Vet Posted August 18, 2009 Posted August 18, 2009 I'll spell it out for you, I guess some stereotypes about Texans might be true after all. The issue is the terms "value judgments" and "solely", "Tillie" passes my physical appearance standards but I'd have to get to know her. "solely" Other factors clearly come into play also. "value judgments" The fact I wouldn't date the fatties doesn't constitute a value judgement, it's just a simple matter of my taste in women and them not being up to my standards. Have a nice day! Why are you backpedaling now? It's okay that you you don't like "fatties", as you call them, but at least have the intellectual honesty and balls to stand by your convictions.
Fay Posted August 18, 2009 Posted August 18, 2009 Better than standing on an ax or grinding a soapbox I guess? For what it's worth (and on topic!!!11!) the photo that started this ruckus is a bit of propaganda sent out by the "it's OK to be a fattie" movement. The size 8 is a big girl (tall, wide shoulders) and while she's yummy she's not typical. The size 12 is hiding a lot of herself and the 16 is clearly a little fat and not at all your typical size 16 tank on legs. I doubt ANY of those women are close to 5' 3 or 5' 4, which is the average height for women in the USA. In reality, to get a feel for what a typical size 8, 12, or 16 looks like you need to shorten those women substantially, diminish their shoulder widths a bit, and add significant sag and cellulite. They stay the same size around. Yummy. Not. No sh*t. I am 5'8", 125 lbs. and wear an American size 2 very comfortably (i.e. flush, meaning no muffin top) and I look about the same as the girl in the middle. Besides, none of them are standing facing directly at the camera. They're all doing the slimming, flattering 3/4 pose to some degree.
clv0116 Posted August 18, 2009 Posted August 18, 2009 Why are you backpedaling now? It's okay that you you don't like "fatties", as you call them, but at least have the intellectual honesty and balls to stand by your convictions. I stand by what I said, I just don't stand by what you implied I meant. Have a marvelous day!
Author Lauriebell82 Posted August 18, 2009 Author Posted August 18, 2009 At the end of the day, LB, all that matters is how YOU (and ostensibly, your fiance) feel about YOUR body... not what anyone else thinks, or what anyone else's body is like. Yeah, it's easy to forget that sometimes though! Actually I'm sure a lot of you know but Marilyn Monroe wore like a size 10 and she was built gorgeous!
Chubbi Posted August 18, 2009 Posted August 18, 2009 There's also muscular skinny. That's when people ask you do you work out and the answer is no. I just look like I have muscles. It's embarrassing. There's also porkybelly skinny. The skinny people with pop bellies. I thought all three of the women in the photos looked great to me.
Fay Posted August 18, 2009 Posted August 18, 2009 Yeah, it's easy to forget that sometimes though! Actually I'm sure a lot of you know but Marilyn Monroe wore like a size 10 and she was built gorgeous! Yeah, size 10 in THOSE times. Would be equivalent to a size 2 or 4 in this day and age. Look up "vanity sizing"... duh...
clv0116 Posted August 18, 2009 Posted August 18, 2009 No sh*t. I am 5'8", 125 lbs. and wear an American size 2 very comfortably (i.e. flush, meaning no muffin top) and I look about the same as the girl in the middle. Besides, none of them are standing facing directly at the camera. They're all doing the slimming, flattering 3/4 pose to some degree. A lot of it depends on build. My girl is size 00 and complains she's getting fat because they are getting tighter on her, even though she still isn't really filling them out. But she's a full half-foot shorter than you, and she's not anorexic, she has curves and boobs and softness. Mmmmm. Anyway. She has a terrible time finding clothes in America, so many women are fat here that semi-pudgy is considered normal.
Star Gazer Posted August 18, 2009 Posted August 18, 2009 Yeah, it's easy to forget that sometimes though! Actually I'm sure a lot of you know but Marilyn Monroe wore like a size 10 and she was built gorgeous! Ah yes, but a size 10 back then was quite different than a size 10 of today. She was 5'5'', 115-120 pounds, and had the measurements 37-23-36. Do you know of any size 10's with a 23" waist? But again - one shouldn't compare themselves to others. It's not healthy.
Author Lauriebell82 Posted August 18, 2009 Author Posted August 18, 2009 Yeah, size 10 in THOSE times. Would be equivalent to a size 2 or 4 in this day and age. Look up "vanity sizing"... duh... No it was because she was built differently, nothing to do with "those times." She'd still be a size 10 today I'm sure.
clv0116 Posted August 18, 2009 Posted August 18, 2009 Ah yes, but a size 10 back then was quite different than a size 10 of today. She was 5'5'', 115-120 pounds, and had the measurements 37-23-36. Do you know of any size 10's with a 23" waist? But again - one shouldn't compare themselves to others. It's not healthy. "But this one goes to 11!" People are so easy to fool.
Author Lauriebell82 Posted August 18, 2009 Author Posted August 18, 2009 Ah yes, but a size 10 back then was quite different than a size 10 of today. She was 5'5'', 115-120 pounds, and had the measurements 37-23-36. Do you know of any size 10's with a 23" waist? But again - one shouldn't compare themselves to others. It's not healthy. I'm not comparing myself to her but still. It's possible to have a small waist but have to wear bigger jeans. Believe me I know!
clv0116 Posted August 18, 2009 Posted August 18, 2009 No it was because she was built differently, nothing to do with "those times." She'd still be a size 10 today I'm sure. Oh my god, 23" waist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_standard_clothing_size
Pink Cupcakes Posted August 18, 2009 Posted August 18, 2009 Marilyn didn't have a 23" waist all the time, she yo-yoed. Anyway a muffin top doesn't translate into "fat" because a size 4 woman wearing a size 2 jean would probably have a muffin top.
clv0116 Posted August 18, 2009 Posted August 18, 2009 Marilyn didn't have a 23" waist all the time, she yo-yoed. Think she was a "size 10" all the time despite that? Come on.
