Bigger Girls: Are They More Popular than We Think?

Itwasntme. · 01-06-2013 12:50pm

Czarcasm wrote: »

I was going to ignore this, but the more I read it the more it bugs the fcuk out of me. Honestly IMO I think it's your argument has gone pear shaped

:pac::pac:

Wibbs · 01-06-2013 12:52pm

Legs.Eleven wrote: »

Edit: And just to add, this pressure is among women. Men don't come into this at all as far as I can see. Men seem to have no problems with women of any size here and if they're hot, they get attention. Skinny, big, average...whatever. I think if men knew half of what goes on, they'd be appalled.

Maybe LE, while I very much agree that a helluva lot of this pressure and focus on weight comes from women themselves(whether that be in the media or "on the ground") there can be a wider pressure in the society and that includes some male influence. Taking your Spanish(and Madrid funny enough) example, I knew a woman who was largely ignored over there, but got a lot more attention from the guys here in Ireland and was surprised by it. I've also had Spanish male mates visiting here who were vocal enough about the contrast in sizes between here and Spain. Ditto for Italian guys(though a little less so). Some eastern European cultures and their women and men can be quite vocal about this too.

I definitely agree with you that Ireland and Irish men are about the least "sizest" of the Europeans I've encountered. UK guys would be similar IME.

That all said, while like you I've seen Spanish women clearly in dire need of medical help for excessive weight loss, Ireland is in the top three countries in Europe for anorexia, behind France and Austria. Spain has a third our rate of this illness. Table here. Then again that's just reported cases. I've certainly known too many Irish women in my time who had undiagnosed and untreated eating disorders, or were very borderline. If issues like Bulimia, or even going hungry all the time from diets aren't included the picture may be quite different.

Interestingly on BMI(and I know that's fraught with issues but..), Irish women are slightly lighter than the Spanish overall. What is different is when you look at the ages. Young Irish women's BMI is slightly above the average for all ages, whereas young Spanish women's BMI is certainly lower. That would possibly suggest that young Spanish women may be on permanent diets but that goes out the window as they age. It may also back that old notion of Latin women piling on the pounds when they settle down(Italy shows a similar stat). Whereas with Irish women what you see is what you get and likely to get a decade later.

Honey-ec · 01-06-2013 1:19pm

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

If I were a man or a lesbian, the hottest look in my opinion would be slim and extremely curvy, like that Latina gal out of Modern Family: hubba hubba!

To hell with it, even though I'm not a man or a lesbian, I'd probably do her. Smokalicious!

http://cdn.imnotobsessed.com/wp-content/uploads/sofia-vergara_50895598.jpg

Perfect example of what I think of when someone says "curvy" - curves in all the right places on a slim frame.

Femme_Fatale · 01-06-2013 1:35pm

Kelly Brook and Scarlett J and Salma Hayek too. Not skinny but not big. Would be considered way too big (and old now in some cases) for catwalk modelling though. Absolutely ideal for knickers modelling however.

I would also classify Adele as curvy though. I know she's overweight but not ridiculously so, and she is in great proportion IMO.

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

Yeah I agree, the first place most people look at to see if someone is attractive to them or not is the face, a person might have a great body but if they fell out of the ugly tree as regards looks they probably won't be as popular with the opposite sex.

That Nikki Grahame from BB comes to mind.

It's her (bat-sh-t) personality that I'd see as her most unattractive feature - she may not be very beautiful but I wouldn't agree she's really ugly! And I think she's too thin (just my opinion) - hadn't she anorexia? It makes her look wiry - and extreme thinness ages people too. I'd bet she'd look so much nicer if she were a bit "padded" (as in, a size 8-10 instead of a 6). Going from extremely thin to healthily slim softens the features and gets rid of the wiry effect.

