Bigger Girls: Are They More Popular than We Think?

--Kaiser--

Czarcasm wrote: »

Yes. Because there's been so much goalpost shifting going on and lack of any common understanding that depending on who you talk to, Rita Hayworth was either a cracker, or she was overweight-


http://fatfeministfitnessblog.blogspot.ie/2010/05/vintage-beauties-rita-hayworth.html

And here- NSFW but worth a read (I only look at the pictures ) and a quick browse through the comments anyway to see what I mean about goalpost shifting and lack of any common understanding about what's fat, what's obese, and what's, well, morbidly obese!

http://www.cracked.com/funny-3113-fat-girls/

Well then, here some statistics, off with you and your silly notions.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/business/20061202money4.pdf

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs311/en/

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


Edit: that Cracked article is describing Marilyn Monroe as fat, you really are away with the fairies

Czarcasm

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

Well then, here some statistics, off with you and your silly notions.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/business/20061202money4.pdf

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs311/en/

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


Edit: that Cracked article is describing Marilyn Monroe as fat, you really are away with the fairies

Well, that's me told! *waddles off* :pac:


No but seriously Kaiser I know where you're coming from and I will read those links when I'm back on the laptop, but it's just a thing with me that when a person starts introducing stats to a discussion, I tune out. I can read and understand statistics perfectly well, I just don't like them when we're talking about a human condition because they can be used to prove or disprove anything, and then they take no account of numerous other factors pertaining to the individual that could be considered relevant, but are discarded because they don't jig well with the hypothesis being put forward.

And yes, while I agree with you that describing Marilyn as fat is in our opinion just crazy talk, there are indeed people who would describe her as overweight, but again statistics take no account of personal opinion or perception, that's why discussion is important in reaching a common understanding.

That's clearly not going to happen here.

--Kaiser--

Czarcasm wrote: »

Well, that's me told! *waddles off* :pac:


No but seriously Kaiser I know where you're coming from and I will read those links when I'm back on the laptop, but it's just a thing with me that when a person starts introducing stats to a discussion, I tune out. I can read and understand statistics perfectly well, I just don't like them when we're talking about a human condition because they can be used to prove or disprove anything, and then they take no account of numerous other factors pertaining to the individual that could be considered relevant, but are discarded because they don't jig well with the hypothesis being put forward.

And yes, while I agree with you that describing Marilyn as fat is in our opinion just crazy talk, there are indeed people who would describe her as overweight, but again statistics take no account of personal opinion or perception, that's why discussion is important in reaching a common understanding.

That's clearly not going to happen here.

People (in general) have been getting fatter for the last 100 years or so. It's scientifically verifiable, heck, you can talk to your parents and grandparents and ask them how many people were back in the day if you don't trust in statistics (thought these particular ones aren't complicated).

Ah yes 'statistics can prove anything', a commonly used (and totally false BTW) statement by people who have clearly lost a debate.

The whole 'Marilyn was overweight' thing annoys me, it's just a lie. A lie propagated by people who want to think that being overweight is normal and sexy when (in general etc..) when it's not.

http://www.snopes.com/movies/actors/mmdress.asp

Itwasntme.

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

Saying it's due to metabolism is the same as saying it's due to genetics. Exercise and diet affects your metabolism. If you went back even 50 years ago would you see as many overweight and obese people? You certainly wouldn't

Very true. Studies have shown that people are fatter today largely due to the increase in sugar consumption, fructose to be exact. The increase in consumption of bad sugar not only adds to the total number of calories consumed per annum per person but chronic fructose consumption also causes metabolic syndrome which is basically a conglomerate of obesity, type II diabetes etc. In addition to that, fructose does not suppress the hunger hormone ghrelin and it doesn't stimulate insulin which means people end up eating more. And because more is more readily available and often advertised as healthy, the result is an obesity epidemic around the world.

So, not only do we eat more today because food is more available and move a lot less because we have so many modern conveniences but so many people are overweight and in some cases obese despite exercising and 'eating healthy' because a considerable proportion of the food that is advertised as healthy is deadly.

IM0 wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ImZTwYwCug

I had never actually paid attention to the lyrics. They cracked me up!! :pac::pac:

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

Well then, here some statistics, off with you and your silly notions.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/business/20061202money4.pdf

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs311/en/

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


Edit: that Cracked article is describing Marilyn Monroe as fat, you really are away with the fairies

There's no need to be rude.