Sam Spade Posted August 18, 2009 Posted August 18, 2009 The following image might help illustrate my view: http://www.rustylime.com/media/image/girl_sizes.jpg I consider the women in the middle "skinny". The one on the left is average, and the one on the right I would describe as "curvy" or "thick". My preference in this picture is for the size 12 or 16 bodies. With that said, I haven't seen many women that wear a size 12 or 16 IRL that are shaped like those women. They all have hourglass shapes, so they are all attractive to me (with the size 8 having the least appealing body). Well, clearly the girl in the middle is the best on average. The one on the left is pretty attractive too, but she's exactly on the border between beautiful and overweight. If she does not cross it, she's actually preferable to all 3, but we all know that this is very unlikely. The one on the lright doesn't even look like a woman, she looks like an oil worker/logger, or whatever your wavorite tough male physical occupation is. Also, I'm pretty sure the sizes are wrong. People in these sizes in real life look waaaay bigger. My exgf was 5'1" and weighted 110 lbs - she was a 'misses' size zero and looked approximately like the girl in the middle with a waist 23-24". Just sayin... (I can reassure all I want that my current waist size of 34" is pretty normal and below average, but deep down I know that I have let myself go and that I really should go back to 31", which is the proper waist size for me.)
Fay Posted August 18, 2009 Posted August 18, 2009 No it was because she was built differently, nothing to do with "those times." She'd still be a size 10 today I'm sure. WRONG. Sizes have gotten numerically smaller because A) people have gotten bigger and B) smaller-numbered "sizes" sell better because women like to feel skinny. If two pairs of jeans look equally good on a woman, and one says size 6 and the other says size 8, the woman is going to buy the size 6 because it makes her feel thinner. This has been proven. Sizes have enlarged DRAMATICALLY in circumference over the last 40 years.
clv0116 Posted August 18, 2009 Posted August 18, 2009 Well, clearly the girl in the middle is the best on average. Ah you join me in the "men who make value judgments based solely on dress size" demographic, you poor fellow. I expect villagers and pitchforks any time, beware.
Author Lauriebell82 Posted August 18, 2009 Author Posted August 18, 2009 WRONG. Sizes have gotten numerically smaller because A) people have gotten bigger and B) smaller-numbered "sizes" sell better because women like to feel skinny. If two pairs of jeans look equally good on a woman, and one says size 6 and the other says size 8, the woman is going to buy the size 6 because it makes her feel thinner. This has been proven. Sizes have enlarged DRAMATICALLY in circumference over the last 40 years. Sheesh okay. I realize sizes have changed since that time, a size 10 is probably different today. All I'm saying is that she isn't a tiny little stick like a movie stars today. I doubt she would wear like a really small size. That was the point I was trying to get across.
Fay Posted August 18, 2009 Posted August 18, 2009 Ah you join me in the "men who make value judgments based solely on dress size" demographic, you poor fellow. I expect villagers and pitchforks any time, beware. Don't be ridiculous. They've already done a zillion studies where they've found that men prefer a 20 BMI on average... and that 20 BMI is correlated most strongly to health, procreative ability, social status and whatnot. Does that change the fact that my male friend whose house I'm squatting in right now shunted me off to the couch last night in favor of a female friend who weighs about 1.5 times what I weigh? Not in the slightest
Phateless Posted August 18, 2009 Posted August 18, 2009 I think the girl on the right looks the best in that shot but the girl in the middle would feel much better in my hands. It just depends on what kind of mood I'm in.
Citizen Erased Posted August 18, 2009 Posted August 18, 2009 I'd rather the one in the middle. Although, in the other two's defence they did pick someone who has a much prettier face for the size 8.
BobSacamento Posted August 18, 2009 Posted August 18, 2009 Too bad the one in the middle is more of a butterface than the one on the right. It's not really fair. Also the one on the left if obviously fatter than the one on the far right. This image is bogus.
Author Lauriebell82 Posted August 18, 2009 Author Posted August 18, 2009 Woah, who put naked girls in my thread? Well to throw my opinion out there, the girl in the middle looks the thinnest. I would never think she was an 8 though, I look more like the girl on the right and I'm a 6! I have trouble finding pants let me tell ya.
Author Lauriebell82 Posted August 18, 2009 Author Posted August 18, 2009 I think the girl on the right looks the best in that shot but the girl in the middle would feel much better in my hands. It just depends on what kind of mood I'm in. lol oh geez. There can also be a cross between each girl. Like assets of one girl combined with another.
spookie Posted August 18, 2009 Posted August 18, 2009 I think the girl in the middle could use some muscle. Also, I think she's smaller than a size 8. I'm pretty tall - 5'8 - considerably more muscular and slightly fatter than she is, and I waver between a 4 and a 6. She is smaller than me. I'd guess her to be a size 4. I think the other two could lose some fat.
Recommended Posts