IM0 · 01-06-2013 2:02pm

yes I am well aware and knew of pretty much everything you said here, but I must say the bit where i said and eluded to "organs located in hips? thighs?" was a

moment, you missed the sarcasm but hey at the same time you are not a mind reader so yeah....

so your dig about not knowing biology chemistry physics ect is all wrong, because again you like me you are not a mind reader either

I suppose thats what I get for saying "in simple terms" and trying to abbreviate it too much. you gave the rest of them the detail though, I didnt have the enough time or indeed enough desire to do it so so fair play.

Czarcasm wrote: »

I was going to ignore this, but the more I read it the more it bugs the fcuk out of me. Honestly IMO I think it's your argument has gone pear shaped. She HAS that weight around her stomach. It's just that wearing a corset her those ridiculous football breasts and oversize hips, because the excess fat has to go somewhere.

In even simpler terms- gravitys a bitch, and the more fat (I made the distinction there between fat and weight on purpose, show you why in a minute) you carry ANYWHERE on your body, the harder it's going to be to move your body around, so your organs like the lungs and heart have to work harder to get you from A to B, because gravity doesn't want you going anywhere. That's what weight is, or to put the physics of it in even simpler terms for you-

Force = Mass x Acceleration.

Gravity a constant, so in order for your body to work less, your mass needs to be reduced, making it easier for your body to overcome the force of gravity, create momentum, and propel itself forward, backward, even up!

Your vital organs are located up in your chest behind your diaphram, not down where your large and small intestines are. You have fat around all your organs anyway, in fact you NEED fat around your organs, but like everything else in life- how much is too much? It's too much when your organs are having to work harder and harder to achieve the same result of overcoming gravitational force on your body and getting you from A to B.

Abdominal obesity has many different causes and just as many associated myths, but the one thing that IS known about it, is that when you sit down, it increases the pressure on your vital organs and decreases their capacity to function properly, ie- you can't get as much volume of air in your lungs, therefore your body isn't getting as much oxygen as it needs, therefore your heart has to work harder to pump what little oxygen it's getting into the bloodstream around your body.

You stand up, and again gravity fcuks with you because your vital organs and your muscles have to work harder to shift your body from A to B. This is a lot easier to do if you have a lower centre of gravity, ie- fat deposits on your hips rather than your abdomen.

Indeed.

This isn't rocket science either btw, this is only secondary school first year science- biology, physics and chemistry, and had you been listening in class you would know this stuff.

Daveysil15 · 01-06-2013 2:09pm

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

Kelly Brook and Scarlett J and Salma Hayek too. Not skinny but not big. Would be considered way too big (and old now in some cases) for catwalk modelling though. Absolutely ideal for knickers modelling however.

Three very sexy ladies indeed - genetically gifted. I'd prefer a knickers model over a skinny catwalk model anyday.

IM0 · 01-06-2013 2:21pm

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

Kelly Brook and Scarlett J and Salma Hayek too.

have you been hacking my favourites of all time folder on my laoptop havent you :pac:

interesting though...how would YOU view j lo and beyonce based on what YOU just said?

Czarcasm · 01-06-2013 2:26pm

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

Kelly Brook and Scarlett J and Salma Hayek too. Not skinny but not big. Would be considered way too big (and old now in some cases) for catwalk modelling though. Absolutely ideal for knickers modelling however.

I would also classify Adele as curvy though. I know she's overweight but not ridiculously so, and she is in great proportion IMO.

It's her (bat-sh-t) personality that I'd see as her most unattractive feature - she may not be very beautiful but I wouldn't agree she's really ugly! And I think she's too thin (just my opinion) - hadn't she anorexia? It makes her look wiry - and extreme thinness ages people too. I'd bet she'd look so much nicer if she were a bit "padded" (as in, a size 8-10 instead of a 6). Going from extremely thin to healthily slim softens the features and gets rid of the wiry effect.

Not to be a picky fcuk FF but I think you'd be stretching the definition of "curvy" by describing Adele as curvy! I mean, then you're on to the question of just how curvy IS "curvy", because Adele would be WELL curvy, as in indeed overweight, totally beyond proportional, and much as I was unwilling to use the term and show my personal bias, she is the definition of what for me would be a BBW (and then you're on to the whole "what features define attractiveness and what is it about those features an individual finds attractive?).

