Obese model on Cosmo

suicide_circus

Sardine wrote: »

but I doubt the fatty on Cosmo will look great at Twiggys age.

i doubt she'll reach Twiggys age. that woman is extremely unwell, she's dying.

Gimme A Pound

Thoie wrote: »

Do you feel the same about magazines that show models who are 178cm and weigh 50kg? Because that's been happening for a long time.

Well I certainly do. What's with this "if you criticise one thing it might mean that you're ok with the other thing" stuff all over the internet?

Neither is ok - one being in existence does not cancel out the negatives of the other.

As said, it's a lot easier to become obese too.

Although I don't know if the extremely underweight models (and the ones I'm talking about are scarily thin) will go on to lead healthy lives, but this woman is in an extremely unhealthy way.

And she is not a supermodel (lol) and they are only putting her on the cover because there is this Instagram bbw fad at the moment. Like they're not secretly appalled...

coffee_cake

Rennaws wrote: »

I like women who look real.

I'm not even a fan of makeup on women.

Same goes for weight, I just prefer real..

Ah i bet you wouldn't know natural makeup though

LLMMLL

Wibbs wrote: »

I agree. They run to extremes for one good reason, it keeps more average sized, even averagely thin women off kilter. Am I too fat/skinny? Average doesn't sell as unattainable and doesn't feed the insecurities.

I don’t think anyone is looking at overweight models and asking are they too skinny.

The most likely reason Cosmo used a plus sized model was for clicks, not a nefarious scheme to make women hate themselves.

CardinalJ

troyzer wrote:

By definition, being OVERweight is unhealthy. But most of the evidence suggests that having 15-20% body fat depending on your gender is perfectly healthy. If you're a man with 20% bodyfat you definitely don't have a six pack but overall you're probably more healthy than someone who does provided that you still exercise regularly and eat right.

How are you "probably more healthy"?

That is nonsense.

Sardine

Where are these underweight models? Victoria’s Secret models for e.g look perfect to me.

Sonics2k

Thoie wrote: »

I agree that the lady is obese, but it bugs me that no-one ever looks at the extremely underweight models that appear on the majority of magazines and worries about their health. Being extremely underweight, which many models are, also has health implications - osteoporosis, increased risk of certain cancers, decreased immune functions, and more likely to suffer respiratory problems.

Huh?

I'm not saying that being super thin is okay, but people have been working against the modelling industry attitude towards skinny women for absolute yonks now, I remember reading articles in the 90's about it.

Gimme A Pound

Sardine wrote: »

Where are these underweight models? Victoria’s Secret models for e.g look perfect to me.

Certain catwalk models are underweight (and look underage).

Yes, VS models show an example of a very healthy, fit look.

Thoie

Yadiel Little Cedar wrote: »

Well i certainly do. What's with this "if you criticise one thing it might mean that you're ok with the other thing" stuff all over the internet?

Neither is ok - one being in existence does not cancel out the negavities of the other.

As said, it's a lot easier to become obese too.

Although I don't know if the extremely underweight models (and the ones I'm talking about are scarily thin) will go on to lead healthy lives, but this woman is in an extremely unhealthy way.

And she is not a supermodel (lol) and they are only putting her on the cover because there is this Instagram bbw fad at the moment. Like they're not secretly appalled...

While Boards is not representative of the entire population, you see far more "ew, fat people" threads, full of "but what about their health!" comments than you see threads about people who are dangerously underweight. In general magazine covers are far more likely to show underweight models than overweight (or obese) or normal models.

As wibbs said, they go to extremes to keep people off kilter and worried about how they compare.

Sardine

Yadiel Little Cedar wrote: »

Certain catwalk models are underweight (and look underage).

Yes, VS models show an example of a very healthy, fit look.

Yes some of the catwalk models look emaciated but who watches Fashion TV ffs?

seamus

CardinalJ wrote: »

How are you "probably more healthy"?

That is nonsense.

To be fair, the extreme cutting that goes on to get body fat down to ~5% can leave your system in a ****e state, even if someone is apparently a chiseled Adonis from the outside.

