:34 PM

That is rude and completely uncalled for. And of course I reject some 'academic' studies; some are flawed and you linked a news article above which has no study referenced, so I cannot comment as to the validity of the statistics used. But this discussion is no longer fruitful so I hope that you have a very nice day and I also hope that your tone with fellow paleohackers improves, this site is meant for postive interactions and great discussion, not personal attacks.

9f54852ea376e8e416356f547611e052

(2957)

on November 30, 2011
at 09:28 PM

Who? 11 more to go

9f54852ea376e8e416356f547611e052

(2957)

on December 01, 2011
at 09:12 AM

Juba, love for ones mother is certainly (also) not a position for objective evaluation of beauty. Bree, I didn't realize this was a group hug site, I thought it was for debate - my bad. Ambi, you can define beauty any way you want, while majority of us defines it like the dictionary does - a synonym of attractiveness.

Medium avatar

(12379)

on November 30, 2011
at 10:08 PM

Never did I day anything about objectivity - beauty is completely subjective (like I said in the eye of the beholder) There are alwyas going to be stupid psych theses regarding the quantificiation of beauty and how we are psychologically hardwired to see beauty a certain way BUT these studies are just studies and their conclusions are based on statisitics which don't really capture the truth behind everything.

7636e1e02ef91a46f20a42e07b565a4b

(367)

on December 01, 2011
at 06:50 PM

It's amazing how I can meet someone who at first pass is gorgeous, but when encountering the ugliness of their soul, their appearance changes instantly and they can become utterly repulsive. Something to keep in mind when commenting about supposed "beauty." Good god.

10
Cd2ff8c68dd1f1d539ad7f0ee94b0421

on November 30, 2011
at 06:40 AM

It could be that each of those women has had 5 children.

C471216c9fb4fcf886b7ac84a4046b49

(1371)

on November 30, 2011
at 05:35 PM

agreed, at which point evolution doesnt care what happens...

5
518bce04b12cd77741237e1f61075194

(11577)

on December 16, 2011
at 01:55 AM

I agree that a little "belly" on lots of women, or a slightly higher body fat %, is an evolutionary "that makes sense" for wanting to have healthy babies. This is totally anecdotal, but I had a series of super-fit friends trying to get pregnant, and several of them couldn't conceive until they let their body fat % climb up a bit (under the supervision of a very open minded OBGYN in our small community). It may really depend on your background/hormonal levels, but it really seemed to help these girls get pregnant. As an ICU nurse my mom also recalls in the late 80s/90s she saw a lot of aerobic instructors (it was that kind of time!) in with their babies, enough that the doctors were suspicious that their extremely high activity levels of prolonged, high intensity aerobic exercise may have taken enough resources away from their pregnancy that it caused birth defects (lots of the babies were in for breathing problems and heart fluttering).

I also know that when I was rowing for the varsity team, I had to maintain lightweight status (128 lbs, I normally weigh in at 137 lbs), and no matter how slim I got I always had a little belly. Not like a swollen belly, just an extra fat pad on my lower stomach. My waist circumference was very slim, but on my lower stomach and hips I always had a bit of extra fat. I was also one of the few lightweight rowers that maintained a regular menstrual cycle throughout the rowing seasons. Most of the girls would have a normal menstrual cycle, then they would really slim out before regatta season, and their periods would disappear right around when their 6-packs appeared. They also probably had quite a few nutritional deficiencies however, from having to lose weight so quickly.

I think this is probably very variable between cultures (my Chinese relatives have little concave bellies, my Lithuanian friends have very slim hips with a lower belly fat pad, my Inuit friends have wide set ribs/bellies/hips) and doesn't seem like the end of the world! If you are healthy and fit, but have a little extra for baby-time, should be all good!

518bce04b12cd77741237e1f61075194

(11577)

on December 16, 2011
at 01:57 AM

Also, kind of weird, and again totally anecdotal, I noticed that when I went from single/looking to a stable relationship, my hips really fleshed out and I became noticeably more maternal towards babies (ie. everytime you see a baby you want to die and hold and die and just think they are the cutest things in the world why-oh-why can't it be mine right now). With my hips fleshing out, my lower belly fat pad also increased. Possible hormonal response to feeling stable enough to have a baby?? Who knows!