The discrepancy in what's considered "attractive" (if we were to completely leave the associated health risks out of it), would be vast, and most individuals in a discussion wouldn't allow for an opinion that could say they found both Mila Kunis and Adele attractive, but in different ways!

Femme_Fatale · 01-06-2013 2:29pm

Isn't BBW a term that's applied to those really obese fetish chicks though?

IM0 wrote: »

have you been hacking my favourites of all time folder on my laoptop havent you :pac:

interesting though...how would YOU view j lo and beyonce based on what YOU just said?

More about the bootay but still look great. I like boobs too though.

Ilyana 2.0 · 01-06-2013 2:48pm

April O Neill wrote: »

Technically not hourglass then, as true hourglasses won't have an ounce of belly fat. An hourglass figure is very rare, I think!*

* This isn't really meant to be critical, it's just a lot of women describe themselves as hourglass. If it was so common, it wouldn't be so idealised!

Well I'm not pear-shaped or apple-shaped because my top and bottom halves are in proportion to one another, and I'm not straight up and down because I have a defined waist.

I may not be an hourglass in the strictest sense, but I'm none of the others either. I do have a small bit of weight on my belly but I don't often see other women with similar proportions to me i.e. somewhat hourglass. It is still quite rare really. If I were to eat better and exercise more, I'd be a 'true' hourglass.

IM0 · 01-06-2013 2:56pm

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

More about the bootay but still look great. I like boobs too though.

so what word would you give them if you described the others as 'slim' and 'curvy'

me? Id say they were the same proportionately but bigger, but with more bootay obviously. Id say they were big framed women, actual bone structure I mean. but I hate when some describe them as big, when they would use the same word for what most of us would call fat!

they are very active women in SUPER shape, with big frames, but other than that they are the same as the three stunners you mention, what you think?

and Im pretty sure they are hour glass shaped too

Legs.Eleven · 01-06-2013 3:20pm

Wibbs wrote: »

Maybe LE, while I very much agree that a helluva lot of this pressure and focus on weight comes from women themselves(whether that be in the media or "on the ground") there can be a wider pressure in the society and that includes some male influence. Taking your Spanish(and Madrid funny enough) example, I knew a woman who was largely ignored over there, but got a lot more attention from the guys here in Ireland and was surprised by it. I've also had Spanish male mates visiting here who were vocal enough about the contrast in sizes between here and Spain. Ditto for Italian guys(though a little less so). Some eastern European cultures and their women and men can be quite vocal about this too. .

After I typed that post, it actually hit me that the attention I'd get wouldn't be from young Spanish men but from Latino, African and Middle Eastern Men...and older Spanish fellas (who are probably more attracted to the blonde hair). I'd probably be too big for many (maybe most?) Spanish men's taste (just to remind you I'm a size 10!) but luckily I found the one fella who's into tits and ass.

They can't help what they go for though and the type of slim Spanish women are would be their norm. There's very little variation in sizes here and if there is, they'd be considered chubby. I'd agree with you that British and Irish men are definitely the most accepting of varying body shapes and long may it last!

Interesting stats on Anorexia though. I'd no idea.

beks101 · 01-06-2013 3:38pm

Wibbs wrote: »

Interestingly on BMI(and I know that's fraught with issues but..), Irish women are slightly lighter than the Spanish overall. What is different is when you look at the ages. Young Irish women's BMI is slightly above the average for all ages, whereas young Spanish women's BMI is certainly lower. That would possibly suggest that young Spanish women may be on permanent diets but that goes out the window as they age. It may also back that old notion of Latin women piling on the pounds when they settle down(Italy shows a similar stat).

Or the fact that strict dieting for too long ultimately backfires when your body fights back.