Wibbs

Czarcasm wrote: »

Yes. Because there's been so much goalpost shifting going on and lack of any common understanding that depending on who you talk to, Rita Hayworth was either a cracker, or she was overweight-


http://fatfeministfitnessblog.blogspot.ie/2010/05/vintage-beauties-rita-hayworth.html

Unless you're some crosseyed loon working in Parisienne high fashion, no one would suggest Rita or Marilyn were fat. To be fair MM got a bit of a chunk on in Some like it hot, but that was about the biggest she ever got and was hardly "fat". Her dress size has been mentioned before, but when they were auctioning off some of her clothes it turned out she was nowhere near a size latterly suggested. Very petite in frame for most of her days.

Czarcasm

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

People (in general) have been getting fatter for the last 100 years or so. It's scientifically verifiable, heck, you can talk to your parents and grandparents and ask them how many people were back in the day if you don't trust in statistics (thought these particular ones aren't complicated).

So one minute you'll quote statistics when it suits you, and then revert back to making generalisations as if they were fact, you see no issue with putting forward personal opinion as if it were fact?

I have no need to ask my grandparents, they're worm food at this stage but the one grandmother who was alive when I was growing up would be considered by todays societys standards as morbidly obese. She was 87 when she died. My father played rugby all his life, fit as fcuk, 26 stone and 6ft 7ins of muscle, he'd a huge belly though, and when he was told he'd to lose weight for a hip operation, my mother had him eat dry ryvita for months, while he still had to work in his engineering business which was incredibly demanding physically.

His waist measurement was a lot more than the 32 inches commonly referred to today as the standard for obesity. I don't know what his BMI was, but he'd a fair size belly, all muscle, and doctors were frustrated because he physically could not lose any more weight, so they had to go ahead with the operation anyway.

He had a quad bypass done about five years later after a massive heart attack (he was sitting up in the bed with a black and blue chest when the ambulance arrived, found out later his rib cage had split open), then about two years after that again he died of yet another massive heart attack while out walking his dog at 62 years of age!

I'm 36 and I've already got steel pins in my hip, due a replacement once doctors get the finger out because they say I'm still too young for a replacement, I'd a mild heart attack about four years ago now, and I'm a 34 waist at 5ft 10ins. I wouldn't be considered obese to look at either.

But statistically, it ain't looking too good for me, is it? :pac:

Ah yes 'statistics can prove anything', a commonly used (and totally false BTW) statement by people who have clearly lost a debate.

See? We can't even agree on what we're doing here; for me Boards is a discussion site, a discussion isn't about winners and losers, it's about exchange of ideas and opinions with the aim of reaching a common understanding. If we can't even agree on that much, that's why I said earlier that a discussion clearly isn't going to happen here when all you're concerned with is winning what you see as a debate.

--Kaiser--

Why do I even bother

Honey-ec

32" is the waist measurement for women, it's 36" for men.

What's really struck me reading this thread has been the apparent lack of middle ground between "skinny" and "curvy". You can be slim and a healthy weight and still have curves, it's not one or the other. I'm 5' 7", a size 8-10 depending on the shop but I have a 34D chest and a decent (imo) bum. I'm not quite sure when curvy became a euphemism for fat, but it's one of my bug-bears.

To me, curvy is someone like Scarlett Johannsen. Someone like Christina Hendricks, on the other hand, while undoubtedly curvy, looks overweight to me. She always looks like she's wearing industrial-strength underwear.

Likewise, to me, skinny is someone like Cara Delevingne.

IM0

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

The whole 'Marilyn was overweight' thing annoys me, it's just a lie. A lie propagated by people who want to think that being overweight is normal and sexy when (in general etc..) when it's not.

http://www.snopes.com/movies/actors/mmdress.asp

there is so much **** in that post I dont know where to start

mm was and always will be a sex goddess pinup in popular culture, the definition of at least what a real womans shape should begin to resemble

where this facination with women who look more masculine shaped Ill never know, must be a serious amount of bisexual guys out there or closet gays :pac:

--Kaiser--

IM0 wrote: »

there is so much **** in that post I dont know where to start

mm was and always will be a sex goddess pinup in popular culture, the definition of at least what a real womans shape should begin to resemble

where this facination with women who look more masculine shaped Ill never know, must be a serious amount of bisexual guys out there or closet gays :pac:

I'm not sure what you disagreed with in my post but perhaps you misread it

Honey-ec

IM0 wrote: »

there is so much **** in that post I dont know where to start

mm was and always will be a sex goddess pinup in popular culture, the definition of at least what a real womans shape should begin to resemble

where this facination with women who look more masculine shaped Ill never know, must be a serious amount of bisexual guys out there or closet gays :pac:

What post? Both Kaiser and the Snopes article were refuting the myth that Monroe was in any way fat.