2
Medium avatar

on November 30, 2011
at 04:35 PM

So how do you explain this:

are-rounded-bellies-in-the-realm-of-normal-and-healthy-for-women?-(warning:-pictures-of-the-human-body)

That's a very recent mother. She doesn't look "fat" to my eyes. None of the pictures of the Hadza I've seen lead me to believe that the Pururambo are very healthy. BUT...culturally, the women may have a different role, may do less work, may be allotted more food, I don't really know, as I haven't done the research, and I'm making assumptions.

78fcdeee6ac4ee7d071bbac56b9e359f

(1025)

on November 30, 2011
at 04:41 PM

I would explain it by saying this woman is in the spectrum of healthy and normal just as the women I pictured in the question.

1f8384be58052b6b96f476e475abdc74

(2231)

on December 01, 2011
at 01:08 AM

get out of your cave and see the world wisper

C471216c9fb4fcf886b7ac84a4046b49

(1371)

on November 30, 2011
at 05:37 PM

me too, shes just as healthy as the pictured woman

Medium avatar

(5639)

on December 01, 2011
at 05:26 AM

I can't see it either. I'm almost positive she wouldn't have visible abs (which, might I add, I don't find attractive on a woman, and I know I'm not alone in this...instinctive selection anyone?), but she does look quite skinny, judging by her face and arms.

100fd85230060e754fc13394eee6d6f1

(18696)

on December 01, 2011
at 01:10 AM

I can't see this woman's belly.

9f54852ea376e8e416356f547611e052

(2957)

on November 30, 2011
at 09:31 PM

Pretty and healthy - and those two usually go together.

2
4c197bf333480ae7c349acddb781cb40

on November 30, 2011
at 06:40 AM

The woman's bodies look like insulin resistance or wheat belly. No that is not good!

27361737e33ba2f73ab3c25d2699ad61

(1880)

on November 30, 2011
at 03:53 PM

I'm with Anne Luck. Unless the female pictured is preggers or just gave birth, she does not look healthy to me. Too much upper body fat (fatty arms, pot belly and spare tire). I don't think you need to have a fat belly for fertility...quite the opposite. PCOS women have fat bellies and have a tough time getting preggers. Protein deficiency can give pot belly appearance as well.

C471216c9fb4fcf886b7ac84a4046b49

(1371)

on November 30, 2011
at 03:26 PM

no youre wrong, they look correct, exactly CORRECT AND GOOD for their purpose in the culture, fertility and babymaking

-4
77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on November 30, 2011
at 02:05 PM

No that is not healthy. may be they have fat in their belly or having round worm. If that is fat then here is a link which may help them.

how to lose belly fat for women

78fcdeee6ac4ee7d071bbac56b9e359f

(1025)

on November 30, 2011
at 04:49 PM

my point exaaaaactly

Bf57bcbdc19d4f1728599053acd020ab

(5043)

on November 30, 2011
at 03:08 PM

LOL I'm sure they'll get on their laptops and check it out.

C471216c9fb4fcf886b7ac84a4046b49

(1371)

on November 30, 2011
at 03:25 PM

omg is this real life???

-5
77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on November 30, 2011
at 01:03 PM

These people are mal-nourished and don't have a proper diet to burn the fat. Also they don't do cardio exercise frequently and for that reason the belly will remain fat.

7d0c3ea9bf8be00b93e6433d8f125ac3

(7540)

on November 30, 2011
at 01:19 PM

ummmmmmmmmmmmmm no.

9f54852ea376e8e416356f547611e052

(2957)

on November 30, 2011
at 04:13 PM

Just as hilarious as some other responses here, but this one has negative rating. I wonder why...

C471216c9fb4fcf886b7ac84a4046b49

(1371)

on November 30, 2011
at 03:25 PM

that is so wrong its not even funny...

Answer Question


Get FREE instant access to our
Paleo For Beginners Guide & 15 FREE Recipes!