April O Neill · 01-06-2013 4:03pm

ViveLaVie wrote: »

I'm 5 ft 1 and at the minimum weight for my height but I don't look like a child. On the one hand, you're criticising the speculation and judgement of women's bodies and on the other you're insulting naturally thin women. Now I realise there is a difference in that you had an eating disorder and therefore you weren't naturally this thin but I do not have an eating disorder and yet the implication is that I weigh the same as a child, have no business doing so and the bmi scale is wrong to tell me I'm healthy.

This thread is doing my head in. People are lamenting the constant scrutiny of the female body and then perpetuating it themselves! Some people are naturally skinny, some are naturally heavy and there's plenty in between. Unless your health is being adversely affected, live and let live!

I didn't read that as her saying nobody has any business being the weight of a child, just that she didn't, as it wasn't natural for her.

Legs.Eleven · 01-06-2013 4:13pm

April O Neill wrote: »

I didn't read that as her saying nobody has any business being the weight of a child, just that she didn't, as it wasn't natural for her.

That's what I read too. Not everyone can carry off that height and weight. Some are naturally built that way, some aren't.

alibab · 01-06-2013 4:26pm

This thread is very interesting reading . In my opinion Adele and Hendricks are not curvy they are simply overweight and unhealthy . Lots of women as pointed out call themselves curvy when overweight it's like it's the hip thing to do .

I call myself curvy I am a size 8 but small . I would class myself as hourglass on the basis of having a 9inch difference between my waist and hips . My stomach would be fairly flat but not perfect after 2 kids . In my case women like to tell me I am too skiny when I am obvisly not . Because the norm or average has now become bigger . In my opinion men have all different tastes and there is no one size fits all .

In my case as a women if I was to be attracted to other women I am attracted to fit strong women with lower body fat . Not skinny but strong . This is my personal preference as I am into weights etc myself and I find it attractive . Not body building women but fit and strong .

Czarcasm · 01-06-2013 4:31pm

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

Isn't BBW a term that's applied to those really obese fetish chicks though?

Sorry FF, I must have missed your edit (was it an edit or did I just miss it the first time round? I can't tell on touch!

), but yeah I mean there you're onto the whole trying to nail down a definition again, say it can go from just fat, to obese, to borderline fetish levels of morbid obesity where you're getting into Super Size Big Beautiful Women (SSBBW), which are pretty much immobile because of their sheer size (just as dangerous a fetish sub-culture as the whole thinspiration sub-culture, there's crazy shìt goes on in both extremes).

The whole BBW terminology though has been hijacked on Facebook and the likes by women that have more folds than a flaccid penis. IMO that's not attractive in any way- shapeless and formless, nothing feminine about them if that makes sense?
Then there's still the whole question of attraction, I mean if they have a face like a bulldog chewing a wasp, a cute body isn't gonna help much!

More about the bootay but still look great. I like boobs too though.

Celebrities are a perfect example of "one man's meat", etc, I mean, Beyonce changes her appearance more times, and been called more names, like there are those that say she's a cracker, those that call her thunder thighs, and then those that LIKE her thunder thighs!

I personally wouldn't think she has thunder thighs, but then that's probably because I'm used to seeing bigger, so my perspective is skewed. As you say though FF- great ass but disproportionately small boobs IMO.

I'm just a whole package kinda guy!

Wibbs · 01-06-2013 4:46pm

beks101 wrote: »

Or the fact that strict dieting for too long ultimately backfires when your body fights back.

Well yea, though they backfire to the same weight as us. But yep I would say a crap diet is going to do that. You lose lean mass which otherwise helps burn calories, so if and when you go back to the original diet you tend to put more back on. Never mind the other damage/side effects like insulin response. It's pretty unsustainable. I seem to recall reading somewhere when researchers followed up on "big losers" on various "official" weight reduction diets(men and women), 3 years on, they were nearly always back to the weight they had been before, some had gained. This can even happen with stomach reduction surgery.

beks101 · 01-06-2013 4:56pm

ViveLaVie wrote: »

I'm 5 ft 1 and at the minimum weight for my height but I don't look like a child. On the one hand, you're criticising the speculation and judgement of women's bodies and on the other you're insulting naturally thin women. Now I realise there is a difference in that you had an eating disorder and therefore you weren't naturally this thin but I do not have an eating disorder and yet the implication is that I weigh the same as a child, have no business doing so and the bmi scale is wrong to tell me I'm healthy.