Naos

blacklilly wrote: »

Yes but I was using it as a comparasion to some of my friends who do little or no excerise and have bad diets yet remain slim, I am rarely lazy and I excerise regulary. Just because someone is slim does not automatically mean they are healthy.

When did I say slim = healthy? I agreed with you that there are slim lazy people.

IM0

Honey-ec wrote: »

What post? Both Kaiser and the Snopes article were refuting the myth that Monroe was in any way fat.

well then he worded it very badly

--Kaiser--

IM0 wrote: »

well then he worded it very badly

Nah, you just read it badly, I don't think anyone else misunderstood it

Honey-ec

IM0 wrote: »

well then he worded it very badly

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

The whole 'Marilyn was overweight' thing annoys me, it's just a lie

Erm, ok.

blacklilly

Naos wrote: »

When did I say slim = healthy? I agreed with you that there are slim lazy people.

Ok thanks for confirming:)

IM0

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

Nah, you just read it badly, I don't think anyone else misunderstood it

there is a weird double negative thing going on in it. saying everyone else cant see it is no defence it just means they cant see it either

Pug160

Honey-ec wrote: »

32" is the waist measurement for women, it's 36" for men.

What's really struck me reading this thread has been the apparent lack of middle ground between "skinny" and "curvy". You can be slim and a healthy weight and still have curves, it's not one or the other. I'm 5' 7", a size 8-10 depending on the shop but I have a 34D chest and a decent (imo) bum. I'm not quite sure when curvy became a euphemism for fat, but it's one of my bug-bears.

To me, curvy is someone like Scarlett Johannsen. Someone like Christina Hendricks, on the other hand, while undoubtedly curvy, looks overweight to me. She always looks like she's wearing industrial-strength underwear.

Likewise, to me, skinny is someone like Cara Delevingne.

I think if her boobs were not as enormous as they are she'd be in the ideal curvy bracket as the rest of her seems to be in proportion. It's hard to tell with celebrities though, as they have all sorts of gadgets to enhance themselves.

KwackerJack

You just can't win really......

I like slim and curvy Girls not skinny or just fat!

What I bloody hate is slim good looking girls with orange fake tan, nutella on there faces and lips like an infected trout!! What I also hate is big momma's in leggins and a little top so that there belly hangs out and wobbles :eek:

Its like the pretty, slim girls need to bake them selves in ****e to 'look good' and the fat girls wear the tightest clothes possible and think that there skinnier??

I know so many good looking girls / women that are 100 times better looking without make-up and fake tan! I know big girls that wear leopard print leggins so tight you can see the cellulite (Mid-life crises at 25)!!

So someone ex-plane that to me!!

I've seen some of my friends going off with orange barrel beast's and I just cant see the attraction. Each to their own but when your that big why wear such tight and revealing clothes

IM0

Honey-ec wrote: »

Erm, ok.

read the sentance after it, the two dont make sense together. anyway stop this isnt a grammer forum

Honey-ec

Honey-ec wrote: »

32" is the waist measurement for women, it's 36" for men.

What's really struck me reading this thread has been the apparent lack of middle ground between "skinny" and "curvy". You can be slim and a healthy weight and still have curves, it's not one or the other. I'm 5' 7", a size 8-10 depending on the shop but I have a 34D chest and a decent (imo) bum. I'm not quite sure when curvy became a euphemism for fat, but it's one of my bug-bears.

To me, curvy is someone like Scarlett Johannsen. Someone like Christina Hendricks, on the other hand, while undoubtedly curvy, looks overweight to me. She always looks like she's wearing industrial-strength underwear.

Likewise, to me, skinny is someone like Cara Delevingne.