Body fat serves more purposes than just insulation and energy storing. Dropping it down to insane levels and keeping it there will do long-term damage.

But to look at professional/competitive athletes at 8-12% body fat and declare oneself "healthier" is of course nonsense.

Hammer89

suicide_circus wrote: »

i doubt she'll reach Twiggys age. that woman is extremely unwell, she's dying.

You said it pal, extremely unwell. She's so unwell that the average and normal teenage girl can't replicate her eating habits, because this lady, this model, is unwell and they aren't. Her fat is a symptom of an illness that you can't just pick up like a hobby.

This lady isn't doing for obesity what Brad Pitt did for that World War 2 haircut by starring in Fury. She isn't stylising anything. There will be no widespread influence.

Non issue in my view.

TOMs WIFE

She said, while referencing female equality, that she wanted to "empower a team of women" to be the "best I can be".

Fail on 2 counts so.

Triceratops Ballet

Yadiel Little Cedar wrote:

Yes, VS models show an example of a very healthy, fit look.

Well yeah obviously cos you can't model underwear if you have no boobs or ass. Realistically though they probably are underweight Kendal Jenner is rumoured to be about 60kg at 6ft that's well under weight for her height

meeeeh

Yadiel Little Cedar wrote: »

Certain catwalk models are underweight (and look underage).

Yes, VS models show an example of a very healthy, fit look.

I know that in nineties there were loads of 13 year old Eastern European girls modelling clothes for women in their 30s, 40s and older. That body size is unattainable. However most women won't be able to achieve the look VS promotes either but it is a bit healthier at least.

As for Cosmo cover, it shows certain body type I wouldn't want to have and I don't find attractive or healthy. I don't like tokenism but if they think it will make them money they can put whoever they want on the cover. Cosmo is not a public health organisation. There is a separate issue that bigger people were ignored by fashion industry. If I had 3 stone more I'd still want to look nice, to dress well and not just in the tunic and leggings combination. It's very easy to make something look good on slim model, t shirt and jeans can be sexy. Majority of women are overweight and it's about time a bit of work is put in how to dress well bigger sizes and ideas how to style things if you are not size 6 or 8.

Sardine

Anyway you’d want to be pretty stupid to think magazine covers should dictate how you’re supposed to look. I wish I had a Men’s Fitness type body but it’s not worth all the work required!

sexmag

Sardine wrote: »

Anyway you’d want to be pretty stupid to think magazine covers should dictate how you’re supposed to look. I wish I had a Men’s Fitness type body but it’s not worth all the work required!

I hope this post is irnoic on purpose?

TOMs WIFE

TOMs WIFE wrote: »

She said, while referencing female equality, that she wanted to "empower a team of women" to be the "best I can be".

Fail on 2 counts so.

And the team of women will probably encourage her "go girl"!

howamidifferent

Here we have the other end of the spectrum.

neither one good for young girls body image.

cantdecide

I've been around 25kg+ overweight in my life and even now I could lose a bit more and I can tell, you get to a point where every extra kg impacts your quality of life in terms of your ability to work through daily life. Even just the fatigue alone. These articles make me want to spit.

take everything

This girl:
tattoos (nothing against tattoos but an overly tattooed body screams issues to me),
obese,
insecure ("i'm on a Cosmo cover!"),
Shaky sense of empowerment (from a broader toxic politically correct, virtue-signalling culture that celebrates morbid obesity),

Fashion industry:
Venal purveyor of stick thin models to keep women anxious and buying **** they don't need,
Needs a new gimmick.
The trans thing was done.
Creative thinks obesity might be a winner (at least for a week or two)

Profit.

Yes, someone will accuse me of playing SJW bingo above but it's so insanely transparent nowadays it's ridiculous.

Wibbs

LLMMLL wrote: »

The most likely reason Cosmo used a plus sized model was for clicks, not a nefarious scheme to make women hate themselves.

I'm not suggesting people are meeting in secret cabals figuring out way to make women more insecure to buy more fashion tat, but read any mainstream "style" magazine or website and those articles are to the fore. We don't see it as a culture because we're so used to it at this stage.