I mentioned in that post that I'm curvy. That is my natural state. To reach my lowest weight, I had to starve myself, my curves completely disappeared and I had an eating disorder.

My point being, it was a miserable existence for me, all in the name of being
as slim as I could be. A state not helped in any way by weight obsession and scrutiny of women's bodies in general.

You don't appear to have the same issues. Good for you.

Take offence as you please, I think the message of my post was clear.

Pug160 · 01-06-2013 5:01pm

Just to clarify: are the overweight comments aimed at at Christina Hendricks just being made arbitrarily or do you really think she is medically overweight? I've looked at quite a few pictures (and yes I know they don't tell the whole story) and I honestly don't see a woman who looks overweight. I also don't see how she'd have lots of weight on her stomach. Once you reach a certain weight it's impossible to hide it. Adele is just a big girl - big everywhere. Hendricks has massive boobs but is not huge everywhere else. Also, in all of the pictures of Hendricks I've seen her face looks quite lean. I know fat is not always distributed evenly but if she were as big as some of you are suggesting it's unlikely she'd have a face like that. The Adele comparison is laughable in my opinion.

leewarden · 01-06-2013 5:31pm

Pug160 wrote: »

Just to clarify: are the overweight comments aimed at at Christina Hendricks just being made arbitrarily or do you really think she is medically overweight? I've looked at quite a few pictures (and yes I know they don't tell the whole story) and I honestly don't see a woman who looks overweight. I also don't see how she'd have lots of weight on her stomach. Once you reach a certain weight it's impossible to hide it. Adele is just a big girl - big everywhere. Hendricks has massive boobs but is not huge everywhere else. Also, in all of the pictures of Hendricks I've seen her face looks quite lean. I know fat is not always distributed evenly but if she were as big as some of you are suggesting it's unlikely she'd have a face like that. The Adele comparison is laughable in my opinion.

+1

Czarcasm · 01-06-2013 5:48pm

Pug160 wrote: »

Just to clarify: are the overweight comments aimed at at Christina Hendricks just being made arbitrarily or do you really think she is medically overweight? I've looked at quite a few pictures (and yes I know they don't tell the whole story) and I honestly don't see a woman who looks overweight. I also don't see how she'd have lots of weight on her stomach. Once you reach a certain weight it's impossible to hide it. Adele is just a big girl - big everywhere. Hendricks has massive boobs but is not huge everywhere else. Also, in all of the pictures of Hendricks I've seen her face looks quite lean. I know fat is not always distributed evenly but if she were as big as some of you are suggesting it's unlikely she'd have a face like that. The Adele comparison is laughable in my opinion.

Pug one thing I've always said about photos of celebrities is that they can either make said celebrity look flattering or just plain fcuked up, I'd put even less stock in photos I knew were photoshopped. You might think too it's impossible to hide, but Christina isn't doing a very flattering job of hiding anything. I mean, I've seen young girls of 14/15 whatever pulling their belly fat into their ridiculously undersized bra's to try and give the impression of heaving cleavage. Christina should've given up that nonsense years ago and if she wants to wear corsets, get one that fits and flatters her properly and doesn't make her look like a cartoon character.

I really have to wonder- does she actually HAVE massive breasts, or are they just average sized breasts shoved up and out giving the impression that they're bigger than they are? She's doing her body no favors treating her breasts like they're just ornaments for media attention, but I imagine all that matters to her right now is keeping her name in the spotlight.

If you think the Adele comparison is laughable, just do a Google search of Adele and tell me they're not just as photoshopped as Christina. Of course they are, which as I said earlier is the problem with using celebrity bodies as any kind of measurement of a healthy looking or attractive body.

The OP asks the question-

"Bigger Girls: Are They More Popular Than We Think?"...