When I first read this, I thought "nah, Christina Hendrix isn't overweight" but I really only know her from a pic posted in the hot red heads thread so I just googled her there and yeh, you're right. Is she what's considered a "bigger" girl?

I agree though, curvy shouldn't replace the word fat. I do however think that you can have a small bit of extra weight on you and be considered curvy without being fat - I would though

Legs.Eleven

So moral of the story: each to their own then, yeah?

GalwayGuy2

People (in general) have been getting fatter for the last 100 years or so. It's scientifically verifiable, heck, you can talk to your parents and grandparents and ask them how many people were back in the day if you don't trust in statistics (thought these particular ones aren't complicated).

Tbh, beuracracy, technology and health awareness has exploded in the past 100 years or so. So, it could only really be properly measured in (pulling this out of nowhere) half century or so.

IM0

if you want to have a decent discussion you need to understand the notion of proportion, proportion has NOTHING to do with size or weight!!

getting involved in the discussion is pointless if you cant grasp this fact, but in fairness many dont

in the simplest way possible, proportion is displayed best by the 'near far away' idea. in other words looking at some thing close up or further away, the only thing that changes is proportion, which is the OVERALL EXACT SIZE of an object otherwise it is identical

Pug160

KwackerJack wrote: »

You just can't win really......

I like slim and curvy Girls not skinny or just fat!

What I bloody hate is slim good looking girls with orange fake tan, nutella on there faces and lips like an infected trout!! What I also hate is big momma's in leggins and a little top so that there belly hangs out and wobbles :eek:

Its like the pretty, slim girls need to bake them selves in ****e to 'look good' and the fat girls wear the tightest clothes possible and think that there skinnier??

I know so many good looking girls / women that are 100 times better looking without make-up and fake tan! I know big girls that wear leopard print leggins so tight you can see the cellulite (Mid-life crises at 25)!!

So someone ex-plane that to me!!

I've seen some of my friends going off with orange barrel beast's and I just cant see the attraction. Each to their own but when your that big why wear such tight and revealing clothes

A lot of girls overdo it with the make up but make no mistake, it does make average girls look better. It's always been the advantage girls have had over men. Girls in general are a lot more insecure about their appearance I think, which explains why some of them put far too much make up on. Also, a lot of trashy girls are just following trends. One year they're paining on their eyebrows and the next year they have eyebrows like a Gallagher brother.

--Kaiser--

GalwayGuy2 wrote: »

Tbh, beuracracy, technology and health awareness has exploded in the past 100 years or so. So, it could only really be properly measured in (pulling this out of nowhere) half century or so.

I don't think there is any getting around the fact of the worldwide increase of obesity, whether you look at the last 10 years, or 20 or 30...

Year males obese females obese
1980 6% 8%
1993 13% 16%
2000 21% 21%
2008/9 22% 24%

IM0

IM0 wrote: »

if you want to have a decent discussion you need to understand the notion of proportion, proportion has NOTHING to do with size or weight!!

getting involved in the discussion is pointless if you cant grasp this fact :rolleyes:

Aimed at the air, or someone in particular?!!

Paddywiggum

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

I don't think there is any getting around the fact of the worldwide increase of obesity, whether you look at the last 10 years, or 20 or 30...

Year males obese females obese
1980 6% 8%
1993 13% 16%
2000 21% 21%
2008/9 22% 24%

where are these stats coming from? 1 in 4 being obese is an epidemic.

--Kaiser--

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

I don't think there is any getting around the fact of the worldwide increase of obesity, whether you look at the last 10 years, or 20 or 30...

Year males obese females obese
1980 6% 8%
1993 13% 16%
2000 21% 21%
2008/9 22% 24%

Nah, fat people just do more surveys these days cos they can complete them online :P

--Kaiser--

Pug160 wrote: »

A lot of girls overdo it with the make up but make no mistake, it does make average girls look better. It's always been the advantage girls have had over men. Girls in general are a lot more insecure about their appearance I think, which explains why some of them put far too much make up on. Also, a lot of trashy girls are just following trends. One year they're paining on their eyebrows and the next year they have eyebrows like a Gallagher brother.

I used to say I don't like make-up (except maybe eye-liner) til someone pointed out that well put on make-up doesn't look like make-up, so what do I know. Conversely, I was going out with a girl and upon meeting her some female friends said "I love your make-up!" to which she replied "Umm, I'm not wearing any..."