This thread is a creative exercise. If you could design your physical body in any way, how would you describe it?

I would choose a petite body with minimum curvature. As for outward age, thirty or younger.

Jeanette Isabelle

I'm not sure of the purpose of the discussion. To me it would be wonderful if we could all have good health -- nobody wants to be genetically prone to this or that. That includes physical, mental, dental, and ophthalmologic health. It's crazy that these areas are often insured differently.

Good health is more than enough. But I guess if we want more, we could be smarter, faster, stronger, more perceptive in our senses, etc. Sure, hard work counts, but Olympic athletes, great musicians, scientists, etc. all have a natural advantage to begin with.

No fantasy. I am comfortable with the body I have I've invested a fair amount of time in its maintenance and improvement, although I could do with a little less belly fat....

Agree with Bingley about the purpose of this thread. overall, good health is supreme, as opposed to mere shape. I would say, looking back, that the gaining of good lifestyle habits (no smoking, good diet, regular exercise) now is really paying off.

Life can't just be about prepping. It's good to let our minds explore.

Jeanette Isabelle

All the good habits a person can practice would not give me the petite body I would like to have.

Jeanette Isabelle

Could you define 'petite' jeanette?
Qjs

Petite as in approximately 152cm, small bone structure, and no curves.

Jeanette Isabelle

Don't worry. All things come to those who wait. When old age arrives, your height will shrink, as Mrs. Hikermor and i are finding out to our chagrin.

As a youngster, Iwas quit tall for my age in 5th grade, and I aspired to be 6 feet tall, and a huge basketball star. I topped out at 5' ll 1/2" (179 cm) nd th world lost a basketball player.

Today I have shrunk to 5'7" (maybe 8 if I cheat a little).

Just bee patient; your time is coming...

Like hikermor, I feel we should value functionality over appearance, and we should maintain our body because it does a lot of things for us, not because we want our body to conform to some arbitrary standard imposed by society. It feels good to exercise, eat well, and live a healthy life. That's plenty.

It doesn't make sense to chase after impossible images. Jeanette is right that we have genetic dispositions that can prevent us from achieving movie star bods. It's a bit of a lottery. Our society's taste in beauty changes. Why chase after a moving goal post that may not have been designed for your game?

Some people may want a slim, petite body. But be careful of what you wish for. I know a number of slim, petite women whose genetics is such that it is really hard for them to gain weight. Some wish they were curvy and could fill out a bikini better. Some have to gain weight for health reasons, and they have a hard time doing it. Some get bullied and have unflattering, objectifying adjectives thrown at them. I'm not asking for sympathy for them. I'm pointing out that dissatisfaction with one's own body image is common, even with the body type that one idealizes.

What I described is not a standard imposed by society, nor is it a movie star body. The social standard and movie star image is height.

I'm tall but want to be petite. I don't know why you believe I want to follow the herd mentality.

Jeanette Isabelle

I intended to mention this earlier. Being a petite woman would be better than I had wanted for a long time, and that is to remain frozen in my preteen years. The problems with being an adult in a preteen body are many. I could not drive, it would be difficult to find a job, and I would not be socially accepted.

Given that, I see being a petite woman as the better alternative.

Jeanette Isabelle

I can't find it. Many years ago, someone made a similar thread, but the context was different.

The question was somewhere along the lines of which physical description is ideal for a survival situation. For example, is it best to be a big, husky man in a survival situation able to lift a lot of weight but require more protein and calories? Or is it better to be a small person who does not need as many calories but cannot do the tasks of a large man?

Other factors included who would be the bigger target?

Jeanette Isabelle

The correct answer depends upon which survival situation - they aren't standardized. Survival is a bit like cave exploration. Some passages favor big people and quite often there are constricted passages suitable only for a tiny person.

The correct answer is probably "both of the above" - a well coordinated group which intelligently uses the capabilities of its members.

I have heard that for maximum survival when resources are scarce, the honed, six pack ab types will not fare as well as those who, while still reasonably athletic, are just a tad overweight (belly fat = emergency rations)

Take the boy your parents gave you and do what you can to improve its capabilities....

What does being a bigger target have to do with it? Are you just focusing on civic strife situations and violence?

It's been years since I read that thread. However, I do recall that being a factor. That would only be a factor in an urban environment.

Jeanette Isabelle