My question would be-

"What's all this WE business?"

I never thought of overweight girls as unpopular tbh, that was always just a stereotype perpetuated by the media.

In the last few weeks I've seen more shots of Kim Kardashian pregnant than I ever did before she was pregnant. You can't pick up a paper now without reading about some personal trainer accompanying Kim to the gym, etc, and wait until she HAS the baby, I give it a week before she's back on the front cover of Cosmo showing all women how they too can lose the baby weight like her- bribe the photoshop guy! :pac:

April O Neill · 01-06-2013 7:44pm

desertcircus wrote: »

Indicator of what? I'm teetering between the "overweight" and "obese" classifications according to BMI, while my brother is a healthy weight. He does no exercise whatsoever, while I play rugby from August to April and this year I'm training for Gaelforce West. I'm fitter, faster, stronger and get sick less than my brother, and thanks to his nicotine habit, I can realistically expect to outlive him even though I'm three years older. What's the value of BMI if it fails to take any of this into account and simply tells us that he's fine and I desperately need to lose weight?

Maybe you do need to?

It's an indicator of healthy weight, though whether that weight was reached in a healthy way is another matter. It's just one metric, but it's not as imperfect as people make out.

Czarcasm · 01-06-2013 8:38pm

April O Neill wrote: »

Maybe you do need to?

Did you even read his post?

It's an indicator of healthy weight, though whether that weight was reached in a healthy way is another matter. It's just one metric, but it's not as imperfect as people make out.

Actually it is-

Top 10 Reasons Why The BMI Is Bogus

BMI was explicitly cited by Keys as being appropriate for population studies, and inappropriate for individual diagnosis. Nevertheless, due to its simplicity, it came to be widely used for individual diagnosis, despite its inappropriateness.

Source: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_mass_index

I won't quote the whole piece, but have a look at the "Limitations and Shortcomings" section.

Trying to measure anything without a defined metric (especially when it comes to human beings), leads to all sorts of misguided assumptions and errors.

Just ask the Ancient Egyptians who were all fingers and thumbs!

desertcircus · 01-06-2013 10:55pm

April O Neill wrote: »

Maybe you do need to?

It's an indicator of healthy weight, though whether that weight was reached in a healthy way is another matter. It's just one metric, but it's not as imperfect as people make out.

But the problem is that it's not an indicator of healthy weight. The evidence linking a given BMI to positive health outcomes is very shaky and vastly inferior to measurements of body fat percentage, for example.

As for whether I need to lose weight: this time last year I was 175 centimetres tall and weighed 105kg, which comes in as a BMI of 34.3. At this point I'm down to about 97kg, and have dropped more than half the fat off my waist (I'm running at close to zero fat anywhere else), and my BMI is 31.7. If I swore off carbs completely and doubled my weekly running to 60km and cycling to 80km, I might be able to get down to 90kg, which would give me a BMI of 29.4 - just shy of being classed as obese. At that point, I'd be edging towards 2-3% body fat, and any further weight loss would involve dropping muscle, which really isn't a positive approach. All of this, of course, would still be done against the backdrop of a brother whose BMI is near-perfect but who'd lose out to me on just about any measurement of fitness or health.

BMI isn't something that's perfectly good for 99% of humanity and only badly flawed when dealing with professional athletes. It's fundamentally flawed; people listed as overweight appear to have better health outcomes than people listed as healthy. People from different ethnic backgrounds have out-of-sync BMI readings. People who exercise regularly get weird BMI readings. It's of severely limited value.

IM0 · 01-06-2013 11:17pm

desertcircus wrote: »

But the problem is that it's not an indicator of healthy weight. The evidence linking a given BMI to positive health outcomes is very shaky and vastly inferior to measurements of body fat percentage, for example.