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

Well yeah obviously cos you can't model underwear if you have no boobs or ass. Realistically though they probably are underweight Kendal Jenner is rumoured to be about 60kg at 6ft that's well under weight for her height

They are underweight. In the flesh such women are absolutely tiny of frame and very low in bodyweight. Both genetics going on and very low calorie diets and heavy duty exercise. Plus the history of eating disorders and drug use to stay the "right size" in that industry is a long one.

YFlyer

It's one thing being happy within yourself. Would you be happy been inside somebody else?

silverharp

she looks like a walking heart attack waiting to happen , the amount of chronic conditions she has or will be building up are endless.

jmayo

Sardine wrote: »

Yes some of the catwalk models look emaciated but who watches Fashion TV ffs?

Ahh Fashion TV in 90s.

seamus wrote: »

To be fair, the extreme cutting that goes on to get body fat down to ~5% can leave your system in a ****e state, even if someone is apparently a chiseled Adonis from the outside.

Body fat serves more purposes than just insulation and energy storing. Dropping it down to insane levels and keeping it there will do long-term damage.

But to look at professional/competitive athletes at 8-12% body fat and declare oneself "healthier" is of course nonsense.

I heard Roy keane once declare he was more susceptible to illness when he was at a very low body fat.

BTW this lady is American, quelle surprise.
Oh and one of her comments was ...

"If I saw a body like mine on this magazine when I was a young girl, it would have changed my life & hope this does that for some of y’all," she wrote on Instagram.

Would it have made her even fatter or perhaps eat less ?

YFlyer wrote: »

It's one thing being happy within yourself. Would you be happy been inside somebody else?

Oh man what an opener

Wibbs

YFlyer wrote: »

Would you be happy been inside somebody else?

... must resist temptation...

Cina

I find it truly bizarre that morbid obesity isn't frowned upon to the same extent as smoking or alcohol addiction. Ultimately it's just like them in that it can kill you, so why is it allowed to be accepted so much? It's arguably actually worse for the environment and medical bills than either of them too and yet we get sh*t like this so regularly.

Imagine they put a model chugging a whiskey or smoking a 20 box on the cover, I wonder what the reaction would be then?

blue note

Sonics2k wrote: »

Here's the thing about Plus Size models as far as I'm concerned.

They are absolutely free to be as big as they want, and if people view them as attractive, then that's all good too.

What's really, really bad, is this anti-Doctor, anti-Science approach (like vaccines) that being overweight is 'healthy'. It's not, you will probably die young. Heart disease, diabetes, gout, muscle issues, weak bones are all problems with being overweight.

This says it all for me really. Are people who are plus size, or obese, or unhealthily skinny beautiful? That's completely a matter of opinion. Some people will say yes because they find obesity beautiful and that's fine, some will say yes because they find that person beautiful and don't see the weight as a big deal in that regard and some will say no and that's all fine.

However, it's not healthy and when we pretend it is people suffer. It's a problem that overweight (not obese) is often seen as normal and healthy when it's far from the case.

Fart

Fighting Tao wrote: »

Obese people are people too.

Or two.

meeeeh

blue note wrote: »

However, it's not healthy and when we pretend it is people suffer. It's a problem that overweight (not obese) is often seen as normal and healthy when it's far from the case.

It is not healthy but it is normal. It's actually completely normal.

Considering average dress size for women is somewhere around 14 or 16 it would imply being overweight is perfectly normal according to definition:

conforming to a standard; usual, typical, or expected.
"it's quite normal for puppies to bolt their food"
synonyms: usual, standard, typical, stock, common, ordinary, customary, conventional, habitual, accustomed, expected, wonted, everyday, regular, routine, day-to-day, daily, established, settled, set, fixed, traditional, quotidian, prevailing

Smokers are criticised for smoking, alcoholics are criticised for drinking, overweight people are criticised for how they look. Let's talk about the lack of exercise and unhealthy eating or drinking not how someone looks. Telling someone you look fat will make zero improvement, trying to encourage them to healthier diet or more exercise might. They might even still be overweight but they will be healthier.

Anyway all this thing around Cosmo cover is too late. Traditional media is dying and discussion about Instagram filters might be a lot more relevant.