As for whether I need to lose weight: this time last year I was 175 centimetres tall and weighed 105kg, which comes in as a BMI of 34.3. At this point I'm down to about 97kg, and have dropped more than half the fat off my waist (I'm running at close to zero fat anywhere else), and my BMI is 31.7. If I swore off carbs completely and doubled my weekly running to 60km and cycling to 80km, I might be able to get down to 90kg, which would give me a BMI of 29.4 - just shy of being classed as obese. At that point, I'd be edging towards 2-3% body fat, and any further weight loss would involve dropping muscle, which really isn't a positive approach. All of this, of course, would still be done against the backdrop of a brother whose BMI is near-perfect but who'd lose out to me on just about any measurement of fitness or health.
.

the bit in bold is wrong, the minimum fat % you personally will be is 9% and thats being very kind + if your female more like 12%+

the reason? cause the body has a minimum amount of fat surrounding the organs, I think its 3-4% I believe, and if youre an adult female they carry more fat naturally..about 20-30% more in total compared to men I believe

April O Neill · 01-06-2013 11:26pm

Czarcasm wrote: »

Did you even read his post?

Yes.

Boofle · 01-06-2013 11:31pm

80s singer Alison Moyet (who slimmed from a size 22 to a size 10) has said this week in an interview that she has lost too much weight. She said she thinks women look better with a bit of "chub" on them and that she is "working on getting fatter again". . . .

Thwip! · 01-06-2013 11:53pm

Czarcasm wrote: »

Pug one thing I've always said about photos of celebrities is that they can either make said celebrity look flattering or just plain fcuked up, I'd put even less stock in photos I knew were photoshopped. You might think too it's impossible to hide, but Christina isn't doing a very flattering job of hiding anything. I mean, I've seen young girls of 14/15 whatever pulling their belly fat into their ridiculously undersized bra's to try and give the impression of heaving cleavage. Christina should've given up that nonsense years ago and if she wants to wear corsets, get one that fits and flatters her properly and doesn't make her look like a cartoon character.

I really have to wonder- does she actually HAVE massive breasts, or are they just average sized breasts shoved up and out giving the impression that they're bigger than they are? She's doing her body no favors treating her breasts like they're just ornaments for media attention, but I imagine all that matters to her right now is keeping her name in the spotlight.

If you think the Adele comparison is laughable, just do a Google search of Adele and tell me they're not just as photoshopped as Christina. Of course they are, which as I said earlier is the problem with using celebrity bodies as any kind of measurement of a healthy looking or attractive body.

The OP asks the question-

"Bigger Girls: Are They More Popular Than We Think?"...

My question would be-

"What's all this WE business?"

I never thought of overweight girls as unpopular tbh, that was always just a stereotype perpetuated by the media.

In the last few weeks I've seen more shots of Kim Kardashian pregnant than I ever did before she was pregnant. You can't pick up a paper now without reading about some personal trainer accompanying Kim to the gym, etc, and wait until she HAS the baby, I give it a week before she's back on the front cover of Cosmo showing all women how they too can lose the baby weight like her- bribe the photoshop guy! :pac:

If only someone would volunteer to find out

Czarcasm · 01-06-2013 11:56pm

Boofle wrote: »

80s singer Alison Moyet (who slimmed from a size 22 to a size 10) has said this week in an interview that she has lost too much weight. She said she thinks women look better with a bit of "chub" on them and that she is "working on getting fatter again". . . .

Heard it before, and the only one who seems obsessed with her own weight is Alison-

2009 - http://www.liverpooldailypost.co.uk/liverpool-culture/liverpool-arts/2009/11/27/alison-moyet-tells-liverpooldailypost-co-uk-why-her-body-size-is-irrelevant-92534-25259422/

2012 - http://www.nowmagazine.co.uk/celebrity-news/537168/alison-moyet-shows-off-amazing-weight-loss-in-clingy-dress

2013 - http://www.mirror.co.uk/lifestyle/going-out/music/alison-moyet-ive-lost-much-1920988

Like so many other celebrity yo-yo dieters such as Claire Richards, Charlotte Church, and now Adele-

http://music.ninemsn.com/blog.aspx?blogentryid=979766&showcomments=true

Bigger Girls: Are They More Popular than We Think?

Comments